Are you in favor of higher taxes as part of a deficit reduction program?

History has proven that cutting taxes actually increases revenues. JFK even figured that out, and did so himself when he was president. So it's not something that only Republicans can figure out. So no, I am not in favor of a tax increase to "reduce the deficit".

3 additional issues are raised by this question, though. The first is the idea that tax cuts could increase the deficit, a "FACT" stated by Randy. The root of this fallacy is the mistaken idea that there is a finite amount of wealth in the world, that everything is a zero-sum proposition; in order for one person to gain wealth, someone else has to lose it. The rise of America's middle class at a time when the wealthy were also gaining wealth disproves that. People who rose from the ranks of the impoverished and oppressed in other countries came to America because it was the land of opportunity. That was because in America, you could work hard and improve your station in life. These people weren't asking for handouts; all they wanted was an opportunity, one denied to them by most of the rest of the world. And as they gained wealth, an amazing thing happened. Americans became the most generous people on earth, donating more to charity than any other nation, helping others as never seen before, and always being among the first responders when disaster struck anywhere in the world. And not the American government, but individual Americans, made this happen. So increasing the wealth of some has lifted the standard of living for the entire world. Yes, there is still poverty, and yes there are still some nations in which people don't share a high standard of living. But you cannot deny that the world is a better place today because of Americans.

The second issue raised by this question is that of what should be taxed. Common wisdom is that you tax what you don't want, the vices; hence our taxes on items like cigarettes and liquor. Our current income tax system taxes people for achieving. It conveys the message that we don't encourage people to earn more, because they'll be penalized for it. Is this wise? I think not. I think our entire tax code needs to be examined to see if it can better motivate people to achieve. Currently, it increasingly encourages dependency on the government. There are those who want that, who hope to gain power by removing the opportunity for private-sector achievement and placing all hope in a large federal government. Our founding fathers referred to those people as statists, and Washington is filled with them now.

The third issue raised by this question is that of where wealth originates. It's not in the government sector. Only the private sector generates wealth. The attitude of statists is that all that wealth somehow belongs to the government, and that it's doing private citizens a favor by allowing them to keep any of it. But government has no revenue that it has not confiscated from private individuals. Government manufactures no products. The only jobs government can create bring with them the need to confiscate additional revenue from the private sector, where all wealth originates.

Those on the left love to rail on about "greedy" corporations. But corporations are nothing more than legal organizations...made up of individual people. If you have a 401K plan, an IRA, or a pension plan where you work, guess what: you're invested in corporations! If you have a job, you're trusting that the company employing you will generate enough profit to continue paying you, right? So you're in favor of profits. You say you're wealthy enough that you want the government to tax you more? Well, nothing's preventing you from writing a check to the IRS for as much money as you'd like to contribute. Just don't tell them to tax ME any more! I'd much rather determine where to donate my charitable dollars than to have someone else administer that for me, thank you.

No, I'm not in favor of a tax hike. What I am in favor of is a flat tax and a consuption tax. Why shouldn't we all be taxed the same? If I make $1,000 or $1,000,000 we pay the same. Should I be penalized for prosperity? Also, should the government continue to subsidize home ownership when we are BROKE? I realize that I touched the sacred cow, but come on. We're broke! Besides, eliminating the IRS would create BILLIONS of additional revenue. Additionally, lowering the corporate tax rate would create a massive flow of money and business back into the United States. When I see John Chambers, CEO CISCO state on 60 Minutes that they have over 40 Billion in overseas accounts because of our excessive corporate tax rates I think, maybe there is a problem here.

Dock David Treece nails it.

Raising taxes is like buying a bottle of Jack Daniels for your alcoholic friend because he wakes up in the morning with a headache and needs something to make the pain go away.

No, the only modification to the tax code should be a flat tax, an equal percentage paid by all rich and poor.

Lets say it's 20% the poor pay 20% of very little, meaning they owe very little but they have skin in the game and even a small contribution creates and attitude of ownership and an expectation that those who took your money do not waste it.

