Instead of Raising Rates to Combat Inflation, Why not Raise Taxes?

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Other than the operational advantage that it is quicker and easier to raise rates than to raise taxes, wouldn't taxes have the same impact on inflation and also tend to lower the deficit and lower rates.

Other than the fact that Congress won't act and Trump would veto a tax hike if they did, the tax approach makes more sense in the current environment.

 

[scotchtiger]

Maybe some people aren't as cavalier about taking more money away from hardworking American families as you are?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Maybe some people aren't as cavalier about taking more money away from hardworking American families as you are?

You would prefer that we mainly raise taxes on the rich and big corporations?

Me, too.

 

[scotchtiger]

You would prefer that we mainly raise taxes on the rich and big corporations?

Me, too.

Well, I would prefer that we just reduce spending. But I’m glad that you disagree with many members of your party who want to raise the tax cap on Social Security or jack up the already exorbitant taxes paid by the hardworking families Biden and Harris both targeted.

 

[baltimorened]

You would prefer that we mainly raise taxes on the rich and big corporations?

Me, too.

if taxes were raised, they should be raised on everybody. If we're in this together, then everyone needs to share the pain. It's waaaaay to easy to say "raise the taxes on the other guy"

But, IMO, until we have a commitment and a plan to reduce the deficits, everything is just virtue signalling.

 

[firegiver]

When you actually ask folks who pretend they are fine raising taxes on the ultra wealthy how to do it, they pretend they don't know how or it would be too difficult.
Trickle down economics is a complete failure. Stock buy backs hurt our economy, and its what companies are doing rather than passing on the funds to their employees. Gone are the days of helping each other out, its just pure capitalism. By this same measure it should be illegal to build new roads for company infrastructure, it should be illegal to educate people. Just go ahead and start the feudalism wars.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

if taxes were raised, they should be raised on everybody. If we're in this together, then everyone needs to share the pain. It's waaaaay to easy to say "raise the taxes on the other guy"

But, IMO, until we have a commitment and a plan to reduce the deficits, everything is just virtue signalling.

You seem to be forgetting that the tax cuts this millennium have overwhelming benefited the rich.

A while ago, I asked one of the AIs if we reversed those cuts (mainly enacted by Rs under Bush and Trump) whether that would eliminate the deficit. It would help a lot, but the answer was "no".

So we need to raise them even more if we are going to pay the bills and have a chance to fix what's broken.

BTW, I didn't say to only tax the rich, I said to mainly tax the rich.

I wish you would respond more honestly.

 

[baltimorened]

You seem to be forgetting that the tax cuts this millennium have overwhelming benefited the rich.

A while ago, I asked one of the AIs if we reversed those cuts (mainly enacted by Rs under Bush and Trump) whether that would eliminate the deficit. It would help a lot, but the answer was "no".

So we need to raise them even more if we are going to pay the bills and have a chance to fix what's broken.

BTW, I didn't say to only tax the rich, I said to mainly tax the rich.

I wish you would respond more honestly.

so here's the question, do you start you budgeting process with "how much do we want to spend" and then back into how much do we need to tax to balance the budget"? Or the reverse?

See IMO when you do a budget, even the most basic, you set an amount and you adjust your spending to that. Just like a family budget. The problem that some folks on the left have is that they start with what do we want to spend ...

Now about honest posting...why are you always so defensive? Did I post that you said "only tax the rich"? I don't think so! I just said tax everyone...it's like mentally you go out of your way to defend your posts that don't need defending..

Now if it makes you happy, taxing everyone includes "mainly the rich and corporations"

 

[scotchtiger]

You seem to be forgetting that the tax cuts this millennium have overwhelming benefited the rich.

I broke down the math on this before you all joined the board. TL;DR, Trump’s 2017 income tax cuts benefited the “rich” less on a percentage basis than the middle class and others. Factors like reductions up and down the tax brackets, widening of lower tax brackets, significant expansion of the standard deduction and expanded child tax credit played into this. This isn’t conjecture - it’s math.

These cuts were extended in 2025 and things like no tax on tips and OT (both of which I oppose) were added. These obviously benefit the middle class much more than the “rich.” Other additions like the car loan deduction or senior deduction phase out at relatively low income levels, so they only benefit the middle class and below.

Have you done the math on this or are you parroting rhetoric from the left without fact checking?

 

[kidmike41]

You would prefer that we mainly raise taxes on the rich and big corporations?

Me, too.

Wouldn’t increasing taxes on corporations possibly lead to more inflation when they pass the costs on to consumers?

 

[MTTiger19]

Other than the operational advantage that it is quicker and easier to raise rates than to raise taxes, wouldn't taxes have the same impact on inflation and also tend to lower the deficit and lower rates.

