Harry Reid: Everyone’s Willing to Pay More in Taxes Except Congressional Republicans

who else met harry?ReasonHarry Reid knows what you want.

From the Weekly Standard:

Senate majority leader Harry Reid says that "Everybody" is "willing to pay more" taxes. He said so in an interview with a Nevada Public Radio host.

“The only people who feel there shouldn’t be more coming in to the federal government from the rich people are the Republicans in the Congress,” Reid told the radio host, according to Roll Call. “Everybody else, including the rich people, are willing to pay more. They want to pay more.”

People who want to pay more already can, unless they need to be told to do so?  Harry Reid insists taxation is a voluntary thing anyway. Failure to do so torpedoed his predecessor Tom Daschle’s nomination for Health and Human Services secretary, and the career of quite a few, but not all, politicians.

Follow these stories and more at Reason 24/7 and don't forget you can e-mail stories to us at 24_7@reason.com and tweet us at @reason247

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • UnCivilServant||

    LIES! I want you to stop spending!

  • CatoTheElder||

    But you're a rich Republican, and want poor children starving in the streets, women bleeding to death from botched abortions necessitated by contraceptive bans, and Beijing air quality.

    Everybody else wants rich Republicans to pay more taxes.

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    Is there any lefty alive who understands the difference, and relationship, between tax revenues and tax rates?

  • Jordan||

    IS there any lefty alive who understands anything about economics? These are the guys who can turn toilet paper into a luxury item.

  • Jordan||

    Also, is there any lefty alive who understands the difference between coercion and voluntary cooperation?

  • sarcasmic||

    Nope.
    They don't know the difference between debt and deficit, wealth and money, income and wealth, subsidies and tax breaks, transfer payments and government services, profit and theft, or anything else relating to economics.

  • CatoTheElder||

    Yes. The lefty elites know precisely what they are doing.

    They know full well that they are advocating, but are intellectually dishonest whenever they discuss it. Krugman, for example, is not stupid.

  • plusafdotcom||

    Spot on, all of you!

  • Calvin Coolidge||

    Yeas, this contradicts the Lizzy Warren message that rich people are so cheap that they aren't even willing to pay the taxes needed to fix the ROADZ. Which, to hear her tell it, are approximately 60% of all Federal spending, with trash pickup accounting for another 20%.

    They had better get Harry to talk to the left wing of his party and get back on-message. Rich people are EVIL and exist only to screw the poor in order to buy more monocles and fur hats for themselves. If they are perfectly willing to pay taxes, then all that demonization was for nothing. NOTHING!

  • John Thacker||

    The "if you want higher taxes why don't you voluntarily pay more" argument is a little ridiculous, but it's not any more ridiculous than the "if you oppose government spending on something you shouldn't use it if the government pays for it" arguments about ROADZ and supposed hypocrisy.

  • Adam330||

    Why is it ridiculous? If you think the government is funding valuable things, then you should be happy to give your money for that purpose. It might be better if you can get other people to do so as well, but that's no reason for you not to pay in.

  • John Thacker||

    On the assumption that the reasonable case for government action is when there's an actual case for collective action, whether because of free riders. Even in purely voluntary associations with decisions made by an unanimity of members, it is perfectly reasonable to say "I am willing to do X so long as everybody else does." (Where X can include contributing money to buy something, but can also be refraining from making noise, helping to clean a common area, or a whole host of other activities.) Contingent donations or matches are relatively common in voluntary situations as well.

    The government does a vast number of things already that are not justified at all by collective action problems, and are pure extortion of one group by another. Government is also not voluntary, nor is it easy to leave.

    But the same sort of preference and argument can be expressed about voluntary organizations.

  • Adam330||

    The amount of money necessary to fund the part of the federal government that deal with collective action problems is well below the federal government's current tax receipts. Therefore, you can't use that argument as a reason that you won't pay more taxes than you currently do unless everyone else does.

  • Brett L||

    Why? We have a mechanism for you to do so today. It sure would be easy to lead by example.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Yeah, why?

  • Killazontherun||

    Thacker is the mayor of a little town called False Equivalence.

