What is level of taxation you're willing to bear?

[maxiep]

We have a broad spectrum of posters on this site and their belief in the role of government. If you could create a tax policy that covered city, state and federal government taxation, what is the maximum percentage of your income you're willing to have all levels of government tax to pay for all the services you desire? Assume the budget has to be balanced.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

We have a broad spectrum of posters on this site and their belief in the role of government. If you could create a tax policy that covered city, state and federal government taxation, what is the maximum percentage of your income you're willing to have all levels of government tax to pay for all the services you desire? Assume the budget has to be balanced.

If you are also including SS and property taxes, I'd say about 18%. That's pleanty to meet people's basic handouts from the government.

 

[maxiep]

I think 20% of my income is an appropriate level of taxation.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I would normally say 20% or less, but I'm all for everyone being taxed an additional X% to solely get us out of debt. And for paying off people over 50's medicare/caid/SS, but stopping benefits for people younger than that. "Accountability Generation".

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I would normally say 20% or less, but I'm all for everyone being taxed an additional X% to solely get us out of debt. And for paying off people over 50's medicare/caid/SS, but stopping benefits for people younger than that. "Accountability Generation".

I agree. If we had some deep and logical cuts in most of our programs and a balanced budget, I would favor a 5% national sales tax dedicated to the national debt.

 

[maxiep]

BTW, if it could be dedicated only for federal debt payoff, I would be in favor of an additional 5% "debt tax".

 

[maxiep]

I agree. If we had some deep and logical cuts in most of our programs and a balanced budget, I would favor a 5% national sales tax dedicated to the national debt.

Whoa! Get out of my head! Same thought, same time.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

I wouldn't really care all that much as long as it was flat. But for polls sake, what....35%.

 

[Minstrel]

It's hard to answer, since I believe in progressive taxation, not a flat tax rate. So, a higher tax rate the further up the wealth spectrum you are.

I voted for how much I think is reasonable at my own level.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Whoa! Get out of my head! Same thought, same time.

Yeah, but I posted mine first. Therefore, you just won the Joe Biden S2 Plagiarize Award for 2010.

I'm suing.

 

[mook]

Is there an industrialized (non-petroleum-based) country anywhere that enjoys a 20% or less tax rate?

 

[mook]

For me it's between 35% and 50%, depending on the nation's will. The lesser amount if we only want to limp along as we have, or as much as 50% if we really wanted to get serious about the national debt, universal single payer health care and a revolutionary energy policy that dangled massive carrots for nuclear/solar/etc innovation.

I realize you are asking only what I desire, not what the nation desires, but in truth I don't think I can really separate the two. If most of my country disagrees with me on the 50% side, well, I'd rather have the 35% that everybody can put up with. I may have a near-communist economic philosophy, but I'm not pushy about it.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I guess for me it comes down to an issue of "what do we feel we need to pay for" vs. "what we think we should pay for" vs. "what we'd like in an ideal world".

Federally, Military and infrastructure (power, freeways, rail/ATC) would fall into "need" for me. "Should" would be secondary education. "Ideal" would be health care. Nowhere would be "welfare"
At the community/state level would be primary education, fire and law enforcement "need", intelligent public assistance "should", health care "ideal".

I don't know why someone should have to pay 35-50% of their income for anything government-related. And I don't quite get what right the gov't has to my estate on my death, or to my investments in life.

 

[Denny Crane]

Here's a hypothetical minuscule economy.

maxiep goes into his gold mine and digs up $100 worth of gold nuggets.

He then pays mook that $100 to paint his fence.

mook then pays minstrel that $100 to mow his lawn.

Tax man comes along and taxes everyone 50%.

mook can pay the $50.

minstrel and maxiep get thrown in jail for not being able to pay their tax bill. It costs the govt. $50 for their jail cell.

The GDP of this economy is $300. The govt. wants to tax $150 at a 50% tax rate.

Of course maxiep could have paid $50 for the fence and mook paid $25 for the lawn job. It sure would suck to be minstrel, taking home $12.50 for his labor. The value of that GDP is $175 and we suck as a nation compared to the one with the $300 GDP.

 

[Natebishop3]

I would normally say 20% or less, but I'm all for everyone being taxed an additional X% to solely get us out of debt. And for paying off people over 50's medicare/caid/SS, but stopping benefits for people younger than that. "Accountability Generation".

One problem.... do you really think the government would lower the taxes after the debt was paid off?

 

[OSUBlazerfan]

Im at like 34% now, anything over 40% would prob be unbareable

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

One problem.... do you really think the government would lower the taxes after the debt was paid off?

They could, but probably wouldn't.

 

[mook]

One problem.... do you really think the government would lower the taxes after the debt was paid off?

Why do you say that? Our current nation of whiners doesn't tolerate nearly the taxation of past generations:

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

What about that graph makes you think if we raised taxes at some point they wouldn't go down soon afterward?

