Would you vote for a 3% tax hike on your income?

[Malthus]

Unlike many of my fellow Americans, I do not possess a feral aversion to the concept of taxes and the irrational fear that somehow it would cast me into poverty, particularly 3%.

3% of what, dearie?

[Martinus]

Sure, why not. 32 to 35%, what's the difference?

3%

No. It's an increase of 8.5%. Or 3 percentage points. You fail at mathematics.

[garbon]

A 3% increase in tax revenues isn't going to get us anywhere.

I may be wrong but I think merri meant an increase of personal income tax by 3 percentage points. This would increase tax revenues by much more than 3%.

I think you are wrong.

[merithyn]

Assume that the state of your country is on par with the US. Things are getting back on track, but very, very slowly. Job growth is questionable, a significant portion of the population are struggling to get the bare necessaities, but in general, most people are working and doing okay. Not great, but okay. EDIT: There is a growing national debt with little chance at getting rid of it - or even slowing it down - in the foreseeable future under the current circumstances.

A national referendum comes down the pipe for a 3% income tax increase for every family making at least 25% above the poverty line. No loop holes, no outs for anyone. A straight 3% increase for everyone regardless of where the income came from, guaranteeing that every single family within a moderate distance from poverty would be hit with the exact same increase.

Would you vote for it?

This isn't the same question as that posed in the thread title.

How so?

[merithyn]

A 3% increase in tax revenues isn't going to get us anywhere.

I may be wrong but I think merri meant an increase of personal income tax by 3 percentage points. This would increase tax revenues by much more than 3%.

You credit me with far more knowledge on taxes than I possess. I'm not really even sure what you're talking about here.

[Josquius]

Japan is doing worse than the US and has stupidly low taxes. 3% is a conservative raise. Need to be more

[Martinus]

A 3% increase in tax revenues isn't going to get us anywhere.

I may be wrong but I think merri meant an increase of personal income tax by 3 percentage points. This would increase tax revenues by much more than 3%.

You credit me with far more knowledge on taxes than I possess. I'm not really even sure what you're talking about here.

Well, if you are increasing the tax rate by 3%, technically what you are saying is that you are taking the current rate and calculating what 103% of it is (so if the current tax rate is 10% an increase by 3% would be an increase to 10.3% - since 3% of 10% is 0.3% - and if the current tax rate is 20%, an increase by 3% would be an increase to 20.6%).

Now, if you wanted the current tax rate to be increased in a flat manner (e.g. going from 10% to 13% and from 20% to 23%), you would normally say that you are increasing it by 3 percentage points.

So if you are going with the latter, and the current tax rate is 10%, then an increase to 13% would increase tax revenues by 30%, and not by 3%, as alfred russel said.

[merithyn]

Well, if you are increasing the tax rate by 3%, technically what you are saying is that you are taking the current rate and calculating what 103% of it is (so if the current tax rate is 10% an increase by 3% would be an increase to 10.3% - since 3% of 10% is 0.3% - and if the current tax rate is 20%, an increase by 3% would be an increase to 20.6%).

Now, if you wanted the current tax rate to be increased in a flat manner (e.g. going from 10% to 13% and from 20% to 23%), you would normally say that you are increasing it by 3 percentage points.

So if you are going with the latter, and the current tax rate is 10%, then an increase to 13% would increase tax revenues by 30%, and not by 3%, as alfred russel said.

Yes. That's what I meant. Going from 10% to 13%. Thanks!

[dps]

A 3% increase in tax revenues isn't going to get us anywhere.

I may be wrong but I think merri meant an increase of personal income tax by 3 percentage points. This would increase tax revenues by much more than 3%.

I think you are wrong.

He may be right.

Just to keep the math easy, pretend that the current tax rate was 30% and you had a taxable income after deductions and exemptions of $100,000.  Let's also pretend that there are no tax credits or other loopholes.  You'd be paying $30,000 in income tax.  Now raise the tax rate 3 percentage points to 33%.  Assuming that your deductions and exemptions stay the same, you'd now be paying $33,000 in income tax.  That's actually a 10% increase in revenue. 