When you pay nothing as most poor do then you don't care how much you waste.

Same for the middle, same for the rich. I don't care what the percentage it is, only that it is the same for all. Make a lot pay a lot but at an equal amount as a percentage of what you earned.

No write offs, no loop wholes, no special groups rich or poor, union or not, race, color, creed, or special interests. No one gets a pass, everyone contributes an equal share.

This would get rid of most of the IRS as well.

I am not opposed to taxes to pay for the needs of the community. But we have to get control of the government and give it back to the people. All we hear now are the two parties fighting over a piece of the pie and for an agenda that does not fit our needs. I have read the constitution and we are the people not them. The government needs to support their current employees but slow or stop all spending. Stop the conflicts and focus on our current problems.

I find it amazing that the guy from Canada somehow thinks it's because they are taxed higher, that they live better. Maybe its because Canada, unlike the US doesn't spend trillions sending money to freaking Zimbabwe and every other nation on planet earth. They probably don't spend billions testing to see if frogs pee out of their butts either. The US government waste is staggering.

We could raise taxes to 100% and our government would figure out a way to study the affects of farts in an elevator. So give it up you "higher taxes" folks. Washington needs to tighten its belt and stop partying on our dime.

NO! Our deficit is not the result of too few taxes. Our government spends too much and wastes our hard earned money on failed programs including the "stimulus" package.

The government is like a ravenous beast...the more we are taxed, the more it spends. Even if all top wage earners were taxed to the highest levels in history, it would not bring in enough money to solve our woes.

The more money the government borrows , the more money it spends. Only serious spending cuts will solve this problem.

How much is enough? If so many people think they tax ought to pay more income taxes why do so few, if any, voluntarily contribute more taxes than they owe?

A little historical perspective is needed in understanding current federal spending levels. Right now, federal spending is 25 percent of GDP. As recently as 1995, federal spending was 17.5 percent of GDP. In 1950 it was 15 percent. And before the Great Depression, during which entitlement spending started, federal spending was actually below 5 percent of GDP.

There is, of course, the irrefutable point that lower tax rates, up to a point, will yield higher revenues for the government, but the question isn't what will yield the most revenue for the federal government. That was proven quite effectively during the Reagan years when the top marginal income tax rates were lowered to 27 percent but revenues increased significantly. Rather, there are two questions we should be asking ourselves:

1. What necessary services can a government entity deliver more effectively than other mechanisms (like charities and free enterprise)
2. Should the government spending be done at the federal, state, county, city or neighborhood levels?

There are many things that the government does, however well intentioned, that do more harm than good. Plus, there are things that the government does that are just plain wasteful. And there are many necessary things that free markets and charities can do much more effectively than government, especially if government didn't prohibit those institutions from flourishing.

The question of where spending should occur is the one that has really not gotten a lot of attention in the public discourse. Spending at the state and local levels has the advantage of creating competition between government entities. And competition tends to reward efficiency.

The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution, of course, addressed this issue ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"). But, over time, all three branches of the federal government have helped one another grab more and more power from the states and the people, mostly through the commerce clause but also under a variety of arguments, particular discrimination.

Before the Great Depression, aggregate state and local spending was slightly higher than federal spending. This made it possible for local spending (or the lack thereof) to have a much more meaningful impact on the lives of everyone.

Now, federal spending is significantly higher than aggregate state and local spending and therefore dissipates the potential economic benefits of variances in spending levels. Plus, the federal government has forced states to spend money.

And there has been very little real discussion in my lifetime on the benefits of neighborhood control over social spending. While neighborhoods lack economies of scale, there is a much higher level of accountability at that level because of the access we would all have we don't have with larger government entities. Plus, in theory, neighborhoods could always outsource services to effective private sector organizations that used economies to deliver things like utilities and park maintenance or schools.

Also, for the record, raising taxes would probably increase the deficit. "What?!?!" you shriek. "How can that be?"

