Pro: Higher taxes can shore up social safety net and rebuild crumbling infrastructure
BLOOMINGTON, IND. EDITOR’S NOTE The writer is addressing the question, “Are tax increases necessary?
No one likes taxes, but we all like—and often need—the things that taxes provide. Schools, roads, national defense, retirement security—these and other vital public goods and services would not be possible without tax-revenues.
Unsurprisingly, politicians particularly during an election year are loath to talk about tax-increases, even as they propose new spending plans.
Still, given our nation’s grim fiscal outlook, there are strong economic, social and even moral reasons why we should welcome a tax-hike down the road—no matter who wins in November.
Everyone knows that the federal budget has spiraled out of control. What was once a modest surplus of 2.4 percent of GDP in fiscal year 2000 has been recklessly squandered into a deficit of 1.2 percent of GDP for 2007—a swing of about $400 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. And with the costs of Social Security and Medicare estimated to skyrocket in coming decades, the shortfall is only going to get worse.
Some economists contend that further tax-cuts and government spending might stimulate much needed growth, while others go further, making the dubious claim that cutting taxes can spur enough economic growth to solve all our budget problems.
Tax-cuts may increase short-term revenues, but no amount of tax-cuts can help us grow out of this deep a fiscal hole. In fact, they might make matters worse because it’s equally likely that if tax-cuts actually lose money, increased government debt could crowd out private investment and slow long-term economic growth.
While spending cuts are certainly one way to reduce the shortfall, limits on discretionary outlays and the ambitions of our politicians suggest that spending cuts are no panacea.
The economic reality is that tax increases are a necessity.
Besides managing the economy, taxation historically has also been central to the social contract between citizens and their government. And maintaining the integrity of that contract is another reason why we should accept a tax hike.
Our modern progressive tax system was founded on the principle that the bonds of social solidarity and ethical duty required that all citizens owed a debt to society in proportion to their ability to pay. The well-heeled thus had a civic obligation to contribute more to the financing of a modern state than their less fortunate neighbors.
Today, inequality is on the rise, approaching levels unknown for nearly a century. As we usher in this New Gilded Age, the social aspect of tax policy, embedded in our historic commitment to progressive taxes, is once again pivotal. Even Warren Buffet, one of the richest men in America, has proclaimed that “an economy where my receptionist pays a lot higher tax rate than I do, does not strike me as a just economy.”
The social reality is that tax increases are a necessity.
In the past, the meaning of tax justice has also taken on a particular moral imperative during wartime. Throughout American history, our leaders have not only harnessed patriotism and the social obligations of citizenship to fund international conflicts; they have also been acutely aware of the moral need to distribute the costs of war fairly and equitably.
Even before the United States entered WWII, President Franklin D. Roosevelt asked the American people to put “patriotism ahead of pocketbooks.” As he reminded Congress: “I have asked for sacrifice, and part of sacrifice means the payment of more money in taxes.”
In 2003, Sen. John McCain seemed to embrace the American tradition of shared sacrifice when he opposed wartime tax cuts for the wealthy.
“I cannot in good conscience,” McCain declared, “vote in favor of tax cuts.”
McCain, as we all know, has since changed his mind. Yet, as the costs of the war on terror, in both dollars and lives, continue to mount, the ethical obligation to share in wartime sacrifice looms ever larger.
The moral reality is that tax-increases are a necessity.
Ajay K. Mehrotra is an associate law professor and adjunct associate professor of history at Indiana University. Readers may write him at Indiana University School of Law, Room 261, Bloomington, Ind. 47405.
Sep 11, 2008 at 1:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
bill:
You are right on, of course. Your post brings up something the left never understands, and that is the fundamental FLAW in an income tax. The super rich have hardly ANY income. Most all their $$ is in assets that draw interest, and dividends. All of which can be sheltered with the insane tax code we currently have. The tax code is just a way to pander votes, and do social engineering. Look at the THOUSANDS of pages that we currently have in todays tax code. If one truly wants to "fix" the problem start off by totally scrapping the entire system we have now, and start from scratch. A sensible tax code could be wrote up in a few pages. I personally like the flat tax idea myself. It's the fairest way to tax. The 1st $10,000-20,000 of income should be exempt from taxes (that way you don't screw over the very poor), and after that it should be a flat rate for everyone.
Sep 10, 2008 at 11:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Raising taxes on the rich will not help. As every liberal who ever gave a campaign speech knows, the rich have tax shelters, accountants and tax lawyers as well as offshore bank accounts and foreign investments to shield them from the IRS.
