Do Taxes Encourage or Discourage Behavior?

[boedicca]

So. We're hearing a lot of hysteria that we need to raise taxes (again) to solve the deficit.

But here's what I'd like the Lefties to 'splain:

If taxes are used to discourage things such as Smoking and Drinking, why do you think that Taxing Productivity and Investment doesn't likewise discourage these activities?

Please 'splain.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

 

[alan1]

So. We're hearing a lot of hysteria that we need to raise taxes (again) to solve the deficit.

But here's what I'd like the Lefties to 'splain:

If taxes are used to discourage things such as Smoking and Drinking, why do you think that Taxing Productivity and Investment doesn't likewise discourage these activities?

Please 'splain.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

The same way high gasoline prices doesn't discourage driving.

Oh wait...........

 

[Oddball]

It's axiomatic:

Tax something, you get less of it.

Subsidize something, you get more of it.

 

[boedicca]

It fits with how Obama is creating jobs by destroying full time ones with Obamacare, which are replaced with two part time ones.

 

[boedicca]

It's axiomatic:

Tax something, you get less of it.

Subsidize something, you get more of it.

"The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."

- Ronald Reagan

He was right.

 

[Freemason9]

So. We're hearing a lot of hysteria that we need to raise taxes (again) to solve the deficit.

But here's what I'd like the Lefties to 'splain:

If taxes are used to discourage things such as Smoking and Drinking, why do you think that Taxing Productivity and Investment doesn't likewise discourage these activities?

Please 'splain.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Based on the assumption that you, as a 2013 Republican, are all about "deficit reduction,"

How do you propose to do so without raising taxes? (Please bear with me a moment.)

 

[Wiseacre]

So. We're hearing a lot of hysteria that we need to raise taxes (again) to solve the deficit.

But here's what I'd like the Lefties to 'splain:

If taxes are used to discourage things such as Smoking and Drinking, why do you think that Taxing Productivity and Investment doesn't likewise discourage these activities?

Please 'splain.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Based on the assumption that you, as a 2013 Republican, are all about "deficit reduction,"

How do you propose to do so without raising taxes? (Please bear with me a moment.)

When the negotiations between Obama and Boehner were ongoing back in the summer of 2011, the repubs had a package of $800 billion in more revenue on the table. Obama wanted more and the deal fell through. Had a similar deal offered prior to the fiscal cliff on Jan 1, so the repubs have been willing to raise taxes, albeit admittedly reluctant to do so. So it is a lie to suggest otherwise, Obama and the dems got their tax increases with almost no spending cuts, it is now time for the balanced approach by addressing the spending side rather than asking for even more in taxes. Too bad the democrats weren't willing to make the big deal back in december and avoid all the bullshit, but there were political points to be garnered and scores to settle, and of course the overwhelming desire to screw the GOP as much as possible.

 

[Freemason9]

So. We're hearing a lot of hysteria that we need to raise taxes (again) to solve the deficit.

But here's what I'd like the Lefties to 'splain:

If taxes are used to discourage things such as Smoking and Drinking, why do you think that Taxing Productivity and Investment doesn't likewise discourage these activities?

Please 'splain.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Based on the assumption that you, as a 2013 Republican, are all about "deficit reduction,"

How do you propose to do so without raising taxes? (Please bear with me a moment.)

When the negotiations between Obama and Boehner were ongoing back in the summer of 2011, the repubs had a package of $800 billion in more revenue on the table. Obama wanted more and the deal fell through. Had a similar deal offered prior to the fiscal cliff on Jan 1, so the repubs have been willing to raise taxes, albeit admittedly reluctant to do so. So it is a lie to suggest otherwise, Obama and the dems got their tax increases with almost no spending cuts, it is now time for the balanced approach by addressing the spending side rather than asking for even more in taxes. Too bad the democrats weren't willing to make the big deal back in december and avoid all the bullshit, but there were political points to be garnered and scores to settle, and of course the overwhelming desire to screw the GOP as much as possible.

So your answer, basically, is to cut spending. So now, answer this:

What are you going to cut?

 

[Wiseacre]

Rather than get into specific programs, I'd cap the growth of spending across the baord to 2% of the previous year's budget, and I'd require overruns from the previous year to be paid for in the current year. No exceptions, and I'd require reforms in the entitlement programs to make them sustainable. I would also reform the tax code for both individuals and corporations, limiting deductions and exemptions to a certain percentage. A flat tax would work for me.

 

[Freemason9]

Rather than get into specific programs, I'd cap the growth of spending across the baord to 2% of the previous year's budget, and I'd require overruns from the previous year to be paid for in the current year. No exceptions, and I'd require reforms in the entitlement programs to make them sustainable. I would also reform the tax code for both individuals and corporations, limiting deductions and exemptions to a certain percentage. A flat tax would work for me.

This is doubletalk and avoids the point. What you are proposing, basically, is reduce the amount of money that is distributed to various individuals. Correct?