Well, the first mistake is confusing top-end marginal tax rates with revenue generation. If you're interested in decreasing the deficit, you really care about revenue and spending, not tax rates. Tax rates are a indirect knob on the deficit. Further, top-end marginal tax rates really don't do much for revenue generation:
http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/income-tax-receipts

But if you raise top-end marginal tax rates to punitive levels, people alter their behavior. They shift money overseas. They don't invest it because you'll just take most of it anyway, etc. All this has an effect of suppressing economic activity. That's why the numbers don't shift all that much. The "higher taxes = higher revenue" myth exists because people assume that those people getting their taxes raised will sit there and dutifully pay it, without changing behavior. That static analysis is simply wrong.

Now, historically, the government can generate revenue of about 18.2% of GDP. That level is the historical average going back many decades. Interestingly, that level doesn't shift all that much with the highest marginal tax rate. So, if you're going to close the budget gap, your goal needs to be to keep rates high enough to generate revenue at 18.2% of GDP (you can't have 0% top end tax rate, for instance), but low enough that the economy grows as fast as possible. Then, you need to set your spending at 18.2% of GDP and live within that limit.

In short, eliminating the deficit, and later the debt, is all a function of economic growth, not top-end marginal tax rates. Set the top-end tax rate too high and it's actually counter-productive. Whatever you gain from taxing one unlucky sod, you lose by other people changing their behavior which also suppresses GDP growth.

I concur with David. It's insanity to tax those who are rich just because they can afford to pay. Instead, we ought to reward them for their ability to make economy richer.

Naysayers - those who envy those who are less wealthy - need to focus on delivering more value. When they do that, they, too, will become richer.

When I witness spending, along the lines of the feeding frenzy so common in American stores, it seems all the more appropriate that those who thrive on retail therapy ought to pay for the privilege.

I, on the other hand, spend as little as I can get away with, and therefore my taxes ought to be less.

Randy: "I am astonished to see all these comments based on ideology..." Snort! Pot, meet kettle. BTW, I'm not a Republican apologist, so you'll be hard-pressed to get me to defend Republican's on anything indefensible. But your "facts" are pretty lame, mostly amounting to the vague ideological comments that you purport to be astonished to hear.

When you say that the crisis resulted from 8 years of Republican administrations and policies, which policies, exactly led to the 2008 crisis? Be specific. No fair blaming "Republican policies" and then not being able to actually cite any.

GW Bush did raise national debt to its highest percentage of GDP, primarily because of war-spending. But then Obama took over and made GW look like a tight-fisted miser. See this graphic, for instance:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/03/21/GR20090321001...

Even according to the Wikipedia link that you cited, it says that Bush "only" racked up $2.63T (staggering) in new debt. But that was over 8 years. You realize, of course, that Obama has only been in power for 2 years and his increase to the debt tops $3T, right? So he's spending money at 4x the rate of GW.

Those are "FACTs," as you put it.

As for Bill Clinton's surplus, that was largely the result of presiding over a tech bubble economy and actually slowing spending because of a Republican congress. Hell, in 2000 alone, I paid more in taxes than 5 normal years, mostly the result of wild capital gains on the stock market. Bill's bubble burst in the summer of 2000, before the 2000 election and before Bush took office. The market slide was well under way. If Clinton would have held office one more year, he would not have run a surplus. As a result of that bubble bursting, the Fed took interest rates to near-zero, which in turn helped to create a housing bubble. That popped in 2008, in a similar fashion. Because the housing market is more broad-based than the tech market, it hit the economy harder, across all sectors.

In short, Clinton didn't do much to create his surplus. He was simply at the right place at the right time and got out before the "pop" could be pinned on him. Bush did run up a huge deficit of $2.63T over 8 years. Obama has run up more than $3T over 2 years. *Those* are "FACTs."

Hint: If you really want to look for a villan in USA economics, stop eyeing the Presidents of either party, people who actually don't control the economy very much at all, and instead look to the Fed, which creates artificial bubbles through interest rate and money supply manipulation.

