Raise taxes (Archbishop Flynn)

[Jeffrey]

WHAT?!?!?!

Taxes need to be cut big time –>For the working class<–. I’m tired of paying serveral thouseand $$$$$ not to get anything back from the IRS. and oweing them even more. Blah. So…**NO to more taxes!!! **

Jeremy:

I don’t know why those bishops argued for a tax increase, but I do think taxes need to be raised big time.

I think it’s criminal that Bush is trying to push tax cuts through at the same time as he’s trying to promote a war. If you’re going to go to war, at least have the political backbone to be honest with the voters and tell them they’re going to have to pay for it.

 

[Jeffrey]

vern humphrey:

Naturally, when you file your tax return this year, you will take no deductions and pay double the amount you owe.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

 

[Philip_P]

Jeffery,

You’re absolutely right. In fact, your position is precisely why we have a progressive tax system in this country. However, if you look at this IRS report summarizing the last 25 years (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/04asastr.pdf), you’ll notice that, although our tax structure has remained generally progressive (i.e. the working class pays less), it is slowly becoming less so. For instance, in 1979 the top 1/10 of 1% accounted for 3.28% of the nation’s income. In 2002 they accounted for 7.1%. This is a 116.4% increase. However, in the same period, the share of the nation’s taxes paid by this segment only rose 106.64%.

If the share of the nation’s taxes paid by the top earners isn’t keeping pace with their income, who do you think’s picking up the slack? There’s a hint on the fourth page of the report: “Despite the fact that the overall tax rate remained virtually the same for 1979 and 2001, the average rate for all but the very lowest size class actually declined."

 

[Philip_P]

Vern,

RE education:

Your proposal addresses budgeting – that is, how MUCH it will cost. It doesn’t address how we will pay for that. Suppose there is a significant increase in per-pupil cost (assuming the per-pupil cost will remain flat is unrealistic). Now that your budget has gone up, how do you make the funding match it? You point out, rightly, that we already have funding mechanisms. However, when costs increase (e.g a new school must be built, there’s an influx of new students, etc.), there’s usually some form of tax hike, such as a school bond, bump in the sales tax, etc. Unless I misunderstood you, your claim was that your system eliminates the need for any tax increase. Show me.

RE budget:

Reforming the budgeting process would certainly go a long way toward cutting waste and corruption, a goal we both agree on. However, how does this relate to a specific level of tax rates? Whether they government has more money or less, it will still spend it. I anticipate that your response will be along the lines of “well then they should have less money to spend on waste.” Perhaps it’s time you clarify what you mean by this. Suppose you’re on the 109th Congress, and you have to pass a budget. Since you’re committed to cutting taxes, or at least opposed to rolling back tax cuts on even the top tier of income earners (if this in incorrect say so), your only option is to cut. What gets cut?

For instance, from today’s paper – “Gov. Pataki is warning that a version of a federal transportation bill headed for a vote would leave the state about $430 million short of what is needed to maintain its roads and highways.” Are you willing to take responsibility for deteriorating roads and highways, congressman?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

Your proposal addresses budgeting – that is, how MUCH it will cost. It doesn’t address how we will pay for that.

Since my proposal is about 25% LESS than we currently spend on a per-pupil basis, current sources of funding are more than adequate.

Are you pretending that we can’t improve education until we completely restructure the tax system to meet your satisfaction?
Philip P:

Suppose there is a significant increase in per-pupil cost (assuming the per-pupil cost will remain flat is unrealistic). Now that your budget has gone up, how do you make the funding match it?

Given that we are starting out 25% below present spending levels, we have enormous reserves to take care of increases – and can do so for a looooong time before we need to raise taxes.
Philip P:

You point out, rightly, that we already have funding mechanisms. However, when costs increase (e.g a new school must be built, there’s an influx of new students, etc.), there’s usually some form of tax hike, such as a school bond, bump in the sales tax, etc. Unless I misunderstood you, your claim was that your system eliminates the need for any tax increase. Show me.

You fail to understand competitive economics. Do we need a tax increase to build a new MacDonald’s or Wal Mart?

The ability of industry to compete in the education industry is an economic incentive. When Wal Mart or MacDonald’s builds a new store they do it by using the profits from previous stores!!