  • R C Dean||

    The "if you want higher taxes why don't you voluntarily pay more" argument is a little ridiculous,

    Its called "leading by example", and isn't ridiculous at all.

  • Adam330||

    I for one refuse to contribute to any charity unless everyone in the country is forced to contribute to that charity.

  • John Thacker||

    And yet, I am aware of many charities where people make matching donations or challenge donations. Are those irrational?

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Mayor of a little town called False Equivalence or sole owner and mayor?

  • ||

    Supreme ruler.

  • Adam330||

    No, of course not. As I said above, "It might be better if you can get other people to do so as well, but that's no reason for you not to pay in."

  • AdamJ||

    The government is the left's favorite charity, can't John Stewart start an awareness campaign and have a press conference where he writes a giant check (in size and monetary value) and hands it to Jack Lew?

  • CatoTheElder||

    It's far more effective to write a big check to a politician who will use the coercive powers of government to force others surrender more money.

    Then donor then has some sway with the politician and a chance to get a cut of the enhanced revenue. It's 21st Century crony capitalism, and you have to work within the system you got.

  • Brett L||

    For instance, I voluntarily drive on private roads or on roads maintained by tolls whenever I can.

  • GILMORE||

    "" I voluntarily drive on private roads ...maintained by trolls whenever I can."

    With bridges. Who ask riddles.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    What is the capital of Assyria?

  • Generic Stranger||

    What is the flight speed of an unladen swallow?

  • plusafdotcom||

    A

  • Pelosi's Accommodator||

    You gotta pay the troll toll if you want to get in this boy's soul.

  • John Thacker||

    In a voluntary living arrangement with housemates, people might want everyone to do their part to do chores and keep the place clean. Yet they would not want to be the only person "leading by example" and doing all the chores even if other people refuse to. Nor would a sane person living in a house with 4 people do exactly 1/4th of the necessary cleaning of common areas, hoping to just "lead by example" instead of coming to an informal agreement.

    Sure, there's a very good argument for not living with people that have different standards for cleanliness than you do, and governments are very different in how they're not voluntary, but that's a different objection to governments, one that I share.

    It is perfectly reasonable to hold the opinion, "I would be willing to do X, but only if everyone else pitches in." The objection to government is in the inescapable nature of the contract.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    If you clean the entire house, it relieves everyone else of their responsibility to do his own part of the whole.

    If Reid pays more taxes, it doesn't relieve anyone else of the responsibility to do his own part of the whole.

  • GILMORE||

    "It is perfectly reasonable to hold the opinion, "I would be willing to do X, but only if everyone else pitches in."

    You mean, 'is forced to at the point of a gun'?

  • AlexInCT||

    That's exactly what he is saying without really wanting to say so. Coercion: it's just the best way to do things.

  • Adam330||

    This is an argument for refusing to pay for the defense department unless everyone else pays in too. But that's not what's going on here. The federal government already collects more than enough taxes to pay for DoD, the criminal justice system, public infrastructure and the few other functions that can reasonably be put into the category of public goods. Harry Reid and his ilk want to force everyone (actually only certain people) to pay above and beyond this amount to fund all kinds of programs that are essentially charity. If you think the federal government is a good way to run charity, the fact that I don't agree is no reason to refuse to fund it yourself.

  • Killazontherun||

    Its possible to point to the necessity of a standing army defending over its people in the history of other nations, but that of our nation is a uniquely good argument for the privatization of defense forces given that foreign invasion has been physically impossible since 1776, (as much ass kicking the Brits inflicted on us in the War of 1812, they had no ability to reestablish themselves) or thereabouts. In the events in our history where war became necessary, Pearl Harbor and 9/11 specifically, is there any doubt that the populace would have been willing and able to contribute to the cause to pay for a standing army capable of correcting the injustice done to the nation? No, our forces are used for excessive things, stirring hornets nests, playing chumps, historically to Brits, in our life time, to the Saudis, and paying for the defenses of nations who deploy their resources in competing with us instead. General income and business taxation is what made those counter productive activities possible.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    The federal government already collects more than enough taxes to pay for DoD, the criminal justice system, public infrastructure and the few other functions that can reasonably be put into the category of public goods.

