3 ms·

With all due respect raising taxes that high is a straw man. I'd be all for raising taxes if it worked but it doesn't. Nation states are competitive entities

With all due respect raising taxes that high is a straw man. I'd be all for raising taxes if it worked but it doesn't. Nation states are competitive entities and they compete for the world's resources. If the U.S. dramatically raises taxes on the rich then emerging countries like Hong Kong see an opportunity and lower their tax rates. Then you start to see capital flee the U.S. for overseas. That's why per capita tax receipts have stayed fairly consistent over time even though the tax rate has fluctuated: http://www.angrybearblog.com/2007/09/comparing-presidents-real-tax-receipts.html http://www.angrybearblog.com/2007/09/comparing-presidents-re... Don't get me wrong. We could and should raise taxes to the highest levels we can. But there's a threshold where it becomes cheaper for rich people to hide their money than it is for them to pay higher tax rates. When we cross that threshold we see tax revenue start to drop. So while I'm in favor of raising taxes I don't think we can raise taxes to the point where it would get us out of this mess.

jamesaguilar 15y ago
> With all due respect raising taxes that high is a straw man. How high? And how is it a straw man? A straw man is a false argument that someone uses to make another person's position seem weak in a debate. I don't see that happening here. (Except maybe in your post. You're making it seem like the person you're responding to is in favor of doubling or tripling the tax rate or something, when in reality he probably supports a moderate increase.) > That's why per capita tax receipts have stayed fairly consistent over time . . . Your link shows the opposite. Per capita tax receipts have grown 250% over the last sixty years according to that chart. > I don't think we can raise taxes to the point where it would get us out of this mess How high do you think that is? Right now receipts are well south of 20% of GDP. Currently revenue would have to be doubled, but outlays typically increase and revenues decrease during a recession. If you look at the non-recession tax rates that would be needed to close that gap in, e.g., the Bush years, it would have only taken a 5-10% increase, which hardly seems as outrageous as you're making it out to be.
- TomOfTTB 15y ago
  > How high? And how is it a straw man? A straw man is a false argument that someone uses to make another person's position seem weak in a debate. I don't see that happening here. I suspect it's around where they were during the Clinton presidency. But I honestly don't know. And if we were making policy rationally instead of trying to demonize one side or the other what we'd be doing is trying to find that out. As for the term Straw Man what you're saying when you says "raise taxes" is "The answer is simple". You're giving the impression that the other person just doesn't want to look at the obvious answer. My point was the tax argument is false (because we can't realistically raise taxes that high) and hence the argument that our debt is a serious problem is not a weak one. > Your link shows the opposite. Per capita tax receipts have grown 250% over the last sixty years according to that chart. Consistent is relative I'll grant you that. But the point is when the top tax rate was around 90% tax receipts were lower. So in comparison to our wildly fluctuating tax policy the receipts have been relatively consistent. > How high do you think that is? Right now receipts are well south of 20% of GDP. Currently revenue would have to be doubled, but outlays typically increase and revenues decrease during a recession. If you look at the non-recession tax rates that would be needed to close that gap in, e.g., the Bush years, it would have only taken a 5-10% increase, which hardly seems as outrageous as you're making it out to be Right now you're just making up numbers so I can't really debate your point. 5-10% of what? Income tax? Capital Gains? If you combine National + Average State debt for each American the number comes out to around $150,000 per tax payer with interest. That is not something that is going to be solved with a 5-10% increase on anyone.
  - yequalsx 15y ago
    Here are some charts. I don't know how to make links in a comment. http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2011/07/tax-burdens-around-the-world.html http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2011/07/tax-burdens-around...
    - TomOfTTB 15y ago
      I'm not saying you're wrong because I don't know but you are over simplifying First you're forgetting those countries don't have state taxes. For example, the top tax rate in California is close to 40% when you combine both State and Federal. Plus you have some cities that have income tax. Second you're forgetting loop holes. Again the point I made above is U.S. citizens paid less in taxes when the U.S. tax rates were higher. So again I can't say you're absolutely wrong. But you did over simplify (and you also ignored the point made in the very post you were supposedly replying to)
Volpe 15y ago
> ... emerging countries like Hong Kong... Erm... I'd like to see your definition of "emerging country" because it seems completely different to the accepted definition for either of those words
yequalsx 15y ago
Raising taxes does work since the tax level in this country is quite low. It has a long way to go to catch up to France, Germany, etc. If raising taxes to the level of Germany would cause such a massive outflow of capital (which could be taxed at the exit point) then why does Germany have so much capital? Wouldn't the same thing happen to Germany? The current tax burden as a percent of GDP in the U.S. is low by U.S. standards of the last 50 years and quite low relative to other industrialized nations. The so called fiscal problem we have is easily fixable. Raising taxes is a viable strategy. http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2011/07/tax-burdens-around-the-world.html http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2011/07/tax-burdens-around...
- bd_at_rivenhill 15y ago
  If raising taxes to the level of Germany would cause such a massive outflow of capital (which could be taxed at the exit point) then why does Germany have so much capital? You're missing the fact that there are significant cultural differences between Germans and Americans. Germans seem to consider this tax rate a reasonable price to pay in order to maintain their desired social contract. Americans (especially the wealthier ones) would decide that they are getting screwed by a corrupt system and would start looking for a way to get out of paying. Funny thing is that the Germans are starting to act like Americans when it comes to paying to bail out Greeks, Italians, etc. so I suspect it boils down to Germans trusting other Germans more than Americans trust other Americans.