Government programs intended to provide benefits for voters, such as earmarks, are the real problem. These incumbent promoting spending plans are designed with the idea that an incumbent can go back to his constituency and proclaim his worth to them by how much money he’s brought back to his district. Multiply that effort to be re-elected by 535 and we begin to see the scope of this spending spree. It is interesting to note that the powerful in congress have at times threatened the earmarks of other congress members when they threaten not to support the direction of the leadership. They eagerly accept the purpose of earmarks and they will not give them up easily in spite of pledges by candidates of both parties.
Sep 10, 2008 at 1:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Gets better:
The writer is from liberal mecca; IU university. Maybe this guy should have consulted one of his colleagues in the business/economics dept before writing this diatribe. Ward Churchill should apply for a transfer to IU. He'd fit right in there!
Sep 10, 2008 at 12:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
This writer must be the biggest ignoramus of all time in economics. Any tax increases in a slowing economy are a complete formula for DISASTER. This has been proven time and time again throughout world history. This stuff is straight out of the book of Stalin, Brezhnev, Kruschchev, ext.
Guys like this crack me up. You want me to pay more to a government that is bloated out of its mind, and full of corruption, as a way to "fix" the problems. Then after the problems are not fixed, and in fact become even worse, and you have more government bureaucrats then ever getting rich, you'll hear calls for even MORE taxes by idiots like this. So is so laughable that's its funny to think people even take this nonsense seriously.
Sep 10, 2008 at 12:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
enough...to address you concern over corporations have put thier bases offshore I offer you the following. Raising corporate taxes will result in two things. Higher prices paid by consumers (you are naive if you believe only the corporation/businesses will feel the pinch on these taxes) and more businesses will fail or leave the country. The Tax Foundation just came out with a report showing that the US corporate tax rate, although some what flat since 1988, has risen in comparison to other competitive countries by over 50% because other countries have chosen to lower their rates. This causes a competitive disadvantage to leading companies to stay and perform in the US; which is a leading cause in job and revenue loss to local and federal levels as they leave our shores. Responsible spending by our government on both political sides is the fix that neither is willing to take seriously.
Sep 10, 2008 at 12:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Enough…the premise is simple, but I will spell it out for you anyway. This article which you stated “I agree with you 100 percent”, is FOR raising/increasing taxes. My simple question to you was asking if you provided any additional funding to the government over and above your required taxes. As stated if you truly believe this is the right thing to do take the lead and start paying…why wait until it is required? You see it is always easy to sit back and complain about how things are; the hard part is providing the fix. Your fix is increasing taxes…so start paying, you don’t need to wait until it is required.
Sep 9, 2008 at 11:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
I agree...more tax isn't the answer. Ridiculous spending for special interest groups should be stopped and we would be fine. The more they take the more they will spend. That is pretty easy math.
Sep 9, 2008 at 11:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Too Funny spanky !
Sep 9, 2008 at 10:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
The IRS has released the FY 2000 data for individual income tax returns. The numbers illustrate a truth that will startle you: that half of Americans with the highest incomes pays 96.09% of all income tax. This nukes the liberal lie that the rich don't pay taxes. The top 1%, who earn 20.81% of all income covered under the income tax, are paying 37.42% of the federal tax bite.
Sep 9, 2008 at 10:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
We have accounts payable tax,building permit tax,CDL license tax,cigarette tax,corporate income tax,dog license tax,federal income tax,federal unemployment tax,fishing license tax,food license tax,fuel permit tax,gasoline tax,hunting license tax,inheritance tax,inventory tax, IRS interest charges (a tax on top of tax),IRS penalties (tax on top of tax),liquor tax, Luxury tax,Marriage penalty tax,medicare tax,property tax,real estate tax,social security tax,Road usage tax (truckers),sales taxes, Recreational vehicle tax,school taxes, state income taxes, state unemployment tax,telephone federal excise tax,telephone federal universal service fee tax,telephone minimum usage surcharge tax,telephone state and local tax, utility tax,vehicle registration tax,vehicle sales tax (even on used cars when the tax already has been paid on the vehicle a double tax) workers compensation tax I think we get taxed enough.
Sep 9, 2008 at 10:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
I disagree that "you pay based on your tax base".
Big Corporations that make millions are given many tax breaks and tax incentives, grants, interest free loans, etc. from both the State and the Federal Government.
