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

[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?

[derspiess]

Is there a huge national debt in this scenario?  Because that bit of info would be helpful in determining my vote.

[merithyn]

Is there a huge national debt in this scenario?  Because that bit of info would be helpful in determining my vote.

Yes. Again, on par with the US right now.

[garbon]

I don't see how this is different from the California proposition. You'd still have people influenced by the idea that the wealthy aren't paying their fair share even if everyone is hit by a mandatory 3% increase.

[derspiess]

Is there a huge national debt in this scenario?  Because that bit of info would be helpful in determining my vote.

Yes. Again, on par with the US right now.

Then the more I think of it, I'd vote no unless there were strong spending cuts tied to the tax increase.  I don't trust politicians on either side to not get giddy with the additional revenue and simply "invest" it in some spending program.

[Valmy]

If it balanced the budget?  Oh hell yeah.  I mean I am going to pay for that debt someway eventually.  A small tax hike is pretty painless under these circumstances.

[garbon]

If it balanced the budget?  Oh hell yeah.

Which, of course, wouldn't be the case.

[Valmy]

Which, of course, wouldn't be the case.

Ok then.

If it went straight to the budget deficit and/or paying on the debt then yes.

[merithyn]

I don't see how this is different from the California proposition. You'd still have people influenced by the idea that the wealthy aren't paying their fair share even if everyone is hit by a mandatory 3% increase.

This isn't a question to them. This is a question to Languish. The assumption is that in California, people aren't, as a whole, as educated or intelligent, as the average of Languish. I wondered what Languish, under those assumptions, would vote to do.

In addition, this is a national referendum, not a state one. That, alone, can often sway a person if they think that they're shouldering the burden with everyone instead of just a few.

[Barrister]

Even with a large national debt, probably not.  I'd look for spending cuts.

But with a large budget deficit?  Which means the national debt steadily increasing?  While wanting it tied to spending cuts, I could be convinced to increase taxes.

[alfred russel]

Which, of course, wouldn't be the case.

Ok then.

If it went straight to the budget deficit and/or paying on the debt then yes.

By that logic, where would you stop raising taxes on yourself?

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

[Valmy]

Even with a large national debt, probably not.  I'd look for spending cuts.

But with a large budget deficit?  Which means the national debt steadily increasing?  While wanting it tied to spending cuts, I could be convinced to increase taxes.

Obviously I want both.  AUSTERITY NOW!

But just one or the other is better than nothing.

[garbon]

Which, of course, wouldn't be the case.

Ok then.

If it went straight to the budget deficit and/or paying on the debt then yes.

Do tax increases typically work that way?

[garbon]

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

Indeed.

[Valmy]

By that logic, where would you stop raising taxes on yourself?

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

So what's your recomendation?  National bankruptcy or massive inflation?