Poll
Question:
Read the OP
Option 1: Yes, definitely
votes: 11
Option 2: Yes, but with reservations
votes: 6
Option 3: Possibly, if the referendum were worded the right way
votes: 3
Option 4: No, but with reservations
votes: 4
Option 5: No, absolutely not
votes: 9
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?
Is there a huge national debt in this scenario? Because that bit of info would be helpful in determining my vote.
Quote from: derspiess on November 27, 2012, 09:58:42 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: merithyn on November 27, 2012, 09:59:33 AM
Quote from: derspiess on November 27, 2012, 09:58:42 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Valmy on November 27, 2012, 10:03:03 AM
If it balanced the budget? Oh hell yeah.
Which, of course, wouldn't be the case. :huh:
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2012, 10:03:54 AM
Which, of course, wouldn't be the case. :huh:
Ok then.
If it went straight to the budget deficit and/or paying on the debt then yes.
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2012, 10:02:07 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Valmy on November 27, 2012, 10:04:32 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2012, 10:03:54 AM
Which, of course, wouldn't be the case. :huh:
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.
Quote from: Barrister on November 27, 2012, 10:07:35 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on November 27, 2012, 10:04:32 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2012, 10:03:54 AM
Which, of course, wouldn't be the case. :huh:
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?
Quote from: alfred russel on November 27, 2012, 10:09:08 AM
A 3% increase in tax revenues isn't going to get us anywhere.
Indeed.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 27, 2012, 10:09:08 AM
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?
Quote from: merithyn on November 27, 2012, 10:06:06 AM
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.
Quote from: merithyn on November 27, 2012, 10:06:06 AMIn 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.
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.
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2012, 10:09:17 AM
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.
Quote from: Gups on November 27, 2012, 10:14:27 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on November 27, 2012, 10:10:14 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 27, 2012, 10:09:08 AM
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. :blush:
Quote from: Valmy on November 27, 2012, 10:15:51 AM
Quote from: Gups on November 27, 2012, 10:14:27 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on November 27, 2012, 10:14:50 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2012, 10:09:17 AM
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. :D
Quote from: alfred russel on November 27, 2012, 10:16:11 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 27, 2012, 10:10:14 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 27, 2012, 10:09:08 AM
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. :blush:
:lol:
For sure. As long as there's no more spending cuts.
Sure, why not. 32 to 35%, what's the difference?
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%.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 27, 2012, 10:24:01 AM
Sure, why not. 32 to 35%, what's the difference?
3%
Sheesh kids these days can't even do basic math any more. :rolleyes:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 27, 2012, 10:28:56 AM
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?
Quote from: alfred russel on November 27, 2012, 10:09:08 AM
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%.
Quote from: merithyn on November 27, 2012, 09:55:24 AM
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.
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2012, 10:34:58 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 27, 2012, 10:28:56 AM
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?
:pinch:
Quote from: Barrister on November 27, 2012, 10:30:41 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 27, 2012, 10:24:01 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on November 27, 2012, 10:37:49 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 27, 2012, 10:09:08 AM
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.
Quote from: dps on November 27, 2012, 10:39:16 AM
Quote from: merithyn on November 27, 2012, 09:55:24 AM
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?
Quote from: Martinus on November 27, 2012, 10:37:49 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 27, 2012, 10:09:08 AM
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. :blush:
Japan is doing worse than the US and has stupidly low taxes. 3% is a conservative raise. Need to be more
Quote from: merithyn on November 27, 2012, 10:47:05 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 27, 2012, 10:37:49 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 27, 2012, 10:09:08 AM
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. :blush:
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.
Quote from: Martinus on November 27, 2012, 10:56:20 AM
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! :smarty:
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2012, 10:45:22 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 27, 2012, 10:37:49 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 27, 2012, 10:09:08 AM
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.
Quote from: dps on November 27, 2012, 11:02:52 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2012, 10:45:22 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 27, 2012, 10:37:49 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 27, 2012, 10:09:08 AM
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.
I would gladly agree to a 10% raise of my state income taxes.
Quote from: merithyn on November 27, 2012, 10:46:18 AM
Quote from: dps on November 27, 2012, 10:39:16 AM
Quote from: merithyn on November 27, 2012, 09:55:24 AM
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.
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. ^_^
Quote from: dps on November 27, 2012, 11:08:35 AM
Quote from: merithyn on November 27, 2012, 10:46:18 AM
Quote from: dps on November 27, 2012, 10:39:16 AM
Quote from: merithyn on November 27, 2012, 09:55:24 AM
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.
Quote from: PDH on November 27, 2012, 11:07:24 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on November 27, 2012, 11:14:05 AM
Quote from: PDH on November 27, 2012, 11:07:24 AM
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.
Quote from: PDH on November 27, 2012, 11:17:11 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 27, 2012, 11:14:05 AM
Quote from: PDH on November 27, 2012, 11:07:24 AM
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?
I am a Wyoming patriot :)
@ 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.
