Obama calls for increase in Federal Gas Tax

[Dr.Who]

He will simply claim that when he says "raise taxes" that he's not actually talking about raising tax rates but increasing revenue. What you've said is true but I believe PLC has taken this tact of using the phrase "raise taxes" to mean something other than raising rates as a way to save face on the subject.

If he would state the correct statement then why not let him save face? Letting people save face is an effective way to permit them to change what they say.

More change will come about through some nudging than though an adamant demand that one admit when one is wrong. Of course that change will always be in baby steps and sometimes there will be backsliding.

 

[Dr.Who]

Again, I've consistently said, "raising taxes", not "tax rates", or anything else. Nothing duplicitous or vague about that. If you raise taxes, then the government has a higher percentage of the GDP. That has been my position from the beginning. Moreover, I've consistently said that the federal government will have to raise taxes and decrease spending if the deficit is ever to be under control. Nothing vague about that, is there?

Now, if you want to discuss my perfectly clear, non vague position, feel free. Please don't throw strawmen at it and claim that I've said something else.

Yes you have talked about raising taxes a lot. But most times when you give us examples of raising taxes you give examples of raising rates or other things that have already been tried.

If we are going to get results then we will have to try something new. Tell us just one way to raise taxes without raising rates or doing things that have already been tried.

Q: how do we tax the GDP without reducing the GDP?

If we tax higher incomes we will be punishing earning higher incomes. If we tax purchases we will be punishing purchasing. If we tax wealth we will be punishing ownership. If we tax real estate we will be taxing making improvements on that real estate.

Is there any expenditure or use of money or property that we can tax that will not punish things we want more of? i.e. money or property?

 

[PLC1]

Yes you have talked about raising taxes a lot. But most times when you give us examples of raising taxes you give examples of raising rates or other things that have already been tried.

If we are going to get results then we will have to try something new. Tell us just one way to raise taxes without raising rates or doing things that have already been tried.

Q: how do we tax the GDP without reducing the GDP?

If we tax higher incomes we will be punishing earning higher incomes. If we tax purchases we will be punishing purchasing. If we tax wealth we will be punishing ownership. If we tax real estate we will be taxing making improvements on that real estate.

Is there any expenditure or use of money or property that we can tax that will not punish things we want more of? i.e. money or property?

I've also said that there is an optimal tax that would raise more revenue. If taxes are too high, that will decrease the GDP. If they are too low, then the government doesn't have enough money to operate on. If raising taxes is not a part of the solution to the current deficit, then the optimal tax is the one currently in effect.

Of course, many of us would like no taxes at all, which would mean no government at all, which would mean anarchy. Most people can see that anarchy is not the solution to anything.

On the other hand, what we have now is too much government.

So, there is an optimal level there, too.

As for changes in the current system of taxation, and the "flat tax", how about this:

All individual income, regardless of source, should be taxed at the same rate.

Corporate taxes should be zero for profits on goods produced in the USA, but any other profits should be taxed at the same rate as individuals pay.

That should bring some jobs back into the country.

 

[Dr.Who]

I've also said that there is an optimal tax that would raise more revenue. If taxes are too high, that will decrease the GDP. If they are too low, then the government doesn't have enough money to operate on.

agreed.

If raising taxes is not a part of the solution to the current deficit, then the optimal tax is the one currently in effect.

I don't follow.

Of course, many of us would like no taxes at all, which would mean no government at all, which would mean anarchy. Most people can see that anarchy is not the solution to anything.

I am not aware of any here that would actually follow any policy of no taxes.

On the other hand, what we have now is too much government.

So, there is an optimal level there, too.

Agreed.

As for changes in the current system of taxation, and the "flat tax", how about this:

All individual income, regardless of source, should be taxed at the same rate.

I am won over toward a flat tax though not necessarily what is called "the flat tax"

Corporate taxes should be zero for profits on goods produced in the USA, but any other profits should be taxed at the same rate as individuals pay.

Yea, I am not convinced that is thought through. If too few business use any products from out of the USA then there will not be enough of a base to tax. I believe the idea should be to have a broad base which is taxed little rather than a narrow base that is taxed more.

That should bring some jobs back into the country.

Some. How many? At what price? And it is still an example of the gov micro managing the economy. If we tax all businesses the same then the gov is not picking who is preferred and who gets punished - which I don't think should be the goal of a tax system.

 

[GenSeneca]

But, I'd take it to mean you intended to raise my taxes.

You'd take it mean your tax rate is going up, would you not?

 

[PLC1]

You'd take it mean your tax rate is going up, would you not?

No, I would not.

 

[PLC1]

agreed.



I don't follow.




I am not aware of any here that would actually follow any policy of no taxes.




Agreed.



I am won over toward a flat tax though not necessarily what is called "the flat tax"




Yea, I am not convinced that is thought through. If too few business use any products from out of the USA then there will not be enough of a base to tax. I believe the idea should be to have a broad base which is taxed little rather than a narrow base that is taxed more.



Some. How many? At what price? And it is still an example of the gov micro managing the economy. If we tax all businesses the same then the gov is not picking who is preferred and who gets punished - which I don't think should be the goal of a tax system.

