Taxes Are Not The Answer
by Big Dog on Jul 19, 2011 at 21:48 Political
When taxes are raised there is a certain level at which they fail to produce the expected results. People who are taxed find ways to avoid paying the taxes or have incentive not to earn as much. The very wealthy find tax shelters and the middle class gets socked. This is true at the national level and is worth remembering as we debate the debt limit. The Democrats want to impose taxes (that and spending is all they know) on the wealthy which they define down to $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples. The Democrats want these folks to pay their fair share even though they shoulder almost the entire tax burden. Lower taxes increase revenue and higher taxes suppress revenue but the Democrats do not care. Even Obama, who said that raising taxes during hard economic times was not wise, wants to raise taxes.
Any politician who votes for this scheme should be removed from office.
Even the middle class will look for ways to avoid taxes. Yes, those who always scream to tax the rich look for ways to avoid taxes. In Baltimore the City imposed a tax on beverages (the bottle tax) and though it has brought in about 5 million dollars that figure is 1 million lower than was expected and at least 70 jobs have been lost because of the tax. Now officials want to repeal the tax because it is killing jobs and not performing as expected.
And they have figured out what I said all along. People in the city can drive to a neighboring county and buy beverages and avoid the City’s bottle tax.
Well, not all of them have figured it out. The Mayor expects the repeal to be defeated and is not unhappy about that. In addition, a candidate for Mayor has stated he wants to impose a new tax, one he claims will lower the crimes that involve shootings.
Otis Rolley wants to impose a $1 per bullet tax on ammunition sold in the city. Rolley believes that this additional tax will make it harder for criminals to afford bullets and therefore will lower the number of shootings in the city.
First of all, as with the bottle tax, people can drive to a neighboring jurisdiction and buy bullets. There are plenty of stores that sell ammunition surrounding the city and people can go there and avoid the additional $20 to $50 per box of ammo. Come to think of it, a box of 500 rounds of 22 caliber would incur a $500 tax!
People could also order their ammo through the internet and have it delivered to their house or to the house of a relative who lives outside the city.
People will avoid taxes no matter how much they claim to support them. One only needs to look at Warren Buffett, John Kerry, Tim Geithner, Charlie Rangel and a slew of other Democrats who always seek higher taxes but work hard to avoid paying them.
And putting all that aside, what makes Mr. Rolley think that people who obtain firearms illegally, carry them illegally, and use them illegally will worry about obtaining ammunition legally? I imagine some enterprising person will purchase a lot of ammo from surrounding counties and sell it to people in the city. Rolley will create a black market of ammo dealers who will look to make a buck by circumventing the tax.
Only a liberal would believe that a person who breaks the law will suddenly follow another law designed to impede his criminal activities.
Raising taxes is a bad idea and allowing liberals to get into office is an even worse one.
A side note to Mr. Rolley. The city has a high crime rate with or without guns. The city needs to lock criminals up and keep them in jail instead of operating a revolving door justice system. And allowing law abiding citizens their Second Amendment right to carry arms would make criminals think twice. They would never know who is carrying. But this is Maryland and the Democrats in this state love to trample on our Constitutionally protected rights.
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: beverage tax, bullet tax, liberals, lies, Obama, otis rolley, tax avoidance
“When taxes are raised there is a certain level at which they fail to produce the expected results.”
That is true. But as an excuse for not taxing the richest Americans more it is pretty misleading. The limit is not reached by increasing taxes just about 3% on those making over $250,000. The Bush tax cuts have done nothing but drive deficits and give the GOP the chance to blame Democrats for it.
What do you mean not taxing the richest? They pay nearly all the taxes now with the top 1% paying more than the bottom 95%. If you actually are looking for a fair solution then the bottom needs to pull its weight. The tax cuts were not a problem. In every year after they were enacted the revenue went up. The problem is that in every year how much they spent went up even more. Tax cuts increase revenue but government does not have the ability to control what it spends and this is why we have problems now. We take in 2.4 trillion a year and spend 3.6 trillion. Can’t keep doing that.
