Third party. After some sort of balanced budget amendment/legislation and cleaning up waste, possibly.
No, no and no. The politicians have made it painfully obvious that they cannot be trusted with tax revenue. No matter how well stated, any funds collected with the express purpose of paying down the debt would be funneled off for something else. Promises are what are always being made and always broken. Not another dime. The Government had received over the years a mind boggling amount of money, but that wasn’t enough. To give them more is just insanity.
I voted no for several reasons. First, and most simply, I simply don’t think that higher taxes make sense right now. Consider that we’re facing an economic and a debt problem addressing our debt we can’t take too much money out of the hands of the people because that will only make matters worse. We might need to have more tax revenue, but I don’t think that the best and most fair place to get it is from the middle class.
That’s not to say that addressing the debt isn’t important and doesn’t affect the economy. But consider this, if I’m having a personal budget shortfall, my first step isn’t to go to my boss and beg for a raise or go find a second parttime job, it’s to look at where my money is going and see what I may be overpaying for, what I can cut back on, and what I can eliminate. There’s TONS of room in the federal budget for adjustments, reductions, and cuts. Some of those decisions are tougher than others, but it needs to get done.
Second, I agree with the concept that taxation is theft that was mentioned upthread. I strongly dislike any form of coersion in governing, but that’s not to say that I don’t think the government needs funding and we have an established system. A big part of the problem is that the tax system doesn’t really make much sense anymore, and it’s so complex that it’s an unfair burden on the individual, and provides a plethora of tax havens for the wealthy and for corporations who can afford the expense of finding them.
Beyond the coersion, which I think is bad enough, it engages in all matters of other incentives and disincentives, which I find much worse. The purpose of taxation should be solely to raise funds for the government, but when it engages in social engineering, even if they’re things that society tends to think are good things, it quickly becomes a matter of politics rather than budgeting. So, for instance, we given tax reductions for home ownership, and many people would say that’s a good thing for society. It may be, that’s not really the point here, but if it’s something we want to encourage it should be a separate program rather than being rolled into taxes, and then the budget for that program can be taxed. Same overall result, but then we don’t have discussions about what “loopholes” need to be closed or where to raise or lower taxes and it’s completely just a matter of “we need more tax revenue, raise the rate slightly”.
And beyond that, I think it needs a fundamental overhaul because it’s just way too complex. Removing incentives and disincentives will do a lot, but it’s not enough. The biggest problem, I think is that there’s no direct tie between government spending and taxation. The government spends whatever it wants and then taxations lag in adjusting to it at some point in the future. Instead, I think it should be directly tied to our budget so that each budget item has a cost, the costs are summed to create a total budget and a formula determines a total necessary tax revenue from that that is then adjusted up or down based upon income or whatever to achieve it. Any time there’s a surplus, it’s applied to the budget of the next year and so the taxes the next year go down slightly, and any time there’s a deficit, it is also applied to the next year and taxes go up slightly. This way, any time a new spending bill goes through, we can immediately know the cost of a bill before it’s passed and no spending can go through without raising taxes. Similarly, the only way to lower taxes is to cut something.
And even if that sort of thing doesn’t fly, there needs to be some kind of legislation to force a balanced budget. And, until that point, I just don’t think it makes sense to keep throwing money into an antiquated and broken system.
Not to start a debate, but I’m interested in your views on this question: it’s a fact that hundreds of thousands of government employees have lost their jobs due to budget cuts over the last two or so years. If we had kept government spending higher, those jobs would not have disappeared. We could also cut spending even more and lay off thousands more government employees.
How do you personally prioritize the short-to-medium term problem of supporting economic recovery and jobs, as compared to the medium-to-long term issue of dealing with the public debt? Not to be argumentative, but it sounds like job losses are good if it means cutting spending, but the theoretical risk of job losses would be terrible if it means raising taxes to the levels they were in the 1990s.
I don’t intend to debate you on the subject, I’d just like to understand your views better.
I think an option for “Undecided” is needed. While I think we could stand to raise taxes on everyone (myself included) to get us out of this economic hell we’re in, I feel the money will be mismanaged anyway. Thus I am on the fence right now.
Agent, sorry for not including an undecided option.
Lots of good opinions and responses so far! I appreciate everyone’s input. I do agree that higher taxes won’t necessarily mean a lower deficit or overall debt, and that in the past, raising taxes has not helped lower the deficit. We would have to stop increasing spending as we have continued to do.
I don’t necessarily think that we need to cut services and lay off public-sector employees (I don’t buy the idea that there’s a lot of fat to trim, maybe some but not a lot), but if we raised taxes marginally and stopped the increase in spending, I think it would help.
Basically, I think that some cuts are definitely in order, but without a little more revenue, it’s just not going to work out in the long run.
I do agree that if my taxes were going to go up, it should be contingent on legislation that prevents expanding government spending and makes some modest cuts as well.
