Is raising taxes good for the economy, neutral, or bad?

[A18]

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of American voters think raising taxes is bad for the economy. Let's see how that compares to the forum.

[Cashcow]

Generally bad.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Generally bad,  often neutral, occassionally good.  A lot depends on the economic circumstances and what government spends the money on.

[Alcon]

Usually bad.

[Gabu]

It's bad for the economy at times when it's a bad idea and it's good for the economy at times when it's a good idea.

Trying to pigeonhole complex issues into one single line of unchanging policy is often the reason that problems persist.  I refuse to answer this overly simplistic poll.

[Richard]

Bad.  I do not believe any form of taxation to be legal.  Levies and duties perhaps, but no taxes.

[J-Mann]

Gabu is right: you can't limit a policy like raising taxes to being only good, bad, or neutral at all times.  Sometimes raising taxes is necessary.  It also depends on what kind you're talking about - property taxes, sales tax, income tax, etc.  I have a feeling you're talking about the federal income tax, in this instance.  In that case, it would be "bad" a majority of the time.

I wish they would raise the state income tax in Kansas.  In this state, that would be good for our economy.  Also, I voted for a sales tax increase in November; it was good for our local economy, as well.  It will offset the immense burden caused by high property taxes, which are high because our state income tax has been cut too low.  And you know who got hurt by that?  Poor, rural counties like mine.

[John Dibble]

Most often bad. They can be good, normally when they are for absolutely essential services performed by the government - defense, policing, ect. Gabu is right that it is situational, but as a rule of thumb I say they are bad.

[Hitchabrut]

Bad. However, a national sales tax and the abolishment of the income tax would be good for the government and the taxpayers.

[Gabu]

Most often bad. They can be good, normally when they are for absolutely essential services performed by the government - defense, policing, ect. Gabu is right that it is situational, but as a rule of thumb I say they are bad.

Well, yes.  Most of the time it's bad.  I'm not arguing that and I certainly am not arguing that we should raise taxes.  However, some of the time it can help to raise some form of taxes a little bit, and it would be a shame if that didn't happen purely because we were stuck in a "taxes are bad" mentality.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Depends on what you do with the taxes.

[Beet]

Was the national poll question phrased exactly the way this one was (with neutral as a specific option)?

[A18]

Was the national poll question phrased exactly the way this one was (with neutral as a specific option)?

I don't know how it was asked, because Rasmussen only referenced it in part of an article.

[Beet]

Was the national poll question phrased exactly the way this one was (with neutral as a specific option)?

I don't know how it was asked, because Rasmussen only referenced it in part of an article.

Ah ok. Because so far 82% have said taxes are not good but only 54.5% have chosen that they are bad.

[J-Mann]

Was the national poll question phrased exactly the way this one was (with neutral as a specific option)?

I don't know how it was asked, because Rasmussen only referenced it in part of an article.

If Rasmussen actually used this or something similar as a poll question, someone needs to be slapped.  It's a horrible question.

[Nym90]

Depends on what you do with the taxes.

Exactly. Often times the money is spent by government on services that would be impractical or not cost-effective for the private sector to provide, and thus often the money spent can help the economy more than it would be helped by cutting taxes by the equivalent amount as is spent on the services.

Obviously the Department of Defense and the police fit this. We could have a huge tax cut if we were willing to eliminate the Department of Defense, as it's very expensive. But would the economy be better off if we did this? Clearly not, as getting invaded by a foreign country with no way of stopping it would cause a lot more harm to the economy than the benefit that would be gained by the huge tax cut that we could afford. Same thing with the police, their presence makes society more efficient and productive by cutting down on crime, as crime is clearly bad for the economy.

In the same way, social services can often provide more economic benefit than the amount of money they cost. Reducing poverty and increasing the overall level of education of society is in our nation's best interest, as it results in less crime and more quality workers available to fill jobs, both of which are very good for the economy.

