4 ms·

> 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 a

> 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)
    - yequalsx 15y ago
      The chart says total tax burden so I'm assuming it takes into account state taxes. The one chart indicates an average for the U.S. of around 26%. This would be a 2% increase from what it is today. In a $10 trillion economy this would be a $200 billion tax increase. Given that borrowing rates are so low right now an awful lot of money can be borrowed before the budgetary burden reaches $200 billion in additional annual spending. I responded to your post in another comment.
      - TomOfTTB 15y ago
        Total tax burden is a vague term. They could easily mean total Federal tax burden since they're comparing countries. This NY Times article pegs the total U.S. Federal tax burden at 20.7% which makes the numbers you quote seem dubious http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/how-much-americans-actually-pay-in-taxes/ http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/how-much-americ...
        15y ago

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)
  - yequalsx 15y ago
    The chart says total tax burden so I'm assuming it takes into account state taxes. The one chart indicates an average for the U.S. of around 26%. This would be a 2% increase from what it is today. In a $10 trillion economy this would be a $200 billion tax increase. Given that borrowing rates are so low right now an awful lot of money can be borrowed before the budgetary burden reaches $200 billion in additional annual spending. I responded to your post in another comment.
    - TomOfTTB 15y ago
      Total tax burden is a vague term. They could easily mean total Federal tax burden since they're comparing countries. This NY Times article pegs the total U.S. Federal tax burden at 20.7% which makes the numbers you quote seem dubious http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/how-much-americans-actually-pay-in-taxes/ http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/how-much-americ...
      - 15y ago