I’m an independent and chose no, I’m not willing to pay more taxes. My state has decided to take away my homestead property tax credit, the payroll tax credit is going away, and the state’s football team would like me to pay more sales tax so they can have a new multimillion-dollar stadium. Meanwhile, I am facing my 3rd pay cut in 3 years (first year 37%, second year 25%, this year who knows?). I will probably have to quit my job because it will cost me more to work than I earn.
I can’t *afford *to pay any more taxes - and just in case there are more Tim Pawlentys waiting in the wings, I can’t afford to pay any more fees, either.
It depends. A wishy-washy answer but it does depend.
I currently pay a lot in taxes. In the six figures. That’s a lot for one person to contribute.
If the tax code were simplified (i.e. remove most of the deductions) and if Congress could be controlled somewhat in that they would stay within budget, then I could live with say a 30% Federal Rate as I would always know what I would be paying.
I too am a huge fan of the whole idea of simplifying the tax code, getting rid of deductions and credits, and making it really simple to know how much tax you pay.
This would actually be the ideal, perhaps the only, way I could really support paying more taxes.
I can appreciate the fundamentals of both sides–let me spend my money how I want it spent v. enforced wealth redistribution (a loaded term, but efficient).
As for me, I pay next to nothing in taxes and I’m not sure I feel right about that. I certainly don’t balk at voting to raise local sales taxes that are slated for infrastructure & education.
Independent and willing, but not happy about it. Simply raising taxes is usually ineffective. But there is price to pay to enjoy freedom.
I’m voting yes. I don’t make a lot of money, but I am aware that I make over the median wage for the U.S., so at least 50% of the workers out there make less than I do.
Some of those people don’t have health insurance, can’t find a job, or even if they can find one can only find a part-time job. I can afford a little more if it means more people can get health insurance or unemployment payments.
I wouldn’t suggest that the deficit problem can be fixed only with rising taxes, but I would suggest that the unemployment, health care, and other recession-related issues are more immediate.
I think there should be another option of, “I don’t want to pay more taxes, but I do want everyone else to.”
Hey! Who let the Libertarian in here!
Definitely yes. I’m in the position where raising my taxes some wouldn’t hurt me at all. Those not making very much shouldn’t have taxes raised much if at all, and those making a lot more than me can afford more than I can.
I’ve heard people moaning and groaning about “waste” for 40 years now. Both parties moan and groan, get in, and can’t find any to cut. Today they are laying off cops and firefighters and really hurting education. If you can find significant amounts of waste, more than you find in your average big business, say, you are welcome to point it out. Otherwise, shut up about it.
Much of our deficits come from a big drop in tax revenue. Cutting government employment is just making the situation worse. If we charge people more who can afford it, we can start to turn things around.
I think it’s funny that 75% of poll respondents say ‘yes’, but 75% of the comments say ‘hell no.’ I guess you call that a ‘vocal minority.’
I would be willing to pay more taxes, but as part of a general tax increase that includes increased rates on high incomes, corporations and capital gains. I’m middle class and I would not support a middle-class tax hike without a comparable burden placed on the wealthy class.
Seriously? I worked as a civil servant for 2 1/2 years and saw so much waste it made my head spin.
Just one example is when our city was looking to renew its insurance for all our police and fire equipment. We were, by statute, required to advertise this fact so that we could solicit bids from several insurance companies.
However, my boss, the mayor, instructed me that I should advertise it in the local newspaper instead of the city-wide paper. I thought that that was odd because the local newspaper had a terrible circulation. So in my infinite wisdom, I mailed out copies of the ad to about a dozen insurance salesmen in order to generate more interest and provide a competitive bid.
Come the day of the bid, we had way more bidders than normal. Our local insurance guy, who had been the city’s agent since the beginning of time, showed up and paled at the sight of a half dozen competitors. I soon learned why. See, he wasn’t used to having competition. He’d padded his bid by $5000 over another bidder who used the same underwriting company. I’m talking 25% more.
Well, I thought I had done something awesome by saving the taxpayer’s $5000. But, no, I got into trouble. The Mayor called me in and chastised me for sending the ad out to other agents. See, the insurance guy was an active member of the local political club – the same one that the Mayor belonged to. And the way things usually worked was that local guy won the bid by virtue of being the only bidder, and he turned around and donated a few thousand bucks to the chapter as a “thank you.”
The Mayor said that I had put him in a VERY difficult position, because the other bidder used the same AA underwriter, and there was no way for them to make up a reason to award the bid to the local dude without looking “corrupt.”
That is just ONE example of how wasteful governments can be. And that was at the LOCAL level.
Hell, no. I already give the feds and the state 30% of my income. Every week, I don’t start earning my own money until Tuesday afternoon. They’ve taken enough from me. Time for the lower 50% to start putting up some cash for once.
This board is WAY more liberal than I thought it was, btw. Despite most of the comments being “HELL NO” the poll speaks otherwise…
very interesting!
As a damned foreigner, I couldn’t take part in the poll.
But YES I would pay increased taxes to make things better, just so long as the extra wasn’t too swingeing.