5 Reasons Taxes Are Going to Rise

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Cuts in gov't spending must happen clear across the board before they even start to raise taxes. If they earnestly take a hard look at the budget and the politicians with the president look the citizens in the face and tell us that we still need to raise taxes, then so be it. I don't think they should raise taxes just because. Congress has abused that power for many years. People are talking and people know. More and more people are getting involved everyday.
If the gov't trims the fat, keeps spending at an all time low, entice corporations to repatriate the earned capital from overseas to promote job growth then and only then will America make it back to greatness.
We cannot spend our way to success. America needs to be ran like a business. Like a streamlined money making business.

Tito of NV 7:05AM July 08, 2011

I think the article hits the nail on the head. Only both spending cuts and tax increases are going to get the budget back on track, anything less is just day dreaming.

Ace of TX 8:07PM July 07, 2011

Thank you, Mr. Mauro, for an eloquent dose of TRUTH. Social Security money is NOT tax money to be spent on anything OTHER than Social Security.
These elected officials who play with these funds are guilty of theft from the American people.
They need to work with what they have derived from taxes and NOTHING more.

Ron of CA 7:15PM July 07, 2011

Baloney. Spending is how we got here, so we can cut it. The "unrecognizable" part is baloney - we could simply stop the foreign wars and that would have saved $2TN over the last decade. The bailouts and "stimulus" would be another $1TN. Military bases in Germany, the fact that we have twice the number of aircraft carriers as the rest of the world combined - between the Pentagon and spending that was supposed to be temporary, I've already found $3TN. There's plenty to cut.
Revenue went UP in the 2000s - even when adjusting for inflation and population growth. Spending just went up faster. Forget cuts - just cap spending growth at the combined rate of inflation and population growth and we'll have surpluses within a decade. They might end up cutting things that matter - but they certainly don't have to. It's not a question of "tax hikes versus butter" - it's guns versus butter, just like it always has been.

Patrick of NY 3:29PM July 07, 2011

It's absolutely disingenuous to imply SS/Medicare is 39% of annual Federal spending. What? They're trying carefully to cast this money as part of the overall tax collected, when in fact, it has nothing to do with taxes collected into the general fund. This is separately collected money, NOT a part of the actual taxes for the government. It's guaranteed by law to be paid back to us when we retire. It's a forced retirement savings account. Yes, it generally collects (at least, up until this year) a surplus. And that surplus has been unwisely borrowed over the course of the last few decades.
But while SS/Medicare make up 39% what the "government spends annually", it's not 39% of the TAX revenue. The government doesn't "spend" its money on SS/Medicare. It DISBURSES 39% of the money that's taken in from you, by law, and doesn't "spend it on you". We collectively have about $1 trillion a year collected from our wages and deposited into a trust account for us. Plus the interest on surpluses borrowed. We should have more than enough money to sustain SS forever, if the surplus $1.2 trillion wasn't borrowed. Sure, that generates more than $100 billion into the accounts from the interest owed on all that borrowed surplus, and that would be enough to make up the lat year's shortfall, but think about it: these interest payments come from actual income taxes collected - so the government is now using real tax money to pay the SS system the money it borrowed. And that affects what's left of the actual tax money collected to pay for other, more normal expenses. If there were another revenue stream available - (like fees for worldwide military protection for so many nations, as one example) that could boost the current $2.2 trillion in actual taxes it collects now by a few hundred billion more: the SS interest payments could be made, and the borrowed principal too. SS surpluses collected in the future could remain in the trust, and we'd have a solvent system for many, many decades to come - maybe in perpetuity. But do you think for two seconds the government would wisely choose to repay this debt to us if all of a sudden had an extra $200 billion in annual income? I think not. Why is it the American Public is ignored and treated like the red-headed step child by so many in our government?
No: the SS system is demonized by the Republicans because frankly, they don't want to pay the bills owed. We have the situation where the Republicans have attempted to characterize Social Security as an evil thing (it's not), that takes up 39% of the national budget - when in fact, it's self-sustaining (if it were just left alone to grow naturally with its collected surpluses), and need not impact the federal budget at all, except for the interest and principal it owes. If they hadn't borrowed the surplus to begin with - we wouldn't be in this pickle. It's a component of our sovereign debt, and it needs to be honored and not decimated!

Charles Mauro of CA 2:05PM July 07, 2011

A wise person Knows when they are over spending,and have too much debt.
and they will take steps to decrease spending; likewise a wise goverment should do the same.
Thank you

richard of TX 12:12PM July 07, 2011

Leftist drivel. Growing economies always produce increased revenues as the tax base expands. Higher taxes a growing economy do not produce. A growing economy with spending reductions and later discipline in keeping spending levels low and manageable will produce a situation that will grow us toward both deficit elimination and slow but steady debt reduction. Leftists never take into consideration that policies prompt actions. Their analysis is always based on static reasoning: people will continue to behave as they currently are regardless of changing circumstances.

Victor of GA 9:43AM July 07, 2011

There is no politically viable solution. Financial doom is a certainty at this point, and it's going to happen via inflation. A rapidly inflating dollar will be just as damaging to the world economy as an outright default.
That said, defense could be cut by 75% while maintaining the ability of the military to defend against foreign invasion. Lets say we eliminated/sold off everything else the federal government does except highways, SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and treasury functions. This combination gets us the 42% we need, and although the average citizen would certainly notice that the post offices shut down, they'd work around it. The retirement age can be raised a few more years, Medicare copays can be raised, and automatic cost of living adjustments can be elliminated from these programs.

Steve E. of TX 2:41PM May 25, 2011

More than just the wars; the need to look at the military industrial complex. Buying weapon systems the Pentagon does not want, giving contracts to whichever company gave the biggest contribution to a particular senator or congressman, and why do we need to be in over 100 different countries with troops? Cut the ethanol tax benefit, cut the oil company tax benefit, cut farm subsidies, and yes increase taxes on EVERYBODY! NOT JUST THE RICH, BUT EVERYBODY! Within ten years we will reduce the the actual debt by 25% to 35%. Raise the medicare tax, raise the social security tax, bring back the rates for income tax to what they were during Bush I's time in office, and BRING BACK PAYGO! This was a law that in Congress no new spending could be enacted without a corresponding cut to match it. None of what I have proposed will harm the economy or hurt individuals but will make certain everyone will pay attention finally to the bottom line.

Reid Radulski of WA 12:03AM May 25, 2011

Osma Bi Laden watched the Soviets go belly up trying fight in Afganistan and maintain the cold war at the same time. He figured that he could do the same to the U.S. by provoking us into going into Afganistan. What he didn't count on was the Iraq bonus and while we were all worried about WMD's nobody was paying attention to Wall Street. OBL must have spent a lot of time lying on his back in complete hyterics over how a single mission could work out so much better than his wildest expectations.

HAVEC of CA 4:43PM May 23, 2011