When taxes go up revenue does not follow. So let us recap, out of control spending has done nothing but drive up deficits. Tax cuts gave us more revenue. Look it up.
I understand your position though. It is about class warfare. When you divide a pie the wealthy have to buy the pie and then you cut off a little piece for them and give the rest to those who did not pay for the pie and then you demand the rich buy more pie for the poor so they will be providing their fair share. I would ask that instead of asking those who pay all the taxes to pay more you concentrate on making Democrats pay what they owe…
“They pay nearly all the taxes now with the top 1% paying more than the bottom 95%.”
That’s not true. But they do pay a lot. After all, they earn a lot. In 2005 the top 1% earned about 16.3% of the income in the country and paid about 25.4% of the federal taxes.
“In every year after they were enacted the revenue went up.”
Really? Based on what? It’s hard to tell what revenue was doing since the 2000’s were a crap sandwich with 2 recessions for the bread.
Based on the income and expense figures from the government.
You hit the nail on the head Adam, they EARN the money. It belongs to them. They pay nearly all the taxes now so by what morality is it OK to forcibly take what they EARN. So what you are saying is they pay a higher percentage of the taxes than the percentage of income they EARN. And you want them to pay more.
You act as if the Republicans are doing this. Your side controlled Congress and the White House for two years and had majorities large enough to enact anything without one Republican voting yes. So tell me, why did they not do it then?
Even your messiah said that raising taxes in an economic downturn would be bad for the economy and job growth. You guys keep screaming about tax cuts last December. There were no tax cuts but you all keep screaming that those tax cuts did not help. All they did was keep the same rates in place.
We need a flat tax where everyone gets the chance to be patriotic and pay their fair share.
“It is about class warfare.”
Yes, that 3% increase in income taxes is designed to destroy the wealthy in America and level the playing field. Right.
The 3% will do nothing to help the economy, will not solve the debt problem and will not fix anything.
Why is it you have no problem taking this money, after all it is only 3%, but oppose small cuts in budgets? If they said they were going to cut SS or Medicare by 3% you would be screaming about old people eating cat food.
One more thing. As the article points out, incre4asing taxes does not render the expected results. MD raised taxes in a special session and the state has taken in less money.
Wealthy people moved out of state, businesses moved out and people are shopping in Virginia and Delaware.
“So what you are saying is they pay a higher percentage of the taxes than the percentage of income they EARN. And you want them to pay more.”
Yes and yes. I don’t know if you think I should be ashamed of myself for wanting to return to the tax level on the rich we had in 1999. You tend to want to invoke images of draconian increases and class warfare to destroy the rich when it was barely 10 years ago the Bush taxes went through and it cut income taxes by about 3%.
“You act as if the Republicans are doing this.”
The wealthy tend to spread the cash around to hedge their bets. We have Democrats that protect the rich just like the Republicans do but it’s much more common on your side.
“We need a flat tax where everyone gets the chance to be patriotic and pay their fair share.”
While it’s common to find Democrats opposed to higher taxes on the rich it’s very rare to find a Democrat repeating insanity about how the lower and middle class need to pay more if anybody pays more.
We have a progressive tax scale, yes. The rich pay a bigger percentage of taxes compared to their percentage of income than the wealthy do. It’s just not that big of a gap.
“As the article points out, increasing taxes does not render the expected results.”
Well, contrary to the kind of view you promote about taxes there is no black and white situation. Raising taxes does not always increase revenue and cutting taxes does not always decrease it. But in the case of rolling back income taxes 3% as Bush did we know a few things. It didn’t boost jobs or the economy whatsoever but it has cost us a trillion dollars since it passed.
Bush cut taxes multiple times, went to war twice, pushed through a drug bill and did so all without paying for it. Then after years of deficit spending by Republicans your side cries about how we need to scale back social programs and blame it all on tax and spend Democrats.
