On Raising Taxes
I really like reading Kevin Williamson at National Review, but he is one of the few conservatives who consistently bangs the drum for the inevitability of raising taxes to solve our deficit and debt problems. Like many, I normally look askance at anyone who even hints at raising taxes. However, I'm starting to come around a little bit to the idea.
Yes, I know raising taxes is horrible for the economy. Yes, I know that if government thinks it will have increasing revenue then it will increase its size and scope accordingly. Yes, raising taxes is stupid in every way. But, in the situation we have now placed ourselves, it may also be the only honorable thing to do. We currently have nearly $4T worth of government yet have south of $3T to pay for it. We the people (not those here specifically, but across the nation as a whole) elected representatives to all elected branches who created this amount of government. Yes, we were lied to. Yes, they made empty promises. Yes, there is a special place in hell for most politicians. However, we the people are on the hook for what our elected officials have done. Cutting spending will only reduce the amount by which we amass new debt each year. We still must pay back that which we have already borrowed. It is the right thing to do. Broadening the tax base appears to be one way to work toward this, even as distasteful it is.
- Comment (52)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
Dec '10
Re: On Raising Taxes
Let me be the first person to support your new direction. And, mind you, I like Ron Paul.
The debts have been taken on. We took the loan. And what would be truly unfair is if our nation decided to essentially file for chapter 11, whether through outright default or hyperinflation. Because by doing that we will be punishing every responsible individual who worked hard, saved a little, and did not take on ruinous amounts of debt.
Thankfully, I think the revenue raising that is necessary does not need to be all that extreme. Ratchet back deductions. Flatten the income tax. Perhaps, even, lower it to nominal levels, while adding some sort of national sales tax. We don't need to get in the weeds too much, here, on the specifics, except to acknowledge the following:
Anyone familiar with the math knows increasing our revenues has to be a part of the solution to our balance sheet problem. The nation has withstood higher taxation rates in the past. And the revenue enhancements considered-- IF a part of substantial spending reform-- do not need to be large and disruptive.
Oh, and this: Do not pay attention to Norquist.
Dec '10
Re: On Raising Taxes
It would be great if congress could just legislate growth, but their attempts to do so are part of the reason we're in the predicament we're in. Flatten, broaden, and suck it up. We got ourselves into this mess, and we're the ones who will get us out of it.
Re: On Raising Taxes
I'm in your corner. I think our side is missing something by focusing entirely on tax rates. Right now, the tax code is so complex and, frankly, corrupted that there's no such thing as a simple tax rate. And when you figure in that almost half of all citizens pay no federal income tax, it makes it worse.
I'm for tax simplification -- radical simplification -- with a flat tax paid by all. If it's a little higher at the start than it should be, I'll grit my teeth and live with it. Because I know it's easier and more transparent to talk about one rate, one flat rate, than it is to talk about a tax code as it exists today, which is nothing but a pathway to corruption, for both sides.
And you're right: these are past bills that have come due. And yes, we were lied to. But we let ourselves be lied to.
May '11
Re: On Raising Taxes
The problem with the tax debate is that it has become more of a question of morality than a math problem that needs to be solved. We have expenditures that need to be payed for. What is the smartest and most efficient way to pay for those expendtires. We should eviscerate the tax code but that would require politicians to abdicate their power. That aint gonna happen.
Dec '10
Re: On Raising Taxes
The math is obvious for all to see which is why raising taxes appears to be the least best thing to do. However, we've worked the math against ourselves to the point that the least best thing is the most honorable and moral thing to do. We've had the reckless binge, now it's time to endure the hangover and pay for the damages to the hotel room.
Feb '11
Re: On Raising Taxes
I'm skepticasl that "the math" requires revenue increases. I heard not too long ago that if the debt ceiling isn't raised then at our current revenue level we'd have enough to fund the 2005 budget. Is the 2005 budget - six short years ago - really so unworkable today? Again, most of us in this country have seen little or no improvement since 2005 and we're managing. Why can the feds manage too?
Feb '11
Re: On Raising Taxes
Rob Long: I'm in your corner. I think our side is missing something by focusing entirely on tax rates. Right now, the tax code is so complex and, frankly, corrupted that there's no such thing as a simple tax rate. And when you figure in that almost half of all citizens pay no federal income tax, it makes it worse.