No!
The tax 'cuts' increased revenue. The deficit was not increased because of the tax cuts, but rather the politicians scrambled to spend both the increased revenue AND more. The deficit was decreasing until 2007 when the Democrats took over both houses. Taxes are not the problem. Spending IS.

NO, and Dave Roberts offered the best reason why "NO" is the answer; "historically, the government can generate revenue of about 18.2% of GDP."

Candidate Obama proposed almost doubling the capital gains tax but when the interviewer told him that raising the capital gains tax does not increase revenue but, in fact, reduces revenue to the treasury Obama said, "... some things are the right things to do." Obama is not interested in limiting government spending, on the contrary he is intent on spending more, much more.

No! this is wrong

If you interview the right group of people you will get the answer you want. That from a person that ran polls!

Know that increased taxes will be paid through the high income companies that will either cut expenses (read: fire people) to meet the new expense or raise prices (read: customers going elsewhere, causing lower sales, increased unemployment). These statements come not from politicans but from business people. Who cares what business people say, they are only out to make money. Lets put them out of business and send our dollars to china?????

To make a strong USA we must have strong business. Increasing their costs will not. When Nancy Pelocie said that no tax cut ever increased tax income she lied as the Kennedy one did as did all of the other 3 tax cuts, including the Bush one. Yes, yolu can say if we roll back the Bush cut we willl take in more money this month but in the following couple of years, tax revenue will fall greatly. Look at history, not what people say about it.

Really? You even have to ask this question? Hell no. Why should we pay for Washington's exploits? Enough already. They need to get disciplined, not count on us to bail them out of every party they throw.

First: how did the US build such a big financial deficit? Understanding this, I find there is a lot of fat in the following departments: TSA, CIS, IRS, border control, police in general. Cutting these departments by half will give us better security and sense of humanity. Raising taxes will not help in the lower and middle classes. People earning more than $500,000 per annum from public corporations should be taxed higher: about 40% above the first first $500,000. Inappropriate distribution of wealth is one of the causes of why we are in this sad situation.

A policy of tax hikes completely ignore the fact that it takes an expanding private sector to fund all of this madness. How about government cutting spending like any rational business organization would do? The problem here is that I used the word rational and government together. You can play all of the games with numbers you want, but the bottom line is that more money in the private means more "productive" investment, which means more GDP, which means more tax revenue.

The answer to this is being played out now by the default solution of mass street protests in a rising number of countries - now including Spain.
Governments and their corporate friends created the debt crisis, so they should admit this and do what is needed: resign.
New taxes are in fact a key part of IMF solutions, or so-called solutions imposed on debt strapped countries like Greece, Ireland, Portugal, the Baltic States, Iceland and in IMF advice to Spain. These are exactly the same so-called solutions which maintained the Third World debt crisis for about 15 years from 1985-2005 and did nothing for 75 percent of the people exposed to austerity + new taxes.

I am in favor of a plan that provides 1.5 dollar in budget cuts for every dollar in increased taxes.

Fixes to our economy: yes... we should pay for what we demand from government... balance the budget. let tax cuts expire, end oil/military complex/political based war initiatives (political/religious death squads in Africa... we don't intervene there), get our people back to work... train them on new skills since we no longer need them to do jobs we can outsource to China and India for example... Who is we as it relates to training the unemployed/underemployed... one might make the companies that transition jobs to oversees responsible... but that would assume that there was a partnership between companies and employees... since that doesn't seem to be the case... is it the individual employees responsibility?? to have seen the transition coming and to have proactively invested in their own new position training?? Should a union have been responsible?? What different does it make to state blame/responsibility... the truth is here we are and it is just going to be getting worse if we do not have a reality check and address the problem... please nobody will be left to be able to purchase our Chinese goods... when the cycle completes itself... I thought we were a nation of proactive thinkers capable of doing anything e.g. go to the moon etc. My understanding is that our schools are failing to produce an educated public... let alone re-training displaced workers... best we and I underline the we take note and come up with a plan and execute it immediately to solve this problem...

