Why do liberals believe raising taxes increases tax revenue and is good for the economy?

Answer 1

Well, the left-liberals are right that raising taxes increases tax revenue, but are wrong when they say it is good for the economy.

The problem that both sides have is that they constantly talk about how to raise tax revenues, when we should be talking about how to actually slash government programs (I don't think it is "slashing" a program if you only raise its budget by 6% instead of 10%, as Ronald Reagan did) and to drastically reduce the size of government (if not completely eliminate it). Taxation is nothing more than the means of collection for the government's glorified protection racket (and it doesn't do as good a job of that as the mafia does).

What we should do is make it voluntary to pay taxes (by legalizing tax evasion of course). By doing this, we will require the government to spend its money competently or it will go out of business.

We should not want to increase tax revenues at all, nor should anybody who considers themself a Capitalist ever pander to Socialists.

The main problem we have in this country is that after one party engages in an unconstitutional power grab (and both do it whenever they are in power) and the other is elected to repeal the foolish policies of the other party, they merely reform it instead of eliminating it. We can see this with the 80th Congress, which passed Taft-Hartley to slightly weaken unions instead of repealing FDR's union laws and the rest of the New Deal (though they did stop most of Truman's Fair Deal, including "Universal Healthcare"). We can see it in the late 60s when Nixon was elected to end the Vietnam War (a Democrat disaster that was started on fraudulent grounds) and yet he prolonged that war. We can also see it with the Republicans in the 90s who were elected to repeal big government and yet only made government bigger (though it grew at a slower rate during the last 6 years of the Clinton era than it had before or during the Bush 43 era). We can also see it with the Democrats who were elected to end the Iraq War and are now doing nothing to stop the war.

Both parties are equally incompetent and incapable of actually doing what they are elected to do, as history has shown us repeatedly. Of course, the other party always caricatures them as actually working to repeal an unpopular program, but that isn't ever the case.

Answer 2

Because taxes and revenue collected is spent into the economy further boosting revenue to business in areas it is spent in. It likewise is spent into our economy, unlike the tax breaks given to multinational corporations, which has no guarantee of benefiting the economy. But to say increased taxes, or reduced taxes have a major effect, unless you are comparing it to super high taxation, is an oversimplification, if not an outright lie.
less taxes does not guarantee an increase in cash flow.

Now you can go on and on, whining about some silly laffler curve, but that thing has been proved to be a very unsound and oversimplified representation of tax vs revenue, since there are many other factors that contribute to the economy which would make the thing a very unsymmetrical curve. anyone believing otherwise either had a poor economics instructor, or didn't do their homework.

tax cuts during harsh economic times to large corporations does not guarantee propsperity. helping the impoverished during those times is what helps the economy, because cash flow tends to aggregate upwards. voodoo economics works only when the economy is good, because businesses have more incentive to expand, than they do during downward trends.

The real question, is why people like you think that anyone making a 6 figure income is going to all of a sudden quit trying to earn more just because they have to pay a single digit percentage more in taxes. While it sounds logical, it just isn't realistic.

Answer 3

Raising taxes increases tax revenue to a point, then it is lowered. A zero percent tax raises no revenue. So does 100%. At some point, as you raise taxes you get no further revenue. That is when workers would rather go underground or refuse to work rather than pay taxes. Given that most workers have to work either 40 hours or none the idea that we are at this point is laughable.

Now, one might be able to make a case that for wealthy people, or people who own their businesses, that they could withdraw some of their effort. This passes the laugh test, but it is still absurd. Most very wealthy people would consider it rude to be so mundane as to consider worrying about small percentages of income. Most small business people I know work themselves and any family members they can find to the bone, regardless of income taxes.

But to put the nail into the coffin of your implication, simply look at the tax rates over the years. At the height of our growth as a country (40-50's), our top rate was 90%. Clinton raised taxes which was followed by the longest expansion of economic growth this country ever had.

It is simply nonsensical to believe that increasing taxes in the range that the Democrats want to do (bring taxes back to less than where they were under Clinton) will have any economic effect. It is actually more than nonsensical - it borders on political lies rather than economic theory.

But let me come to your point. The reason why it is necessary to raise taxes on the wealthy - and raise them a large amount, is to pay for the infrastructure, health, education, safety, welfare, research and development, which has made this country great. And without this spending, this nation will continue its division between the upper and lower classes until there is no middle class left. But I digress.

Answer 4

at the start to appreciate the liberal place you're able to desire to understand that as quickly as we talk approximately tax coverage we differentiate between an extremely small business enterprise with below 500 workers and multinationals that have not got any loyalty to ANY u . s . a . now yet function strictly for the final diagnosis. it incredibly is the reason Obama made it common for the time of the debt ceiling (made up) disaster that the guidelines might bring about basic terms agencies making over a million. i can not talk for ALL liberals yet i think that companies that are making checklist revenue now not deserve tax cuts that they don't desire. i think that once a multinational corporation has a selection of i can the two pay taxes or i can take plausible on an investment that particularly than pay that taxes they are going to take extra hazards on innovations or new business enterprise ventures. while taxes are low and their revenue are extreme there is not any motivation to pass their funds into volatile ventures. any other way it creates jobs is that extra tax sales helps courses for the middle type that promotes job education and instruction that US agencies desire. NO liberal i be attentive to needs to make issues harder for SMALL business enterprise human beings. The exciting element is Republicans view companies like united statesand NIKE as SMALL business enterprise. i wish this facilitates answer your question.

Answer 5

Avail_skilz has it mostly right. The difficulty lies in the fact that wealth can be both created and destroyed. When I'm thinking about it I think in terms of primary wealth, that wealth that provides for the necessities of life or the creation of more wealth. Secondary wealth improves living conditions or provides reserves in case of emergency. Tertiary wealth doesn't create more wealth or help with survival, short or long term. Most art falls in this category. Still useful but not essential.
Government spending needs to be classified in these categories in order to assess the results. As it is done now, results are unpredictable.

Answer 6

I don't think they do... at least say it's good for the economy

but they believe that it does fund programs that help people...

what's good for the "economy" isn't always what's good for the people...

and it can raise tax revenue, depending on a variety of variables... that's elementary math...

EDIT: are any conservatives aware that almost every year sets a record for tax revenue? see... the economy GROWS... which means there are more tax payers... which means there is more tax revenue...

now there are things that can be done to help (like tax cuts at certain times do seem to help)... but simply showing that it's a record is like being surprised at the sunrise... it not really that big of a surprise...

Answer 7

They do not understand that re-distribution of wealth does not create new wealth, and new wealth must be introduced into any economic system. Capitalism creates new wealth and distributes it according to merit and performance; socialism merely redistributes existing wealth until there's no more left to go around. The difference in the systems is the difference between North Korea and South Korea.

Of course, they also believe in the myth of "free" health care.

Answer 8

because they are the "entittlement" group. They believe it is everyone elses job to take care of those who don't contribute to society. They have never been able to see the big pictue even when we have had countless examples of it. Do they ever mention that this past year we have had record high tax revenue collected and recorded by the IRS? hmmmmm... thats odd?

Edit.... not true "g".... do you know what a recession is? And as for the years there is growth... it is based on percentage... not total amount. Nice try though!

Answer 9

illiteracy is a terrible disease and can be cured with education and maturity!
Even Kennedy stated that if we lower taxes, we increase discretionary spennding, which produces more jobs, more jobs, more taxes. Simplified version, yes, but it is still the same in other words.

Answer 10

Because they know how to spend our money so much better than us. I thank all of you for supporting my cousin's illegitimate kids.