Other than the fact that Congress won't act and Trump would veto a tax hike if they did, the tax approach makes more sense in the current environment.

Too many people not working and too few people contributing. Fix that. Why punish the people that are actually trying to do right. Maybe kick some of these freeloaders off welfare and out of the country.

 

[baltimorened]

Wouldn’t increasing taxes on corporations possibly lead to more inflation when they pass the costs on to consumers?

well the theory of those proposing the higher corporation taxes expect that corporations will just "eat" the higher expenses and reduce profits.

The downside to this argument comes in the potential reduction in everyone's 401k, IRA and other retirement accounts. Experts believe that rising prices of stocks comes from increased earnings. When those earnings come down, stock prices follow. Of course when that happens, and retirement accounts fall, the same people complain about capitalism, corporate greed, and the need for government intervention.

The old rule... every action has an equal and opposite reaction ...still applies/

 

[MTTiger19]

Seems a little unfair to keep piling income taxes on to the middle class that are keeping all the poor people afloat. You wanna tax people, go tax capital gains and leave the working people alone.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

so here's the question, do you start you budgeting process with "how much do we want to spend" and then back into how much do we need to tax to balance the budget"? Or the reverse?

Neither. You start by deciding what you want to accomplish. Then, if you have the resources, you budget those resources to achieve your goals.

If you don't have the resources (not a problem for the US) or don't have the political will (a big problem for the US) you scale down your aspirations to fit what you are willing and able to spend.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Now about honest posting...why are you always so defensive? Did I post that you said "only tax the rich"? I don't think so! I just said tax everyone...it's like mentally you go out of your way to defend your posts that don't need defending..

I'm going to hit back every time I notice you distorting or misrepresenting any of my posts you respond to.

It's not personal. We can have better discussions if you don't do that. Your comments will be better targeted, and I won't need to push back on your misdirection.

That's not being defensive - an unnecessary and inaccurate pejorative that you have employed several times when you are the one distorting the record - it's being accurate.

As for your

Did I post that you said "only tax the rich"? I don't think so!​

Please. What you posted made it seem like that's what I said. Your defense is just doubling down on your deceit.

 

[baltimorened]

I'm going to hit back every time I notice you distorting or misrepresenting any of my posts you respond to.

It's not personal. We can have better discussions if you don't do that. Your comments will be better targeted, and I won't need to push back on your misdirection.

That's not being defensive - an unnecessary and inaccurate pejorative that you have employed several times when you are the one distorting the record - it's being accurate.

As for your

Did I post that you said "only tax the rich"? I don't think so!​

Please. What you posted made it seem like that's what I said. Your defense is just doubling down on your deceit.

I don't usually push back this hard, but if you're going to read my words in whatever manner you want, then please, don't read my posts.
There is absolutely nothing deceitful in your saying "raising taxes mainly on the rich and corporations" and my saying "we should raise them on everybody".

But that's ok, For me this is the final time you accuse me of being deceitful.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I don't usually push back this hard, but if you're going to read my words in whatever manner you want, then please, don't read my posts.
There is absolutely nothing deceitful in your saying "raising taxes mainly on the rich and corporations" and my saying "we should raise them on everybody".

But that's ok, For me this is the final time you accuse me of being deceitful.

And now you are tripling down by editing out the parts where you misrepresented what I said to give the impression that you did nothing wrong.

How is that not deceitful?

So, yeah, since you seem unwilling to correct that behavior, I should probably put you on ignore. But the problem with putting liars on ignore is that then you don't see their lies and let them go unchallenged.

 

[Knickslions69]

Other than the operational advantage that it is quicker and easier to raise rates than to raise taxes, wouldn't taxes have the same impact on inflation and also tend to lower the deficit and lower rates.

Other than the fact that Congress won't act and Trump would veto a tax hike if they did, the tax approach makes more sense in the current environment.

Jesus wouldn’t raise taxes

 

[Moogy]

And now you are tripling down by editing out the parts where you misrepresented what I said to give the impression that you did nothing wrong.

How is that not deceitful?

So, yeah, since you seem unwilling to correct that behavior, I should probably put you on ignore. But the problem with putting liars on ignore is that then you don't see their lies and let them go unchallenged.

"Mainly" is a very nebulous descriptor, especially in this situation. It's vague enough that it could either be ignored entirely, or, itself, viewed as intrinsically deceptive ... especially when you consider the other vague/undefined terms, like "the rich" and "corporations," as well as not providing any idea what the absolute increase, or comparative increases, would be. Define "mainly," as you're applying it here ... preferably as a percentage/numerical value. It seems extremely catty, at best, to take bothsidesbutonlyonesidened to task for not being specific enough in response to you're extremely vague/generic statement.