The tax burden in Wisconsin (and this Country) lies on the "middle class" and on "small business".
The only people who will pay more taxes are the "middle class"; meanwhile the "rich get richer" and "all the others" get free housing, free utilities, free healthcare, free daycare, foodstamps.
I believe this Country is in need of drastic changes for our economy to be able to sustain for years to come.
How long can the "middle class" support the whole Country ??
Sep 9, 2008 at 10:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Enough taxes geez is that the answer to everything?
Sep 9, 2008 at 9:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
You pay according to your tax base. Janesvillemom is right that Coporations have put their business off shore to avoid paying taxes. They have out sourced the manufacturing base of this Country for profit. Wages paid to china workers are much less than here in the USA. Halibuton in Iraq on Government contract to provide food water and other services for our servicemen are paying their Muslum cooks $1.25 per hour. Brenner has made profits in Iraq tax free. For a retired service person I respect your duty to this Country. But many of us have served. I for one want this Country to survive and it will take more Presidencies than one to get it back on its feet. I would suggest you start to read the many books of Woodward his last came out today "The War Within". Our Country right or worng. But when its wrong, have the courage to make it right again.
Sep 9, 2008 at 9:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
retired air force your premise does not make sense.
Sep 8, 2008 at 9:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
So your answer is you obey the laws as do the corporations whom you accuse of using legal loop holes imposed by congress and this makes you better than the rest? By paying what you "owe" yes you are obeying the law...but you, as I stated to user:enough have not paid above what you are required to pay. But you say on this forum that the government should increase taxes…again wanting others or companies to provide [increased taxes] but you have failed to take the lead and perform this on your own. In my view that is hypocritical. If you truly believe this is the right thing please take the lead and show us!
Sep 7, 2008 at 7:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
RetireAirForce: I pay use tax on items I buy out-of-state. Considering that almost NO ONE does that, I guess I do pay "extra". Does that make you happy? I also don't lie or hide any income on my income taxes, like many people do, so in that case I'm also paying "extra". Especially compared to 66% of corporations who pay ZERO due to loopholes. Now if everyone would be as honest as me, we could afford tax cuts.
Sep 7, 2008 at 6:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Again your answer is you did not choose to...but the Bush basing continues. Nice to see you belive more should be paid but you did not step up to the plate.
Sep 7, 2008 at 2:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/economy/j...
*
This link is to a PBS show from 2003 discussing the Bush tax cuts and how they would effect the economy. Very interesting.
*
Here's an excerpt that seems to ring true:
"But in fact the administration has no plans to do anything that will reduce the budget deficit. They're going to take an economy, a government situation which is already alarming, and they're going to push us quite a ways toward serious banana republic financial fiscal irresponsibility. And all of this in the name of job creation, which the bill is just not going to do, it's been a remarkable thing that it's been very hard for this administration to find anybody who isn't directly working for it who will actually say that this bill is good for jobs or growth.
A whole series of studies by people who are either bipartisan or sort of on their side say, gosh, yeah, if there was some other, if you had some other tax increases to pay for this or if you had any plausible expenditure cuts that would make room for it that would be fine. But as it now stands it's basically going to balloon the deficit and it's a bad thing for the economy. "
Sep 7, 2008 at 2:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ya know retired airforce I love this Country. If they ask I will give what is necessary to save her from foreign take over, or corporate take over. Bush I realized after Desert Storm he had to raise taxes. I still voted for his son. Bush 1 did what was necessary for our Country at the time. Bush 2 ran a War on borrowed money. Has never been done in history. Lowering Taxes should not have been done when you are in War. Mc Cain at the time refused to vote for them. He is a wise man who has been manipulated by the right wing now to get elected. We are in this mess because of the poor decisions made by Bush 2. We are now enjoying a recession which may turn to depression. Who ever gets in office will have to leave the Tax base as it is for now.
Sep 7, 2008 at 2:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Enough...have you provided the government any additional money other than what is required for your taxes? I would think that everyone who believes we should all pay more should lead by example.
Sep 6, 2008 at 6:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
I agree with you 100 percent. I do not fear terrorist, my biggest fear is this Country going under if China, Japan or Saudi Arbia calls in their loans to us. America will no longer belong to the people , but to foreign states and Coorporations. Already we have sold off so many assests. Look at New York. This Election is so important.And if only the American people would wake up to the Privatization that is going on, they would not be one issue voters.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.