my baseline for changing rates is based upon the fact that we have had three economic crashes in the past hundred years and they are all directly tied to massive tax cuts, especially as they pertain to the wealthy. After World War I the top marginal tax rate was something like 73% so Herbert Hoover lowered them in a series of cuts between 1922-1925 from 73% to 56% to 46% and finally to 25%. This caused a 2-3 year boom in the economy and then in 1929 it crashed. The next massive tax cut comes in 1982. Throughout the sixties and seventies the top marginal rate had never dropped below 70%, after a high of around 90% during the sixties, until Reagan lowered the top marginal rates from 70% to 50% and then to 38.5% (I could be a percent off one way or the other). We experiences 2-3 years of economic boom and then Black Monday, 1987 happens with the savings and loan crisis. Lastly, GWB tax cuts drop the top marginal rates only a little (39.6% to 35%) but significantly drop the capital gains taxes and include several loopholes to allow even further deductions. We had a few good years before the crash of 2008. So you see there is a pattern here and it is no coincidence. further, there is no evidence that tax increases are job killers. in fact, quite the contrary. as I stated in an earlier forum, the top tax rate during the sixties was like 90% yet gdp growth averaged 3.7% for the decade. there is no evidence to suggest that tax increases create jobs but the notion that they are job killers is patently false. from my research on the subject I believe that tax cuts are an excellent temporary measure to infuse the economy with liquidity but only provide a temporary stimulus. if left alone, tax cuts eventually become a drain on liquidity as the wealthy stash away their influx of cash. The Bush Tax Cuts did indeed provide some assistance to the middle class in the form of mortgage deductions, etc. And actually that is a facet of the bush tax cuts that i thought were good because it put money in the hands of the people who need it and who will spend it in ways that allow the money to "multiply" in the economy and impact several businesses and jobs. That said, they too should have been temporary. Of course it is but unemployment is 4% higher than it was 11 years ago so I doubt that revenues have increased over that span. If so, then certainly not a rate that can keep up with the rate of inflation, thus making it, at best, a wash.