Skip to main content

View Diary: Suggestions for a progressive tax agenda (40 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Why do we need to increase taxes? Is it because (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    plumbobb

    some benefits appear to be unsustainable? Lets say every measure you propose was enacted, how long would that preserve our benefits?

    "If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." Winston Churchill

    by Kvetchnrelease on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 07:24:32 AM PST

    •  We need to increase taxes to: (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      debedb, llywrch, carver, bluegrass50

      -- pay for the things we want
      -- act as a disincentive for acts & behaviors that cost society as a whole (i.e. carbon emissions)
      -- act as an incentive for acts & behaviors that benefit society as a whole (i.e. having lifelong health insurance)

      as to the second part of the question, I have no idea what the total would be. A bill sponsored by Pete Fazio was projected to raise $160 billion/year, and that was just a transaction tax on Wall Street trades.

    •  is this comment for real? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      plumbobb
      •  what is insufficient about benefits we get today (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        plumbobb

        that we need more? Why can't we just get same benefits and not raise taxes?

        "If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." Winston Churchill

        by Kvetchnrelease on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 09:06:53 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  We're not taking in enough revenues to pay for (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bluegrass50

          them, plus defense spending, plus the other expenses of government.

          •  Doesn't Modern Monetary Theory propose we just (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            plumbobb

            Print More Money? Printing more money does not require tax increases. Straying from basic Keynsian principles regarding deficits and maintaining or increasing spending, by raising taxes, will not benefit anyone. Won't aggregate demand diminish with tax increases?

            "If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." Winston Churchill

            by Kvetchnrelease on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 09:32:52 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's pretty much quantitative easing, isn't it? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Kvetchnrelease
              •  Yep, but raising taxes as proposed still leaves a (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                plumbobb

                deficit of one trillion a year. So raising taxes does virtually nothing to sustaining benefits. Since cutting benefits is unrealistic, all we are left with is printing more money. Ergo, my initial observation, why raise taxes?

                "If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." Winston Churchill

                by Kvetchnrelease on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 10:53:36 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  raising taxes will provide more revenue (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  plumbobb, Kvetchnrelease

                  if we still have a deficit it would be smaller, so what is your point?  Don't raise taxes and have a larger deficit?  Cut spending?  What would you cut rather than raise taxes?

                  If higher taxes on the wealthy reduce spending then why did the economy flourish in the 50s and the 90s?

                  You seem good on talking points but not facts

                  •  Raising revenue on the "wealthy" is just fine. My (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    plumbobb

                    point is how best to preserve our benefits. Benefit preservation is not as simple as you suggest: raise taxes and cut spending in other non benefit areas. No one is suggesting diminishing our benefits. And while cutting defense is plausible, it still nets an amount less than the revenue gained by the tax increases. Your talking points fail to acknowledge that taxes MUST increase for everyone, not just high earners, if we wish to sustain our benefits. So faced with massive across the board tax increases or printing more money and ignoring the deficit, I think our only solution is to just exercise our printing presses. Using modern money/monetary theory, explain why that would be so wrong?

                    "If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." Winston Churchill

                    by Kvetchnrelease on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 05:54:06 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I would cut defense a great deal, (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Kvetchnrelease, plumbobb

                      raise taxes on higher incomes, raise estate taxes progressively, raise corporate taxes, raise taxes on capital gains progressively, raise the earnings cap on Social Security, cut corporate welfare and subsidies, and tax overseas profits.

                      Printing money is discredited and only leads to inflation.  I am glad you think that is the only solution but it won't work.   That has been proven time and time again.

                      •  If all those taxes add up to one trillion annually (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        plumbobb

                        then that would solve the equation of taxing our way out of this deficit. But I haven't seen the math corroborating such figures. So we are left with enormous deficit spending or cutting benefits OR massive tax increases on everyone. I am just advocating enormous deficit spending, there are plenty of folks in the administration who do not believe that leads to immediate inflation, and down the road when the economy starts booming again, then increase the tax accounts. Now is not the time to raise taxes on anyone. Raising tax accounts is more deleterious to benefits preservation than deficits. Lets resume this three years from now as I really don't see the deficit coming down anytime soon. If you are still following the last word is all yours.

                        "If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." Winston Churchill

                        by Kvetchnrelease on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 01:37:02 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  so rather than raise taxes on anyone (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          plumbobb

                          you would let the deficit grow even larger?

                          Your argument falls apart because you pose only two polar opposites - raise taxes on everyone or raise taxes on no one.  You assume that any deficit reduction long and short term is not worth taxing those who benefit the most from our economy.  

            •  This is the danger of MMT. It is often (4+ / 0-)

              interpreted the way you do and this is just crazy. Printing unlimited amounts of money to cover any debt is monetization of the debt. It will cause hyperinflation if done on large enough scale.

        •  ask folks who try to live on (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          plumbobb

          foodstamps or temporary assistance to families, or disability, or veteran's benefits to survivors, etc.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (123)
  • Community (58)
  • Memorial Day (31)
  • Culture (23)
  • Environment (21)
  • Civil Rights (20)
  • Rescued (20)
  • Law (20)
  • Science (19)
  • Labor (17)
  • Education (16)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (16)
  • Marriage Equality (16)
  • Media (16)
  • Elections (15)
  • Economy (15)
  • Republicans (14)
  • Ireland (14)
  • Josh Duggar (13)
  • Music (12)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site