Why is everyone reaction to "higher taxes" a bad one?

[IHateMyJob2004]

I really don't get it. Everyone says "higher taxes" are bad. I don't understand this AT ALL. That's like saying there shouyld be no taxes at all. No roads, no bridges, no fire departments, no police.

I don't get it. Everyone acts as though hgiher taxes are a bad thing. While I have no opinion as I havn't looked at the facts, it seems lieke everyone is against "higher taxes" with out looking at hte potential gains that might come from them.

For example, Kerry at one time wanted to tax gasoline by 50% and reduce income taxes. Even Bush' economic advisors say it's a great idea. Bush is against it though. This is just an example by the way.

Sure, it looks like higher taxes, but it's really not and if one does the research it's a very elegant solution to many problems.

 

[BDawg]

Generally, people are selfish.

The funny thing is the number of Christian Conservatives who hate taxes. Jesus didn't say much about homosexuals...he did say a lot about rich people though.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004
I really don't get it. Everyone says "higher taxes" are bad. I don't understand this AT ALL. That's like saying there shouyld be no taxes at all. No roads, no bridges, no fire departments, no police.

I don't get it. Everyone acts as though hgiher taxes are a bad thing. While I have no opinion as I havn't looked at the facts, it seems lieke everyone is against "higher taxes" with out looking at hte potential gains that might come from them.

For example, Kerry at one time wanted to tax gasoline by 50% and reduce income taxes. Even Bush' economic advisors say it's a great idea. Bush is against it though. This is just an example by the way.

Sure, it looks like higher taxes, but it's really not and if one does the research it's a very elegant solution to many problems.

How much of a reduction though, and how long until income tax creeped back up to its previous level...I am sorry but I feel people allready pay far too much in taxes to support bloated social programs, paying any more to me would seem silly, the programs should be made efficient first and then if need be additional funding given, all too many times we try to throw money at a situation hoping it will fix the problem and it never does.

 

[tallest1]

Because conservatives are unwilling to sacrifice their money to help soldiers overseas. I mean hell, do you think our soldiers in other nations are getting anything out of this tax cut? Do you think their kids are going to enjoy paying off a 'loan' that their parents couldn't even take advantage of?

As BDawg said, its because they're selfish.

 

[maluckey]

Higher taxes mean even less in the pockets of the people that need the money the most....the middle class, and the small businesses. How do you expect the small business owner to expand, if he not only has to pay employees more to offset their income taxes, but also his business overhead/taxes to deal with. He hires fewer employees generally... That's not growth, that's stagnation, and the very reason many businesses are outsourcing.

Kerry want a tax-break for companies that bring employees back from overseas, and wants to set up programs to encourage creation of new jobs in the United States. It's a good plan, and you may notice the first thing he wants to do is to lower their taxes........Bush also plans to encourage growth through less taxes.

Taxation to generate income is almost always bad in the long run. It is far better to offer lower taxes, and make up the differences by offering incentives to businesses so that they can grow. Both candidates are planning just that. It's just that Democrats have traditionally called it something other than tax reductins for businesses. They are often odd that way, and Kerry may be first among Democrats to call it what it is, which is a tax break for business.

 

[Engineer]

A 7 trillion dollard deficit says it all. The problem is....no matter whether we have higher taxes or lower taxes, neither party wants to lower spending to take care of the problem. Considering we pay about 400 billion per year in interest on the debt (about 80% of this years current deficit)....

But as said above.....people are selfish. They want more money in their pockets (via tax cuts) and they want more services from their government. Our kids, grandkids, etc. will pay for it all.

 

[GoPackGo]

I dont mind paying taxes for roads and bridges and soldiers...its all the govt waste that i dont want to pay for.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004
I really don't get it. Everyone says "higher taxes" are bad. I don't understand this AT ALL. That's like saying there shouyld be no taxes at all. No roads, no bridges, no fire departments, no police.

First of all, it's not "like saying" anything like that. I don't think anyone is advocating abolishing all taxes and the government (except maybe Dissipate.) And few people will argue that they don't want to pay for roads, bridges, and a police department. Stop overgeneralizing if you want to make an intelligent post. It would be just as disingenuous for me to say, "I don't understand why liberals are against the death penalty, that's like saying they want rapist and murders living with them and teaching our children." Watch those exaggerations, please.