 

[Wiseacre]

Rather than get into specific programs, I'd cap the growth of spending across the baord to 2% of the previous year's budget, and I'd require overruns from the previous year to be paid for in the current year. No exceptions, and I'd require reforms in the entitlement programs to make them sustainable. I would also reform the tax code for both individuals and corporations, limiting deductions and exemptions to a certain percentage. A flat tax would work for me.

This is doubletalk and avoids the point. What you are proposing, basically, is reduce the amount of money that is distributed to various individuals. Correct?

My post avoids nothing, I do not intend to waste my time getting into all of the various agencies and programs that could be reduced and by how much. I have no doubt there is a lot of redundancy and obsolete programs that oughta be discontinued or at least trimmed back. And I will say that there are some gov't depts such as education, housing, and healthcare that the federal gov't has very little or no business getting involved in. Those are IMHO more suited for the individual states to run. I think we oughta be focusing on puting a cap on spending as many of the more successful economies are doing around the world and let the politicians explain come election time why they spent more money here instead of there. I don't think we need to get crazy with spending cuts all at once, but I see no reason why the gov't can't be more efficient and effective with the tax dollars they have, and I see no reason why we should give them even more money uintil they do a better job with the money we're giving them now.

 

[Freemason9]

Rather than get into specific programs, I'd cap the growth of spending across the baord to 2% of the previous year's budget, and I'd require overruns from the previous year to be paid for in the current year. No exceptions, and I'd require reforms in the entitlement programs to make them sustainable. I would also reform the tax code for both individuals and corporations, limiting deductions and exemptions to a certain percentage. A flat tax would work for me.

This is doubletalk and avoids the point. What you are proposing, basically, is reduce the amount of money that is distributed to various individuals. Correct?

My post avoids nothing, I do not intend to waste my time getting into all of the various agencies and programs that could be reduced and by how much. I have no doubt there is a lot of redundancy and obsolete programs that oughta be discontinued or at least trimmed back. And I will say that there are some gov't depts such as education, housing, and healthcare that the federal gov't has very little or no business getting involved in. Those are IMHO more suited for the individual states to run. I think we oughta be focusing on puting a cap on spending as many of the more successful economies are doing around the world and let the politicians explain come election time why they spent more money here instead of there. I don't think we need to get crazy with spending cuts all at once, but I see no reason why the gov't can't be more efficient and effective with the tax dollars they have, and I see no reason why we should give them even more money uintil they do a better job with the money we're giving them now.

ONCE AGAIN:

What you are proposing, basically, is reduce the amount of money that is distributed to various individuals. Correct?

 

[Freemason9]

Rather than get into specific programs, I'd cap the growth of spending across the baord to 2% of the previous year's budget, and I'd require overruns from the previous year to be paid for in the current year. No exceptions, and I'd require reforms in the entitlement programs to make them sustainable. I would also reform the tax code for both individuals and corporations, limiting deductions and exemptions to a certain percentage. A flat tax would work for me.

So, basically, you would insist that no public employee gets more than a 2% wage increase per year. Is that correct? Because, after inflation, it provides no incentive for retaining an experienced work force.

ALSO, are you basically inferring reduced entitlement spending? I'm good with that, as long as it's across the board--including farmers, retired federal workers (especially military), and "disabled."

ALSO, wouldn't eliminating the progressive income tax and installing your so-called "flat" tax INCREASE taxes on the poorest workers and CUT taxes on the wealthiest? Is that your intention?

 

[Samson]

So. We're hearing a lot of hysteria that we need to raise taxes (again) to solve the deficit.

But here's what I'd like the Lefties to 'splain:

If taxes are used to discourage things such as Smoking and Drinking, why do you think that Taxing Productivity and Investment doesn't likewise discourage these activities?

Please 'splain.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Is this one of those "Kids Say the Darnedest Things" threads?



Asking a Leftie to explain logic: You might as well ask the common Lemming to 'splain survival tactics.

However, I expect a response rooted in emotion: Smoking, Drinking make us feel sad; taxing anyone with a successful business makes us feel glad, thus it is OK.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So, basically, you would insist that no public employee gets more than a 2% wage increase per year. Is that correct? Because, after inflation, it provides no incentive for retaining an experienced work force.

OMG!!!!this was Freemason's big argument???. It ignores the simply fact that the liberal monopoly pays about double what the private sector pays for half the output; so you could fire half of them right now with no loss!!

 

[Freemason9]

So. We're hearing a lot of hysteria that we need to raise taxes (again) to solve the deficit.

But here's what I'd like the Lefties to 'splain:

If taxes are used to discourage things such as Smoking and Drinking, why do you think that Taxing Productivity and Investment doesn't likewise discourage these activities?

Please 'splain.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Is this one of those "Kids Say the Darnedest Things" threads?



Asking a Leftie to explain logic: You might as well ask the common Lemming to 'splain survival tactics.

However, I expect a response rooted in emotion: Smoking, Drinking make us feel sad; taxing anyone with a successful business makes us feel glad, thus it is OK.

****, you people really avoid the details, don't you?

 

[Wiseacre]

Rather than get into specific programs, I'd cap the growth of spending across the baord to 2% of the previous year's budget, and I'd require overruns from the previous year to be paid for in the current year. No exceptions, and I'd require reforms in the entitlement programs to make them sustainable. I would also reform the tax code for both individuals and corporations, limiting deductions and exemptions to a certain percentage. A flat tax would work for me.

