All this talk about fiscal responsibility and such makes me wonder. When do you raise taxes? Grover Norquist apparently said "never" last night on the Colbert Report. I wonder if that is actually the conservative position.
Two times:
1. When introducing an expensive new government program or venture that needs to be funded.
2. When some douchebag like Japan bombs Pearl Harbor and we need to build tanks.
Funnily enough the question hasn't come up in Sweden in my lifetime. Maybe because we reached the tax stratosphere in the 70s and are slowly descending.
Right now would be really good for you Yanks. Especially in the 1mil + bracket.
Ideally never, except for emergency measures which are temporary("war taxes"). Other than that they should be at a pretty set rate which covers the government's expenses. Using tax policy to try to prod the economy seems to be more trouble than its worth. :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 28, 2011, 12:50:16 PM
Ideally never, except for emergency measures which are temporary("war taxes"). Other than that they should be at a pretty set rate which covers the government's expenses. Using tax policy to try to prod the economy seems to be more trouble than its worth. :hmm:
Yep.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 28, 2011, 12:36:08 PM
Right now would be really good for you Yanks. Especially in the 1mil + bracket.
So long as it is packaged with a series of comprehensive cuts.
When the economy has entered strong growth mode and the level of taxation is not currently over what you consider the ideal level.
Whenever you can get away with it.
I remember the election of 2005 here well. The ruling parties said they would leave the VAT untouched. The opposition parties said they need to raise it by 2% to lower payroll taxes. In the end, the main opposition and main ruling party formed the new government and decided to raise by 3% and keep the payroll taxes.
every second thursday.
Quote from: The Brain on June 28, 2011, 12:32:16 PM
Funnily enough the question hasn't come up in Sweden in my lifetime. Maybe because we reached the tax stratosphere in the 70s and are slowly descending.
Actually it happens more often than people seem to notice. Apparently you failed to notice the tax increase on alcohol and tobacco?
Also that rather infamous "värnskatt" that were added in 1990-something-something.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 28, 2011, 12:52:03 PM
When the economy has entered strong growth mode and the level of taxation is not currently over what you consider the ideal level.
That sounds dreadfully irresponsible. Take greece for example. No tax raise...ever, then?
Quote from: Bluebook on June 28, 2011, 01:11:10 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 28, 2011, 12:52:03 PM
When the economy has entered strong growth mode and the level of taxation is not currently over what you consider the ideal level.
That sounds dreadfully irresponsible. Take greece for example. No tax raise...ever, then?
How do you figure that?
Anyway, Greece is so far off the rails that the normal rules don't apply.
Quote from: Bluebook on June 28, 2011, 01:11:10 PM
That sounds dreadfully irresponsible. Take greece for example. No tax raise...ever, then?
Yeah that was that one thing Greece did to be irresponsible.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 28, 2011, 12:50:16 PM
Ideally never, except for emergency measures which are temporary("war taxes"). Other than that they should be at a pretty set rate which covers the government's expenses. Using tax policy to try to prod the economy seems to be more trouble than its worth. :hmm:
:)
You should raise taxes when you have huge deficits, to increase revenues. You should also raise taxes when you have huge surpluses, to reduce revenues.
Quote from: Valmy on June 28, 2011, 12:51:13 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 28, 2011, 12:36:08 PM
Right now would be really good for you Yanks. Especially in the 1mil + bracket.
So long as it is packaged with a series of comprehensive cuts.
I don't think that's possible in America anymore.
Last December would have been a good time.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 28, 2011, 01:41:58 PM
I don't think that's possible in America anymore.
You pretty much can't raise taxes in the US anymore. The anti-tax cult is very strong. In Missouri the legislature can't raise
any tax. All taxes have to be voted on by the people. At the same time, every election the GOP promises tax cuts to appease the masses. Missouri also can't legally run a deficit, so you get things like half of the schools in Kansas City have been closed, or some school districts have only a four day school week. Or the State has had a policy of "no growth" for prisons. Every time one person is put in, another has to be let out.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2011, 05:06:21 PM
You pretty much can't raise taxes in the US anymore. The anti-tax cult is very strong.
Yes, that and the federal treasury is where we need the money, but new types of taxes besides the income taxes and tariffs need an amendment. Maybe we should try apportionment? :P
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 28, 2011, 12:50:16 PM
Ideally never, except for emergency measures which are temporary("war taxes"). Other than that they should be at a pretty set rate which covers the government's expenses. Using tax policy to try to prod the economy seems to be more trouble than its worth. :hmm:
Or when your country has been horribly financially mismanaged and desperately needs some way to reduce its deficit.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2011, 05:06:21 PM
You pretty much can't raise taxes in the US anymore. The anti-tax cult is very strong.
Not surprising. Things don't seem to be getting any better, so why wouldn't I want to pay the government more for the same old shit?
Under the current system? Might as well not even bother. Spending allocation is so broken that a tax hike is going to have miniscule or no positive domestic effect. Even without uber-spending, though, my personal belief is that taxes should never be brought up without real income on the upswing to avoid gouging the people who are supposed to be receiving the benefits of their own government.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 28, 2011, 05:20:08 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 28, 2011, 12:50:16 PM
Ideally never, except for emergency measures which are temporary("war taxes"). Other than that they should be at a pretty set rate which covers the government's expenses. Using tax policy to try to prod the economy seems to be more trouble than its worth. :hmm:
Or when your country has been horribly financially mismanaged and desperately needs some way to reduce its deficit.
Bingo. After ten years of eliminated revenue streams and cokehead spending binges is a good time to raise taxes.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2011, 05:06:21 PM
Or the State has had a policy of "no growth" for prisons. Every time one person is put in, another has to be let out.
