• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Could you vote for...

Would you vote for a politician who wanted to raise taxes?

  • Yes

  • No

Results are only viewable after voting.
biostud

biostud

Lifer
a politician who wanted to increase taxes to improve xx?

Let us pretend that a politician said that he wanted to improve the local school system, roads, healthcare, child care, police or whatever case you that you think could use improvement, but he also said that to do so he would need to raise the taxes. Would you ever vote for him?

If yes, what would the case be and in which form should the taxation be? (income, house, car, power...etc.)
 
Hard to say, all those things are doing fine in my area. We are actually making cuts to the school system right now because it is too bloated and top heavy. I could see accepting an increase if it was for infrastructure like roads, municipal ISP, green energy, etc. I'm not too keen on getting new gadgets for the police or a new fire truck though.
 
I absolutely would vote for someone who wanted to raise taxes. But to be fair it would have to be taxes that wouldn't hurt those who can't afford it. So do like the top 10% of earners.
 
The problem with raising taxes is that after they pay for whatever the tax was for, they are not revoked. And that's if it even pays for what it was proposed for in the first place. A lot of the time the money just goes into the general fund and is never seen again.
There is a bill on the ballot here in MI to raise the sales tax 1% to pay for road maintenance. I would be OK with it if I actually thought the money was going to fix the roads (although a sales tax increase isn't my first choice).
Personally I think there are enough taxes, the problem is wasteful spending.
 
nickbits said:
The problem with raising taxes is that after they pay for whatever the tax was for, they are not revoked. And that's if it even pays for what it was proposed for in the first place. A lot of the time the money just goes into the general fund and is never seen again.
There is a bill on the ballot here in MI to raise the sales tax 1% to pay for road maintenance. I would be OK with it if I actually thought the money was going to fix the roads (although a sales tax increase isn't my first choice).
Personally I think there are enough taxes, the problem is wasteful spending.
Click to expand...

It's just like the lottery. They set up state lotteries on the promise that the funds will go towards education, but then education funding remains flat or falls.
 
I certainly would not, unless they can demonstrate with 100% accuracy the increase in tax revenue will only go to funding that particular project AND upon completion, a vote to either redistribute the revenue to other projects or lower the tax rate was to be had.
 
smackababy said:
I certainly would not, unless they can demonstrate with 100% accuracy the increase in tax revenue will only go to funding that particular project AND upon completion, a vote to either redistribute the revenue to other projects or lower the tax rate was to be had.
Click to expand...

Many projects are running costs, like maintaining roads, running schools etc. which are never "completed".

Here in Denmark we have a 8% health care tax, which obviously pays for the public health care system.

Do you think you would be more willing to pay for road maintenance (or other things you think is a good project), if it was separated on your tax bill?
 
thraashman said:
I absolutely would vote for someone who wanted to raise taxes. But to be fair it would have to be taxes that wouldn't hurt those who can't afford it. So do like the top 10% of earners.
Click to expand...

Raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for my priorities, and if anyone resists say they're just being selfish and displaying a "I got mine" attitude. Hmm, where have I heard this before?
 
I would not vote for any idiot who wants to raise taxes. First, reduce wasteful spending and get rid of a lot of useless programs. Then, make major cuts to military spending. Then, reduce fraud with entitlement programs. Once all that is done, I'd be happy to consider voting for someone who indicated they supported raising taxes.

thraashman said:
I absolutely would vote for someone who wanted to raise taxes. But to be fair it would have to be taxes that wouldn't hurt those who can't afford it. So do like the top 10% of earners.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, of course, "sure, take the money from the rich, raising taxes is good as long as it's not my taxes!". Typical.

biostud said:
It seems liker there's a general assumption that there is a lot of wasteful spending in the public system. What would be needed to reduce this?
Click to expand...

That's not an assumption, that's a fact. Tens or even hundreds of billions are wasted each each year. Anyone who doesn't think there are plenty of opportunities to reduce waste before we talk about raising taxes is delusional.
 
Raise taxes for a specific reason with a solid plan that I agree with, a measurable goal and a sunset on the tax once the project is complete? Sure, I could do that.

But as we all know, new taxes typically end up in the general fund, the project turns into a shit show that goes 400% over budget, and the tax never ends so that once the project is done that money will continue to be wasted on something else entirely that wasn't the point of the original tax.

