People seem to forget that. ( and that's what Bush was counting on) The only reason the tax cuts were enacted was because we had a surplus. Well guess what, we ain't got it no more. And as for capital gains and dividends being taxed at a lower rate, it's bull. I agree, tax all income the same. I know it may shock some here, but the mega rich use more goverment services than the poor. They use the airports we protect, the roads we maintain, the police and fire protection that we provide, the coast guard service for when their out on their yachts, etc. Why should they pay a lower part of their earnings as a percentage of income, than I do.
Did Red say tax inequality. STOP looking at percentages and look at the $$$ amount. Last time I checked most people use the same damn services as the next. Make everybody pay a flat amount, EVERYBODY. And STOP the MF'n govt spending.
Looking at the $$ amount makes no sense. $175 dollars on a meal out is reasonable and affordable to me. It's way too much for a family making 40 grand a year, and it's pocket change to a multi-millionare.
We ain't got it no more because of spending. Bush cut taxes in May 2003 including individual rates, capital gains, dividends, and estate taxes. Revenue increased at a healthy pace thereafter. The tax cuts didn't cause the deficits. You should look at what tax rates are best for the economy as a whole instead of letting your emotions take over. Taking more money from the rich is not going to help you or I one bit. It might make you feel better emotionally but it's not going to help the economy.
It might rise at a slower rate but certainly not "slowly". Show me where it rose slowly or insignificantly during the Clinton years. It's simple math. A rich guy with an income of $1 million that is taxed at a 39.6% rate still nets over $600k. Show me how increasing the top tax rate to 39.6% from 35% is going to make the rate increase slowly? That guy making $1 million after taxes increased his wealth by $600k while the middle class guys wealth increases ever so slightly. This is not a slowly widening of the gap between the rich and middle class. This is all fine but the gap between the rich and middle class will continue to widen significantly under your proposal. I advocate not having new programs at all until we get the deficits under control. The revenue the government can generate from taxation is not unlimited. When you pass a new program and create new taxes to pay for it you are taking from that limited source. Your pay as you go is not wise at this point in history when the government is experiencing a national debt crisis. How about a pay down the debt before we go philosophy?
Fine, slower is it. So . . . like I said. The tax cut increases the rate at which the gap grows. It is deceptive math. Again you ignore that the millionaire isn't taxed at 35%, only his salary income (if any) is taxed at that rate. His huge interest, capital gains, and dividends income are taxed at a far lower rate(15%) than the average middle class citizen must pay on his salary-based income. I don't object to it widening by natural growth of larger capital assets. I object to it widening at a steeper rate because the government deliberately gave tax advantages to those that don't need them. Do you not see the inherent contradiction in what you just said? We are already in debt and paying interest on that. We must pay for current spending as we go and try to generate some surpluses, because only surpluses can pay down debt.
Taxing capital gains at 35% would be terribly detrimental to our economy. Everyone, including Barry, agrees with this.
Back to my original point regarding this quote from Luvdimtigers. "You're a lot closer to the guy riding on the back of the garbage truck than you are with that top group." The middle class will continue to be a lot closer to the the garbage man even with Clinton's tax rate. The Bush tax cut is not the reason for the huge gap between middle class and rich. It's only responsible for a very small percent of that gap. The higher tax rate will not aid the middle class guy from separating himself further from the garbage man either. Not deceptive at all. My example taxed 100% of the millionaires income at the highest Clinton tax bracket. It was used to show you even at that high rate the gap between the rich and middle class would continue to increase enormously. I keep hearing from liberals that the Bush tax cuts are responsible for the large gap between rich and middle class which is disingenuous at best. My objection was to new spending programs even if they are paid for. Such as the Trillion $ health care bill. How can we pay for current spending when we are focusing on ways to pay for new spending?
I'm not married to 35%. I can go with a flat tax that is lower, just as long as all income is counted the same way and with tax credits, breaks, loopholes, and other special tax avoidances eliminated.
Of course it will, it's just a matter of degree, you said so yourself. We only disagree on the width of the gap. My point is that the government should be obligated to eliminate that part of the gap that is due to tax inequality. It's a matter of fairness and a legislated government policy that can be addressed and fixed. The part of the gap caused by natural growth is not at issue because that is at risk by the individual investor and they don't always grow, sometimes they drop. Once again ignoring the clear fact that people with million-dollar incomes NEVER pay the top rate on all of it. NEVER. Even if 100% of it were salary, not all of it is taxed at the same rate. It's a completely deceptive example. But as I keep pointing out and and you keep ignoring . . . the bulk of most million-dollar incomes is not salary but capital gains, dividends, and interest income which is taxed at a far lower rate than middle class salary incomes. Effectively the billionaires pay less of a percentage of their total income than do the middle class. Warren Buffet said it himself--his secretary carries a larger tax burden than he does. I'm suggesting that Bush's Trillion-dollar Health Plan was something new and completely unfunded and is being irresponsibly paid for by borrowing, deepening the debt, year-by-year. Meanwhile, the Obama Trillion-dollar Health plan not only identifies income to pay for it, but two-thirds of it comes from funding that we are already spending on existing health care programs and redirects it into the new program. By paying as we go, we keep from adding to the debt, which must be accomplished before the debt can be paid down. We have been borrowing money like mad since 2000 to cover expenses. The right-wing notion that cutting taxes forces the government to cut expenses has failed spectacularly. We have to stop the borrowing by paying for what we spend. We can't pay down the debt until we can generate surpluses again. We generate surpluses in two ways--cutting spending and increasing income. We should be doing both. The Republican policy of simply cutting income without identifying spending cuts has proven to be disasterous resulting in huge deficits. Worse, their policy of adding huge new government programs (Homeland Security, Medicare Presription Drug Plan) without identifying any funding for them has forced the government to borrow huge amounts of money to cover them. You and I cannot do this without going bankrupt. The same applies to the government. Paying as we go is responsible spending.