And while you are at it... re-institute/enforce banking regulations to avoid bank fraud based mortgage failures, make lobbying illegal, guarantee individual rights by eliminating corporation rights in our courts... stop reinterpreting our Constitution to be Of the Corporations, By the Corporations and For The Corporations... e.g. Monsanto having ownership to all forms of soy beans...

Enough... frustrated and energized to find answers!!!!

Those who think Congress created this problem... have there head in the sand. What we need to do is to look at Root Causes!!!!... not put band-aids on problems which seams to be the American way... our domestic spending on programs may have wastes... but lets look at the real causes... domestic spending was and continues to be part of our balanced budget prior to the new expenses we have committed our self to in terms of wars and bank failure (caused by bank fraud) spend like crazy on these items which are not part of our balanced budget... I marvel at how a general to state that the US has not achieved any political advantage for any war over the last 100 years other than WWII and that we continue to invest in unwinnable wars etc.
Again... look at root causes... stop blaming... and address fundamental problems.

I know we can do it... do we have the will?

Term limits! These crooks in government spend our money to keep themselves in power while the nation declines. Lower corp. tax rate, eliminate useless regulations that serve no purpose and only justify useless bureaucracies, give incentives to bring back manufacturing (where real wealth is created), stop allowing China to play by their rules and not by the ones set by the WTO, cut spending, freeze hiring at all government levels, reduce government workforce, eliminate unions especially government unions, regain our guts, balls and pride and stop worrying about what the media, UN, Europe, Muslims and China think about us.

Fred,

If you were a millionaire, would you want to be taxed more even though your bracket already pays most of the taxes and 47% of the public don't pay any federal tax?

Sorry to say it but I think envy among many of the class warfare types is the reason they hate the rich and want to tax them to death.

The incentive to reach your potential and earn wealth are the incentives that allowed America to thrive. I'll never understand people who attack achievement and success.

Would someone please offer their ideas on how much the Federal, State, and local governments should take from the rich and the not so rich?

Who defines rich?

If you have more than me, does that make you rich?

I see signs of the seven deadly sins whenever I read comments about tax the rich.

The following is from http://www.deadlysins.com/sins/index.htm

--------------
"Pride is excessive belief in one's own abilities, that interferes with the individual's recognition of the grace of God. It has been called the sin from which all others arise. Pride is also known as Vanity.

Envy is the desire for others' traits, status, abilities, or situation.

Gluttony is an inordinate desire to consume more than that which one requires.

Lust is an inordinate craving for the pleasures of the body.

Anger is manifested in the individual who spurns love and opts instead for fury. It is also known as Wrath.

Greed is the desire for material wealth or gain, ignoring the realm of the spiritual. It is also called Avarice or Covetousness.

Sloth is the avoidance of physical or spiritual work. "
---------------

Pride... politicians, activists, and true believers cannot see their own mistakes.

Envy... too many people want what others' have earned.

Gluttony... governments always want more.

Lust... it feels good to take from the rich.

Anger... some people are so filled with envy that they cannot help but be angry.

Greed... why work for it when you can take it from others.

Sloth... give it to me, I don't need to earn it.

Progressives always talk about "the rich" and we all think of Bill Gates or some movie star. But rich quickly degenerates into people earning $200k. And once it's $200k, it will get further defined down to $100k.

The problem with this line of thinking is that everyone forgets that taxes effect behavior, one way or the other. If someone is making $150k and they know they will get a big tax increase if they make $200k, then they might decided that the extra work or the investment is not worth it. So you don't have as many people making as much money.

The other issue is that it presumes that more wealthy people are not paying what is fair. Right now, the top 1% of tax payers (in terms of income) pay nearly 40 percent of all income taxes. The top 5% pay nearly 60 percent of all taxes. Compare that to the bottom 50% of tax payers who pay less than 3% of total taxes.

