Obama calls for increase in Federal Gas Tax

[Gipper]

I know that and you know that... But PLC hasn't come to terms with that reality yet. He is arguing that raising tax rates will increase revenue as a % of GDP, when asked for evidence of this he offers "simple mathematics", so I want to see how he applies his 2+2 formula to figure out a tax rate that will yield record breaking revenues of 24% of GDP.

It is all very amusing.

Our pot smoking friend loves to speak of the "many shades of grey'" or the "nuances" or the "many colors" he sees on MOST issues discussed on this board. But, on the issue of taxes its all black and white...meaning raise tax rates and revenues rise...

How can he be so simplistic?

His belief certainly fits nicely into the liberal view of things.

 

[PLC1]

I know that and you know that... But PLC hasn't come to terms with that reality yet. He is arguing that raising tax rates will increase revenue as a % of GDP, when asked for evidence of this he offers "simple mathematics", so I want to see how he applies his 2+2 formula to figure out a tax rate that will yield record breaking revenues of 24% of GDP.

As a side note Dr.Who... Watch out for the Red Herring offensive.

There is more to tax rates than the top marginal rate.

Did taxes go down as the top marginal tax rate was decreased? If that's what you're arguing, then you're correct. Raising the top marginal tax rate does not necessarily increase the revenues collected by the federal government. The tax code is much more complex than that.

But, if you're arguing that collecting more in taxes does not increase the percent of money that goes to the feds, you have a more difficult proof.

If the government collected no taxes at all, would it still have the same percentage of the GDP?

And, if you can't answer that one, are you going to simply label it a red herring, or call it something else?

 

[Dr.Who]

Did taxes go down as the top marginal tax rate was decreased? If that's what you're arguing, then you're correct.

No one here has been arguing that revenues go down as the top marginal ratre is decreased. People have clearly been arguing that the revenues stay the same regardless.

But, if you're arguing that collecting more in taxes does not increase the percent of money that goes to the feds, you have a more difficult proof.

Is this what you meant to say? Because it would be a truism that collecting more in taxes results in more money being collected. But what the gov intends to collect hardly correlate to what is actually collected.

 

[GenSeneca]

Did taxes go down as the top marginal tax rate was decreased?

There are examples of revenue as a % of GDP going up, going down, and remaining the exact same - REGARDLESS OF WHICH DIRECTION TAX RATES WERE MOVED.

So, claims that lowering tax rates decreases the % and/or that raising tax rates increases the %, is totally unsupportable. The only "proof" you can offer is cherry picked data and when I bring data to your attention that directly contradicts your claims, you ignore it...

For example, you still haven't explained why revenue remained at 17.5% after the increase in rates under the Clinton administration... Or why at other times revenue went up after tax rates were cut. Both examples fly in the face of your claims but you offer no explanation that supports your trickle up theory.

If that's what you're arguing, then you're correct.

No, you would be wrong... Such a position is not supported by the data.

Raising the top marginal tax rate does not necessarily increase the revenues collected by the federal government. The tax code is much more complex than that.

Not according to your trickle up theory: Higher Taxes = Greater Revenue.

But, if you're arguing that collecting more in taxes does not increase the percent of money that goes to the feds, you have a more difficult proof.

If the government collected no taxes at all, would it still have the same percentage of the GDP?

And, if you can't answer that one, are you going to simply label it a red herring, or call it something else?

Yes, what you're doing right now is a red herring. I've asked you to defend your support of trickle up economics, you can't, so you're trying desperately to attack whatever position I take... or whatever position you think I hold.

My position is this: YOU CAN'T DEFEND YOUR POSITION!

I have repeatedly pointed out data which directly contradicts your claims that raising tax rates results in greater revenue. You respond by trying to attack whatever it is you think I'm arguing rather than offering a rational explanation for the tidal wave of facts that keep washing away your cherry picked "proof" or your quickly discarded claims of "simple mathematics".

If it is all a matter of simple mathematics, then why can't you tell me what our tax rates need to be in order to generate revenue that's 24% of GDP?

Could it be that the relationship between tax rates and revenue really isn't as simple as 2+2? Could it be that there are a multitude of other factors?

If you do agree, then you need to offer some explanation of why you think raising taxes will have the effect of increasing revenue as a % of GDP.

Historical evidence shows that we're just as likely to see revenue as a % of GDP go up whether we raise, lower, or leave tax rates unchanged. It also shows that we're just as likely to see revenue as a % of GDP go down, or remain unchanged, regardless of whether we raise, lower, or allow tax rates to remain the same.

So don't focus on attacking whatever it is you think I'm trying to argue, instead, offer a defense of your position... If you can.

 

[PLC1]

There are examples of revenue as a % of GDP going up, going down, and remaining the exact same - REGARDLESS OF WHICH DIRECTION TAX RATES WERE MOVED.

So, claims that lowering tax rates decreases the % and/or that raising tax rates increases the %, is totally unsupportable. The only "proof" you can offer is cherry picked data and when I bring data to your attention that directly contradicts your claims, you ignore it...

For example, you still haven't explained why revenue remained at 17.5% after the increase in rates under the Clinton administration... Or why at other times revenue went up after tax rates were cut. Both examples fly in the face of your claims but you offer no explanation that supports your trickle up theory.


No, you would be wrong... Such a position is not supported by the data.


Not according to your trickle up theory: Higher Taxes = Greater Revenue.