“Why is it you have no problem taking this money, after all it is only 3%, but oppose small cuts in budgets?”
I don’t oppose small business cuts across the board. You’d have to approach me on a case by case basis to see if I support it or not. If Obama really wants to shrink the deficit he’ll need to cut spending and raise taxes. That’s all there is to it.
No, we can cut all agencies, revamp SS and medicare, repeal Obamacare and eliminate the multiple federal agencies that do the same things. We can cut and get to where we need to be.
We were doing fairly well until 2007. The Republicans spent far more than I liked (and way too much for you and the Dems who lambasted them all the time) and now Obama is on steroids with spending. When Dems took over in 2007 the spending went up and the recession set in.
You guys want to do the things you screamed against in the past. All Dems in Senate voted against raising debt limit under Bush, failure of leadership, passing debt to our children, etc. Now they claim they need to raise the debt. What changed?
You cannot solve a debt problem by spending more money.
Lower taxes spur growth. Ask Steve Wynn…
As for the people who consume all the government resources, make them pay taxes so they can be patriotic too. You know they are not patriots if they pay no taxes, ask Joe Biden.
It is more common for conservative to actually have money to protect, true. Liberals tend to be worthless unemployed and darn-near unemployable idiots that have few skills that contribute to any bottom line financial increase, and they are of limited use in a profit-orientated company. How many girls in a blue dress (or hats- equal opportunity employment!) does any company need under the desk taking dick-tation at anyway?
Those few liberals that can work have less inclination to use those skills. Basically, liberals make terrible employees.
Liberals, living proof that social engineering does work. From that experiment, we have learned everything we need to know about what not to do.
Contrary to what Adam believes, there is a clear “black and white” on the tax issue. Call it “solvent and insolvent.” Call it “in the black or in the red.” Call it over-drawn. Call it broke. What ever. There is a thin line and when it is crossed anyone with the ability to balance a checking account can see black or white. You got the money or you don’t.
Just because some are not able to differentiate between the spectrum of “haves” and the darker shades of, “want to take from those that have’s,” does NOT mean there is no clear black and white.
The budget can be balanced by spending cuts alone. Only a moron would say otherwise, but we have you on record as one of those already. You are a liberal after all, and that pretty much sums it up. If you were smart you wouldn’t be a liberal.
Get it? “sums” it up? Liberals never get that joke because they don’t know what a sum is.
Imagine; can’t balance the budget without more taxes! Ha ha ha! What a joker! Try taking in 2.54 trillion and year and…not spending any of it! Presto! Balance has been obtained!
Now that is proven, what we have to cut is just a matter of negotiation. I say cut out all welfare, all medical assistance, all government employee severance packages, all subsidies, all paid vacations, all matching funds for election expenses…heck. lets just get rid of all the government employees, every last one and let the people have any gun any ammo and see how long it takes see the “baggies fad” as a thing of the past!
“Based on the income and expense figures from the government.”
I’d like to see. I looked to try and find evidence to support your claim about revenue going up every year after the tax cuts were enacted but I couldn’t find anything to support that.
“All Dems in Senate voted against raising debt limit under Bush, failure of leadership, passing debt to our children, etc. Now they claim they need to raise the debt. What changed?”
The party in power. It’s pure politics. We’ve needed to raise the ceiling for years and as far back as at least Reagan there was politics involved. What has changed for Obama is that he can no longer afford to play politics on the issue because he’s actually in charge now. Now the GOP has the ability to play politics instead and they are.
“You cannot solve a debt problem by spending more money.”
Don’t get confused. No one is trying to tackle a debt problem by spending more money. You combine multiple problems and solutions to add a sense of absurdity to it. My side is willing to go into more debt if it means more jobs. That is a completely different problem than cutting the deficit.