There is no way the government needs more money. We live in a centrally controlled economy now, that breeds corruption. We need to make a drastic 180 turn back to individual responsibility. If someone needs help beyond themselves, they should go to their immediate family for help. If that's not enough, go to their extended family, then to their neighbors, then to their church, then to other non-profits. The government should not be involved at all. Imagine how small the government budget would be if we did this.

I see lots of good comments and lots of reasonable ideas. However, I do not want to pay more taxes and do not see it as a solution to our current dilemma. Stop drinking the poison people. Bush didn't get us here. The United States Congress did. Both legislative bodies. Both parties. Neither Dem nor Repub has the balls to fix the problem because they are beholding to special interests and see themselves as above the common citizen. The political class. When you can face that harsh reality then maybe we can focus on the national debt. If any of you ran your business like the government did, you would all be out of business. Stop it with the class envy, demagoguery, blame game, etc., and stop spending dollars you don't have. If you really want to get to the root cause of this problem, let's talk about Lyndon B Johnson and the great society. The snowball started down the hill way back then.

Hmmm - as I think about the answers posted, I'm going to be contrarian here - with a national debt of north of $13 trillion and annual revenue of about $2.5 trillion, we could cut EVERY single program and not spend a dime on ANY program and it would still take us over 5 years to balance out our budget. With 49% of Americans paying 0% / $0 tax - not a dime in income tax, I'm not quite sure how you achieve financial stability without raising taxes to some extent. Now, there's a philosophical debate that can be had on who should bare the burden and what is considered "fair" - knowing full well, NO ONE wants their taxes to go up.

But here's the question that I would love an answer to - in 2000, the Bush-era cuts were designed to "return the surplus" to the folks that put it there. In other words, times were good so let's lower taxes. We all did the happy dance in response. Now, times are tougher - tax revenues are down because Americans are making less money. Now the coffers are low - when do you raise the taxes? Yes, spending is up by almost a trillion dollars since 2008, but revenue is down by about half a trillion dollars in the same period. When, please, is the time where we face the music?

I assure you, there are is plenty of fat in every budget - yours, mine, the governments where we all could cut. But again, the government could effectively shut down EVERY single program and it would still be five long years before we see black again.

There are WAYYYyyyyy too many federal government departments that should have their doors closed and the responsibilities moved back to the states. For example, the entire education department should be eliminated. Phase it out over a 5 or 10 year period while sending that portion of the phaseout revenue to the states to support their local education infrastructure. 10% or 20% each year to the states as the Fed department winds down and then completely eliminate that entire department and line item. It gives the states 5 - 10 years to right size and figure out how to resolve the educational issues with a small cushion. How many of the federal education officials are teaching kids? Virtually NONE of them!

Do the same for about 70% of the entire Federal government. Sell federal properties. Get out of the "federal" land management, etc. THEN, and ONLY then come back and talk to me about taxes. AFTER the government has gone on a diet.

Don't come tell me how I need to keep feeding a 450 pound obese person wine, steak, eggs, and mashed potatoes. Put them on a diet FIRST and then let's figure out how much they actually NEED to get fit. Talk of taxes before talk of putting a bloated, massive, all consuming government on a diet is crazy talk.

Mr. Conley quotes a partisan quote about Bush "tax reductions" being responsible for 2 trillion in debt.

Interesting, under that premise guns and cars have a mind of their own and unilaterally decide to kill people.

=================

GOVERNMENT SPENDING is COMPLETELY responsible for the 2 Trillion dollars in debt. Giving people BACK what was theirs to begin with has nothing to do with it. An out of control government spending 1 in 4 dollars from the ENTIRE U.S. ECONOMY is responsible for the debt and deficits.

Not a bit. Congress needs to learn fiscal responsibility with the money it has been given already. Enabling them to dig a bigger hole so they have more dirt is not only dumb, but irresponsible.