I'm not sure if he's correct that simply raising the tax rate 3 percentage points in the way Meri suggested would actually increase revenue by more than 3%, though, because A) there are loopholes, B)  Meri's plan would exempt some low income tax payers from the increase (and while individually, they don't account for much tax revenue, there are lot of them, and C) personal income tax isn't the federal governments only source of revenue.  We'd have to research some to figure this out exactly.

[Martinus]

A 3% increase in tax revenues isn't going to get us anywhere.

I may be wrong but I think merri meant an increase of personal income tax by 3 percentage points. This would increase tax revenues by much more than 3%.

I think you are wrong.

He may be right.

Just to keep the math easy, pretend that the current tax rate was 30% and you had a taxable income after deductions and exemptions of $100,000.  Let's also pretend that there are no tax credits or other loopholes.  You'd be paying $30,000 in income tax.  Now raise the tax rate 3 percentage points to 33%.  Assuming that your deductions and exemptions stay the same, you'd now be paying $33,000 in income tax.  That's actually a 10% increase in revenue. 

I'm not sure if he's correct that simply raising the tax rate 3 percentage points in the way Meri suggested would actually increase revenue by more than 3%, though, because A) there are loopholes, B)  Meri's plan would exempt some low income tax payers from the increase (and while individually, they don't account for much tax revenue, there are lot of them, and C) personal income tax isn't the federal governments only source of revenue.  We'd have to research some to figure this out exactly.

Well yeah, it is only an ideal model, as, as you said, there would be loopholes and deductions and other things affecting the outcome up and down.

[PDH]

I would gladly agree to a 10% raise of my state income taxes.

[dps]

Assume that the state of your country is on par with the US. Things are getting back on track, but very, very slowly. Job growth is questionable, a significant portion of the population are struggling to get the bare necessaities, but in general, most people are working and doing okay. Not great, but okay. EDIT: There is a growing national debt with little chance at getting rid of it - or even slowing it down - in the foreseeable future under the current circumstances.

A national referendum comes down the pipe for a 3% income tax increase for every family making at least 25% above the poverty line. No loop holes, no outs for anyone. A straight 3% increase for everyone regardless of where the income came from, guaranteeing that every single family within a moderate distance from poverty would be hit with the exact same increase.

Would you vote for it?

This isn't the same question as that posed in the thread title.

How so?

The thread title asks if each of us would vote in favor of a 3% increase in the tax rate on our own income.  In the OP, though, you exempt those who aren't at least 25% above the poverty line.  You're implicitly assuming that everyone here has an income that puts them 25% above the poverty line.

[Phillip V]

I voted no to more taxes, but since my excessive salary comes from the government, that means I am actually voting against my self-interest.

[merithyn]

Assume that the state of your country is on par with the US. Things are getting back on track, but very, very slowly. Job growth is questionable, a significant portion of the population are struggling to get the bare necessaities, but in general, most people are working and doing okay. Not great, but okay. EDIT: There is a growing national debt with little chance at getting rid of it - or even slowing it down - in the foreseeable future under the current circumstances.

A national referendum comes down the pipe for a 3% income tax increase for every family making at least 25% above the poverty line. No loop holes, no outs for anyone. A straight 3% increase for everyone regardless of where the income came from, guaranteeing that every single family within a moderate distance from poverty would be hit with the exact same increase.

Would you vote for it?

This isn't the same question as that posed in the thread title.

How so?

The thread title asks if each of us would vote in favor of a 3% increase in the tax rate on our own income.  In the OP, though, you exempt those who aren't at least 25% above the poverty line.  You're implicitly assuming that everyone here has an income that puts them 25% above the poverty line.

The assumption is actually that, hypothetically speaking, if you were above that line, would you vote to tax yourself?

A lot of hypotheticals in this.

[Valmy]

I would gladly agree to a 10% raise of my state income taxes.

Heck they can raise them 400% if they want.  I am that committed to my beloved state.