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

[PDH]

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.

Right with you.

[merithyn]

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.

Right with you.

No state income taxes where you live, then?

[PDH]

I am a Wyoming patriot 

[crazy canuck]

@ Garbon, when governments in this country started to tackle our large deficit back in the 80s they promised that new tax revenue would be applied to the deficit  - they could say that becuase in addition to tax increases we also had spending cuts.

When we went into surplus there was a debate about what to do.  Three camps emerged -   Reduce taxes to levels required to stay out of deficit;  increase spending to take up the extra revenue; keep spending and taxation constant until debt is repayed and pay for more program spending out of the interest saving enjoyed by paying of the debt (the so called virtuous cycle).

Unfortunately the Liberals were in power and in typical fashion the dithered and tried to make all people happy and went with 1/3 to each and so didnt accomplish anything.  I was in the third camp.  If we had applied our large surpluses toward paying off the debt back in the day we would probably already be back in surplus now.

[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.

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.

Well, I wasn't really thinking of myself, but I'm not sure I can say who I was thinking of without violating backroom sanctity.  I'll pm you.

[merithyn]

Well, I wasn't really thinking of myself, but I'm not sure I can say who I was thinking of without violating backroom sanctity.  I'll pm you.

The question I inteded to ask is: would you tax yourself to help the nation as a whole if you were at least 25% above the poverty line?

[Grey Fox]

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

oh but wording is important, What if they raise them to 10%?

[dps]

Well, I wasn't really thinking of myself, but I'm not sure I can say who I was thinking of without violating backroom sanctity.  I'll pm you.

The question I inteded to ask is: would you tax yourself to help the nation as a whole if you were at least 25% above the poverty line?

While I just want to give a blanket "no", it's more complex than that.  I'd be more willing to do so if, as I mentioned in the other thread and as cc has alluded to here, I thought that the politicians would actually use the increased revenues to lower the deficit instead of just increasing spending and leaving the deficit just as large or bigger.  (I posted in the other thread in terms of not trusting the Democrats on the issue.  I don't actually trust the Republicans on it , either, but I trust the Democrats far less here.)

[merithyn]

Well, I wasn't really thinking of myself, but I'm not sure I can say who I was thinking of without violating backroom sanctity.  I'll pm you.

The question I inteded to ask is: would you tax yourself to help the nation as a whole if you were at least 25% above the poverty line?

While I just want to give a blanket "no", it's more complex than that.  I'd be more willing to do so if, as I mentioned in the other thread and as cc has alluded to here, I thought that the politicians would actually use the increased revenues to lower the deficit instead of just increasing spending and leaving the deficit just as large or bigger.  (I posted in the other thread in terms of not trusting the Democrats on the issue.  I don't actually trust the Republicans on it , either, but I trust the Democrats far less here.)

So, possibly, it depends on how the referendum is worded?

[dps]

Well, I wasn't really thinking of myself, but I'm not sure I can say who I was thinking of without violating backroom sanctity.  I'll pm you.

The question I inteded to ask is: would you tax yourself to help the nation as a whole if you were at least 25% above the poverty line?

While I just want to give a blanket "no", it's more complex than that.  I'd be more willing to do so if, as I mentioned in the other thread and as cc has alluded to here, I thought that the politicians would actually use the increased revenues to lower the deficit instead of just increasing spending and leaving the deficit just as large or bigger.  (I posted in the other thread in terms of not trusting the Democrats on the issue.  I don't actually trust the Republicans on it , either, but I trust the Democrats far less here.)

So, possibly, it depends on how the referendum is worded?

Yeah, I'd want something pretty ironclad to insure that there would be spending cuts, too, or at the very least no increase in spending.  How you'd do that, though, I don't know.

[Jacob]

I don't have a problem in principle with an increase in my income tax, though as others have said before whether I'd be for or against depends on the remaining details of the plan.

[Neil]

Nope. I don't agree with politicians abdicating responsibility by holding referendums on tax policy.

As others have pointed out you can't look at these things in isolation. I'd want to see the whole of the plan not just a single aspect before I judged it.

You're a wise man.

[dps]

Nope. I don't agree with politicians abdicating responsibility by holding referendums on tax policy.

Just to clarify, are you saying that if this was actually on the ballot, you'd not vote at all on the principle of it;  or that you'd vote "no", not because you disagree with the merits of the plan, but because you think it shouldn't be decided directly by the voters in the first place?

[Admiral Yi]

Don't understand the logic of only applying the tax to those >125% of poverty.  We already have a progressive tax structure, exemptions and standard deductions, and the EITC to lessen the tax burden on the poor and transfer them money.

[crazy canuck]

Don't understand the logic of only applying the tax to those >125% of poverty.  We already have a progressive tax structure, exemptions and standard deductions, and the EITC to lessen the tax burden on the poor and transfer them money.

I dont think logic has anything to do with it.  Its pure politics.