Obama calls for increase in Federal Gas Tax

[PLC1]

In some cases you refer to "taxes" as what government charges (taxes) and in other cases you refer to "taxes" as what government collects (revenue).

Tax: A fee charged ("levied") by a government on a product, income, or activity.​

Revenue: For the government, the increase in assets of governmental funds that do not increase liability or recovery of expenditure. This revenue is obtained from taxes, licenses and fees.​

As anyone can plainly see, taxes are what the government charges while revenue is what the government collects as a result of charging those taxes. So using the word "taxes" as though it's a synonym for revenue is duplicitous.

Let me go back to your above statement...

...you can't argue the absurd position that higher taxes does not result in a higher percent of the GDP going to the government...

If we apply the definition of the word "tax" to your above statement, then you are the one with the absurd position that government charging higher fees results in revenue being a higher % of the GDP. Yet you claim this is not your position...

Instead, you use the word "taxes" to mean revenue. So if we take your use of the word taxes (what's charged) to mean revenue (what's collected), that would make your claim the equivalent of government collecting higher amounts of revenue results in revenue being a higher % of GDP.

If-by-whiskey: in political discourse, if-by-whiskey is a relativist fallacy where the response to a question is contingent on the questioner's opinions and use of words with strong positive or negative connotations. An if-by-whiskey argument implemented through doublespeak appears to affirm both sides of an issue, and agrees with whichever side the listener supports, in effect, taking a position without taking a position.​

Is there another source of government revenue besides the taxes it collects?

I mean, sure, it could borrow more, print more money, but is that really "revenue"?

If the government's revenue depends on the taxes it collects, then doesn't revenue = tax?

If my income depends on my salary, then income = salary. That holds true until I have some investments that increase my income beyond my salary, correct? It's the same idea. The government doesn't have any income producing investments, does it?

 

[GenSeneca]

Is there another source of government revenue besides the taxes it collects?

I mean, sure, it could borrow more, print more money, but is that really "revenue"?

If the government's revenue depends on the taxes it collects, then doesn't revenue = tax?

If my income depends on my salary, then income = salary. That holds true until I have some investments that increase my income beyond my salary, correct? It's the same idea. The government doesn't have any income producing investments, does it?

A Tax is what's charged, Revenue is what's collected, these are two separate concepts which you intentionally conflate as being one in the same. Your statement above isn't a denail of your equivocation, you're happily admitting that you not only fail to see a distinction but also reject the fact that such a distinction exists.

 

[PLC1]

A Tax is what's charged, Revenue is what's collected, these are two separate concepts which you intentionally conflate as being one in the same. Your statement above isn't a denail of your equivocation, you're happily admitting that you not only fail to see a distinction but also reject the fact that such a distinction exists.

The IRS is pretty good at collecting what is charged. Not that there aren't some tax cheats, but most of them do get caught sooner or later.

 

[Dr.Who]

Is there another source of government revenue besides the taxes it collects?

I mean, sure, it could borrow more, print more money, but is that really "revenue"?

If the government's revenue depends on the taxes it collects, then doesn't revenue = tax?

If my income depends on my salary, then income = salary. That holds true until I have some investments that increase my income beyond my salary, correct? It's the same idea. The government doesn't have any income producing investments, does it?

Yes there are other sources of revenue. People are permitted to just send in money for example. The gov also collects money for things it sells - like land. And there is no reason that the gov cannot sell services provided that it does not compete with those in the private market who also sell that service. Your example of printing money is also an example and I agree that it is not a wise move.

It is true that recently you have defended your claim that when you say raise taxes you do not mean raise rates. But if you were to look back at your earlier posts you would see that originally you were talking about raising rates and your change has been so slow and subtle that what is required is a statement clarifying your position. In fact your change has been so slow and subtle that to many it may look as if you have been convinced to change your mind but are merely not able to admit it.

You have attempted to tell us that you would like to see revenue increased through more taxes. so tell us what those taxes would look like and how they would not be examples of raising rates. I know your have been asked this before and you have answered. But imo your answers need to be refined.

 

[GenSeneca]

Yes there are other sources of revenue. People are permitted to just send in money for example. The gov also collects money for things it sells - like land. And there is no reason that the gov cannot sell services provided that it does not compete with those in the private market who also sell that service. Your example of printing money is also an example and I agree that it is not a wise move.

It is true that recently you have defended your claim that when you say raise taxes you do not mean raise rates. But if you were to look back at your earlier posts you would see that originally you were talking about raising rates and your change has been so slow and subtle that what is required is a statement clarifying your position. In fact your change has been so slow and subtle that to many it may look as if you have been convinced to change your mind but are merely not able to admit it.

You have attempted to tell us that you would like to see revenue increased through more taxes. so tell us what those taxes would look like and how they would not be examples of raising rates. I know your have been asked this before and you have answered. But imo your answers need to be refined.

Well said.

