Should taxes be automatically pegged to spending?

[Pb]

I had an idea- supposed tax rates were variable and automatically pegged to spending.

When gov spending rises, tax rates automatically rise.

When spending falls, taxes automatically decrease.

This would provide, hopefully, more public pressure to decrease spending, as well as being more fiscally responsible.  No more cutting taxes and raising spending at the same time.

I can think of a problem:

Changing tax rates would make planning for the future more difficult for some individuals

It would contradict the idea that when the economy is bad, the gov should increase spending and decrease taxes at the same time.

What do you all think?

[AJ Dual]

I think automatic payroll withholding should be eliminated, inheritance tax should be eliminated, capital gains tax is double taxation on money already taxed as income, and that the corporate tax rate should be reduced to whatever it is that China has.

[Ben]

I think automatic payroll withholding should be eliminated, inheritance tax should be eliminated, capital gains tax is double taxation on money already taxed as income, and that the corporate tax rate should be reduced to whatever it is that China has.

You are my write-in candidate for president.

Capitol gains and dividends taxes especially irk me (closely followed by the death tax). Mostly because every politician and progressive strategist that promotes "sticking it to those Wall Street fat cats" is also sticking it to people like me, who held a regular job all their lives and sacrificed luxuries in order to invest their after expenses, already taxed wages to provide for themselves in retirement and not have to count on Social Security or other government handouts in their old age.

For every guy in a top hat they think they're sticking it to, they're also sticking it to 10,000 or so Regular Joes who just want to pay their own way through life by investing their already taxed wages.

[Perd Hapley]

No. That would just make it easier for the politicians to raise both rates at once. Also, the Left would find a way to make the rate hikes "progressive," so that the lower brackets are either exempted, or they only get a one percent hike, while the higher brackets get a 3 or 5 percent, of whatever.

[brimic]

I think automatic payroll withholding should be eliminated, inheritance tax should be eliminated, capital gains tax is double taxation on money already taxed as income, and that the corporate tax rate should be reduced to whatever it is that China has.

Income taxes should, no need to be eliminated altogether.

[Angel Eyes]

I think automatic payroll withholding should be eliminated, inheritance tax should be eliminated, capital gains tax is double taxation on money already taxed as income, and that the corporate tax rate should be reduced to whatever it is that China has.

Semi-related: some APS member suggested the following a while back:

1) No tax withholding.

2) Tax day is the same as election day.  You pay your taxes for the year, in full, then cast your vote.

I still like this one the best.  Puts one in the right frame of mind for voting.

[brimic]

Semi-related: some APS member suggested the following a while back:

1) No tax withholding.

2) Tax day is the same as election day.  You pay your taxes for the year, in full, then cast your vote.

I still like this one the best.  Puts one in the right frame of mind for voting.

I could be ok with that compromise, so long as there aren't any unearned tax credits being doled out to bring the gimmedats to the polls.

[KD5NRH]

I had an idea- supposed tax rates were variable and automatically pegged to spending.

I'd rather have shock collars on all members of Congress, with the voltage level pegged to spending.

[RoadKingLarry]

Better idea.

Spending is variable and pegged to tax revenues, if you don't have enough tax revenue to fund the spending you don't get to spend what you don't have.


But shock collars for politicians has always been a good idea.

[MechAg94]

First thing to do is end any and all automatic increases in budgets.  All budgets remain fixed and require specific congressional action to increase each year. 

Second, end any and all bonuses for govt executives (and employees) if they spend more than 100% of their budget.  Maybe even a pay cut?

Third, just get rid of income tax all together including corporate.  That would require ending a lot of govt money giveaways.

[HankB]

I'd rather have shock collars on all members of Congress, with the voltage level pegged to spending.

How about voltage level pegged to overall voter approval of Congress?

[Northwoods]

How about voltage level pegged to the inverse of overall voter approval of Congress?

FTFY.

Should taxes be automatically pegged to spending?

No.  It should be pegged to the Constitutionality of the size and scope of the government.

[Perd Hapley]

No.  It should be pegged to the Constitutionality of the size and scope of the government.

Winning!

[brimic]

Maybe politicians should be pegged every time they spend. 

[Hawkmoon]

I had an idea- supposed tax rates were variable and automatically pegged to spending.

When gov spending rises, tax rates automatically rise.

When spending falls, taxes automatically decrease.

This would provide, hopefully, more public pressure to decrease spending, as well as being more fiscally responsible.  No more cutting taxes and raising spending at the same time.

I can think of a problem:

Changing tax rates would make planning for the future more difficult for some individuals

It would contradict the idea that when the economy is bad, the gov should increase spending and decrease taxes at the same time.

What do you all think?

I can think of a bigger problem: Your plan would automatically provide funding for whatever budget increases our purported "representatives" in Washington choose to foist upon us. Your plan eliminates any semblance of checks and balances, and would only encourage still more profligate spending by the government.

We don't need to encourage and enable more government spending, we need to force the government to downsize, economize, and prioritize.

It would contradict the idea that when the economy is bad, the gov should increase spending and decrease taxes at the same time.

Whose idea is it that when the economy is bad, government should increase spending? The notion that the government should "stimulate" the economy runs totally counter to the concept of a free market. It is the role of government to govern, not to meddle in the marketplace. The less the government has its sticky fingers in the economy, the better off we'll all be.

[charby]

Have a constitutional amendment that states: Federal Government will not spend annually more than 99% of it's annual revenues.

We got that in the State of Iowa constitution and it has kept us from being like IL, CA and NY with the massive debts.

[brimic]

Have a constitutional amendment that states: Federal Government will not spend annually more than 99% of it's annual revenues.

We got that in the State of Iowa constitution and it has kept us from being like IL, CA and NY with the massive debts.

We have something similar in WI- budget has to be balanced. One weak spot was exploited by former gov Doyle- tax revenues are allocated to different spending funds- he used line item vetoes to completely change budgets and drained out the Highway fund and various other funds for his leftist spending agenda (most noteworthy was his choo-choo project). Budget was still balanced, but roads and bridges weren't getting fixed and Gov Walker had to fix the mess left behind by doyle.

[Monkeyleg]

Automatically pegging tax rates to spending would be unconstitutional, as it's taxation without representation. We had an incident of that several years back in Wisconsin.

[KD5NRH]

We got that in the State of Iowa constitution

Ah yes, Iowa, where corn products and people tired of Iowa are jockeying for #1 export status.

What do they spend money on anyway?  Cornhole boards and moonshine stills?

[charby]

Ah yes, Iowa, where corn products and people tired of Iowa are jockeying for #1 export status.

What do they spend money on anyway?  Cornhole boards and moonshine stills?

Gotta pay for roads to move the corn, ethanol and dissatisfied residents out of the state. Duh!

[KD5NRH]

Gotta pay for roads to move the corn, ethanol and dissatisfied residents out of the state. Duh!

Can't they just pave them with corn waste?

[charby]

Can't they just pave them with corn waste?

Apparently you don't read Ethanol Weekly, we make ethanol out of that now too.

[KD5NRH]

Apparently you don't read Ethanol Weekly, we make ethanol out of that now too.

So you're spending all that state budget on new fuel lines, filters and gaskets?

[charby]

So you're spending all that state budget on new fuel lines, filters and gaskets?

We've had ethanol fuel since the mid 70s, most cars since the late 70s have no problem with fuel.

[Perd Hapley]

Not this stuff again.