I've seen Mafoo argue that raising taxes is unconstitutional.

And I agree with you that the government should use that power responsibly.  The government should tax us as little as it can to maintain fiscal solvency and the government should spend as little as it can for the same reason.  But currently we are getting hit on both ends.  Tax revenues when adjusted for inflation, natural population growth, and GDP growth have plummeted since the Clinton years.  Spending has risen dramatically, though anyone who tells you that it is possible to run a balanced budget during a recession even if you want to while still maintaining a functional national government is fooling themselves.

The solution is pretty simple.  We need to cut spending and control the growth of spending.  We also need to raise taxes. 

High tax rates help control the economy from getting out of hand as well.  Low taxes are good during times of economic contraction, but high tax rates during good economic years prevents bubbles in the economy that result in economic crashes like the ones we just went through.  It controls the money supply and prevents overleveraging.

Uh... what about that 19.5 graph that's show tax revenue consistant with GDP?

Aside from what you've stated... none of that has anything to do with a progressive vs flat tax arguement.

Nor does it explain why we don't even have a proportional tax system... but instead a "pick and choose" style taxation system that leads to abuse.

All programs should be paid for by all people.  Taxes shouldn't be raised on some to get new programs in play.  When new taxation is needed everyone should feel the hit in some form or another.

If they can't.  Well the government is spending way too much money.

I have said taxing a group of people for the sole purpose of giving it to another is unconstitutional.

That has nothing to do with if I think we need to pay taxes. Everyone needs to pay taxes to pay for the things government should be doing.

that's very keynesian of you, akuma

I don't buy that graph for various reasons.  One of them has to do with government deficits spiking during the Reagan years and progressively getting worse, absent some years of surpluses in the Clinton years.  And frankly when adjusted for inflation government budgets have not grown to that degree, even though you love to hear people piss and moan about government spending.  If you compare the budget now to 1970 and adjust for inflation, the budget is about at the same level.  But deficits have skyrocketed.

Furthermore, if you look at real revenue growth for the government during different administrations, real revenue growth is higher when taxes on the rich are higher, in spite of what many claim.  This article explains it relatively well.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/reagan-and-revenue/

January 17, 2008, 7:03 pm

Reagan and revenue

That didn't refute anything that has to do with that graph.

I'm not complaining that the poor have it harder than the rich, I'm complaining that you think it's a good idea to make taxes more hard on the poor vs. the rich.  It's like you're saying, "They already have it bad, so why not make it a little worse?"

I also think it's very interesting that you chose to respond only to this part of my post.  I can only presume that means you agree with my first point.  Do you also concur about the implications of your earlier statement, which I laid out in my third point? 

Where is the rich guy getting his money?  Selling stuff to poor people.

The logic of your argument is that rich people use money to boost the economy and poor people dont help the economy because they put money in a black hole somewhere.

Please understand this.  Rich and poor people spend money alike.  They both buy goods and services that increased the demand for jobs through the job multiplier effect.  Rich people spend money and poor people spend money, and the free market does not care who spends that money.  Wether it is rich people with money or poor people with money DOES NOT effect the supply and demand of jobs, it only effects what types goods and services are in demand.

The multiplier effect has nothing to do with who has more money.  Again, the only difference between a rich person with $100,000 and ten poor people wtih $10,000 is what goods they buy with it and what industry gains from those purchases.

So the fair thing to do is to charge everyone the same amount of tax?

Then why are you arguing for arbitrary percentages then?

Answer my question first.

Even though I already gave you my answer in that actual post.

I've also argued for a proportional taxation model in this thread.