 

[Openmind]

Yes there are other sources of revenue. People are permitted to just send in money for example. The gov also collects money for things it sells - like land. And there is no reason that the gov cannot sell services provided that it does not compete with those in the private market who also sell that service. Your example of printing money is also an example and I agree that it is not a wise move.

It is true that recently you have defended your claim that when you say raise taxes you do not mean raise rates. But if you were to look back at your earlier posts you would see that originally you were talking about raising rates and your change has been so slow and subtle that what is required is a statement clarifying your position. In fact your change has been so slow and subtle that to many it may look as if you have been convinced to change your mind but are merely not able to admit it.

You have attempted to tell us that you would like to see revenue increased through more taxes. so tell us what those taxes would look like and how they would not be examples of raising rates. I know your have been asked this before and you have answered. But imo your answers need to be refined.

Governement selling OUR Land to raise revenue? Like. . .the national parks?
Yep, that wouldn't influence our children's future!

Are you familiar with the concept of "Commons?"

I am currently reading a book by Jay Walljasper: "All That We Share, a Field Guide to the Commons."

Very enlightening. . .goes back a long way and shows the "evolution" of our Commons.

Also very sad and frightening, as we have (and still are) losing so much of our Commons to greed and market industry. . .
I am not very far into it, but I think I can already recommend it. By the way, it is NON political (or at least absolutely non-partisan).

 

[PLC1]

Yes there are other sources of revenue. People are permitted to just send in money for example. The gov also collects money for things it sells - like land. And there is no reason that the gov cannot sell services provided that it does not compete with those in the private market who also sell that service. Your example of printing money is also an example and I agree that it is not a wise move.

It is true that recently you have defended your claim that when you say raise taxes you do not mean raise rates. But if you were to look back at your earlier posts you would see that originally you were talking about raising rates and your change has been so slow and subtle that what is required is a statement clarifying your position. In fact your change has been so slow and subtle that to many it may look as if you have been convinced to change your mind but are merely not able to admit it.

You have attempted to tell us that you would like to see revenue increased through more taxes. so tell us what those taxes would look like and how they would not be examples of raising rates. I know your have been asked this before and you have answered. But imo your answers need to be refined.

I would not like to see taxes increased.

When I go to the dentist, i don't want to have a tooth pulled.

Sometimes, teeth have to be pulled, and taxes have to be raised.

As for how, we could start by taxing all income, regardless of source, the same. Why is it that we have a different rate for earned income and capital gains, for example?

 

[GenSeneca]

When I go to the dentist, i don't want to have a tooth pulled.

Sometimes, teeth have to be pulled, and taxes have to be raised.

Well, that's clear as mud...

As for how, we could start by taxing all income, regardless of source, the same. Why is it that we have a different rate for earned income and capital gains, for example?

If I want to invest my earned income by purchasing stocks or bonds etc. the principle I've used to purchase those investments has already been taxed. I'd have no problem with paying tax on earnings above that principle investment but forcing me to pay taxes on the principle twice, once when I earn it and then again when my investment matures, is double taxation and that's simply not a just system of taxation.

As for tax deferred investments, such as 401k's and Roth IRA's, they'd only be taxed once when the investment matures but you still have a small problem... If you put away, say $1k per month in a 401k, you would have paid a much smaller % of tax on that $12k per year if it wasn't tax deferred, but because it is deferred, and you get it all back at maturity as a lump sum, you're now looking at getting hammered with one of the top brackets. Basically, you could have paid 7-10% if you would have paid the tax up front when you earned it but now you're going to get hammered with 39% Cap gains rate (or whatever % you're suggesting) when your investment matures.

All that aside... 46% of tax filers either pay nothing or get back more than they paid into the system, why don't we start by eliminating all deductions and make sure that every single tax filer actually pays more in taxes than they get back? Those millions of people who got booted from the tax rolls, thanks to the Bush Tax Cuts, bring them and everyone else back onto the tax rolls. Sure they will kick and scream but tough shat, if Obama is going to talk about "shared sacrifice" and complain about people having "skin in the game" it's time that every single tax paying American do their "fair share" of paying income taxes.

 

[PLC1]

Well, that's clear as mud...


If I want to invest my earned income by purchasing stocks or bonds etc. the principle I've used to purchase those investments has already been taxed. I'd have no problem with paying tax on earnings above that principle investment but forcing me to pay taxes on the principle twice, once when I earn it and then again when my investment matures, is double taxation and that's simply not a just system of taxation.

As for tax deferred investments, such as 401k's and Roth IRA's, they'd only be taxed once when the investment matures but you still have a small problem... If you put away, say $1k per month in a 401k, you would have paid a much smaller % of tax on that $12k per year if it wasn't tax deferred, but because it is deferred, and you get it all back at maturity as a lump sum, you're now looking at getting hammered with one of the top brackets. Basically, you could have paid 7-10% if you would have paid the tax up front when you earned it but now you're going to get hammered with 39% Cap gains rate (or whatever % you're suggesting) when your investment matures.