You’re asking me to take your incorrect assumption (that a competitive education industry cannot produce schools by re-investing profits) and prove you are right!!
Philip P:

Reforming the budgeting process would certainly go a long way toward cutting waste and corruption, a goal we both agree on. However, how does this relate to a specific level of tax rates? .

When we manage the public money efficiently, we don’t need high taxes.
Philip P:

Whether they government has more money or less, it will still spend it. I anticipate that your response will be along the lines of “well then they should have less money to spend on waste.” Perhaps it’s time you clarify what you mean by this. Suppose you’re on the 109th Congress, and you have to pass a budget. Since you’re committed to cutting taxes, or at least opposed to rolling back tax cuts on even the top tier of income earners (if this in incorrect say so), your only option is to cut. What gets cut?

Gazebos, unneeded computers and spare parts, 1,000-year supplies of toilet paper, and so on.

I congratulate you, though, on using this ploy like a pro – pretending the current budget process is the ONLY process that can exist, and demanding I make cuts ONLY in those categories visible at the highest levels.

As I have show, though, we can have a zero-based budget, where every expenditure is justified on its own merits, and we have resolution enough to see what the money is actually going for.
Philip P:

For instance, from today’s paper – “Gov. Pataki is warning that a version of a federal transportation bill headed for a vote would leave the state about $430 million short of what is needed to maintain its roads and highways.” Are you willing to take responsibility for deteriorating roads and highways, congressman?

Gee, a HIGH tax state can’t maintain its own roads, while low tax states seem to do pretty well.

Cut the fat, Pataki, and manage your money more wisely. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

Your proposal addresses budgeting – that is, how MUCH it will cost. It doesn’t address how we will pay for that.

Since my proposal is about 25% LESS than we currently spend on a per-pupil basis, current sources of funding are more than adequate.

Are you pretending that we can’t improve education until we completely restructure the tax system to meet your satisfaction?
Philip P:

Suppose there is a significant increase in per-pupil cost (assuming the per-pupil cost will remain flat is unrealistic). Now that your budget has gone up, how do you make the funding match it?

Given that we are starting out 25% below present spending levels, we have enormous reserves to take care of increases – and can do so for a looooong time before we need to raise taxes.
Philip P:

You point out, rightly, that we already have funding mechanisms. However, when costs increase (e.g a new school must be built, there’s an influx of new students, etc.), there’s usually some form of tax hike, such as a school bond, bump in the sales tax, etc. Unless I misunderstood you, your claim was that your system eliminates the need for any tax increase. Show me.

You fail to understand competitive economics. Do we need a tax increase to build a new MacDonald’s or Wal Mart?

The ability of industry to compete in the education industry is an economic incentive. When Wal Mart or MacDonald’s builds a new store they do it by using the profits from previous stores!!

You’re asking me to take your incorrect assumption (that a competitive education industry cannot produce schools by re-investing profits) and prove you are right!!
Philip P:

Reforming the budgeting process would certainly go a long way toward cutting waste and corruption, a goal we both agree on. However, how does this relate to a specific level of tax rates? .

When we manage the public money efficiently, we don’t need high taxes.
Philip P:

Whether they government has more money or less, it will still spend it. I anticipate that your response will be along the lines of “well then they should have less money to spend on waste.” Perhaps it’s time you clarify what you mean by this. Suppose you’re on the 109th Congress, and you have to pass a budget. Since you’re committed to cutting taxes, or at least opposed to rolling back tax cuts on even the top tier of income earners (if this in incorrect say so), your only option is to cut. What gets cut?

Gazebos, unneeded computers and spare parts, 1,000-year supplies of toilet paper, and so on.

I congratulate you, though, on using this ploy like a pro – pretending the current budget process is the ONLY process that can exist, and demanding I make cuts ONLY in those categories visible at the highest levels.

As I have show, though, we can have a zero-based budget, where every expenditure is justified on its own merits, and we have resolution enough to see what the money is actually going for.
Philip P:

For instance, from today’s paper – “Gov. Pataki is warning that a version of a federal transportation bill headed for a vote would leave the state about $430 million short of what is needed to maintain its roads and highways.” Are you willing to take responsibility for deteriorating roads and highways, congressman?

Gee, a HIGH tax state can’t maintain its own roads, while low tax states seem to do pretty well.

