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

[garbon]

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.

Okay, I'd thought it was somewhat related to our discussion.

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.

Well on a state one you'd be dialing down state debt, on a national one you'd be dialing down national debt.  Still shouldering it with everyone in your group.

[Gups]

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.

[Valmy]

Do tax increases typically work that way?

Ok so if I want to fight the national debt and deficit I should...what?  Be against tax increases and spending cuts?

I do not understand what you are getting at here.

[Valmy]

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

Well in California they have to do all sorts of things via referendum.  We do not even do this in Texas and certainly not at the national level.

[alfred russel]

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?

If the options are: a) country going broke, or b) country going broke with me having less money in my pocket in the meantime

I'm going for option b every time.

Actually, I meant option a.

[Gups]

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

Well in California they have to do all sorts of things via referendum.  We do not even do this in Texas and certainly not at the national level.

I know.

Cali's experience with referenda is the main reason why I'm against them for anything other than major constitutional issues.

[garbon]

Do tax increases typically work that way?

Ok so if I want to fight the national debt and deficit I should...what?  Be against tax increases and spending cuts?

I do not understand what you are getting at here.

My point was that I don't know if tax hikes are typically earmarked that way ("all new money gathered must go to decreasing debt") though I know that some of the Cali ones had that they money had to education etc.

Really my point was just that you have to bite the bullet or not per Meri's scenario. You can't add in the qualifiers you'd like such as "if it'll get rid of the debt" or "if they'll be earmarked for decreasing debt" because I don't think that's real life.

[garbon]

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?

If the options are: a) country going broke, or b) country going broke with me having less money in my pocket in the meantime

I'm going for option b every time.

Actually, I meant option a.

[Josephus]

For sure. As long as there's no more spending cuts.

[Grey Fox]

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

[CountDeMoney]

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%.

[Barrister]

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

3%

Sheesh kids these days can't even do basic math any more.

[garbon]

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]

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%.

[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.