I don't get it. Everyone acts as though hgiher taxes are a bad thing. While I have no opinion as I havn't looked at the facts, it seems lieke everyone is against "higher taxes" with out looking at hte potential gains that might come from them.

Higher taxes typically are a 'bad thing" for most people. A lot of them can barely make it by on what the make, so the idea of our bloated government taking even more money from their checks to fund programs which have been shown to be inefficient and wasteful does not exactly appeal to them. Is that hard to understand?

For example, Kerry at one time wanted to tax gasoline by 50% and reduce income taxes. Even Bush' economic advisors say it's a great idea. Bush is against it though. This is just an example by the way.

Sure, it looks like higher taxes, but it's really not and if one does the research it's a very elegant solution to many problems.

Again, our government has been shown through history to be wasteful and inefficient. Few people want to be forced to lose more of thier hard-earned income to pay for politicians' "election promises" when they can see how badly they've mismanaged the money they already have. Yes, more taxes will give the government more funding for 'potentially' bettering the country, but there is no guarantee that it won't be squandered. I think a lot of people realize this (rightly so) and therefore, naturally oppose higher taxes. As soon as people start shrugging their shoulders and letting the government do whatever the hell they want, assuming it will be beneficial to them (as you seem to suggest,) this country will take a very steep nose dive.

 

[dullard]

There are several good reasons to raise taxes. They include things like adding a great new service (that benefits people more than the money they lost), increasing security (so that businesses can operate freely and people can safely earn incomes), etc. My personal #1 reason to raise taxes is to give everyone a permanent tax cut. Read it again, sounds contradictory doesn't it? Let me explain.

[*]In 2002 (the latest figures I have easilly on hand from last years income tax instructions), the federal government spent 8% of all its money on debt interest.
[*]In 2002, the federal government spent $2100 billion.
[*]Thus in 2002, the federal government spent 8% * $2100 billion ~= $168 billion on debt.

[*]In 2002, the federal government got 43% of its revenue from income tax.
[*]In 2002, the federal government got $2100 billion. (Borrowed $200 billion a little to match spending).
[*]Thus in 2002, the federal government raised 43% * $2100 billion ~= $903 billion in income taxes.

Now combine the two numbers. Suppose the government raised taxes temporarilly and put extra money entirely towards debt. Suppose when that debt is paid off the temporary tax automatically expires. When the debt is paid off, there will be ~$168 billion less expense. Suppose the government used this money as income tax relief. The net effect is that only $903 - $168 = $735 billion needs to be collected in income tax.

Thus the people can get an average of a 19% reduction in their current income taxes permanently! Math: 1 - $735 / $903 = 19%. This is without cutting spending or in any way affecting other aspects of how money is spent.

Would you be willing to have a temporary increase in tax for a permanent 19% tax reduction? I personally would.

 

[Gravity]

I don't feel that we've done enough to reduce government waste.

That's why I don't want higher taxes.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: dullard
There are several good reasons to raise taxes. They include things like adding a great new service (that benefits people more than the money they lost), increasing security (so that businesses can operate freely and people can safely earn incomes), etc. My personal #1 reason to raise taxes is to give everyone a permanent tax cut. Read it again, sounds contradictory doesn't it? Let me explain.

[*]In 2002 (the latest figures I have easilly on hand from last years income tax instructions), the federal government spent 8% of all its money on debt interest.
[*]In 2002, the federal government spent $2100 billion.
[*]Thus in 2002, the federal government spent 8% * $2100 billion ~= $168 billion on debt.

[*]In 2002, the federal government got 43% of its revenue from income tax.
[*]In 2002, the federal government got $2100 billion. (Borrowed $200 billion a little to match spending).
[*]Thus in 2002, the federal government raised 43% * $2100 billion ~= $903 billion in income taxes.

Now combine the two numbers. Suppose the government raised taxes temporarilly and put extra money entirely towards debt. Suppose when that debt is paid off the temporary tax automatically expires. When the debt is paid off, there will be ~$168 billion less expense. Suppose the government used this money as income tax relief. The net effect is that only $903 - $168 = $735 billion needs to be collected in income tax.