So, basically, you would insist that no public employee gets more than a 2% wage increase per year. Is that correct? Because, after inflation, it provides no incentive for retaining an experienced work force.


Didn't say that at all. Let me tell you about the federal work force, specifically civil service. There is always stiff competition for gov't jobs, aside from the better pay and benefits; job security is a heck of a lot better except at the local levels, and even then they have a very strong union to protect them. So retaining an experienced work force is not a problem, and never has been.

I would tie wages and benefits for public employees to some index or collaborated indexes to arrive at fair compensation for whatever the private sector gets, with a peridoic adjustment one way or the other to bring it back in sync. I'd be looking at privatizing wherever possible to save money so needed functions could be maintained. And if necessary I'd cut back on hiring in agencies and programs that are not as necessary.


ALSO, are you basically inferring reduced entitlement spending? I'm good with that, as long as it's across the board--including farmers, retired federal workers (especially military), and "disabled."


Especially military? Why's that, it's one thing to change the rules for those who haven't reached retirement age or near it, but quite another to change the deal for those who've alrerady held up their end of the deal.

We've got to control the rising costs of our entitlement programs. The ACA isn't doing that, so some how some way we have to find away to cap it. I don't think a gov't run system like ObamaCare is going to do that; the old system didn't work to well in cost containment either, but all we've done is substitute one bad system for another.

And I see no reason why we can't find a way to reform Social Security; bump the age limit higher, means test the benefits, whatever it takes to get it done so that young people today can have the same program 40 or 50 years from now that we have today.



ALSO, wouldn't eliminating the progressive income tax and installing your so-called "flat" tax INCREASE taxes on the poorest workers and CUT taxes on the wealthiest? Is that your intention?

No reason why we couldn't set a floor for income subject to the flat tax. Say the first $20,000 is tax free, after that you pay in something. No deductions, no exemptions, no breaks for mortgage interest, dividends and cap gains, no tax shelters, no charity either. Or maybe you limit it to say 10% total of your income. Same deal for companies big and small. You could file your return in less than an hour, and we could really cut the rates to significantly encourage investments here in the US of A.

IMHO, we need more people on the lower end of the income ladder paying taxes. They need to have some skin in the game for how their money is spent, right now the concern is what do I get instead of how can I earn more and get richer. I know some people obsess over the taxes on the wealthy, as though it makes any difference to the rest of us. The fact is that some people are growing to get rich in a capitalistic economy. Instead of busting your ass to hurt them you should focus more on creating an environment where more people can move up the income ladder. You know the story of the golden goose, right? Think about it.

 

[boedicca]

So. We're hearing a lot of hysteria that we need to raise taxes (again) to solve the deficit.

But here's what I'd like the Lefties to 'splain:

If taxes are used to discourage things such as Smoking and Drinking, why do you think that Taxing Productivity and Investment doesn't likewise discourage these activities?

Please 'splain.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Based on the assumption that you, as a 2013 Republican, are all about "deficit reduction,"

How do you propose to do so without raising taxes? (Please bear with me a moment.)

You are mistaken in assuming that I'm a Republican.

I propose rolling back government spending to where we were in 2007, and then requiring a balanced budget with spending not to exceed 20% of GDP (unless we are truly engaged in a world war). This will require a narrowing of the scope of government activities, getting rid of corporate welfare, getting rid of unions for federal employees to milk excessive benefits, and restructuring SS and Medicare...and terminating Obamacare.

I'd also like to see the Glen Reynolds' proposal put in place which taxes income at 75% when a former elected official or bureaucrat takes a lobbying job within 5 years of leaving public service. Also, it would be better to get rid of pensions for elected officials. Let them have to make a living in the private sector under the rules they have passed after they leave office.

On final thing: tax reform. Low flat tax for all with no loopholes or deductions.

 

[Cabron]

So. We're hearing a lot of hysteria that we need to raise taxes (again) to solve the deficit.

But here's what I'd like the Lefties to 'splain:

If taxes are used to discourage things such as Smoking and Drinking, why do you think that Taxing Productivity and Investment doesn't likewise discourage these activities?

Please 'splain.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Taxes are not strictly used to discourage activities...Taxes are mainly used to create demand for the currency, but thats another topic. They are also used to generate revenue.

 

[Samson]

So. We're hearing a lot of hysteria that we need to raise taxes (again) to solve the deficit.

But here's what I'd like the Lefties to 'splain:

If taxes are used to discourage things such as Smoking and Drinking, why do you think that Taxing Productivity and Investment doesn't likewise discourage these activities?

Please 'splain.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Is this one of those "Kids Say the Darnedest Things" threads?



Asking a Leftie to explain logic: You might as well ask the common Lemming to 'splain survival tactics.

However, I expect a response rooted in emotion: Smoking, Drinking make us feel sad; taxing anyone with a successful business makes us feel glad, thus it is OK.

****, you people really avoid the details, don't you?

What details?

Be specific.