Are there any circumstances under which you would be okay with a tax increase on anyone?

[PBrady]

Just as the title implies:

In light of current debt ceiling talks, are there any circumstances under which you would find a tax increase on anybody acceptable in exchange for reductions in spending? This could include, but is not limited to, the ending of a tax break.

I'm curious to see what the ratio will look like.

[DamianTV]

It would have to be something major. Such as when cars were first invented and we didnt have roads that cars could drive on, implementing a new tax to create and maintain roads. And we have not seen anything as world changing as cars in a long long time. We should not have to pay for the inability of Politicians to manage our finances.

If our government and country operated an Honest Money System, there would be no need for the Politicians to continually try to find new ways to soak more money out of the people so they can continue to enjoy their Wars and Yachts, that we all pay for.

[Teaser Rate]

Yes, I believe you have to compromise if you want to get things done.

[pcosmar]

Yes, I believe you have to compromise if you want to get things done.

Ron Paul disagrees.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUNIeOB0whI

I agree with Ron Paul.

[nicoleeann]

we've already had thousands of tax increases over the years. It hasn't made my life any better.

[Ekrub]

No, but I do find it silly that religious institutions don't have to pay property taxes while everybody else does.

Edited to add: I understand they are considered a non-profit charity, and thus their tax exempt status.

[dannno]

I would support raising taxes on Government workers.

I voted no, but then I realized I made a mistake and should have voted yes.

[Rothbardian Girl]

I would support raising taxes on Government workers.

I voted no, but then I realized I made a mistake and should have voted yes.

I agree re: raising taxes on government workers (but for me, only the higher-ups, not lower-level workers like teachers). I voted "yes" for this reason.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Yes, on government workers and corporations that accept government contracts.

[dean.engelhardt]

Everybody should receive an war tax bill each month we are at war. We should all receive tax bill for bail-outs. When folks have to pay for sending big spenders to congress, they will think twice next time they vote.

I don't agree with a tax increase for the sole purpose of cutting a deal to lower spending.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?273120-An-Argument-to-Raise-Taxes

[Travlyr]

Yes, on government workers and corporations that accept government contracts.

Increase taxes? I was like "no way" ... until I saw this. ;)

[Johncjackson]

No, but I do find it silly that religious institutions don't have to pay property taxes while everybody else does.

Edited to add: I understand they are considered a non-profit charity, and thus their tax exempt status.

Well, I guess I will add my 2 cents in here.. since I kinda think along the same lines. I don't support tax increases, BUT if there are loopholes or tax BENEFITS that are given to some that are not available to others, there are probably circumstances where I would support eliminating tax benefits, which could be construed as a tax "increase."

For example, if you support reducing/eliminating certain forms of corporate welfare, that could be portrayed as a tax increase.

[ClayTrainor]

Yes, on government workers and corporations that accept government contracts.

Dam, you beat me to it. :D

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Dam, you beat me to it. :D

Heh, technically dannno beat me to it. :D

[fisharmor]

Every one of our problems can be solved with a tax increase, and only on one particular class of people.
Make the income tax rate on any job associated with the collection of taxes 150% of gross pay.
This would include H&R Block and tax lawyers, too. Not just the IRS.

[dannno]

Heh, technically dannno beat me to it. :D

Nobody ever pays attention to little old me :collins:

[Tarzan]

I voted YES too... taxes should be 100% on everybody who thinks social security, medicare, federal health care, DoE, Public Broadcasting, Foreign Aid, etc. etc. etc... are constitutional. If they want it... let THEM pay for it.

[ChaosControl]

Sure.

End corporate deductions/credits. That is effectively a tax increase.

I'd also support making all income the same, as in capital gain incomes taxed at the same rates as wage income instead of making wage income earners effectively subsidize capital gains.

[Theocrat]

I don't think we need any tax increases, but we should start decreasing the wages of all workers in the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the federal government by at least 10%. They've done enough damage to our economy (at the taxpayers' expense), and they have not demonstrated that they are worth the salaries we pay them anymore. Plus, we could generate enough revenue from wage decreases to start paying the interest on our debt. After all, it's for THE GREATER GOOD.

