Tax cuts, but for who? 19 replies

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

Relander

Ambassador

50 XP

8th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,538 Posts

0 Threads

#1 12 years ago

Tax cuts are popular amongst the people and many politicians for obivious reasons, and in most cases the cuts actually increase tax revenues in the form of increased consumption and employment situation. But what group of people should first and foremost receive tax cuts? Do you believe that tax cuts endanger public services or right on the contrary? Discuss.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#2 12 years ago

I believe in a flat tax system. I think a properly organized and run government could probaly survive on a flat income tax of as low as 5%, which would be perfectly fair for everyone. It's all a matter of having the government properly organized and streamlined. As it is now I think these massive taxes exist primarily because half the revenue gathered is probaly lost in bureaucracy.

So I think everyone should receive and equal amount of tax cuts, there shouldn't be a staggered system. But I suppose if I had to pick one class to get tax cuts it would be the middle class to encourage increased spending by them. The increased spending would in turn send some money both up and down, helping all three classes. It would send it up because it is from the high class that the middle class will be buying more then likely, and it sends it down because it is likely the low class who will now be able to find jobs in factory or retail because of the increased middle class spending.




Karst

I chose an eternity of this

50 XP

6th January 2005

0 Uploads

4,505 Posts

0 Threads

#3 12 years ago

I usually see tax cuts as presented as a party's political agenda with a fair amount of scepticism. I think in many cases it's just a popularistic tactic to gain support, and hoping that the public doesn't notice the consequences. Because if taxes are cut, obviously there's going to be less money somewhere.

If taxes are cut, it should be the low-incomers that benifit. But I think that hoping increased income from consumption and whatnot will offset the reduced tax revenue is a kind of unreliable political move.




Rich19

Italicised no more

50 XP

14th August 2004

0 Uploads

4,058 Posts

0 Threads

#4 12 years ago

Less taxes for the poor, more taxes for the rich. Simple really.




Dot Com

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

26th June 2000

0 Uploads

6,116 Posts

0 Threads

#5 12 years ago

Instead of tax cuts, the citizens should be getting adequate public service.




Relander

Ambassador

50 XP

8th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,538 Posts

0 Threads

#6 12 years ago
AfterburnerI think a properly organized and run government could probaly survive on a flat income tax of as low as 5%, which would be perfectly fair for everyone.[/quote] That would effectively turn a country into night-watchman state with just a couple of social programs if even that, I wouldn't like to live in that kind of society. 5% Income tax would be fair only for wealthy people who can fully buy their services unlike low-income people or lower middle-class: I don't believe totally free market actually works when it comes to people as a whole.
As it is now I think these massive taxes exist primarily because half the revenue gathered is probaly lost in bureaucracy.
I seriously doubt that any western government is that ineffective and surely it would have been noticed & reported. [quote=Karst]Because if taxes are cut, obviously there's going to be less money somewhere.

Not necessarily. Economic growth brings in more tax income in the form of increased consumption which leads to bigger enterprise profits, better employment and more tax money through enterprise & sales taxation, not to mention income tax revenues from newly employed people and reduction in social benefit expenses. This is what has happened in Finland for years: cuts on income taxation have actually raised tax revenues at longer term. Cutting down certain taxes have positive effects not only on private economy (enterprises, individuals) but also on public economy (government). Raising taxes on the contrary reduces tax revenues at longer term. I think taxes should be cut down in all income brackets for the sake of public economy & social justice but if I have to choose just one group (like in the poll), then I say the low-incomers. Middle-class gets by and wealthy people already have satisfied their basic needs & much more while low-incomers are not in as good position. Lowering taxation from low-incomers also motivates people to work as it's more beneficial than living on the dole or making crimes, and it also has balancing social effects.




Buddy Jesus

Who's your buddy

50 XP

6th September 2004

0 Uploads

757 Posts

0 Threads

#7 12 years ago

Rather than have an income tax it would be better to be taxed on the amount you consume in goods and services and such. I don't remember what type of tax it's called though. There should be an other catagory.




masked_marsoe VIP Member

Heaven's gonna burn your eyes

50 XP

16th April 2005

0 Uploads

8,063 Posts

0 Threads

#8 12 years ago

It's in general called a "Consumption Tax", though specific taxes might be called Goods and Services Tax (GST), Value Added Tax (VAT) etc. Most of them run between 10% and 15%; the major issue being they don't collect a lot of money (compared to income tax), and if it is set to high then it can make basic necessities unaffordable.




Buddy Jesus

Who's your buddy

50 XP

6th September 2004

0 Uploads

757 Posts

0 Threads

#9 12 years ago
masked_marsoe;3832526 and if it is set to high then it can make basic necessities unaffordable.

See this is what gets me though, think about it. 10 cents here 7 cents there 35 cents there (for gas [every gallon you buy] which is already a reality in most places) adds up. Additionally the less you buy the more money you save. There for essentially low income families could save more money than if it was taken out in imcome tax. This tax system would also sponser a less bloated government and help it to streamline itself. The less money you give to the government the less money it has the potential to waste. Sometimes the anwser isn't in tax cuts or raising taxes it's simply in controlling spending, something the govoner of my state doesn't understand.




Karst

I chose an eternity of this

50 XP

6th January 2005

0 Uploads

4,505 Posts

0 Threads

#10 12 years ago
Relander;3832403Not necessarily. Economic growth brings in more tax income in the form of increased consumption which leads to bigger enterprise profits, better employment and more tax money through enterprise & sales taxation, not to mention income tax revenues from newly employed people and reduction in social benefit expenses. This is what has happened in Finland for years: cuts on income taxation have actually raised tax revenues at longer term. Cutting down certain taxes have positive effects not only on private economy (enterprises, individuals) but also on public economy (government). Raising taxes on the contrary reduces tax revenues at longer term.

Quite right, the loss of direct tax revenue may be made up for indirectly by increased spending, although this is not always a necessary consequence, making in imprudent to plan on such a condition. It is also highly dependent on the economical situation as a whole; if people are generally more in the mood to consume & invest or to save.




  • 1
  • 2