CATO: Please raise taxes

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Damn socialists.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/05/11/starve-the-beast-just-does-not-work/

[MODU]

No . . . cut the pork.

[David S]

Congress needs to cut spending but congress has proven that it does not have even the slightest discipline in spending. At a time when we are running deficits of $400 billion, Congress  cannot even eliminate the pork projects like bridges to nowhere. The only way to fix this is to throw them all out and replace them with third party candidates who advocate fiscal responsibility. But that's not going to happen so get used to the deficits.

BTW for those who claim Clinton created budget surpluses please note that the federal debt went up every single year that he was in office.

[nlm]

No . . . cut the pork.

I agree, but, it would seem, just saying 'cut the pork' is nevering going to amount to more than words. I still say we absolutely need some form of balanced budget ammendment. If the idiots that run our country want to waste our money (like they do all the time) then they should have to raise our taxes to do so - and in doing so be quickly kicked out of office.

[muon2]

No . . . cut the pork.

Niskanen's argument is interesting. He says that you must cut pork, but the pressure to cut pork comes from voters feeling the pinch of taxes.  Some modest tax burden encourages greater responsibility for the programs funded by those taxes. If the tax burden were zero, there would be zero incentive to cut any programs - ie, because you are spending some else's money.

[David S]

No . . . cut the pork.

Niskanen's argument is interesting. He says that you must cut pork, but the pressure to cut pork comes from voters feeling the pinch of taxes.  Some modest tax burden encourages greater responsibility for the programs funded by those taxes. If the tax burden were zero, there would be zero incentive to cut any programs - ie, because you are spending some else's money.

Excellent comment. That's why I feel that a fair tax system should be one that causes equal agony to everyone.

There is an old saying; "The government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul." As long as the politicians arrange taxes so that there are more Pauls than Peters they keep getting re-elected. The unfairness to Peter is of no concern to them.

[MODU]

No . . . cut the pork.

Niskanen's argument is interesting. He says that you must cut pork, but the pressure to cut pork comes from voters feeling the pinch of taxes.  Some modest tax burden encourages greater responsibility for the programs funded by those taxes. If the tax burden were zero, there would be zero incentive to cut any programs - ie, because you are spending some else's money.

True, but if people were more attentive to how Congress spends their money to begin with, they pressure could come much earlier in the process, rather than when Congress decides to increase taxes.  hehehe . . . but as we all know here, most people don't pay that close of attention to government actions.

[MaC]

I've never advocated 'starve the beast' jfern, for your information.  I'm one of the few (from 'my type' on this forum) that will bash Bush for the 2003 tax cut because it was in the wrong time in the wrong place.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Raise taxes and cut pork. Also start subsidizing states based on how much tax revenue. No more letting places like utah or west virginia leech money from states like new york.

[Nym90]

Raise taxes and cut pork. Also start subsidizing states based on how much tax revenue. No more letting places like utah or west virginia leech money from states like new york.

True. It's interesting that overall the Republican states tend to benefit more from federal spending than they contribute in taxes, while the Democratic states obviously are thus the opposite.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Raise taxes and cut pork. Also start subsidizing states based on how much tax revenue. No more letting places like utah or west virginia leech money from states like new york.

True. It's interesting that overall the Republican states tend to benefit more from federal spending than they contribute in taxes, while the Democratic states obviously are thus the opposite.

A lot of that may be because of the Senate and electoral college giving disproportionate influence to the small states. Also states like Iowa have too much influence for other political reasons.

[Nym90]

Raise taxes and cut pork. Also start subsidizing states based on how much tax revenue. No more letting places like utah or west virginia leech money from states like new york.

True. It's interesting that overall the Republican states tend to benefit more from federal spending than they contribute in taxes, while the Democratic states obviously are thus the opposite.

A lot of that may be because of the Senate and electoral college giving disproportionate influence to the small states. Also states like Iowa have too much influence for other political reasons.

True, plus the Republican states, on the average, tend to be poorer than the Democratic ones, hence their overall tax burden is lower and they benefit more from federal government programs.

[MODU]

True, plus the Republican states, on the average, tend to be poorer than the Democratic ones, hence their overall tax burden is lower and they benefit more from federal government programs.

To boil it down to "democratic" vs "republican" states ignores the voting histories of those states.  After all, it wasn't too long ago when the south was democratic and California was republican.

[David S]

Raise taxes and cut pork. Also start subsidizing states based on how much tax revenue. No more letting places like utah or west virginia leech money from states like new york.

True. It's interesting that overall the Republican states tend to benefit more from federal spending than they contribute in taxes, while the Democratic states obviously are thus the opposite.

Why don't the Democrats wise up and stop giving the money to government so it can be redistributed to Republicans?

[Storebought]

No need: once all the temporary tax cuts expire by 2009 or so, we'll be back to 1993 levels in no time.

[MODU]

No need: once all the temporary tax cuts expire by 2009 or so, we'll be back to 1993 levels in no time.

Going back to the fact that we don't need to increase taxes.  Just cut the waste and get the government out of many socialist programs.

[adam]

God forbid we acctually try fiscal responsibility. Cut the pork and stop forcing us to pay for the economic failures of our legislators.

[Nym90]

True, plus the Republican states, on the average, tend to be poorer than the Democratic ones, hence their overall tax burden is lower and they benefit more from federal government programs.

To boil it down to "democratic" vs "republican" states ignores the voting histories of those states.  After all, it wasn't too long ago when the south was democratic and California was republican.

This is true; I'm not sure if the percentages of spending and taxes among the states were the same then as they are now. But in any event, it still is interesting; it does speak to the fact that most people vote more on social issues today than economics (either that, or people have an inaccurate view of the actual overall impact of taxes and spending).

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

No need: once all the temporary tax cuts expire by 2009 or so, we'll be back to 1993 levels in no time.

Going back to the fact that we don't need to increase taxes.  Just cut the waste and get the government out of many socialist programs.

Your first statement is wrong but the second one is right. Its not to our advantage fo be running a deficit and being so in debt.

[MODU]

Yet we don't want to run a constant surplus either.  That means the nation is overtaxing the citizens and/or misusing public funds.  Yes, the debt should be smaller, and it will be.  However, you don't shrink it by increasing taxes.  Just get rid of the waste in the government and keep tax levels where they are.  The debt will drop to a satisfiable level and that is where we should keep it, but never eliminate it all together.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Yet we don't want to run a constant surplus either.  That means the nation is overtaxing the citizens and/or misusing public funds.  Yes, the debt should be smaller, and it will be.  However, you don't shrink it by increasing taxes.  Just get rid of the waste in the government and keep tax levels where they are.  The debt will drop to a satisfiable level and that is where we should keep it, but never eliminate it all together.

Mention something about reverting taxes back to the pre bush II levels in there and I'd agree with you.