I'm for tax simplification -- radical simplification -- with a flat tax paid by all. If it's a little higher at the start than it should be, I'll grit my teeth and live with it. Because I know it's easier and more transparent to talk about one rate, one flat rate, than it is to talk about a tax code as it exists today, which is nothing but a pathway to corruption, for both sides.
And you're right: these are past bills that have come due. And yes, we were lied to. But we let ourselves be lied to. · Jul 20 at 5:39pm
Complexity is inevitable with an income tax. Terms like "income" and "expense" are nebulous, subject to differing interpretation; political solutions are the only way forward with even a semblance of clarity.
Feb '11
Re: On Raising Taxes
Ed G.
Rob Long: I'm in your corner. I think our side is missing something by focusing entirely on tax rates. Right now, the tax code is so complex and, frankly, corrupted that there's no such thing as a simple tax rate. And when you figure in that almost half of all citizens pay no federal income tax, it makes it worse.
I'm for tax simplification -- radical simplification -- with a flat tax paid by all. If it's a little higher at the start than it should be, I'll grit my teeth and live with it. Because I know it's easier and more transparent to talk about one rate, one flat rate, than it is to talk about a tax code as it exists today, which is nothing but a pathway to corruption, for both sides.
Complexity is inevitable with an income tax. Terms like "income" and "expense" are nebulous, subject to differing interpretation; political solutions are the only way forward with even a semblance of clarity. ·
Replacing the income tax with a sales tax is the only way to get simplification and transparency.
Dec '10
Re: On Raising Taxes
It was from Randall Hoven at American Thinker. I posted it when it came out last week. If you look closely enough you'll see that it is current projected entitlement costs plus the 2005 budget for everything else except for certain entire departments that are zeroed out in the scenario. It would also be over a 25% reduction in defense spending.
Oct '10
Re: On Raising Taxes
Apparently Rob Long needs another RINO intervention from Dr. Coulter! And you, too The King Prawn. She’s going to find you and make you eat this idea of “…raising taxes to solve our deficit and debt problems.”
Blaming supposedly “low taxes” for debt and deficits is like an alcoholic blaming his drinking on Prohibition. Because it’s harder to get my drug of choice, I must consume it to excess? Yeah, that’s the ticket! This is completely illogical. Try calling your credit card company and saying: “I’d like to pay what I owe but my employer isn’t giving me enough money. Instead, I demand you increase my credit limit.” How is what the political class in DC is doing any different? Finally, if none of that persuades you, riddle me this: exactly how does increasing an alcoholic’s quantity of booze reduce his drinking? Go ahead, draw me the word picture that goes from Obama has more public money to Obama spends less public money and decreases deficits and debt. Or, if you prefer, not Obama . . . any politician from the Incumbency Party, either the Republican or Democrat wing.
Jul '10
Re: On Raising Taxes
Raising unemployment will not fix the debt problem. Raising taxes at this juncture will produce that increase in unemployment. Foreign investors are already on the fence. Domestic cash that has been held pending a better day will flee overseas in the face of Obama's out loud meanderings on seizing the stashes.
Taxes will rise, spending will rise, and the GOP will be proven to be a wasted vote to those that made 2010 rock. That will force the Tea Party to change its approach as it takes on the parties of Washington head on.
Mar '11
Re: On Raising Taxes
I think this question should be argued the same way as the immigration debate: we're open to talking about taxes ("amnesty" for the government, as it were), but only after we have stopped the endless hemorrhaging of money from Washington.
Given the current trends both in discretionary and structural spending, whether or not we raise revenues will soon become irrelevant: there won't be enough money either way. We also have a political culture which rewards politicians much more for giving away new revenue to consitutents than it punishes for increasing national indebtedness. Until we change these two facts, increasing revenues will not translate into decreased debt.
As I said in a prevoius thread: it's time for conservatives to call a truce on the tax debate so we can focus all our effort on the real issue at hand--making the size and scope of government smaller. If we can make real progress toward that goal (and I'm skeptical), then modest tax increases to pay down the debt are fine by me.
Dec '10
Re: On Raising Taxes
I'm reaching this point as well. I know that shrinking government is the ultimate (perhaps primary) goal. However, we currently have a certain amount of government which costs a certain amount of money to pay for. I cannot see more borrowing, even on a slightly reduced scale, as the honorable way to pay for it. Either we get rid of it or find a better way to pay for it. Because of the inherent dishonor of borrowing without the hope of repaying it, taxes become the only way. We've ordered surf and turf when we can barely afford the happy meal.
