Support Your Local Tax Hike!

[The Joey-O]

Here's a decent question: How many people would support a tax increase to fund social initiatives (generally speakin)? How many would be against it?
What are your reasons? What would be the limit? What types of taxes do you approve of and disapprove of?

Discuss!

[Groo the Wanderer]

Depends on the reason.

Our doofus city voted for a tax hike to build the Cowboys a new football stadium, even tho the owner has a bajillion bucks of his own stoopid mayor and council

But put a small tax hike up for a vote to add mass transit (largest city in America without ANY mass transit) and it gets voted down. I REALLY gotta wonder about peeps sometimes.



I will vote for tax hikes for public works that actually benefit people. I will NOT vote for tax hikes for handouts. Let charities do the charitable work. Government horks it up every time and wastes a large percentage of the money in the process.

[cmotherofpirl]

I vote against funding the football baseball and hockey stadia.

I vote for better funding of mass transit.

[The Joey-O]

Interesting. I'd actually vote for a new stadium to be built. Stadiums significantly increase revenue to cities. Also, if your city is a contender to host the olympics, the more stadiums the better. But, that's besides the point.

I like mass transit, too.

How 'bout on the federal level?

[Sojourner]

I support taxes for things that the public benefits from.

So, for example, we benefit from good roads/transportation systems; I'll pay for roads and public transit.
We benefit from an educated population; I'll pay for schools.
We benefit from people being well-fed and healthy; I'll pay for welfare/job training/health programs.
We benefit from healthy, well-regulated industry; I'll pay for economic development.
We benefit from public safety and security; I'll pay for police and military.

Common benefits should be supported from a common purse.

[The Joey-O]

What are you guys' limits on income tax? 10%, 25% 50% or whatever gets the job done?

[Socrates]

I'm for greatly reducing reducing taxes and government spending, especially at the federal level.
Our current system of federal income tax is unjust and tyrannical. As a self-employed individual, I was forced to give a huge amount of my modest income to the federal government, and I am personally po'd.

I am ideally against any federal income tax, and I regrad the 16th Amendment (1913), which gave Congress the "right" to tax the incomes of its citizens, as an act of violence against the Constitution. I think sales and other forms of tax should largely replace income tax.

Government today is vastly bloated, and has been growing constantly over the past century.
Ordinary, working taxpaying citizens pay the burden of this bloat, and it particularly hurts working people of modest incomes who are still above the poverty line, and hurts the "little guys" trying to start their own businesses more than anyone.

The truth is that federal government bureaucracies and programs tend to be inefficient and ineffective. Federal employees, rather than being true "public servants," tend to get paid very high salaries for their work.
Everyone, I'm sure, can come up with all sorts of pet projects and causes which he believes "the public will benefit from" to be paid by tax money, and so the problem of pork perpetuates itself.

And economic development overall would benefit most from lowered taxes, not from tax-and-spend government programs.

I would essentially reduce federal government spending to essentially maintaining military defense and law enforcement and repairing national highways.

We are already well on the way to being a socialist nation, and its time We the People made a stand against bloated government and excessive taxation, and returned to being the Land of the Free.

Edited June 1, 2007 by Socrates

[prose]

I would not like to pay more taxes without a CLEAR place they are going. Many time "healthcare" initiatives involve paying for abortions.

[Groo the Wanderer]

[quote name='The Joey-O' post='1285234' date='May 31 2007, 04:18 PM']Interesting. I'd actually vote for a new stadium to be built. Stadiums significantly increase revenue to cities. Also, if your city is a contender to host the olympics, the more stadiums the better. But, that's besides the point.

I like mass transit, too.

How 'bout on the federal level?[/quote]


Boo Boo Boo! Incorrect and totally false...at least in our case. This was the same bill of goods they sold us when they wanted a take hike for the Rangers baseball stadium. We did it :fishing: and still are waiting for the promised revenue flood.

Problem is, Arlington simply does not have the infrastructure to handle the traffic flow. Nor do we have an entertainment district that can handle that many peeps. After the games, everyone will simply head to Dallas or Fort Worth for the after game partying.

Not to mention, we have solid gridlock on the neighboring highway 5 of 7 days as it is. Now we get to have it on Sunday too! yippee.

If that ain't enough, we just won the bid for the Super Bowl in 2011 or some such year. Yea. Now we get to put up with 100k drunk fans from out of town trashing the city when their team loses.

Federal tax hike? YEAH RIGHT. The *&^(*&^(*@&^ politicians have way too much our money as it is. Put mandatory term limits in place for all of the lousy bastiges first, THEN we can discuss tax hikes.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='The Joey-O' post='1285335' date='May 31 2007, 07:02 PM']What are you guys' limits on income tax? 10%, 25% 50% or whatever gets the job done?[/quote]
I would rather pay a higher income tax than continue to raise property taxes. Property tax increases disproportionately affect those with fixed incomes -- the elderly and disabled -- who have the least ability to adjust to the increases. So I'd prefer to have higher state income taxes than higher property taxes.