jamesaguilar 15y ago

> With all due respect raising taxes that high is a straw man. How high? And how is it a straw man? A straw man is a false argument that someone uses to make another person's position seem weak in a debate. I don't see that happening here. (Except maybe in your post. You're making it seem like the person you're responding to is in favor of doubling or tripling the tax rate or something, when in reality he probably supports a moderate increase.) > That's why per capita tax receipts have stayed fairly consistent over time . . . Your link shows the opposite. Per capita tax receipts have grown 250% over the last sixty years according to that chart. > I don't think we can raise taxes to the point where it would get us out of this mess How high do you think that is? Right now receipts are well south of 20% of GDP. Currently revenue would have to be doubled, but outlays typically increase and revenues decrease during a recession. If you look at the non-recession tax rates that would be needed to close that gap in, e.g., the Bush years, it would have only taken a 5-10% increase, which hardly seems as outrageous as you're making it out to be.

TomOfTTB 15y ago
> How high? And how is it a straw man? A straw man is a false argument that someone uses to make another person's position seem weak in a debate. I don't see that happening here. I suspect it's around where they were during the Clinton presidency. But I honestly don't know. And if we were making policy rationally instead of trying to demonize one side or the other what we'd be doing is trying to find that out. As for the term Straw Man what you're saying when you says "raise taxes" is "The answer is simple". You're giving the impression that the other person just doesn't want to look at the obvious answer. My point was the tax argument is false (because we can't realistically raise taxes that high) and hence the argument that our debt is a serious problem is not a weak one. > Your link shows the opposite. Per capita tax receipts have grown 250% over the last sixty years according to that chart. Consistent is relative I'll grant you that. But the point is when the top tax rate was around 90% tax receipts were lower. So in comparison to our wildly fluctuating tax policy the receipts have been relatively consistent. > How high do you think that is? Right now receipts are well south of 20% of GDP. Currently revenue would have to be doubled, but outlays typically increase and revenues decrease during a recession. If you look at the non-recession tax rates that would be needed to close that gap in, e.g., the Bush years, it would have only taken a 5-10% increase, which hardly seems as outrageous as you're making it out to be Right now you're just making up numbers so I can't really debate your point. 5-10% of what? Income tax? Capital Gains? If you combine National + Average State debt for each American the number comes out to around $150,000 per tax payer with interest. That is not something that is going to be solved with a 5-10% increase on anyone.
- yequalsx 15y ago
  Here are some charts. I don't know how to make links in a comment. http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2011/07/tax-burdens-around-the-world.html http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2011/07/tax-burdens-around...
  - TomOfTTB 15y ago
    I'm not saying you're wrong because I don't know but you are over simplifying First you're forgetting those countries don't have state taxes. For example, the top tax rate in California is close to 40% when you combine both State and Federal. Plus you have some cities that have income tax. Second you're forgetting loop holes. Again the point I made above is U.S. citizens paid less in taxes when the U.S. tax rates were higher. So again I can't say you're absolutely wrong. But you did over simplify (and you also ignored the point made in the very post you were supposedly replying to)

Volpe 15y ago

> ... emerging countries like Hong Kong... Erm... I'd like to see your definition of "emerging country" because it seems completely different to the accepted definition for either of those words

yequalsx 15y ago

Raising taxes does work since the tax level in this country is quite low. It has a long way to go to catch up to France, Germany, etc. If raising taxes to the level of Germany would cause such a massive outflow of capital (which could be taxed at the exit point) then why does Germany have so much capital? Wouldn't the same thing happen to Germany? The current tax burden as a percent of GDP in the U.S. is low by U.S. standards of the last 50 years and quite low relative to other industrialized nations. The so called fiscal problem we have is easily fixable. Raising taxes is a viable strategy. http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2011/07/tax-burdens-around-the-world.html http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2011/07/tax-burdens-around...

bd_at_rivenhill 15y ago
If raising taxes to the level of Germany would cause such a massive outflow of capital (which could be taxed at the exit point) then why does Germany have so much capital? You're missing the fact that there are significant cultural differences between Germans and Americans. Germans seem to consider this tax rate a reasonable price to pay in order to maintain their desired social contract. Americans (especially the wealthier ones) would decide that they are getting screwed by a corrupt system and would start looking for a way to get out of paying. Funny thing is that the Germans are starting to act like Americans when it comes to paying to bail out Greeks, Italians, etc. so I suspect it boils down to Germans trusting other Germans more than Americans trust other Americans.