Cut the fat, Pataki, and manage your money more wisely. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

Jeffery,

You’re absolutely right. In fact, your position is precisely why we have a progressive tax system in this country. However, if you look at this IRS report summarizing the last 25 years (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/04asastr.pdf), you’ll notice that, although our tax structure has remained generally progressive (i.e. the working class pays less), it is slowly becoming less so. For instance, in 1979 the top 1/10 of 1% accounted for 3.28% of the nation’s income. In 2002 they accounted for 7.1%. This is a 116.4% increase. However, in the same period, the share of the nation’s taxes paid by this segment only rose 106.64%…

You realize that to pretend make your point, you’ve had to go to the third differential?

(For those who don’t know calculus, the third differential is the rate of acceleration of the rate of acceleration.)http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
Philip P:

If the share of the nation’s taxes paid by the top earners isn’t keeping pace with their income, who do you think’s picking up the slack? There’s a hint on the fourth page of the report: “Despite the fact that the overall tax rate remained virtually the same for 1979 and 2001, the average rate for all but the very lowest size class actually declined."

The “lowest size class” is the TOP bracket, not the bottom.

The lowest bracket went from 15% to 10% in the current round of tax cuts. When Congress voted to make that permanent, guess which party opposed it?

Take a guess – which party wants to raise the bottom bracket from 10% to 15% and put a whopping 50% increase on the lowest income taxpayers?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

 

[Philip_P]

Vern, the $5000 per pupil number is a made up number, for the sake of making a simple model to to illustrate your proposal. The actual per pupil cost, once ALL relevant factors are put in could be more, could be less. I don’t know what the number is, and neither do you (and it’s not a question of simply seeing what the current number is, since under your proposal the per-pupil cost needs to be re-calculated to take into account new factors). You claim that your proposal will cost 25% less than the current system, but there’s no way to know that until an actual, full study is done. Obviously, this is far beyond the scope of this forum.

Once again, though, the fundamental question remains, which you still have not answered. When the education budget goes up, how will you transfer that to funding and NOT raise taxes? Of course, you can get out of this very easily by admitting that sometimes taxes must be raised, and then laying out your preferred method for doing so (sales tax? Bump in upper income tier personal tax? Something innovative and creative?).

As far as your refusal to lay out what budet cuts you propose, let’s stop pretending we live in some fantasy utopia. Of course the current budget process isn’t the only one possible. It is, however, the one CURRENTLY in place. If you were on the 109th Congress, today, and you had to balance the budget, which programs would you go on the record for cutting, and be willing to be held accountable for? Or would you prefer to follow the president’s lead and just spend spend spend, ignore the growing deficits, and pass the buck on to the next generation? Someone needs to tell that guy what a veto is and encourage him to use it from time to time.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

Vern, the $5000 per pupil number is a made up number, for the sake of making a simple model to to illustrate your proposal.

What an OUTRAGEOUS accusation!!

I have bid on and won many a contract in the commercial training and education industry and my figures are solid. MY bid would be $5,000 per pupil if I were seeking a contract to run schools.

And yes, I DO know all the expenses involved – I spent a long time in this business.
Philip P:

Once again, though, the fundamental question remains, which you still have not answered. When the education budget goes up, how will you transfer that to funding and NOT raise taxes?

Once again, the point you keep dodging – the education budget goes DOWN. And goes down significantly.

If you like, we can create a foundation, invest that surplus 25% and devote a portion of the profit to any increased expenses.
Philip P:

Of course, you can get out of this very easily by admitting that sometimes taxes must be raised, and then laying out your preferred method for doing so (sales tax? Bump in upper income tier personal tax? Something innovative and creative?).

You keep pretending there is a tax ratchet at work, and that taxes must always go up.

That’s called “begging the question” – you want the rest of us to accept your ratchet concept so you can make your point.
Philip P:

As far as your refusal to lay out what budet cuts you propose, let’s stop pretending we live in some fantasy utopia.

That would be the utopia where you live? The one where government can’t cut spending, but individual wage earners can always tighten their belts another notch?
Philip P:

Of course the current budget process isn’t the only one possible. It is, however, the one CURRENTLY in place. If you were on the 109th Congress, today, and you had to balance the budget, which programs would you go on the record for cutting, and be willing to be held accountable for?

No, I’d introduce a bill to go to a zero-based budget, and demonstrate an out-of-kilter algorythm system to manage it.