The easiest thing in the world to do in modern politics is to offer a tax cut. It's the default response of politicians on both left and right for every problem.

 

[Denny Crane]

mook - that's top marginal rate.

 

[mook]

mook - that's top marginal rate.

And your point is what...that taxes have gone up since 1981? Because for all the complaining I hear about taxes, your chart pretty much supports my point. They really don't go up. Not long-term.

 

[Eastoff]

I have seen the rates that Mook posted before and believe them to be true. They do not match up with the graph you posted Denny. The highest 1% has very little difference on your chart, and yet it has a significant difference on the one mook posted. Someone has false data.

 

[Denny Crane]

Mook's data is not representative of whatever argument he's trying to make.

The income tax is graduated. You pay X% on your first Y dollars, then Z% on your next dollars of income, and so on. The effective rate is what people actually pay. The top marginal rate is the % someone paid on the portion of their income, say from $240K to $250K or whatever.

Few ever paid that top rate because they could pay accountants to figure out tax shelters.

A better measure, even, would be tax revenue as a % of GDP.

 

[Denny Crane]

This explains it better:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/MarginalTaxRates.html

The marginal tax rate is the rate on the last dollar of income earned. This is very different from the average tax rate, which is the total tax paid as a percentage of total income earned. In 2003, for example, the United States imposed a 35 percent tax on every dollar of taxable income above $155,975 earned by a married taxpayer filing separately. But that tax bracket applied only to earnings above that $155,975 threshold; income below that cutoff point would still be taxed at rates of 10 percent on the first $7,000, 15 percent on the next $14,400, and so on. Depending on deductions, a taxpayer might pay a relatively modest average tax on total earnings, yet nonetheless face a 28–35 percent marginal tax on any activities that could push income higher—such as extra effort, education, entrepreneurship, or investment. Marginal decisions (such as extra effort or investment) depend mainly on marginal incentives (extra income, after taxes).

 

[MARIS61]

It's hard to answer, since I believe in progressive taxation, not a flat tax rate. So, a higher tax rate the further up the wealth spectrum you are.

I voted for how much I think is reasonable at my own level.

Ditto, although I didn't vote as my income has varied greatly from year to year.

I'm much more concerned with what my family and my countrymen get for our tax dollars than what it costs us. I just don't want to be ripped off.

 

[barfo]

I'm not sure how to answer the question. It seems to me backwards - usually one asks the question "what do I want to buy" first, rather than "what do I want to spend". I personally could be happy with a wide range of tax rates, but of course I'd expect government to provide the citizens with more services if I was paying 60% than if I was paying 30%.

Off the top of my head, I'd be willing to pay higher taxes for national health insurance, infrastructure projects in general and high-speed rail in particular, and - like many posters in this thread - to pay down the debt. There are things I'd prefer to spend less money on, too. One that comes to mind is defense projects that the Pentagon doesn't even want.

I think anyone who is voting for a rate less than they currently pay should specify what spending they'd cut to arrive at the lower tax rate. It's easy to be for tax cuts if you don't have to consider the effects.

Of course I know many of you are quite eager to cut various things out of the federal budget, so naming the programs you want to cut shouldn't present any great difficulty.

To make it harder, two things: first, do the math. It won't work to give everyone a 10% tax cut in return for cutting some $20,000 research project on reproduction in African dungbeetles.

Secondly, perhaps it would be good to present a plan for dealing with the effects of the cuts. For example, if you are going to blow away social security, as Brian wants to do... well, a lot of old folks live off their social security checks now. If there is no social security coming, what happens to the poor elderly? Are we ok with having more old people starve and/or freeze to death? Are we ok with possibly the average life expectancy going down? Or is Brian's church going to take care of all the old fogeys (and if so, where is the church going to get the money to do that?). If old farts have to work longer due to no retirement, doesn't that reduce the number of jobs available to younger people? Is it better to have old people working and young people on unemployment, or is it better to have old people on social security and young people working?

I'm not saying there aren't answers to questions like these, or that people who want to cut government haven't thought about them. I'm just saying I'd be interested in hearing the answers.

barfo

 

[BrianFromWA]

You're misrepresenting, barfo. Even in the post above, I'm for keeping SS for "fogeys". They've paid into SS, and they don't have the means (generally) to save up another retirement. Those under 50, however, do. Something like the following (obviously I haven't done the trades for exact ages and percentages):

Over 50...you get what you have coming under the present rules. You pay what you've been paying into SS.
35-50: you get some percentage (around 40% or so), and keep paying what you've been paying into SS. You get a higher limit on your Roth/401k.
under 35: you'll continue to pay into SS, maybe at some reduced percentage (75% or so). You get a higher limit on Roth/401k. You'll never get a dime of social security.

