Is deficit spending Constitutional?

Recommended Posts

Out of curiosity, is it really that infeasible to push non-permanent tax raises to generate some extra revenue? Or is it just the whole american mindset that limits us from doing that?

The Democrats are now pushing for a "war tax" on people who make over $250,000. I continue to support the Democrats policy of "tax and spend" over the Republicans' policy of "don't tax and spend" One of the first things Clinton did upon entering office was to raise taxes. The bill passed without a single Republican vote. 8 years later, Republicans were patting themselves on the back for how they balanced the budget. *sigh* Link to comment Share on other sites The Democrats are now pushing for a "war tax" on people who make over$250,000.
Will we ever be able to rationalize the money we wasted on the War on Terror 5,000 Extremists?
Share on other sites

I think you'll find that people can rationalize just about anything, and often do.

Share on other sites

Out of curiosity, is it really that infeasible to push non-permanent tax raises to generate some extra revenue? Or is it just the whole american mindset that limits us from doing that?

I am aware of numerous examples of "non-permanent" taxes that have been around so long, I'd say they are permanent. As one example, take a look at toll roads - the tolls were supposed to cease when the construction costs for the roads were paid, which in some cases has happened many times over but the tolls are still being collected (ok, not really a tax, but still wrong).

I'm not aware of many examples "non-permanent" taxes which have actually expired. This deceit on the part of our politicians is why raising money via "non-permanent" taxes is now politically difficult, it not infeasible.

Share on other sites

I'm not aware of many examples "non-permanent" taxes which have actually expired. This deceit on the part of our politicians is why raising money via "non-permanent" taxes is now politically difficult, it not infeasible.
Sugar grown in the US has had an abnormally high tariff placed upon it ever since 1816 (which was passed along to the growers as subsidies). Growers in Louisiana and Florida complained that the climate is cooler than more equatorial lands and sugar cane plantations took longer to establish. They continued to complain (once their initial costs were recovered) that reducing the tariffs would reduce the value of the slave labor used on the plantations.

Sugar in the US is still highly taxed and the subsidies that helped the growers start out in healthy competition are still given, resulting in sugar that is twice the price of anywhere else in the world. And because of price, many US food manufacturers either locate their plants outside the US or use unhealthy high-fructose corn syrup as a sugar alternative.

I don't know if that counts as a non-permanent tax which never expired, but it still steams me.

Create an account

Register a new account