How many? I don't know. If companies can make a profit by putting Americans to work, and not pay corporate taxes on that profit, then they have an incentive to put Americans to work. If they do pay taxes on profits made by putting people to work in other countries, then there is a disincentive to move factories there. What price? Well, the government would lose some corporate taxes, but the people working in the factories in the US would pay taxes, the individuals that got dividends from the corporations running those factories would pay taxes, so the net revenue could be unchanged. The difference would be less unemployment in the USA.

 

[GenSeneca]

No, I would not.

What else could it mean?

 

[PLC1]

What else could it mean?

Exactly what I've consistently said it means.

 

[Dr.Who]

How many? I don't know. If companies can make a profit by putting Americans to work, and not pay corporate taxes on that profit, then they have an incentive to put Americans to work. If they do pay taxes on profits made by putting people to work in other countries, then there is a disincentive to move factories there. What price? Well, the government would lose some corporate taxes, but the people working in the factories in the US would pay taxes, the individuals that got dividends from the corporations running those factories would pay taxes, so the net revenue could be unchanged. The difference would be less unemployment in the USA.

That sounds an awful lot like trickle down.

 

[GenSeneca]

Exactly what I've consistently said it means.

You still believe that raising tax rates increases revenue as a % of GDP... You just won't come out and say it. Pretending that your sudden shift in the phrase "raise taxes" means increase revenue and not, as you've argued all along, that we need to raise tax rates is just sad...

...we could simply go back to the pre "Bush tax cuts" rates.

Why?

Fact: Federal revenues was nearly 21% of the GDP before the "Bush tax cuts" took effect.

Fact: Now, federal revenue is about 16% of the GDP.

Opinion: Cutting taxes has resulted in less federal revenue as a percent of GDP.

Now you expect people to believe that your calls for "raising taxes" wasn't actually grounded in your belief that higher tax rates causes revenue to be a larger % of GDP. Does anyone believe you? I sure don't.

 

[PLC1]

You still believe that raising tax rates increases revenue as a % of GDP... You just won't come out and say it. Pretending that your sudden shift in the phrase "raise taxes" means increase revenue and not, as you've argued all along, that we need to raise tax rates is just sad...



Why?



Now you expect people to believe that your calls for "raising taxes" wasn't actually grounded in your belief that higher tax rates causes revenue to be a larger % of GDP. Does anyone believe you? I sure don't.

Higher tax rates mean higher taxes if and only if all the other factors remain the same.

Lower tax rates mean lower taxes if and only if all the other factors remain the same.

When tax rates went down under Reagan, deductions also went down. Some paid less in taxes, others paid more. There are other factors besides tax rates.

Higher taxes means the government has a higher percentage of the GDP.

The reason you keep bringing up tax rates is that you know you can't argue the absurd position that higher taxes does not result in a higher percent of the GDP going to the government.

 

[BigRob]

Fact: Federal revenues was nearly 21% of the GDP before the "Bush tax cuts" took effect.

Fact: Now, federal revenue is about 16% of the GDP.

Here are a few more facts to consider:

Fact: GDP in 2001 was $10.234 trillion. Therefore, revenue was $2,149,140,000,000 (21%)

Fact: GDP in 2008 was $14.369 trillion. Therefore revenue was $2,299,040,000,000 (16%)

Fact: Despite the tax rates, the government collected the same amount (roughly) of revenue.

Fact: Since 1934, the United States has NEVER actually collected 21% of GDP in revenue. We came the closest in 1944 and then again in 2000, but not any time else.

Fact: In the middle of the wonderful Clinton years at the Clinton rates, we took in 18.8% of GDP in revenue in 1996. In the middle of the horrible Bush years and in the midst of a recession (with lower rates) we took in 18.5% of GDP in revenue in 2007.

(the numbers will vary from year to year, but generally are in this ballpark)

The way to grow revenue is to increase GDP, not sit around harping on tax rates.

 

[Gipper]

The way to grow revenue is to increase GDP, not sit around harping on tax rates.

Yes.

And, it is apparent Dems, libs, progressives, commies, and socialists have NO F-ing idea how to increase GDP...even though American history is replete with examples.

Failing to learn from history means you are one dumb %$#%$#% #$%$&**^.....

 

[PLC1]

Here are a few more facts to consider:

Fact: GDP in 2001 was $10.234 trillion. Therefore, revenue was $2,149,140,000,000 (21%)

Fact: GDP in 2008 was $14.369 trillion. Therefore revenue was $2,299,040,000,000 (16%)

Fact: Despite the tax rates, the government collected the same amount (roughly) of revenue.

Fact: Since 1934, the United States has NEVER actually collected 21% of GDP in revenue. We came the closest in 1944 and then again in 2000, but not any time else.

Fact: In the middle of the wonderful Clinton years at the Clinton rates, we took in 18.8% of GDP in revenue in 1996. In the middle of the horrible Bush years and in the midst of a recession (with lower rates) we took in 18.5% of GDP in revenue in 2007.

(the numbers will vary from year to year, but generally are in this ballpark)

The way to grow revenue is to increase GDP, not sit around harping on tax rates.

OK, so now you're saying that a smaller percent of a larger GDP is better (or at least as good as ) a larger percentage of a smaller GDP. You may actually have a point, there.

Further, a smaller tax could actually result in a larger GDP. So, raising taxes above a certain level is likely to be counter productive.

How do we know what that level is?