It sucks to be under 35 (like me), but it's better to know now that you're not getting a dime and are responsible for your own savings, than to get to 60 and find out the gov't's not paying anymore.

And I'm a HUGE fan of public assistance being given out at the community level, even if it's with Federal dollars (which I don't agree with). It allows for accountability and aid to those on public assistance, not some check-by-mail every month no matter what you're doing.

 

[maxiep]

I'm not sure how to answer the question. It seems to me backwards - usually one asks the question "what do I want to buy" first, rather than "what do I want to spend". I personally could be happy with a wide range of tax rates, but of course I'd expect government to provide the citizens with more services if I was paying 60% than if I was paying 30%.

Off the top of my head, I'd be willing to pay higher taxes for national health insurance, infrastructure projects in general and high-speed rail in particular, and - like many posters in this thread - to pay down the debt. There are things I'd prefer to spend less money on, too. One that comes to mind is defense projects that the Pentagon doesn't even want.

I think anyone who is voting for a rate less than they currently pay should specify what spending they'd cut to arrive at the lower tax rate. It's easy to be for tax cuts if you don't have to consider the effects.

Of course I know many of you are quite eager to cut various things out of the federal budget, so naming the programs you want to cut shouldn't present any great difficulty.

To make it harder, two things: first, do the math. It won't work to give everyone a 10% tax cut in return for cutting some $20,000 research project on reproduction in African dungbeetles.

Secondly, perhaps it would be good to present a plan for dealing with the effects of the cuts. For example, if you are going to blow away social security, as Brian wants to do... well, a lot of old folks live off their social security checks now. If there is no social security coming, what happens to the poor elderly? Are we ok with having more old people starve and/or freeze to death? Are we ok with possibly the average life expectancy going down? Or is Brian's church going to take care of all the old fogeys (and if so, where is the church going to get the money to do that?). If old farts have to work longer due to no retirement, doesn't that reduce the number of jobs available to younger people? Is it better to have old people working and young people on unemployment, or is it better to have old people on social security and young people working?

I'm not saying there aren't answers to questions like these, or that people who want to cut government haven't thought about them. I'm just saying I'd be interested in hearing the answers.

barfo

Note I wrote "what is the maximum percentage of your income you're willing to have all levels of government tax to pay for all the services you desire?"

So, did you answer "60%"?

 

[barfo]

You're misrepresenting, barfo. Even in the post above, I'm for keeping SS for "fogeys". They've paid into SS, and they don't have the means (generally) to save up another retirement. Those under 50, however, do. Something like the following (obviously I haven't done the trades for exact ages and percentages):

No, I knew that, but eventually even young people turn into old fogeys. It's those people I was asking about.

Over 50...you get what you have coming under the present rules. You pay what you've been paying into SS.

Obviously no issue.

35-50: you get some percentage (around 40% or so), and keep paying what you've been paying into SS. You get a higher limit on your Roth/401k.

Ok. Something is better than nothing, and some percentage (not 100%) will save more if given the opportunity. Of course the market may not help their 401k.

under 35: you'll continue to pay into SS, maybe at some reduced percentage (75% or so). You get a higher limit on Roth/401k. You'll never get a dime of social security.

It sucks to be under 35 (like me), but it's better to know now that you're not getting a dime and are responsible for your own savings, than to get to 60 and find out the gov't's not paying anymore.

Yeah, I understand that you kids will have warning and will have to plan ahead, but let's face it: some people don't plan ahead, and some people's plans get derailed, either due to their own mistakes or due to circumstances beyond their control.

And I'm a HUGE fan of public assistance being given out at the community level, even if it's with Federal dollars (which I don't agree with).

You are a huge fan of something you don't agree with? How does that work?

It allows for accountability and aid to those on public assistance, not some check-by-mail every month no matter what you're doing.

That's a reasonable answer. Aid to those who need it, but not to those who don't. Basically stop sending SS checks to rich folk. I don't have any problem with that. Although it might actually cost more to do it that way - SS is pretty efficient since it just involves automatically mailing checks. Actually having caseworkers check for eligibility is kind of an expensive proposition, no?

barfo

 

[barfo]

Note I wrote "what is the maximum percentage of your income you're willing to have all levels of government tax to pay for all the services you desire?"

So, did you answer "60%"?

My answer is however much it costs. Saying I desire tons of services but I'm only willing to pay 5% is pretty silly. But if the services only cost 25%, it would also be pretty silly to be willing to pay 50%.

So if I'm king, I make the list of services that I want government to provide, add up the costs, and then tax the people and myself enough to pay for them.

barfo

 

[BrianFromWA]

For the "Huge fan" part, perhaps I didn't type it well...I don't like that Federal dollars are given for public assistance, but even if they were, I'd rather the community-level governments be the ones that administer the programs.