    That's not really accurate. Pull up the Treasury's monthly statement and go through the revenues/outlays. You'll find that we barely bring in enough revenue to cover the "mandatory" programs like SS, Medicare/Medicaid, unemployment, and interest payments on the debt.

    As of August, it was something like $180 billion left outside of these programs, and with the additional $328 billion the Treasury tacked on after the shutdown, it probably wasn't even that much. Plus, SS is basically a proprietary funding program, so you have to remove that from the equation altogether to get an accurate picture of the net cost.

    The DoD and every other discretionary program is basically pure deficit spending, and has been essentially ever since Obama took over.

  • Adam330||

    Why are you subtracting the cost of SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. first? Those are the biggest charity programs I was talking about!

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Those are considered "mandatory" spending programs--available revenue is going to be allocated towards them first.

    Not saying I agree with it, it's just how it is.

  • Killazontherun||

    do chores and keep the place clean

    So the functions of government are similar to chores and cleaning? Or, more like every one in the household agrees to throw their money into a fire pit and have its value decimated?

    You say that not every government function is useless and can't be compared in such a way. Well, every function of government that is useless is the product of general taxation. That is what excise taxes are for, to pay for the actual use of a function the user needs or desires. That is why courts were traditionally paid for through the fees of their services and the same with ports.

    So, it is not ridiculous or absurd to ask those who find value in government functions others have no use for to pay more for those things especially when they are making noise about how much they value them!

  • ||

    There's nothing ridiculous about it. People show how much they value one thing over another by the choices they make with their money. If a certain government function is so important to them, then they should put their money where their mouth is, voluntarily.

  • John Thacker||

    OTOH, if voluntary money is enough to cover something, that's a very good indicator that government shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

  • ||

    Ding ding ding.

    This is true of most of what government does. Although the reverse doesn't follow, just because there isn't enough voluntary money to cover an expense one cannot expect government to pick up the tab.

    I have trouble securing voluntary investments for my Mexican Double fried chicken and donuts concept, but that doesn't mean I should be able to walk down to the Dept of Treasury and get them to cut me a check.

  • Adam330||

    are you still taking investments, because that sounds good.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Tell me more about this Mexican double-fried chicken thing.

  • Adam330||

    what do you say that me and you go rob john thacker to come up with some investment money for tim's Mexican double-fried chicken thing?

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Maybe he'll want to invest if we do it first.

  • CE||

    It's not ridiculous though. Just add a line at the bottom of the 1040, asking how much more you want to pay in taxes and instructions on including a check.

    Then we will know if Harry Reid is right.

  • Finrod||

    It's already there and has been there for years and years.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Hey Harry - FUCK YOU, CUT SPENDING.

  • Swiss Servator, Yodelriffic!||

    I agree, the constant refrain should be "No, fuck you, cut spending"

  • Finrod||

    This, and the reminder that Harry Reid still hasn't disproven the assertion that he is a pederast.

  • Swiss Servator, Yodelriffic!||

    Ed, in case "everybody" is reading and unsure - lets expand upon your link:

    Citizens who wish to make a general donation to the U.S. government may send contributions to a specific account called "Gifts to the United States." This account was established in 1843 to accept gifts, such as bequests, from individuals wishing to express their patriotism to the United States. Money deposited into this account is for general use by the federal government and can be available for budget needs. These contributions are considered an unconditional gift to the government. Financial gifts can be made by check or money order payable to the United States Treasury and mailed to the address below.

    Gifts to the United States
    U.S. Department of the Treasury
    Credit Accounting Branch
    3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
    Hyattsville, MD 20782

    How much have you sent, Harry?

  • Brett L||

    I just put this up on FB, because it is guaranteed to make at least one of my friends blow a gasket. Especially the part where I said, I'm sure Reid and the rest of the Senate Democrats will post their tax returns, along with cancelled checks showing how they made gifts equaling their tax burden with only the standard deduction at the new rate.