Example: A state or city adds a sales tax to build a stadium so that a billionaire can make more money. Even in twenty years when the original deal is over and the stadium paid for, that percentage increase is never going away. You can count on them assuming that money is just there to be spent on other things, and will raise taxes again, because of course now the stadium is too old and we need a new one, so let's raise taxes again.

The trajectory of taxes is towards 100%, so fuck tax increases. Learn to make do with what you have.
 
glenn1 said:
Raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for my priorities, and if anyone resists say they're just being selfish and displaying a "I got mine" attitude. Hmm, where have I heard this before?
Click to expand...

PokerGuy said:
Ah yes, of course, "sure, take the money from the rich, raising taxes is good as long as it's not my taxes!". Typical.
Click to expand...

Actually I selected the top 10% of earners at least partially because I recently broke into that income bracket myself. So, no, I'm not having an "I got mine" or a "raising taxes is good as long as it's not my taxes" attitude. I in fact suggested raising my own taxes.

So you can both take your consistently wrong about everything beliefs and shove them up your asses.
 
biostud said:
Many projects are running costs, like maintaining roads, running schools etc. which are never "completed".

Here in Denmark we have a 8% health care tax, which obviously pays for the public health care system.

Do you think you would be more willing to pay for road maintenance (or other things you think is a good project), if it was separated on your tax bill?
Click to expand...

Yes, but it has to be defined and without balloon cost. If they can show a 2% raise in taxes will go wholly to supporting some kind of infrastructure (not just material and maintenance but administration of the department and such), I would think about voting for it.

Otherwise, certainly not. In fact, I think itemized reports of just exactly what our tax dollars go for should be available and given to residents quarterly. The list should also include who heads the department responsible and who purposed the bill.

But, an informed population wouldn't work nicely for politicians.
 
Dumbest pole ever. 😀

I could vote for a politician who wanted to increase taxes to improve xx.

I could vote for a politician who wanted to decrease taxes because xx.

Depends on what xx is. :hmm:
 
Drako said:
Dumbest pole ever. 😀

I could vote for a politician who wanted to increase taxes to improve xx.

I could vote for a politician who wanted to decrease taxes because xx.

Depends on what xx is. :hmm:
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that more than 90% of congressional Republicans have signed the pledge to never increase taxes ever, regardless of the reason. Seems like this would serve to highlight that difference.
 
thraashman said:
Actually I selected the top 10% of earners at least partially because I recently broke into that income bracket myself. So, no, I'm not having an "I got mine" or a "raising taxes is good as long as it's not my taxes" attitude. I in fact suggested raising my own taxes.

So you can both take your consistently wrong about everything beliefs and shove them up your asses.
Click to expand...

Congrats. Hopefully you don't end up like this woman.

Personally I think the answer to the OP question entirely depends on where you live and what the tax burden already is. If it's a high-tax area already, then you are almost certainly at the point of diminishing returns from even more taxes and I doubt you'd notice any resulting improvement in your quality of life. For example, if somehow I was forced to live in Detroit I wouldn't give the corrupt assholes at town hall another dime if I could possibly help it.
 
Drako said:
Dumbest pole ever. 😀

I could vote for a politician who wanted to increase taxes to improve xx.

I could vote for a politician who wanted to decrease taxes because xx.

Depends on what xx is. :hmm:
Click to expand...

Apparently not, if you actually look at the answers.
 
Drako said:
Dumbest pole ever. 😀

I could vote for a politician who wanted to increase taxes to improve xx.

I could vote for a politician who wanted to decrease taxes because xx.

Depends on what xx is. :hmm:
Click to expand...

Yep.

Here in Michigan we have really bad roads. Its always been that way but now they are getting to the point where something has to be done. The lawmakers last year decided to add a proposal to the ballot to increase sales tax by 1% to pay for road repair. I was all in favor of it. 1% I can pay an extra $.01 for lunch to help pay for roads no problem.

Fast forward to the actual bill. 40% of the spending is on things totally unrelated to roads. Now every single interest has their hand in the cookie jar and its pretty obvious that the roads are not going to get fixed by passing this proposal. No way I'm voting for it now.
 
I'd like temporary taxes to be passed to fund all wars & global contingency operations, that way the American people don't forget that they're happening.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top