As for accountability, I’d hold YOU accountable – you and all the other supporters of waste and corruption in government.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Philip P:

ByzCath, two points, one abstract and the other more concrete.

On the abstract/philosophical level, I think there needs to be a realization that a certain amount of waste is inherent in democratic government.

This is nothing more than an excuse.

On the more concrete level, when it comes time to cut spending, it’s often very subjective what counts as waste, and what counts as essential.

This does not address my point, I did not say anything about spending cuts.

I said, cut the waste and then you have more money to spend with out raising taxes.

I know this is just a radical idea that it is hard to comprehend.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Phillip P:

On the more concrete level, when it comes time to cut spending, it’s often very subjective what counts as waste, and what counts as essential.

ByzCath:

This is nothing more than an excuse.

This does not address my point, I did not say anything about spending cuts.

I said, cut the waste and then you have more money to spend with out raising taxes.

I know this is just a radical idea that it is hard to comprehend.

Hey, you know there’s no way we can tell which is more important, a new hospital or a thousand year supply of toilet paper!http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

Change the budgeting system and stop this insane rush to spend year end funds on anything we can buy!!

 

[Philip_P]

Well Vern, this doesn’t seem to be going anywhere, so let’s boil this down to the essential arguments on each side.

My position: Taxes should go up or down as necessary. When facing a budget deficit, a combination of spending cuts and tax increases is necessary to bring the budget in line.

Your position: Taxes should never go up. Ever.

Please amend your position if I have misstated it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

Well Vern, this doesn’t seem to be going anywhere, so let’s boil this down to the essential arguments on each side.

My position: Taxes should go up or down as necessary. When facing a budget deficit, a combination of spending cuts and tax increases is necessary to bring the budget in line.

Your position: Taxes should never go up. Ever.

Please amend your position if I have misstated it.

You have misstated it.

My position is:

• People who work hard have a right to keep their own money
• Taxes should be limited to paying for those essential things that further the common good.
• Corruption and waste are so rampant in government that any demand for more taxes must be accompanied by a serious and effective program to reduce waste and eliminate corruption.

 

[Philip_P]

So you grant that it is, in fact, legitimate, even necessary, to raise taxes at times?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

So you grant that it is, in fact, legitimate, even necessary, to raise taxes at times?

Taxes should be raised on the same basis a fighter pilot uses a parachute – only in the last extreme, and only as a temporaty measure.

 

[Philip_P]

So that’s a yes?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

So that’s a yes?

What part of “Taxes should be raised on the same basis a fighter pilot uses a parachute – only in the last extreme, and only as a temporary measure” did you not understand?

 

[Philip_P]

Just wanted to make sure I didn’t misunderstand. So yes, Vern agrees that when necessary (qualify as desired), taxes can be raised, and whenever possible, should be cut. Furthermore, like all taxpayers, Vern has a strong bias toward lowering taxes.

See, that wasn’t so hard, was it?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

Just wanted to make sure I didn’t misunderstand. So yes, Vern agrees that when necessary (qualify as desired), taxes can be raised, and whenever possible, should be cut. Furthermore, like all taxpayers, Vern has a strong bias toward lowering taxes.

See, that wasn’t so hard, was it?

And given that the conditions necessary to justify raising taxes have not been met, no increase is warranted.

 

[Philip_P]

vern humphrey:

And given that the conditions necessary to justify raising taxes have not been met, no increase is warranted.

Now we’re able to move forward with this discussion. Having agreed that, in theory at least, it IS possible to raise taxes, the qestion becomes when it is warranted. For that we’d have to examine a specific situation. The very beginning of this thread dealt with MN, but neither you nor I live there, so neither of us are really qualified to pronounce judgement on that case. At the national level, no one is proposing RAISING taxes right now, either (the closest to a tax raise I’ve heard proposed is a restoration to pre-Bush tax rates for the upper income earners, which are currently scheduled to expire unless renewed anyway. There is talk of raising the soc sec cap, but soc sec is an issue in and of itself).

There are two directions I can see taking this in now. One would be to go into the idea of “your own money.” How much of the money and wealth one posses does one truly “own,” how much does on owe society, where does the concept of stewardship fall in, etc. The other is to ask what we expect from our government. I think the second route is probably the best one to go with. Actually, it may not even be possible to answer the first without first looking at the second. So let’s do that next - what do we expect from our government?