“You know they are not patriots if they pay no taxes, ask Joe Biden.”
They pay what taxes they can afford. It’s time the rich pay the taxes they can afford. What gives you the idea that decreasing the taxes on the rich and increasing the taxes on the poor so they all meet in the middle is a good idea?
If you pay no taxes, you should not be able to vote- that’s like asking to play poker for high stakes withou ante-ing up your share.
They pay nothing but they can obviously pay more since the majority of them have microwaves, air conditioning, at least one car, cell phones, cable or satellite TV…
The rich pay more than their fair share and your leader said it was about shared sacrifice. The poor pay no taxes and get money that is not theirs while the rich pay that. It is not shared sacrifice because the poor sacrifice nothing.
If you could get your law breaking Dems to pay their taxes there might not be a problem. In reality you could take all the money the rich have and it would not solve the problem. We need to cut spending. We need to phase out SS and allow people to invest their money in something that they can count on. SS is a Ponzi scheme and they have spent all the money. If they did what they said they do there would be money to pay the bills.
CUT CUT CUT
And I want a flat tax. I want to follow what your leaders have said. We all need some skin in the game and paying taxes is the patriotic thing to do. The people at the bottom have no skin in the game and they are not patriotic (according to your leaders now) so they need to jump in.
You can cut now or you can lose it all later. At this rate the tax bracket for the poor will be 25%, the middle class 66% and the rich 88% in the not too distant future.
Pay what taxes they can afford??? What a crock!
We have a lack of taxpayers. The Dems have caused unemployment and pushed it to over 9% which means a lot of people are not paying taxes. Couple that with the people who just don’t pay tax and we have a problem. Cut what is spent (cut government to the bone) and make everyone pay taxes. 10% for EVERYONE.
How is it you always want it to be fair and a level playing field but your idea of fair is that a few carry the burden while a lot ride on their backs?
And Adam, we know that deficit spending is not creating jobs. Gubmint does not create jobs and the spending did not create jobs. It just put us deeper in debt.
If you want job creation then make an environment in this country where business people want to do so. Right now they go elsewhere or sit on the sidelines because they do not know what will happen.
“If you pay no taxes, you should not be able to vote…”
Funny stuff. More of your twisted voting ideas.
“They pay nothing but they can obviously pay more since the majority of them have microwaves, air conditioning, at least one car, cell phones, cable or satellite TV…”
All that matters is how much they earn, not what they spend it on. How far does your hatred for poor people extend? Increasing their tax burden or taking away their right to vote? Sad.
“At this rate the tax bracket for the poor will be 25%, the middle class 66% and the rich 88% in the not too distant future.”
No it won’t. We’ll never be in a condition where we would need that level of taxation because getting to that point would destroy us first anyway. Don’t worry.
“Right now they go elsewhere or sit on the sidelines because they do not know what will happen.”
Uncertainty is not the biggest problem for jobs. It’s a lack of customers for small businesses. If no one will buy your products you can’t grow your company by hiring anyone.
“If you pay no taxes, you should not be able to vote…”
I agree 100 %.
Very few people as a percentage pay zero federal tax dollars. Perhaps just the bottom 5% or so of income earners. There are those that pay zero or fewer income tax dollars after returns but there are other federal taxes that push that back into the positive.
But here’s a question: If ordinary American citizens loose their right to vote because they pay no federal taxes then does that mean illegal immigrants that earn federally taxed income but can’t get any back could vote? I mean, if it’s tax dollars that count they pay more than many in the bottom quintile of American wage earners.
No, earning money while here illegally is a crime and you cannot benefit from a crime. And you have to be in a legal status to vote. Wouldn’t expect you to understand that.
The only other federal tax they pay is SS and Medicare which is for a federal benefit. They end up getting more than they ever paid in and that money is the same that all others have to pay. This tax does not make up for the income taxes not paid. Imagine how much revenue the government would have if those bottom 47% paid income taxes.