Thus the people can get an average of a 19% reduction in their current income taxes permanently! Math: 1 - $735 / $903 = 19%. This is without cutting spending or in any way affecting other aspects of how money is spent.

Would you be willing to have a temporary increase in tax for a permanent 19% tax reduction? I personally would.

The debt is over 7 TRILLION dollars...if you raised ALL taxes by 1/3 it would take 10 years to pay off...assuming you just didnt kill the economy.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
The debt is over 7 TRILLION dollars...if you raised ALL taxes by 1/3 it would take 10 years to pay off...assuming you just didnt kill the economy.

I didn't say it would be quick or easy, but in the long term, it is a good plan to get rid of useless interest money that goes out the door. To speed it up, spending cuts would be quite helpful (something neither side is willing to do at this point).

Raising taxes often has not harmed the economy - Most recently Clinton did it and afterward we had the best economy in our history. They have to be timed correctly of course. In bad times, a tax increase is not the answer. But when times are booming, a gentle tax increase can be a better way to reign in growth and inflation than a increase in interest rates.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: dullard

[snip]

Now combine the two numbers. Suppose the government raised taxes temporarilly and put extra money entirely towards debt. Suppose when that debt is paid off the temporary tax automatically expires. When the debt is paid off, there will be ~$168 billion less expense. Suppose the government used this money as income tax relief. The net effect is that only $903 - $168 = $735 billion needs to be collected in income tax.

Therein lies the flaw. How many times has the government increases its income over time and said "Wow. look at all the money I have now. I know, let's give it back to the people"?

 

[tallest1]

Originally posted by: Gravity
I don't feel that we've done enough to reduce government waste.

That's why I don't want higher taxes.

But that problem is neither new nor something that can be fixed overnight. In case the admin forgot its daily fearmongering again, remember that soldiers are dying and our very way of live is threatened. Its pretty selfish to not want to pay pre-2000 taxes simply because you hate the system.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Therein lies the flaw. How many times has the government increases its income over time and said "Wow. look at all the money I have now. I know, let's give it back to the people"?

Early in Bush's term it was "lets give the surplus back to the people". It can happen. But yes it would require restraint on our governments side.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: tallest1

But that problem is neither new nor something that can be fixed overnight. In case the admin forgot its daily fearmongering again, remember that soldiers are dying and our very way of live is threatened. Its pretty selfish to not want to pay pre-2000 taxes simply because you hate the system.

Is there anything stopping you or anyone who agrees with you from voluntarily paying more taxes to show your support? Its pretty selfish to not want to pay pre-2000 taxes simply because everyone else doesn't have to.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Therein lies the flaw. How many times has the government increases its income over time and said "Wow. look at all the money I have now. I know, let's give it back to the people"?

Early in Bush's term it was "lets give the surplus back to the people". It can happen. But yes it would require restraint on our governments side.

LOL! And how many times has he been criticised and flamed for doing that! Let's see, ~3 years ago x 356 days per year x 3 times per day x 63 Million Democrats = WOW!

Who's going to make that "mistake" again anytime soon?

 

[tallest1]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: tallest1

But that problem is neither new nor something that can be fixed overnight. In case the admin forgot its daily fearmongering again, remember that soldiers are dying and our very way of live is threatened. Its pretty selfish to not want to pay pre-2000 taxes simply because you hate the system.

Is there anything stopping you or anyone who agrees with you from voluntarily paying more taxes to show your support? Its pretty selfish to not want to pay pre-2000 taxes simply because everyone else doesn't have to.

I imagine the families that have had to mail their sons and daughters decent body armor would have something to say about that. But to answer your question, if there were some sort of checkbox that said "3% of this total goes toward getting our soldiers home in one piece" hell yea I'd check it.

 

[DoubleL]

Why is everyone reaction to "higher taxes" a bad one?