[Theocrat]

Everybody should receive an war tax bill each month we are at war. We should all receive tax bill for bail-outs. When folks have to pay for sending big spenders to congress, they will think twice next time they vote.

I don't agree with a tax increase for the sole purpose of cutting a deal to lower spending.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?273120-An-Argument-to-Raise-Taxes

I don't agree with a tax increase in exchange for a deal to lower spending, either. I don't trust Washington, D.C. to spend our money wisely. If we increase taxes, all it does is tempt Congress to spend money on other things which will get us into more debt.

[Seraphim]

For ze greta good!!!


yes, i believe you have to compromise if you want to get things done.

[libertarian4321]

Well, I guess I will add my 2 cents in here.. since I kinda think along the same lines. I don't support tax increases, BUT if there are loopholes or tax BENEFITS that are given to some that are not available to others, there are probably circumstances where I would support eliminating tax benefits, which could be construed as a tax "increase."

For example, if you support reducing/eliminating certain forms of corporate welfare, that could be portrayed as a tax increase.

Yup, I agree.

Why should I have to pay more in taxes than my neighbor who makes the same amount, just but has 12 children, and all the deductions/exemptions/tax breaks that come with them?

Hell, he uses a Hell of a lot MORE government services than I do, so why am I paying more?

If we must have taxes, they should be equitable. Hence, I'd favor getting rid of any and all differences in taxation due to social circumstances. If we must have taxes, a flat tax or a fair tax would be better than the mess we have now.

[Sematary]

The tax rate for "rich" people in this country is the lowest it has been in decades. Why should we ask Social Security recipients to take a hit but not ask wealthier people to take a hit as well?

[ironmanjakarta]

100% tax on banks until they pay back the money they stole through inflation.

[teacherone]

Yes, on government workers and corporations that accept government contracts.

obviously this tax would just be passed on to the taxpayers since government workers and corps which accept government contracts are PAID WITH TAXES.

[AZKing]

I would be fine with taxing all bank "employees"/CEOs that make over $1M ;)

Actually, I do support tax increases. Why? Because if we balanced the budget on taxes alone, more people would start to protest the system. As someone mentioned, a war tax is ideal as well.

[ronpaulitician]

The money has to come from somewhere, and I find it fairer to take it from the people who are spending it than from future generations.

I would not make it part of any compromise plan though, just as a plan in and of itself.

[Raudsarw]

Would I agree to people getting robbed more in any circumstance? No, absolutely not.

Edit: Yeah, government workers and corporations with government contracts sounds fine actually. So, in that circumstance only.

[AZKing]

I should add that I would be ok with taxing Congressmen and Presidents at 100%...

[Keith and stuff]

My guess is that many (perhaps most) of the people that answered Yes didn't read the full question you posted. Perhaps if the thread title was different the vote percentages would be different :)

[cindy25]

if its a shift that would result in less net revenue, yes. close certain loopholes and end certain deductions in exchange for lower rates.

[asurfaholic]

I say no. I already pay over $200 out of my paycheck.. weekly. Then my wife pays even more, she makes more than me. This makes the government the biggest "payee" in my financial books. Even more than my 1k+ mortgage. No new freaking taxes, spend the money I gave them wiser. Actually, give me less taxes..

You have to think austrian economics - If the people were able to keep and spend their money, the economy would grow at a much better rate. When the government taxes steals to pay for projects, it takes money out of the hands of somebody, and benefits a select few. Not to mention it completely distorts the market, so it behaves more unpredictably.

If I didn't have to pay so much in taxes, maybe I could afford to hire that fence company to build a nice new fence around my yard. Then that fence company could employ another person, then that other person has a job, then that person can afford to buy the deluxe meal from burger king instead of dollar menu..... The problem with taxing to pay for the projects of a country is the only side that people see is the "morning after" or the direct results of the new tax - a big bridge built, those specific people who built it have jobs. But nobody ever thinks about the millions of people who paid extra and had less mnoney to spend in the market as a result. That is an unmeasurable cost, so nobody even looks at it. But it is real.