Quote from: merithyn on November 27, 2012, 11:13:19 AM
Quote from: dps on November 27, 2012, 11:08:35 AM
Quote from: merithyn on November 27, 2012, 10:46:18 AM
Quote from: dps on November 27, 2012, 10:39:16 AM
Quote from: merithyn on November 27, 2012, 09:55:24 AM
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.
Quote from: dps on November 27, 2012, 11:26:54 AM
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?
Quote from: PDH on November 27, 2012, 11:07:24 AM
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%?
Quote from: merithyn on November 27, 2012, 11:43:35 AM
Quote from: dps on November 27, 2012, 11:26:54 AM
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.)
Quote from: dps on November 27, 2012, 11:54:30 AM
Quote from: merithyn on November 27, 2012, 11:43:35 AM
Quote from: dps on November 27, 2012, 11:26:54 AM
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?
Quote from: merithyn on November 27, 2012, 12:00:33 PM
Quote from: dps on November 27, 2012, 11:54:30 AM
Quote from: merithyn on November 27, 2012, 11:43:35 AM
Quote from: dps on November 27, 2012, 11:26:54 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Gups on November 27, 2012, 10:14:27 AM
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.
Quote from: Gups on November 27, 2012, 10:14:27 AM
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?
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 27, 2012, 01:29:59 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 27, 2012, 01:29:59 PM
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.
It's more an appeal to emotions, or to values, than a matter of logic. I'd think you could understand that, even if the values or emotions it appeals to aren't ones you share.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 27, 2012, 01:29:59 PM
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.
It's a compromise to those who feel that taxing the really poor is unfair, just as taxing everyone the same amount is a compromise to those who feel that taxing just the rich is unfair.
Quote from: merithyn on November 27, 2012, 09:55:24 AM
Assume that the state of your country is on par with the US.
I should have read before voting... Anyway, it doesn't change my vote.
The very rich ( 1 000 000 000$) and the middle rich (1 000 000$ and more) should get a litte more tax, as well as reinstationg that infamous "death tax" on properties above a certain amount (was it 1 billion$ or more assets?).
A sales tax should be introduced and the deductibility of mortgage interests should be abandonned. Ah, also, make it no more fiscal deduction for companies paying their employees with stock options. Well, basically, remove all the fiscal measures GW Bush put in place. Reducing taxes is great, but only if you can balance the budget. And I don't believe it is possible to balance the Federal budget without touching the military and intelligence agencies budgets. Eventually, both of these sectors will have to be streamlined, merged, for greater efficiency in their operations.
Eliminating fiscal paradises is wishful thinking, but it should nonetheless be worked on, as a simple matter of justice.
For whore pills? No.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 27, 2012, 01:35:05 PM
I dont think logic has anything to do with it. Its pure politics.
:huh: Meri's proposing it on a discussion forum. How is that politics?
dps: I get all that. What i was trying to point out is that our tax system already has several built-in mechanisms for the working poor. A big chunk of their income is exempt, plus there's the EITC. It doesn't seem very fair to me exempt them from this tax increase as well.
Though it's a hell of a lot fairer than only taxing Mitt Romney and Warren Buffet.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 27, 2012, 02:22:38 PM
Though it's a hell of a lot fairer than only taxing Mitt Romney and Warren Buffet.
Actually, that's 412 people in the US for 2012, that's 13.2 per 10 million of pop, wich puts you in 2nd place right after Hong-Kong were everyone is billionaire except public service workers :P
Full list is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_billionaires
I don't think they'll be endangered by paying 3% more in income tax, even counting double taxation.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 27, 2012, 02:22:38 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 27, 2012, 01:35:05 PM
I dont think logic has anything to do with it. Its pure politics.
:huh: Meri's proposing it on a discussion forum. How is that politics?
The proposal mirrors what is happening in the US. Surely a man of your intellect can undertand what I am saying if you had even an ounce of will to do so.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 27, 2012, 02:50:34 PM
The proposal mirrors what is happening in the US. Surely a man of your intellect can undertand what I am saying if you had even an ounce of will to do so.
My massive intellect leads me to think that your comment didn't make much sense. A real world politician might make this sort of proposal to curry favor with hard-working lower middle class Americans and with others who are sympathetic to the plight of the underdog. Presumably Meri raised the question without those goals in mind. In a pure discussion forum such as this, the aquisition and the maintenance of power are issues to be raised in the course of the discussion, not as the starting point.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 27, 2012, 03:06:04 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 27, 2012, 02:50:34 PM
The proposal mirrors what is happening in the US. Surely a man of your intellect can undertand what I am saying if you had even an ounce of will to do so.
My massive intellect leads me to think that your comment didn't make much sense. A real world politician might make this sort of proposal to curry favor with hard-working lower middle class Americans and with others who are sympathetic to the plight of the underdog.
I see you did understand what I was saying but choose to be a dick.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 27, 2012, 03:07:06 PM
I see you did understand what I was saying but choose to be a dick.
Or possibly anyone who points out a flaw in your argument is automatically rendered a dick.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 27, 2012, 03:48:49 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 27, 2012, 03:07:06 PM
I see you did understand what I was saying but choose to be a dick.
Or possibly anyone who points out a flaw in your argument is automatically rendered a dick.
Being wilfully blind to the others meaning is dickish behaviour no matter what you are trying to do.