Democrats love people that think like that

 

[Vic]

'Cause people work hard and have mortgage payments to make and children to feed, and they don't like some cocky college kid telling them that they are "rich" and have to pay more taxes because they make $50k/yr. and barely get by. Get it?
Our government is wasteful and inefficient. A great deal of the time, it takes our money and wastes it. It pushes us around without regard for our rights. It steals our land. It repeatedly lies to us. It jails people when they are harming no one but themselves. It invades our privacy and tells us how to live and work. And it has become as giant bloated 10 million pound gorilla sitting in everyone's lap.
I recognize that government does fulfill some vital functions, but why the fsck are you so eager to give that gorilla even more money and power beyond those vital functions? Or is it because the OP is just another one of those stupid cocky college kids with little to no income of his own and he's trying to convince other people to pay when he doesn't have to?... why, how generous of you! :roll:

edit: I love this "people are selfish" bullsh!t. You people sure are generous with Other People's Money! :frown:
Get this through yer heads. Unless something vital is being paid for, higher taxes are bad. Giving money to the black hole of government corruption for the sake of giving money to the black hole of government corruption is just plain stupid. May as well offer a vampire "just a few drops" of your blood.

 

[ReiAyanami]

pay far too much in taxes to support bloated social programs

you mean like $400 billion post-cold war military? $250 billion for a semi-working missile shield and another $200 billion for JSF?

Or our greatest Welfare State: IRAQ

Lockheed Halliburton: Corporate Welfare dwarfs all that of the poor

As we are $8 trillion in debt and projected to be $10 trillion in just a decade, it is obvious we are underpaying or overspending, thanks to BUSH its BOTH.

He who shifts tax burden to middle class away from the rich, leave no billionaire behind.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami

pay far too much in taxes to support bloated social programs

you mean like $400 billion post-cold war military? $250 billion for a semi-working missile shield and another $200 billion for JSF?

Or our greatest Welfare State: IRAQ

Lockheed Halliburton: Corporate Welfare dwarfs all that of the poor

As we are $8 trillion in debt and projected to be $10 trillion in just a decade, it is obvious we are underpaying or overspending, thanks to BUSH its BOTH.

He who shifts tax burden to middle class away from the rich, leave no billionaire behind.

I agree. Bush's fiscal irresponsibility is the #1 reason I won't vote for him. Add his corporate welfare programs and wealth redistribution by taxation away from the middle class, and I think he's as bad as they come.
But the solution to the debt is not to raise taxes, but to cut spending. If you had a friend with a heroin addiction, you wouldn't give him more heroin would you?

 

[tallest1]

Thank you Rei.

Its really messed up when we're spending billions on a single country in one of the most expensive wars of modern time, attempting to protect our borders, and acting as nation builders, and all you conservatives can think is "wah wah wah, what about my mortgage??". You call the system flawed but assume that the government will magically reduce its debt and boost its essential military prowess when we give it LESS money

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Gravity
I don't feel that we've done enough to reduce government waste.

That's why I don't want higher taxes.

But, we need a kick-start of higher taxes, temporarily, to get the debt under control. Even Bush, Sr. realized higher taxes were a necessity and he had to break his campaign promise. Too bad his son is too obstinate to realize that same thing.

 

[PingSpike]

I think government waste in the main legitimate reason people oppose them. Sure, people are selfish...and the government is run by people. This is related to that other thread about government jobs, but thats part of the problem.

I forgot to post in that thread, but my opinion was basically: "Fvck the government workers. I could give a sh|t if they're going to lose their lazy ass cake jobs. If their position can be eliminated without adverse effects to the government functioning, then its clear the never really filled a need in the first place. Or at least, that need is gone now." We (should be able too) trust the government to take our money, and squeeze ever last ounce of effect out of it. The reality is anything but. Some one points out how hard it is to even fire a government worker for gross incompedence. Why? Why is there a system in place to protect people who are essentially a parasite to all of us? And that's really just one example.

There's corruption at all levels thats screwing us out of getting our money's worth from the taxes we pay. Some company bribes an official to go with their contract even though there is a much better deal elsewhere and we all pay for it. The government should really be run more like a business thats constantly cutting its fat so it can continue to run leaner and leaner. But lets face it just doesn't happen. There really should be some system in place that forces accountability for everyone. You make a bad financial decision: You're fired. You're unproductive: You're fired. Thats it. I mean, thats how regular private sector businesses function right? Why should the government be any different?

You can't really expect people to be to excited about taxes going up when they know a good chunk of that extra money they're going to be paying is going to be pissed away on waste. That's money they could conceivablely put ever dime of to good use if it were still in their own hands.

I don't have an answer to the problem. But I can't understand why people oppose it.