Fantastic answer Randy. I live in Quebec where we pay some of the highest taxes in the world. I also happen to believe it's got a higher standard of living for everyone who lives here, not just the ones who earn 6 figures plus. We have a fraction of the US population but we make it work on a better level.
I think it's unpatriotic for people to come up with all these tricky ideological answers (that have no historical success anywhere in the world) to avoid paying for their mistakes. It really is as simple as it sounds. Let the Bush tax cuts expire and pay for your country's, and your children's future with pride.

Bush tax cuts... supposed to stimulate our economy... did at one level... those creating jobs sent them oversees... corporate profits have gone up... however the population at large is suffering... Based on world economy what the corporations have done makes perfect sense... the Chinese and India works are lower cost, lower wages, no OSHA, no employer healthcare costs etc. Our American employees cost too much... this situation has been looming in our future for several decades...

Taxing the rich and/or poor is not the issue... the issue is how to balance the budget... flat tax etc... and figure out how to improve the quality of life for all... people feel good and enjoy life when the have jobs and earn incomes... is there a We in our thinking or is there only Me? We have the problem! We need to team up to deal with the problem.

Again... keep drilling down to root causes... not look to blame!!

No new taxes. One party claims we need to raise taxes on the wealthy, the other side counters with there is a spending issue. Giving the government access to more money is like giving an addict unlimited access to the drug of choice.

I see lots of good comments and lots of reasonable ideas. However, I do not want to pay more taxes and do not see it as a solution to our current dilemma. Stop drinking the poison people. Bush didn't get us here. The United States Congress did. Both legislative bodies. Both parties. Neither Dem nor Repub has the balls to fix the problem because they are beholding to special interests and see themselves as above the common citizen. The political class. When you can face that harsh reality then maybe we can focus on the national debt. If any of you ran your business like the government did, you would all be out of business. Stop it with the class envy, demagoguery, blame game, etc., and stop spending dollars you don't have. If you really want to get to the root cause of this problem, let's talk about Lyndon B Johnson and the great society. The snowball started down the hill way back then.

There are eight forms of waste. Until the goverment gets serious, like all the rest of the business world out here and starts controlling their wasteful habits, no taxes should be increased !

Isn't the REAL QUESTION how big should the government be?

At what point is it too big? Currently the U.S. Government consumes more financial resources in ONE YEAR than OVER 100% of the 33 top Fortune 100 Companies GROSS revenue.

And, as a staggering sum, it consumes OVER 100% of ALL of the Fortune 1000 NET PROFIT every year.

========================

The real question is at what point is the government too big?

I am sure there are others, but the two obvious ways to increase tax revenue are:
1) increase taxes
2) add more people to the payrolls who will pay taxes.

I personally think lowering the taxes and reducing the government red tape would go a long way to putting option #2 into play. Companies are not hiring and are sitting on enormous amounts of cash because they don't like the policies that are currently in place and are unsure of their cost burden that is coming down the line based on the new health care and many other laws.

An increase of taxes takes money out of the pockets of the small business owner, which is the sector that historically drives the majority of hiring in the US. I would say "NO", we should not raise taxes and should instead lower them.

Besides, this a spending, not a revenue issue.

I am sure there are others, but the two obvious ways to increase tax revenue are:
1) increase taxes
2) add more people to the payrolls who will pay taxes.

I personally think lowering the taxes and reducing the government red tape would go a long way to putting option #2 into play. Companies are not hiring and are sitting on enormous amounts of cash because they don't like the policies that are currently in place and are unsure of their cost burden that is coming down the line based on the new health care and many other laws.

An increase of taxes takes money out of the pockets of the small business owner, which is the sector that historically drives the majority of hiring in the US. I would say "NO", we should not raise taxes and should instead lower them.

Besides, this a spending, not a revenue issue.

I guess it's up to me to be the lone dissenting voice in this politically charged discussion. I am in favor of raising taxes as part of an effort to reduce our national debt. My reason can best be summed up by the following quote:

"According to reports from Congressional Budget Office, Pew Charitable Trusts, and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities Bush tax cuts have contributed $2 trillion to the national debt and compose the largest component of the deficit going forward. According to these reports, allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would be sufficient to stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio."