All that aside... 46% of tax filers either pay nothing or get back more than they paid into the system, why don't we start by eliminating all deductions and make sure that every single tax filer actually pays more in taxes than they get back? Those millions of people who got booted from the tax rolls, thanks to the Bush Tax Cuts, bring them and everyone else back onto the tax rolls. Sure they will kick and scream but tough shat, if Obama is going to talk about "shared sacrifice" and complain about people having "skin in the game" it's time that every single tax paying American do their "fair share" of paying income taxes.

You don't pay capital gains on the principal, only on the increase in value.

You don't pay capital gains on a Roth at all. It is one of the few ways in which you an actually earn untaxed income. I know, I have three of them.

Whether you pay more or less on tax deferred savings (TSA, IRA) or not depends on the tax bracket you're in when you pay, as opposed to the bracket you're in when you begin to take the money out. The idea is that you pay into the account when your earnings are high, take it out a little at a time when you're retired and your income is less.

Of course, it doesn't always work out that way.

Making sure that the 46% or whatever the figure is who don't pay income taxes do pay something may make the system more fair and make sure that everyone has some skin in the game. It wouldn't raise enough to make much of a dent in the deficit, however.

 

[Dr.Who]

Governement selling OUR Land to raise revenue? Like. . .the national parks?
Yep, that wouldn't influence our children's future!

Are you familiar with the concept of "Commons?"

I am currently reading a book by Jay Walljasper: "All That We Share, a Field Guide to the Commons."

Very enlightening. . .goes back a long way and shows the "evolution" of our Commons.

Also very sad and frightening, as we have (and still are) losing so much of our Commons to greed and market industry. . .
I am not very far into it, but I think I can already recommend it. By the way, it is NON political (or at least absolutely non-partisan).

If his solutions do not require depriving people of their rights then start a thread and let us know about it.

 

[Dr.Who]

Governement selling OUR Land to raise revenue? Like. . .the national parks?
Yep, that wouldn't influence our children's future!
.

If you really believe that it is our land then the gov does not own it and cannot sell it. It should just be available to be homesteaded.

 

[Dr.Who]

I would not like to see taxes increased.

When I go to the dentist, i don't want to have a tooth pulled.

Sometimes, teeth have to be pulled, and taxes have to be raised.

As for how, we could start by taxing all income, regardless of source, the same. Why is it that we have a different rate for earned income and capital gains, for example?

We very well might need to raise taxes. But first lets cut spending and see what happens. We also might not need to raise taxes.

If we do need to raise taxes then lets start by cutting deductions and exemptions and special breaks that only some people can avail themselves of. Taxes need to be executed equally under the law.

The whole business of investment income versus earned income is best avoided but not taxing any income by returning to the constitution which originally said there could be no direct taxes.

btw, i am remined that when the income tax was first proposed people said it was a horrible idea because it would allow the gov to get between the private interactions of an employer and an employee and to violate the privacy they have because it would be necessary to know how much each person earned.

So why is it that the gov has any business at all knowing how much I or you earn and why is no one complaining about that? It must be the frog in the water thing. We have lost this freedom and we don't even think about it.

 

[GenSeneca]

You don't pay capital gains on the principal, only on the increase in value.

Just so we're clear... You've been trying to claim that you weren't suggesting that we raise tax rates yet when pressed about how you would "raise taxes" without raising rates, you proposed that we raise rates...

I even offered you a way to save face by suggesting that we eliminate tax write offs, forcing "rich" people to pay even more than they do already and ensuring that 100% of people who file taxes actually PAY into the system.

As for how, we could start by taxing all income, regardless of source, the same. Why is it that we have a different rate for earned income and capital gains, for example?

During one of the debates when Obama was running for office, it was pointed out to him that revenue from capital gains taxes went UP when the rates were lowered, Obama said he wasn't looking to increase revenue but raise CG rates as a matter of "fairness"...

So why are you suggesting we raise CG's rates? Is it your wish to see us get less revenue from CG taxes or, like our dear leader, do you consider it a matter of "fairness"?

 

[Dr.Who]

Why is it that we have a different rate for earned income and capital gains, for example?

Because the gov likes to meddle with the economy.

They like to think they are helping by encouraging saving. Or maybe they just like to "help" by making sure that only those with a license can buy stocks and that all the rest of us are encouraged to use those services.

That kind of meddling always hurts and results in a never ending game of whack a mole as the first example of meddling needs to be fixed with yet another example of meddling.

 

[PLC1]

Because the gov likes to meddle with the economy.

Bingo!

They like to think they are helping by encouraging saving. Or maybe they just like to "help" by making sure that only those with a license can buy stocks and that all the rest of us are encouraged to use those services.

or maybe the people who have the most influence over what is taxed and how much make most of their money from capital gains.

That kind of meddling always hurts and results in a never ending game of whack a mole as the first example of meddling needs to be fixed with yet another example of meddling.

Exactly why we should have the same taxes regardless of the source of income.