  • CE||

    Add it to the bottom of the 1040. If everyone wants to send more, the deficit will be gone in no time.

  • Killazontherun||

    For a mere hefty chunk of my paycheck I can pay a privileged class of people to sit on their asses and not contribute any creative, productive work to the world and go home at the end of the day enjoying the wealth and luxuries of this nation just as I do. I can enjoy the outcomes of an intelligence community, not only have they stirred up the hornets nest of primitives roaming the Middle East preying on those who rose above their tribal origins, but they have also branched out into pissing off the leadership of Europe and Latin America, and engaging in such acts of war as snooping on the calls and internet activities of millions of those nation's citizens (but that is what they are suppose to do! Right? Agitate populations, get trade deals squashed, fuel resentments to the breaking point, unite effected parties to turn on us and form coalitions towards our exclusion, uh yeah, what could go wrong?)! Also, I get the benefit of see the lifestyles of the poor turned through policies that promote dependency on unearned wealth turned into an impoverished freak show. A fucking bargain if there ever was one. Why would anyone ever complain about taxes.

  • Killazontherun||

    Also, I get the benefit of seeing the lifestyles of the poor turned through policies that promote dependency on unearned wealth turned into an impoverished freak show. A fucking bargain if there ever was one. Why would anyone ever complain about taxes.

  • CE||

    We can't sugarcoat this -- the government has not done the best job of pleasing everyone in the past 12 months.

  • Aresen||

    Senate majority leader Harry Reid says that "Everybody" is "willing to pay more" taxes. He said so in an interview with a Nevada Public Radio host.

    No, Harry, people are NOT willing to pay more taxes.

    The talking heads you meet every day are willing to make OTHER PEOPLE pay more taxes.

  • Brett L||

    I have a simpler solution. People who want to pay more should simply direct their accountants to take no deductions other than the standard individual or married deduction. The law doesn't require you to go beyond that. It only says that if you choose to calculate your deductions you may take the larger of the calculated and standard. Their taxes would be higher, but their accountants fees would be lower.

  • The Last American Hero||

    You don't need an accountant if you take the standard deduction.

  • ||

    Hey Harry, you moronic fuck, I have a challenge for you. Make taxes completely voluntary, and then we'll find out if "everyone" would willingly pay more. Seriously, I dare you. Oh wait, you would never do that for a second because you know that taxes are theft based on force? I thought so, you pathetic lying piece of shit.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    They are already voluntary, according to Reid.

  • Killazontherun||

    You can voluntarily have your life ruined, possibly go to jail, or you can pay taxes. What's so hard to understand?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    My fellow Earthicans, we enjoy so much freedom it's almost sickening. We're free to choose which hand our sex-monitoring chip is implanted in. And if we don't want to pay our taxes, why, we're free to spend a weekend with the Pain Monster.

  • CE||

    They weren't voluntary for Wesley Snipes.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

  • CatoTheElder||

    ^ MUST-SEE VIDEO

    Harry Reid is a moron who cannot grasp the meaning of English words.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    WTF is that fool even talking about.

  • ||

    Well he didn't ask me.

  • R C Dean||

    Here's an idea, Harry. Let's test your hypothesis that everyone wants to pay higher taxes by doing a pilot using Congressmembers and Congressional staff.

    Anyone who is pulling a paycheck from Congress gets tagged with whatever taxes you want to impose on the country at large for a pilot period of at least a year. Oh, and they also get full audits from the IRS to ensure that they aren't evading the tax.

  • Brett L||

    One quibble: All assets that aren't in a blind trust are listed on a return that is completely open to the public. They get to see where your money came from and what deductions you took. Any assets you have may be placed in such a trust at election time or after you have gone through a whole tax cycle with them on the public facing balance sheet.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Harry Reid is brain dead. How is he still able to walk around? It's a medical miracle!

    -jcr

  • Adam330||

    It's all thanks to obamacare!

  • Juice||

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Everybody else, including the rich people, are willing to pay more. They want to pay more.

    But I thought both Apple & Google were semi-evil for paying ONLY what they owed?

    Or maybe they're not part of everybody else?

