Is the purpose of raising taxes to increase revenue or social justice?

[Atreus21]

If the purpose is to increase revenue, are there any projections about how much, say, the expiration of the Bush tax cuts will contribute?

If revenues cannot be meaningfully raised by raising taxes (meaning taking a sizable swipe at the deficit), should taxes be raised anyway?

Incidentally, when I say social justice, I mean the idea of taxation simply to take from the rich to give to the more deserving.

 

[dank69]

If the purpose is to increase revenue, are there any projections about how much, say, the expiration of the Bush tax cuts will contribute?

If revenues cannot be meaningfully raised by raising taxes (meaning taking a sizable swipe at the deficit), should taxes be raised anyway?

Both. Numbers years ago when they were first set to expire was something like $700B for all cuts to expire and $70B if just the top bracket expired. Also, the cuts when enacted in the first place, heavily favored the rich, so removing them would be a step in the right direction of righting that wrong.

The word "meaningfully" has no business in this discussion. Nobody claims that rasing taxes is the only solution to our problem. Even the staunchest Democrats agree that the increase in taxes has to be coupled with decreased spending.

 

[ichy]

The term "social justice" makes me want to vomit.

 

[nehalem256]

Both. numbers years ago when they were first set to expire was something like $700B for all cuts to expire and $70B if just the top bracket expired.

The word "meaningfully" has no business in this discussion. Nobody claims that rasing taxes is the only solution to our problem. Even the staunchest Democrats agree that the increase in taxes has to be coupled with decreased spending.

$70B over 10 years is 700B.

Assuming a goal of cutting the deficit by $4000B over 10 years would get you 17.5% of the way there.

I think that classifies as meaningful.

 

[dank69]

$70B over 10 years is 700B.

Assuming a goal of cutting the deficit by $4000B over 10 years would get you 17.5% of the way there.

I think that classifies as meaningful.

I'm going from memory here so I could be way off.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

The purpose of taxes is to pay for government expenses.

That's it, no need for a poll.

 

[Atreus21]

Both. Numbers years ago when they were first set to expire was something like $700B for all cuts to expire and $70B if just the top bracket expired. Also, the cuts when enacted in the first place, heavily favored the rich, so removing them would be a step in the right direction of righting that wrong.

The word "meaningfully" has no business in this discussion. Nobody claims that rasing taxes is the only solution to our problem. Even the staunchest Democrats agree that the increase in taxes has to be coupled with decreased spending.

Well, I'd like to get an idea of the ratio of expected tax revenue from proposed tax increases vs money saved from cutting spending.

My first impulse is that we're going to have to do a whole lot more cutting than taxing. A WHOLE lot more. Are there any studies that show the expected increase in revenue from the expiration of the Bush tax cuts alone?

 

[dank69]

Well, I'd like to get an idea of the ratio of expected tax revenue from proposed tax increases vs money saved from cutting spending.

My first impulse is that we're going to have to do a whole lot more cutting than taxing. A WHOLE lot more. Are there any studies that show the expected increase in revenue from the expiration of the Bush tax cuts alone?

I just told you what I think I remember the numbers were. I'm pretty certain about the $70B/yr but might be way off on the $700B/yr. It might have even been as high as $1T/yr. In fact, that number seems familiar I think Obama threw it out during the debates. Check the CBO projections if you want to know the exact numbers.

 

[Vic Vega]

Incidentally, when I say social justice, I mean the idea of taxation simply to take from the rich to give to the more deserving.

Are you fucking serious?

 

[Matt1970]

The purpose of taxes is to pay for government expenses.

That's it, no need for a poll.

You would think so, but some wish it to be a vendetta against the rich.

 

[nehalem256]

Incidentally, when I say social justice, I mean the idea of taxation simply to take from the rich to give to the more deserving.

The problem is that social justice usually is used to refer to giving to those who make poor life choices (and their bastard children). This is pretty much the exact opposite of "more deserving".

 

[Atreus21]

Are you fucking serious?

...uh huh. That sounds very similar to the way wikipedia describes it.

 

[Atreus21]

The problem is that social justice usually is used to refer to giving to those who make poor life choices (and their bastard children). This is pretty much the exact opposite of "more deserving".

Well, who the government considers more deserving.

 

[Matt1970]

Are you fucking serious?

He is just defining social justice, he is not saying he supports it.

 

[Atreus21]

I just told you what I think I remember the numbers were. I'm pretty certain about the $70B/yr but might be way off on the $700B/yr. It might have even been as high as $1T/yr. In fact, that number seems familiar I think Obama threw it out during the debates. Check the CBO projections if you want to know the exact numbers.

...okay sorry. I totally ignored your first post and I don't even know why.

See zsdersw's sig.

 

[Vic Vega]

...uh huh. That sounds very similar to the way wikipedia describes it.

Do you actually believe that someone who works for their money and earns it is LESS deserving than someone who does not?

You should think about the word DESERVING there. Need does not equal deserve.

 

[dank69]

Do you actually believe that someone who works for their money and earns it is LESS deserving than someone who does not?

You should think about the word DESERVING there. Need does not equal deserve.

It's not his wording. Someone has already mentioned this...

 

[rudder]

The purpose of taxes is to pay for government expenses.

That's it, no need for a poll.

very true... saying it is revenue makes it sound the like government is a business. Tax revenue is money taken from the economy. This money should be used to pay government expenses... but of course the problem is way too many government expenses.

 

[Zivic]

it is not to increase revenue, because if by chance overall revenues increase it is by such an insignificant amount it is meaningless in the grand scheme of things. because of this, I voted "social justice"

to quote a die hard democrat I was talking with yesterday "it would be nothing more than a moral victory"

when will the rest of the country realize it isn't a revenue problem we are facing? I don't want to see anyone's taxes to go up. I want to see the govt stop spending

 

[Matt1970]

This is really sad.

 

[Atreus21]

This is really sad.

What?

 

[dank69]

This is really sad.

I suppose that if someone cut all taxes for people making over $250k while keeping the other tax rates the same, you wouldn't consider that a social injustice?

 

[Matt1970]

What?

The poll results.

 

[Matt1970]

I suppose that if someone cut all taxes for people making over $250k while keeping the other tax rates the same, you wouldn't consider that a social injustice?

Taxes should not be used for any type of social justice.

 

[MovingTarget]

I voted revenue. It is primarily spending that is to be used to further social justice. I could vote both, but decided not to split hairs here.