I just posted this on Twitter:

Washington Zoo: Congress = House of Invertebrates; White House = Reptile House; Supreme Court = House of Papio.

I should have said as well that the voters were the ones who paid admission to just watch.

I find this question and the answers fascinating. No wonder our country can't solve its problem(s) - no one agrees.

No one wants to take any "hit", be it directly in the pocket book (higher taxes) or in services (decreasing) or entitlements (what an ugly word that has caused more deficit, non-productive thinking and perpetual in-activity).

How bout changing the thought pattern and looking at the issue as instead of the country, of a very shrewdly run company where NOTHING is sacrosanct. All revenue streams and expense lines are on the chopping block, including top leadership.

What would your answers be?

Let Obama answer http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-vs-obama_576524.html

Let the NO TAXES for the rich expire. Let them pay their fair share and lower the taxes a bit for the middle class. I hear oh if you raise the taxes for the rich they'll take their business out of the country, well guess what....they already have. They have found a gold mine having their businesses in other countries because they don't have to pay the wages they would here and as well don't give the people any benefits. Sorry excuse to try and make the middle class suffer while the rich get richer. OR a better way to lower the deficit is to confiscate all of Bush and Cheney's assets and pay off the deficit.

Read Paul Krugman!!

yes

Realistically, that is like asking if water should be a part of a fire fighting program. The key here is "part of". It is the debt that is choking this country. To get this back under some semblance of control, we have to increase taxes as well as id massive spending cuts to drive down the deficit. Then, we have to introduce even more spending cuts to apply towards reducing the debt. There are no easy or quick fixes to this decades long, bi-partisan issue our voted officials have put us in. It will take any and all means to ensure that our children and grand-children have a country that is worthy of being called America to raise their families in.

I certainly agree that part of the massive cuts includes government employee reductions. The private sector has been forced to do this in droves, as we all know. There should be no exclusions for the public sector. Nothing should be sacred, except for SS and Medicare/Medicaid, imho. All else should be subject to cuts.

This is urgent. We have no tomorrows left. Any candidate that is not speaking in such terms does not deserve anyone's vote from either "side".

Thanks for asking! :-)

I am astonished to see all these comments based on ideology, rather than historical performance and cold, hard facts. The facts are:
- The 2008 crisis David mentioned was a result of 8 years of Republican administration and policies. The resulting recovery program, was in fact initiated by the Bush administration before Obama took office.
- The spending we are now doing is in large part to pay for those mistakes.
- the FACT is that GW Bush raised the national debt to a higher percentage of GDP than any president since WWII, after having taken over from a Democratic administration that was running a surplus.
- Look at some data on historical performance of Debt by administration:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
Those who care to look at FACTs rather than opinion, will see a remarkable correlation between Republicans raising the debt (i.e. taxing their children instead of themselves), and Democrats lowering it (pay as you go- as any responsible adult knows you need to do).

Now, arguing about "responsibility" and so forth is just a bunch of low-level noise and sound-byte jingoism; the historical performance shows who actually has the policies that reduce the deficit.

And, for the record, I'm in a high tax bracket, and I spent 10 years living in one of those "socialized" countries, where my net/net taxes (dollars paid per made at filing, not marginal rates), was actually slightly lower (US citizens file taxes in both countries, so it is easy to compare [I had to pay Uncle Sam the difference]), and the services delivered were much higher. It takes realism (facing facts) and hard work, not 30-second sound bytes of meaningless feel-good philosophy, to handle real-world economics. I will base my decisions on historically proven cause-and-effect rather than some philosophical hypothetical any day.

Yes

Yes for the millionaires.

David, please, the US Constitution was written by a bunch of slave owning white men. Wait, let me think about this ..... they wrote the Constitution so that slavery could be abolished at a later time. Never mind, your analysis is excellent.