Yes, what you're doing right now is a red herring. I've asked you to defend your support of trickle up economics, you can't, so you're trying desperately to attack whatever position I take... or whatever position you think I hold.

My position is this: YOU CAN'T DEFEND YOUR POSITION!

I have repeatedly pointed out data which directly contradicts your claims that raising tax rates results in greater revenue. You respond by trying to attack whatever it is you think I'm arguing rather than offering a rational explanation for the tidal wave of facts that keep washing away your cherry picked "proof" or your quickly discarded claims of "simple mathematics".

If it is all a matter of simple mathematics, then why can't you tell me what our tax rates need to be in order to generate revenue that's 24% of GDP?

Could it be that the relationship between tax rates and revenue really isn't as simple as 2+2? Could it be that there are a multitude of other factors?

If you do agree, then you need to offer some explanation of why you think raising taxes will have the effect of increasing revenue as a % of GDP.

Historical evidence shows that we're just as likely to see revenue as a % of GDP go up whether we raise, lower, or leave tax rates unchanged. It also shows that we're just as likely to see revenue as a % of GDP go down, or remain unchanged, regardless of whether we raise, lower, or allow tax rates to remain the same.

So don't focus on attacking whatever it is you think I'm trying to argue, instead, offer a defense of your position... If you can.

My position is that raising taxes results in the government having a greater share of the GDP, plain and simple.

Of course, raising the "tax rate" is not necessarily the same as raising taxes, nor is lowering the same the same as cutting taxes.

The tax code is quite complex, so no, the "tax rate" is not the only factor.

When tax rates were cut back in the '80s, so were deductions. That doesn't necessarily mean fewer taxes were collected. Whether you paid more or less depended on what deductions you lost.

Now, let me ask again: If the amount of taxes collected has no effect on the percent of GDP that the government has, why collect taxes at all? Why not let the private sector keep it all?

 

[Dr.Who]

My position is that raising taxes results in the government having a greater share of the GDP, plain and simple.

Of course, raising the "tax rate" is not necessarily the same as raising taxes, nor is lowering the same the same as cutting taxes.

Then clearly we can dispense now and forever with any discussion of raising just the top marginal tax rates and instead focus on raising taxes in general.

How would you raise taxes in a way that would raise revenue?

 

[GenSeneca]

My position is that raising taxes results in the government having a greater share of the GDP, plain and simple.

So when you say that we need to "raise taxes", your not actually arguing for an increase in the tax rates?

I will echo Dr.Who's question...

If you're not arguing to raise tax rates, exactly what is it you're proposing we do to increase revenue as a % of GDP?

 

[PLC1]

Then clearly we can dispense now and forever with any discussion of raising just the top marginal tax rates and instead focus on raising taxes in general.

How would you raise taxes in a way that would raise revenue?

There are several ways it could be done. We could simply keep the same brackets we have now, not adjusted for inflation, we could have a surtax, we could include all income as taxable at the same rates, eliminate some of the deductions, or we could simply go back to the pre "Bush tax cuts" rates.

The bottom line is that thinking we can balance the budget simply by spending cuts alone is wishful thinking. We are going to have to either impose both tax increases and spending cuts, or see the dollar be devalued. Either way, the debt will decrease.

 

[Alias]

There are several ways it could be done. We could simply keep the same brackets we have now, not adjusted for inflation, we could have a surtax, we could include all income as taxable at the same rates, eliminate some of the deductions, or we could simply go back to the pre "Bush tax cuts" rates.

The bottom line is that thinking we can balance the budget simply by spending cuts alone is wishful thinking. We are going to have to either impose both tax increases and spending cuts, or see the dollar be devalued. Either way, the debt will decrease.

Eliminate a few govt agencies like the EPA and the Dept of Education would be a good start. Drill our own oil. Freeze got wages and order govt cuts in pensions and budgets. That's a good start. No tax increases.

 

[PLC1]

Eliminate a few govt agencies like the EPA and the Dept of Education would be a good start. Drill our own oil. Freeze got wages and order govt cuts in pensions and budgets. That's a good start. No tax increases.

yes, that would be a good start. Drilling our own oil isn't going to do as much as its proponents would have us believe, but all that is a good start.
But, that's all it is, a start.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

how about a high income fee? if you call it a Fee its not a tax...I learned that from Republicans.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

yes, that would be a good start. Drilling our own oil isn't going to do as much as its proponents would have us believe, but all that is a good start.
But, that's all it is, a start.

ok so no EPA...so pullute as much as the market will let you then? or will we have rules but no one to enforce them? I can't wait for my house to turn black!

 

[PLC1]

ok so no EPA...so pullute as much as the market will let you then? or will we have rules but no one to enforce them? I can't wait for my house to turn black!

Well, maybe not the EPA. We could do without the Dept. of Education and its creation of a test centered curriculum, though.

 

[Alias]

There are environmental laws on the books. If anyone is really concerned about environment, then get to work on China and India.

 

[GenSeneca]

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

Didn't you JUST finish saying that you were never trying to claim that increasing the tax rates would increase revenue as a % of GDP?

Is it your belief that raising tax rates will result in revenue being a larger % of GDP? Yes or No

The bottom line is that thinking we can balance the budget simply by spending cuts alone is wishful thinking.

We can balance the budget with spending cuts alone... That actually is a matter of "simple mathematics".