We all give a huge chunk of our income to the feds -- self-employed and otherwise employed alike. SE peeps just have to write the checks themselves and are more aware of it, while the rest of us blithely let our employers do it for us.

Like Prose, though, I am concerned about the money I pay in taxes going to support things that are morally wrong, i.e., abortion.

[Socrates]

[quote name='prose' post='1285352' date='May 31 2007, 07:36 PM']I would not like to pay more taxes without a CLEAR place they are going. Many time "healthcare" initiatives involve paying for abortions.[/quote]
True.
Most of the time taxpayers have no clue what all their tax money is being spent on.

This is another reason for less central federal government and taxation. Taxpayers should pay directly for things in their own local area/town, etc., where they can see where their money is going, and whether it is being used effectively, rather than sucking everybody's federal tax dollars. Pork barrel spending is a major contributor to federal bloat.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1285355' date='May 31 2007, 07:45 PM']I would rather pay a higher income tax than continue to raise property taxes. Property tax increases disproportionately affect those with fixed incomes -- the elderly and disabled -- who have the least ability to adjust to the increases. So I'd prefer to have higher state income taxes than higher property taxes.[/quote]
Property taxes should also be drastically lowered.
Of course, my proposed drastic lowering of taxes would entail an equally drastic lowering in spending, which is why it will reamin unpopular with the bleeding hearts.

[quote]We all give a huge chunk of our income to the feds -- self-employed and otherwise employed alike. SE peeps just have to write the checks themselves and are more aware of it, while the rest of us blithely let our employers do it for us. [/quote]"Writing the checks ourselves" is not the issue. I'm not totally stupid. Self-employed people have to pay all of their medicare/social security, etc., while employees only have to pay half while the employer pays the other half. This makes things particulary difficult for the self-employed, and for owners of small business of limited income (employing people is extremely expensive, as they have to pay part of the employee's taxes as well.)
But of course, I am against the whole idea of all of us giving a huge chunk of our income to the feds.

[quote]Like Prose, though, I am concerned about the money I pay in taxes going to support things that are morally wrong, i.e., abortion.[/quote]
. . . as well as those which are simply wasteful and ineffective . . .

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1285371' date='May 31 2007, 07:57 PM']"Writing the checks ourselves" is not the issue. I'm not totally stupid. Self-employed people have to pay all of their medicare/social security, etc., while employees only have to pay half while the employer pays the other half. This makes things particulary difficult for the self-employed, and for owners of small business of limited income (employing people is extremely expensive, as they have to pay part of the employee's taxes as well.)[/quote]
Oh please

If my employer is paying my half of the medicare/SSA etc. that's still income I'm not getting that I otherwise could be entitled to. You as a self-employed person pay the employer half because you are both employer and employee. The same percentage amount is paid per employee, only difference is who writes the check. It's not as though you have it worse than the rest of us.


Oh and yes I have paid self-employment tax too, so it's not as though I speak from inexperience.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1285389' date='May 31 2007, 08:11 PM']Oh please

If my employer is paying my half of the medicare/SSA etc. that's still income I'm not getting that I otherwise could be entitled to. You as a self-employed person pay the employer half because you are both employer and employee. The same percentage amount is paid per employee, only difference is who writes the check. It's not as though you have it worse than the rest of us.
Oh and yes I have paid self-employment tax too, so it's not as though I speak from inexperience.[/quote]
If you are self-employed, you pay it all - if you are only an employee, you only pay half. Given the same income, the self-employed guy pays more. Do the math.

[Paddington]

[quote name='The Joey-O' post='1285234' date='May 31 2007, 06:48 PM']Interesting. I'd actually vote for a new stadium to be built. Stadiums significantly increase revenue to cities. Also, if your city is a contender to host the olympics, the more stadiums the better. But, that's besides the point.[/quote]


One city gets a team, another city doesn't get it. Both cities spend some tax dollars whether they are selected or not.
One city gets the Olympics, the rest of the world doesn't.
It's competing against others for prosperity. Helping a bajillionaire along the way. I have to think there is a way to get a share from Mr. Bajillionaire. Instead of the city being "just so lucky to have his business." If that is taken into account, it could change the picture.
Some cities move forward towards prosperity and others move backwards toward becoming a ghost town. It is a competition for the same money unfortunately.

Taxes are much better when they help people in a non-competitive way.

Job programs directed at the chronically unemployed could help others and increase future tax revenue. (I don't mean giving a job to Larry the Bum by indirectly taking one away from Joe the Worker. Any worthy program would have to keep that in mind. Charity programs too.) Also, getting employed illegals to become legal so they can pitch in would be nice. It would take some edge off of money the government requests in the future.

Edited June 1, 2007 by Paddington