[Wolverine302]

You know the guy who caught Derek Jeter's 3000 hit ball? He returned it without asking for anything and got a whole bunch of free stuff from Jeter and the Yankees, like signed gloves, balls, bats, suite tickets for the rest of the year, and come to find out, Uncle Sam wants his cut. I wonder if the IRS collects taxes from Pakistan, Yemen etc when they "give" them billions. . .

[pcosmar]

I would support raising taxes on Government workers.

I voted no, but then I realized I made a mistake and should have voted yes.

You sound like some politicians I've heard.
"I was against it before I was for it."

I am all for Pay Cuts to government employees, Better yet,,,Cut the government employees. Eliminate a whole lot of Government Jobs.

Eliminate Government employees, don't raise taxes. Cut taxes.

[tremendoustie]

It would have to be something major. Such as when cars were first invented and we didnt have roads that cars could drive on, implementing a new tax to create and maintain roads. And we have not seen anything as world changing as cars in a long long time. We should not have to pay for the inability of Politicians to manage our finances.

If our government and country operated an Honest Money System, there would be no need for the Politicians to continually try to find new ways to soak more money out of the people so they can continue to enjoy their Wars and Yachts, that we all pay for.

Actually, they could have upgraded roads just fine without government interference, just as people built the original road system without using tax money.

[DamianTV]

Actually, they could have upgraded roads just fine without government interference, just as people built the original road system without using tax money.

True. That is also why we have the Public Utility Commisssion. The Phone and Power Lines, since we paid for them, are property of the People, not the Phone or Power Companies. Of course, the PUC is just as infected as the rest of the country.

[satchelmcqueen]

no. not for any reason.

[lx43]

No I don't see any because I have always felt taxation is theft.

Now I do think Congress/President should be fined up to 100% of total income whenever there is a deficit and be excluded from running for re-election forever.

[Anti Federalist]

No, not for any reason as well.

The fedgov has been fiscally irresponsible with 500 billion, a trillion, 2 trillion and 2.5 trillion dollars.

Why should I think for one second they somehow have seen the light now?

Fuck 'em, cut off the credit, default on the debt and get the malinvestment in the US fedgov out of the system.

[Carson]

As long as the credit card has room on it.

[Pauls' Revere]

Yes, I believe you have to compromise if you want to get things done.

Compromise is the lack of leadership. Think about it, why do we need a president if all the Senate and Congress has to do is compromise. Watch how "compromise" becomes the new buzzword much like "change" was during the 2008 election.

I can hear it now, Obama speaking to crowds in Iowa "I brought change and compromise between the parties we are now healed as a nation thanks to my blessings"-meh

[Carson]

You've got to watch out with the compromising with these liars.

They are like the kids on the playground that never pay up when they get caught in one of their old rules. They always squirm and maneuver and come up with some new rule that you will never be able to hold them accountable too.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Compromise is akin to shooting yourself in the foot. Imagine a conversation with a friend in which you declare 2+2 = 4, and he declares 2+2 = 8. Obviously the first position (principle) is the correct position. Why would you choose compromise? Now the two friends get together and compromise and come up with 2+2 = 6. You have just shot yourself in the foot -- congratulations. Compromise has to be one of the most flawed ideas to have originated, and in any event, since when have they ever compromised to further liberty? I can't name it for sure. It's always in the direction to give the State more power and control.

Not to mention compromise has a negative connotation in that being compromised, or the state of compromising, is a negative. The bulkheads have been comprised. You have been found in a compromising position. Politics is down-right Orwellian.

[Carson]

In the case of the immigration laws they never have delivered on the enforcement promises of the past. They sure are eager to pretend to want to compromise.

They are quick at handing out the gravy parts for their illegal invaders, IF they hadn't been already.

[pcosmar]

I can not believe there are 20 people here that want to raise taxes.
:confused:
:(
One or two of the stateist trolls I would understand.

But 20 people that just DON"T effin' Get It. :eek:

[Travlyr]

Yes, I believe you have to compromise if you want to get things done.

Since you don't seem to mind debasement of currency, perhaps you would be willing to compromise your Social Security & Bank account numbers with the rest of us.