Sounds good. One thief in, one pothead out.
Quote from: Habbaku on June 28, 2011, 06:18:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2011, 05:06:21 PM
Or the State has had a policy of "no growth" for prisons. Every time one person is put in, another has to be let out.
Sounds good. One thief in, one pothead out.
Or the other way around.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 28, 2011, 05:17:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2011, 05:06:21 PM
You pretty much can't raise taxes in the US anymore. The anti-tax cult is very strong.
Yes, that and the federal treasury is where we need the money, but new types of taxes besides the income taxes and tariffs need an amendment. Maybe we should try apportionment? :P
The current system seemed to work in the 1990's. We raised taxes and by the end of the decade the US was running a surplus. Curiously the economy was doing quite well too!
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2011, 06:43:14 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on June 28, 2011, 06:18:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2011, 05:06:21 PM
Or the State has had a policy of "no growth" for prisons. Every time one person is put in, another has to be let out.
Sounds good. One thief in, one pothead out.
Or the other way around.
That seems less good.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2011, 06:47:33 PM
The current system seemed to work in the 1990's. We raised taxes and by the end of the decade the US was running a surplus. Curiously the economy was doing quite well too!
As I've said before, to return to that Golden Age we need to engineer another stock market bubble so we can collect tons of capital gains taxes.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 28, 2011, 06:58:28 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2011, 06:47:33 PM
The current system seemed to work in the 1990's. We raised taxes and by the end of the decade the US was running a surplus. Curiously the economy was doing quite well too!
As I've said before, to return to that Golden Age we need to engineer another stock market bubble so we can collect tons of capital gains taxes.
Why was the bubble that occurred in the 1990's also see increase in wages while the one in the Bush administration see a decrease in wages?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2011, 07:16:51 PM
Why was the bubble that occurred in the 1990's also see increase in wages while the one in the Bush administration see a decrease in wages?
I give up. Why was the bubble that occurred in the 1990's also see increase in wages while the one in the Bush administration see a decrease in wages?
Watch it, Raz! He's maneuvering!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 28, 2011, 07:42:04 PM
Watch it, Raz! He's maneuvering!
I don't know, I'm having trouble parsing that gobbledegook too.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 28, 2011, 07:22:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2011, 07:16:51 PM
Why was the bubble that occurred in the 1990's also see increase in wages while the one in the Bush administration see a decrease in wages?
I give up. Why was the bubble that occurred in the 1990's also see increase in wages while the one in the Bush administration see a decrease in wages?
Quitter.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2011, 07:16:51 PM
Why was the bubble that occurred in the 1990's also see increase in wages while the one in the Bush administration see a decrease in wages?
Exploding executive compensation skewing the averages up probably. Sarbanes-Oxley had a big effect later. (Post-2002)
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2011, 07:44:38 PM
Quitter.
Explain the rules to me and I'll see if I can keep on playing.
The only rule is there are no rules.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 28, 2011, 07:50:06 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2011, 07:16:51 PM
Why was the bubble that occurred in the 1990's also see increase in wages while the one in the Bush administration see a decrease in wages?
Exploding executive compensation skewing the averages up probably. Sarbanes-Oxley had a big effect later. (Post-2002)
Did executive compensation decline in the 2000's? Wages went down about 1,000 bucks during this period. During the 1990's it was a rising tide raises all boats thing. In the 2000's it was not for some reason.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2011, 08:56:30 PM
Did executive compensation decline in the 2000's? Wages went down about 1,000 bucks during this period. During the 1990's it was a rising tide raises all boats thing. In the 2000's it was not for some reason.
I have no idea. It's a complete guess. I suspect the income averages were boosted by the executive incomes in the dot com 90's and then less so in the 2000s, partly because of restrictions in SOX and the tech crash. That may or may not explain the difference.
Pretty much at any point in the entire history of America, I would raise taxes.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2011, 12:29:09 PM
All this talk about fiscal responsibility and such makes me wonder. When do you raise taxes? Grover Norquist apparently said "never" last night on the Colbert Report. I wonder if that is actually the conservative position.
Never say never...
What Valmy said in the first page.
Every new government program should be self financed, or be acompanied by a tax hike right away.
In Quebec, the government is in the habit of introducing a "free" or low cost program only to raise the fees a few years later.
Figure... we had drug insurance (medications). When it was introduced, we were told it would be financed by the existing budget and savings from mass purchases by the government at reduced prices. The idea was that with everyone having access to low cost drugs, people would less often go to the hospital, hence the savings.
So, anyway, it started at 50$ per yer + franchise (20%). Now it's over 600$ a year and the franchise is nearly 50%.
Same goes with state sponsored kindergardens and parental leave. The actuarists said from the beginning the program was underfounded. Yet, the politicans told us we wouldn't see the change... reduce the unemployement insurance and introduce a new 'parental leave tax' for the difference. Zero sum. No brainer. I didn't believe them. I was right. It now costs 1.5x as before and it's still underfounded. And there have been no significant results (the average number of births has increased throughout Canada, and it has increased in Quebec, but we're still in the middle of the pack).
Where does that lead us? An increasing debt because of silly social programs that never achieve their aims. And people vote for this, because it's "free".
I wouldn't tie it directly to spending like that. I would prefer to run surpluses in the good years so there's a war chest for the bad ones.
You raise them when Democrats plus moderate Republicans have 60 members in the Senate. Perhaps 4-5 cycles from now?
Fate still posts? Que? :huh:
Quote from: garbon on June 28, 2011, 10:53:44 PM
Fate still posts? Que? :huh:
I came back for you~