  • 0x90||

    Well, that would just be more proof corporations are not people.

  • CatoTheElder||

    Proof the both corporations and rich Republicans are not people.

  • GILMORE||

    "'"Everybody" is "willing to pay more" taxes...“The only people who feel there shouldn’t be more coming in to the federal government from the rich people are the Republicans in the Congress,”...“Everybody else, including the rich people, are willing to pay more. They want to pay more.

    The rich people.

    Isn't that every 'household' over $250,000 a year in income, net worth be damned? What poll exactly is vampire-Reid referring to? This "rich people" shit is getting a little old.

    It really does seem the ACA situation has put the Democratic establishment into Full Retard mode, desperately flailing out with their ideological self-affirming tropes about WE NEEDS MOAR MONIES AND TEH RICHIES GONNA GIVE IT!!, and they think it somehow is going to make people nod in unison some more...? This line worked during the pres. election maybe... but i'm thinking this "EAT THE RICH" vein may be increasingly running dry. They just blew billions on a HC plan that doesnt' work and is going to cost average citizens enormous amounts of money already.... and they're talking about *how they don't have enough monies, and they needs more from the rich?*

    THEY WANTS IT, THEY DO.. THEY NEEEEEDSSSS IT....

  • CatoTheElder||

    Among the free-shit brigade and their Democrat enablers, envy never grows old.

  • ||

    There's sort of like a biological imperative in government to keep spending more until it is impossible to get any more money to spend.

    As long as government CAN get away with raising taxes, they will.
    That's because of the nature of power structures, the desire for power and money on the part of government officials. The desire to maintain and increase influence, by providing jobs and money to supporters. The desire to expand one's sphere of influence.

    It's just like the tendency of any organism to expand and fill it's environmental niche until resources literally cannot sustain anymore population.

    It's not really any different than how you or I will tend to improve our lifestyles until we consume right up to the limit of our available resources. Not that everyone does that, but that's the human tendency - if we have extra money around, we tend to spend it. To the government any cent in tax dollars that it could get that it isn't getting is just money sitting around that it could be spending.

    Look at all that money out there that rich people have that we're not spending on stuff! It's just sitting there! Why shouldn't we take it?

    Or, more accurately, look at all that income people are making that they aren't quite in open revolt about keeping yet! We could take that money! They aren't actually ready to shoot us yet, so why shouldn't we take it and spend it? It's just sitting there, being uselessly spent on small people's lives!

  • AdamJ||

    So the Republicans in congress are going against all their constituents, who presumably want to pay more in taxes, just so they can save a few bucks on their own returns? Wouldn't they lose their jobs then? Genius.

  • AdamJ||

    So the Republicans in congress are going against all their constituents, who presumably want to pay more in taxes, just so they can save a few bucks on their own returns? Wouldn't they lose their jobs then? Genius.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    I believe this is the same interview where Reid essentially said that he wasn't going to be negotiating with Team Red anymore on anything. He about had an aneurysm when the interviewer asked about possible spending cuts to Medicare and SS.

    Well, fucker, if that's the case, the House Reps should just end session and go home, especially now that you have egg all over your face by not delaying this clusterfuck of a healthcare mandate. If there's ever a Congressman that needs to suffer a debilitating stroke, it's Reid.

  • CE||

    I second the idea of the House of Representatives going home and not ever going back to DC. Followed by the Senate and the President and the bureaucracies and the judges.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    I doubt anyone would even notice they were gone.

  • Enough About Palin||

    DC Realtors would.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Maybe Harry Reid could start an Anti-Tea Party of people who want to pay more taxes (OWS doesn't count - they want others to foot the bill). Imagine how well attended those rallies would be.

  • Skip||

    Does anyone doubt that Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and all the limosuine liberals at MSDNC don't hire the most expensive CPAs to save them hundreds of thousands of dollars every year?

  • Duelles||

    I' m sorry Harry. Aren't revenues to the FEDs at an all time high. When the echo boomers start producing households and buying things we are going to be in heaven, but there Is a place in hell . . . Just for you. They're waiting, as am I.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement