When would you feel raising taxes is necessary?

[NeverAgain]

What do you think?

[courts]

first 2 and last mostly

[Grand Wizard Lizard of the Klan]

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7.

[Intell]

1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

[dead0man]

Only voted for 2 and 3, but totally understand and could have voted for 1,4,6,7.  5 should never EVER be an option, and anybody that thinks it should is an ass.

[Clark Kent]

3 and 5, but only in very limited cases for the latter.

[Mr. Smith]

All of the above but 6, the question is when are these claims justified and by how much should the taxes be raised.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Only voted for 2 and 3, but totally understand and could have voted for 1,4,6,7.  5 should never EVER be an option, and anybody that thinks it should is an ass.

Well if you think of it as a fine rather than a tax...

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

This is a very odd question tbh. The aim of taxes should be to:

a) redistribute wealth (and therefore power) from those who have hoarded it
b) de-incentivise non-useful activities (pollution, land wastage, money hoarding, useless financial speculation) while making sure not to de-incentivise useful ones (investment, work)
c) cover the operating costs of the government

and for it to be tenable it must:

d) be as hard to evade/avoid as possible
e) come down on those who can afford to pay rather than the poor

[dead0man]

Only voted for 2 and 3, but totally understand and could have voted for 1,4,6,7.  5 should never EVER be an option, and anybody that thinks it should is an ass.

Well if you think of it as a fine rather than a tax...

Why should people pay a fine for wanting to do something other people find questionable?  Especially when it's usually upper class twats forcing these "fines" on the lower class....for their own good of course.  How the funk is that better in any way?  I'm not understanding your semantics argument here.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Only voted for 2 and 3, but totally understand and could have voted for 1,4,6,7.  5 should never EVER be an option, and anybody that thinks it should is an ass.

Well if you think of it as a fine rather than a tax...

Why should people pay a fine for wanting to do something other people find questionable?  Especially when it's usually upper class twats forcing these "fines" on the lower class....for their own good of course.  How the funk is that better in any way?  I'm not understanding your semantics argument here.

It often helps to internalize the externalities associated with these products. It's not flawless, but it's the best we got. If you're going to have health issues from smoking, that's likely a cost not factored into the initial cost before tax. The government is likely going to have to take of this somehow.

[Supersonic]

2, 3 and 5 generally speaking.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Only voted for 2 and 3, but totally understand and could have voted for 1,4,6,7.  5 should never EVER be an option, and anybody that thinks it should is an ass.

Well if you think of it as a fine rather than a tax...

Why should people pay a fine for wanting to do something other people find questionable?  Especially when it's usually upper class twats forcing these "fines" on the lower class....for their own good of course.  How the funk is that better in any way?  I'm not understanding your semantics argument here.

All tax to some extent works as disincentive. Most of the times that is actually quite bad because the activities involved are needed for the economy to function. Sales taxes, for instance, disincentivise commerce. Income tax disincentivises work, payroll tax on employment, property tax on developing property etc. So is it not better to make taxes that disincenativises something unpleasant or unneeded in society, rather than "good things"? I say fines, because we largely accept that the government can fine somebody for speeding or petty vandalism or basic white-collar shenanigans. You can rejig them so they're progressive (i.e. rich man pays steeper fines than poor guy), but most people accept the "fine" as useful tool.

You can apply the same for other undesirable activities. There is a wide amount of financial speculation that is unneeded and - to some extent - dangerous to the stability of the economy. Although the chief reason they aren't taxed is because of capital flight, it is a behaviour that could be disincentivised while providing revenue to boot. (and unlike other revenue sources like income tax or sales tax, it doesn't disincentivise activities which are very important for society).

The popular concept of Land Value Tax can also be applied here. In many countries, individuals hoard land. I view this as a bad practice - in that it is economically unproductive and unethical. A LVT acts as a sort of "land usage" assessor based on market rent, so individuals and organisations can look at all the land they own and assess whether they are making economic use of it. In that way, it acts as a disincentive of owning derelict brownfield land, a travasty in countries where homelessness is a problem and allows land ownership to diffuse out to the population (theoretically).

These taxes also provide a more efficient way to deal with societal problems than "Big Government" ones. If you place a per tonne carbon tax across the board, for instance, businesses and organisations find a way to deal with it. They invent new activities to lessen the carbon they produce, they probe through the supply chain trying to wring out any loss profit and they manage. It's just more efficient than a central-planned "Direct Action" solution (although they have their place).

Yes, I know you're talking about evil Bloomberg imposing his SUGAH TAX AND MUH LIBERTREE; but even that (to a certain extent) is better than the FDA making endless quotas for sugar in specific products or whatever (if we accept the government has a role in public health). I agree that one shouldn't get too reliant on it though - the number of public budgets that are propped up on ever-increasing tobacco taxes on an ever-dwindling customer base is pretty funny.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Corporate Taxes - Never
Other Taxes - Only if necessary to balance the budget or fund declared war

[Goldwater]

I voted for 1, 2, 3, and 7.

[NeverAgain]

This is a very odd question tbh. The aim of taxes should be to:

a) redistribute wealth (and therefore power) from those who have hoarded it
b) de-incentivise non-useful activities (pollution, land wastage, money hoarding, useless financial speculation) while making sure not to de-incentivise useful ones (investment, work)
c) cover the operating costs of the government

and for it to be tenable it must:

d) be as hard to evade/avoid as possible
e) come down on those who can afford to pay rather than the poor

I may do a "which taxes should be raised/lowered one, I just didn't know how to convey the taxes point. Sorry bout' that.

[Classic Conservative]

Number 3 but it should only be in times of WW2 not if there was another Iraq. Otherwise no new taxes.

[RINO Tom]

I mean, INITIALLY, all of them ... but we're well past initially (this is related to my frustration when people claim Lincoln or Eisenhower were liberals for spending money on infrastructure ... we hardly ing had any!!  That's not reason to keep spending more and more each year), so I will assume you're asking when is it necessary to raise taxes starting now.  Given that, I'd go with 2 and 3.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Option 5, although I would add to promote American industry (i.e. tariffs).

[Mercenary]

2.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Obviously, it depends on what the current tax rates are and whether additional revenue is necessary. Voted option 7, but I could support any and all of 1-6 depending on context.

[OSR stands with Israel]

If the country were in a world war or in a depression.

[dead0man]

Only voted for 2 and 3, but totally understand and could have voted for 1,4,6,7.  5 should never EVER be an option, and anybody that thinks it should is an ass.

Well if you think of it as a fine rather than a tax...

Why should people pay a fine for wanting to do something other people find questionable?  Especially when it's usually upper class twats forcing these "fines" on the lower class....for their own good of course.  How the funk is that better in any way?  I'm not understanding your semantics argument here.

It often helps to internalize the externalities associated with these products. It's not flawless, but it's the best we got. If you're going to have health issues from smoking, that's likely a cost not factored into the initial cost before tax. The government is likely going to have to take of this somehow.

With the amount of tax smokers pay, everyone of them should get 2 free lungs when (if? ) they reach, say, 65.  But no, they have to pay for their medical care out of pocket just like everybody else that didn't pay those taxes for all those years.

All tax to some extent works as disincentive. Most of the times that is actually quite bad because the activities involved are needed for the economy to function. Sales taxes, for instance, disincentivise commerce. Income tax disincentivises work, payroll tax on employment, property tax on developing property etc. So is it not better to make taxes that disincenativises something unpleasant or unneeded in society, rather than "good things"? I say fines, because we largely accept that the government can fine somebody for speeding or petty vandalism or basic white-collar shenanigans. You can rejig them so they're progressive (i.e. rich man pays steeper fines than poor guy), but most people accept the "fine" as useful tool.

agreed

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I disagree, but it's not a very solid disagreement.  I'm not well versed in the particularities and you have some good arguments on your side.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually I was just thinking of cig and drink tax and the always mentioned when legal weed comes up "just tax the hell out of it!".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Indeed.  But they'll just be replacing it with a weed tax.  At least people of all social classes smoke pot at more or less the same rates, at least when compared to smoking.  I guess everybody drinks too.  I just don't like sin taxes.  The govt's job isn't to make sure everybody stays healthy.  It doesn't matter if it's through mild financial inconvenience or force, it's still really wrong feeling, at least to me.  It's as icky to me as a national church, them telling me I can't draw a picture of something, taxing me on food (or anything) I grow and eat/use myself or using my basement to store military gear or military dudes.

[Enduro]

This is a very odd question tbh. The aim of taxes should be to:

a) redistribute wealth (and therefore power) from those who have hoarded it
b) de-incentivise non-useful activities (pollution, land wastage, money hoarding, useless financial speculation) while making sure not to de-incentivise useful ones (investment, work)
c) cover the operating costs of the government

and for it to be tenable it must:

d) be as hard to evade/avoid as possible
e) come down on those who can afford to pay rather than the poor

A. Nope, taxes don't exist to punish people whose done well for themselves.
B. I can see why you'd put this one down, but taxes exist for one reason.
C. That's the reason.
D. Yup
E. Should be an equal percentage for those who do pay them.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Well Enduro, you have just stumbled on the philosphical difference between right- and left-wingers As a leftist, I view the unnecessary overaccumulation of wealth as something worthy of punitive measures, but as a rightist, you don't.

dead0man, part of that issue is the utilitarian argument: "sin taxes" pay for the burden the "sins" place on society. As for debates, on the nanny state, I'm conflicted. I dislike paternalism as a rule, but at the same time (especially in the Third World) I'm wary of powerful tobacco companies targeting more and more generations.