Obviously a tax cut is better for the economy than spending money on useless and wasteful things. If we build a new highway in an area that doesn't need one, that's not going to help the economy as much as giving that money back to the taxpayers would have. But if a new highway is built in an area that has massive traffic congestion, it saves everyone who uses that road time (and of course, time=money, it's silly to pretend that our time is free, since we only have a finite amount of it), money in terms of previously wasted fuel from sitting in traffic jams, and enables businesses to ship their goods faster and more efficiently. So in this case, the economy is benefitted more by building the new road, as long as it's needed and isn't a wasteful, boondoggle project.

[Nym90]

Bad. However, a national sales tax and the abolishment of the income tax would be good for the government and the taxpayers.

It would be great for those who earn a large income and spend very little (i.e., the wealthy, while they may spend a lot, it's a lot less as a percentage of their income than the poor).

It would be very bad for those who don't make much money, but spend almost all of what they do make (i.e., the poor and, to a lesser extent, the middle class), usually out of necessity.

So it would encourage people to save all of their money, and spend very little. That's not good for the economy.

[J-Mann]

Bad. However, a national sales tax and the abolishment of the income tax would be good for the government and the taxpayers.

It would be great for those who earn a large income and spend very little (i.e., the wealthy, while they may spend a lot, it's a lot less as a percentage of their income than the poor).

It would be very bad for those who don't make much money, but spend almost all of what they do make (i.e., the poor and, to a lesser extent, the middle class), usually out of necessity.

So it would encourage people to save all of their money, and spend very little. That's not good for the economy.

I think the national sales tax idea did have some merit when coupled with a poverty rebate.  That was discussed here about a month ago...I'll look for a link.

[A18]

QUIT REPEATING THAT NONSENSE.

People keep their ENTIRE PAYCHECK. They spend MORE buying stuff, but they have MORE money in the first place. It is neither good nor bad for the economy.

If you make $2 trillion and only use $200 of it, you're living like a poor guy, and should pay the same taxes.

[Richard]

There should be no income tax and no sales tax.

[Nym90]

QUIT REPEATING THAT NONSENSE.

People keep their ENTIRE PAYCHECK. They spend MORE buying stuff, but they have MORE money in the first place. It is neither good nor bad for the economy.

If you make $2 trillion and only use $200 of it, you're living like a poor guy, and should pay the same taxes.

I actually didn't say anything about the economy, only that it would clearly be good for the rich, who would pay a lot less taxes, and bad for the poor, who would pay a lot more.

[A18]

The sales tax plan includes a rebate, and is about as progressive as the current system. Here's where you mentioned the economy:

So it would encourage people to save all of their money, and spend very little. That's not good for the economy.

[Nym90]

The sales tax plan includes a rebate, and is about as progressive as the current system. Here's where you mentioned the economy:

So it would encourage people to save all of their money, and spend very little. That's not good for the economy.

Ah, right, I forgot about that.

I still contend that raising prices by 20% or so nationwide wouldn't be good for the economy. Yes, people would have more money to spend, but they would be discouraged froms pending due to the higher prices. People would realize that if they save and don't spend, they won't pay as much tax. If people spend less, the economy gets worse.

I see what you are saying, that the total amount of money available would be the same, so the higher prices should be matched by higher incomes, but for the vast majority of people, the price increase from the sales tax wouldn't be matched by the income increase they would get from the elimination of the income tax. The rich aren't going to spend enough to compensate for this.

Now if you include an exemption for the poor, that helps, but then there is going to be a lot less money available to the government, which means less government spending, and most government spending disproportionately benefits the poor as opposed to the rich. So you still end up getting the same effect.

[J-Mann]

Philip, would you be able to find the thread where we discussed the sales tax?  In it we also discussed the negative income tax, I think.  I've been looking but I'm overlooking it somewhere.

[A18]

Right here: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=13190.0

The sales tax plan brings in the same amount of revenue to government after the rebate.