Sep '10
Re: On Raising Taxes
The problem is 100% on the spending side. Why must America spend more every year? On what?
It is quite evident that solving the current crisis has little to do with actual dollars and everything to do with the attitude of our politicians. The fact that they are so intractable with spending cuts and try to confuse matters with talk of revenues, as though our problem stems from the tax code, tells us everything we need to know. They aren't serious.
There is no case for raising revenues from the private sector. Any revenues taken from the private sector - even if it comes exclusively from multi-millionaires, is money taken out of the private sector and put into the public sector, giving the government more control.
Now, the money the millionaires might spend on my product will go to the US Treasury, and the US Treasury doesn't ever buy anything from me - in fact it harasses me and takes money from me.
Dec '10
Re: On Raising Taxes
Again, a fine argument from the dollars and cents side of the equation which is well established. The problem we now face, and you mentioned elsewhere in your comment, is that we have politicians who can't quit spending. So, until we get different politicians who will do something other than spend, spend, spend how do we clean up the mess the current ones are making? More borrowing? We allowed ourselves to get into this delimma. Is it right to expect other nations (or worse, our own Fed) to bail us out of it through borrowing or inflation?
Dec '10
Re: On Raising Taxes
Franco: There is no case for raising revenues from the private sector. Any revenues taken from the private sector - even if it comes exclusively from multi-millionaires, is money taken out of the private sector and put into the public sector, giving the government more control.
Now, the money the millionaires might spend on my product will go to the US Treasury, and the US Treasury doesn't ever buy anything from me - in fact it harasses me and takes money from me. · Jul 21 at 6:36am
Our problem, in a nutshell, is Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and to a lesser degree military spending. The U.S. Treasury, you see, is giving all that money back to the American people. The Treasury isn't sitting on a pile of gelt parsing it out to bureaucrats and crony capitalists. Alright, well, it IS doing that. But that isn't the nexus of the math problem.
Solving that math problem will require greater revenues AND reductions in transfer payments. Both. Full stop.
The debate about how to do each should be a lively one. Lot's of options.
Oct '10
Re: On Raising Taxes
I like Kevin Williamson as well. His argument seems to be that taxes were raised when the money was spent, and I'm with him.
Simplify and broaden the tax base. Make it obvious what people are paying.
It's simply amazing how little tax some people pay when you take into account all of the deductions. I saw a tax return for a family with income of over $80K, and with all of the credits and deductions (mtg interest, property taxes, child credits, child care credits, higher education credits), they actually paid negative income tax.
It's no wonder people vote for bigger government.
And what makes it worse is if that family increased their income from $80K to $120K, they were facing a 40% marginal tax rate as deductions and credits phased out. Complete insanity.
Dec '10
Re: On Raising Taxes
Exactly.
How can I get on that gravy train? I make about $60K and they keep about a $1K of that. It's a piddly amount until the $7K of SSI/Medicare is added in. One tax (flat, sales, bracketed, etc.) is my hope, but I know it will never happen. It's easier to count the cost when we aren't being nickel and dimed to death.
Jun '10
Re: On Raising Taxes
I would only be willing to raise taxes if we had a balanced budget. Then, the only reason to do it would be to pay off the debt.
Raising taxes is a Democratic-Media talking point right now and we simply must not back off our principled stand. Even if it were a good idea we should never support it until either they don't care or they are against it.
Prawn, you and Kevin Williamson have been suckered. Williamson should know better. We should never relent at this point in the debate -- not even a small movement towards their side.
I heard Ben Stein argue it out with Dennis Miller and it makes me sick to see how this always happens. What you have helped happen is to watch the outcome slowly turn from a discussion of how Obama has no plan whatsoever, no jobs and no brains to how we should tinker with the taxes and screw things up even worse.
Mar '11
Re: On Raising Taxes
I must be completely misreading Mr Williamson (no relation) - I could have sworn he just wrote a piece advocating spending cuts, rather than the huge tax increases of the gang of six, which maybe should be called the gang of seven, because it includes Rob?
This illustrates the Republican problem in the debate that Claire mentioned - mixed, confusing, messages.
Mr Ryan is crystal clear, but he ain't running for President.
Edited on Jul 21, 2011 at 9:01am