But lets assume you are over that.
There are lots of reasons someone would support this measure for political and not economic reasons.
First, you might adopt conflict theory view of the world which suggests that if the economic system is not percieved to be fair then you might be stuck with even more onerous taxation system.
Second, you might take a more generous political view and decide that for the good of society you are willing to take an economic hit in order to create a more harmonious society (which is I think what was underlying Meri's question)
Third, you might take a utilitarian view that all taxes need to be increased but at the moment it is not politically feasable to do that but if taxes are raised on this segment of society now it might be easier to raise them generally later.
Or you could simply take the straight forward approach that Oex used to take (and I think Josephus from time to time) that everything is politics.
Sexual politics.
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2012, 03:57:18 PM
Sexual politics.
Correct. I had omitted that. But it probably can be included in the everything is politics categorie.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 27, 2012, 03:55:32 PM
Being wilfully blind to the others meaning
Your assumption is incorrect.
My position is the reverse of Valmy's
I'll pay the tax but only if its spent. On infrastructure improvement.
This country is rapidly heading to a third world quality infrastructure - and perhaps worse now that the more discerning countries in the third world are investing heavily in their own.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 27, 2012, 04:08:57 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 27, 2012, 03:55:32 PM
Being wilfully blind to the others meaning
Your assumption is incorrect.
Now that you ignored the rest of my post it has been confirmed :P
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 27, 2012, 04:13:47 PM
My position is the reverse of Valmy's
I'll pay the tax but only if its spent. On infrastructure improvement.
This country is rapidly heading to a third world quality infrastructure - and perhaps worse now that the more discerning countries in the third world are investing heavily in their own.
Obama talking points FTW!
Quote from: derspiess on November 27, 2012, 04:25:59 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 27, 2012, 04:13:47 PM
My position is the reverse of Valmy's
I'll pay the tax but only if its spent. On infrastructure improvement.
This country is rapidly heading to a third world quality infrastructure - and perhaps worse now that the more discerning countries in the third world are investing heavily in their own.
Obama talking points FTW!
:huh:
I've never heard Obama say that. :unsure:
Quote from: merithyn on November 27, 2012, 04:31:17 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 27, 2012, 04:25:59 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 27, 2012, 04:13:47 PM
My position is the reverse of Valmy's
I'll pay the tax but only if its spent. On infrastructure improvement.
This country is rapidly heading to a third world quality infrastructure - and perhaps worse now that the more discerning countries in the third world are investing heavily in their own.
Obama talking points FTW!
:huh:
I've never heard Obama say that. :unsure:
Apparently you never heard of his stimulus proposals, then.
Yeah, it was about the only non-negative talking point during the campaign.
"A small tax increase on the very wealthy, so that they pay their fair share, part of which will be used to rebuild our nation's infrastructure and invest in education [sometimes he added in police]."
He's also winding down the wars overseas in order to do nation-building at home. Though maybe that just means that he's going to start authorizing drone strikes on the House GOP.
NO
I'd vote for a tax rise if it meant no more tax threads.....EVAR.
Poors. :rolleyes:
Quote from: derspiess on November 27, 2012, 04:33:48 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 27, 2012, 04:31:17 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 27, 2012, 04:25:59 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 27, 2012, 04:13:47 PM
My position is the reverse of Valmy's
I'll pay the tax but only if its spent. On infrastructure improvement.
This country is rapidly heading to a third world quality infrastructure - and perhaps worse now that the more discerning countries in the third world are investing heavily in their own.
Obama talking points FTW!
:huh:
I've never heard Obama say that. :unsure:
Apparently you never heard of his stimulus proposals, then.
Stimulus proposals are not the unique territory of Obama. Or Democrats.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 27, 2012, 05:03:07 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 27, 2012, 04:25:59 PM
Obama talking points FTW!
So?
He's right on the issue.
Infrastructure is one of the few things the government spends money on that I approve of.
Hello no. Unlike my cigar lighters, I'm not made of money.
Absolutely not. I will feel the pain of a 3% loss of my income very directly and quickly. I have no idea and no control over how the new tax money will be spent, and how that will help me.
And yes, this is something that I will definitely vote on :contract:
If you're gonna raise taxes, just have the balls to do it. Don't make me vote on it.
Okay. Assuming the situation's the same as the US and you've growing debt and the costs of defence, social security and Medicare are higher than revenues, then yes.
I'd say no.
The tax hike doesn't solve the issue. The government would have to first show itself capable of restraining it's spending than I would consider it.
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2012, 10:34:58 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 27, 2012, 10:28:56 AM
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?
:lol: :P Sharing is caring.
Reminds me of how dandy Ide though taxes were until he had to start contributing. :P
Quote from: garbon on November 28, 2012, 02:46:03 PM
Reminds me of how dandy Ide though taxes were until he had to start contributing. :P
Well, in all honesty, a lot of aspects of adulthood have proven a shock to Ide.
Quote from: garbon on November 28, 2012, 02:46:03 PM
Reminds me of how dandy Ide though taxes were until he had to start contributing. :P
One more breach of TBR sanctity and you shall be purged