POLL: Are you in favor of ending tax cuts for the wealthy as part of a deficit reduction program?

One of the reasons the question raises so many hackles is the way it's framed. Naturally, those who earn more than the national average, and small business owners who would qualify for higher taxes under such a proposal instinctively leap upon the jugular of anyone proposing it.

First, the argument that the wealthy and/or business owners are the ones who "create jobs" is a somewhat specious one. It begs the classic chicken-or-egg question: Which comes first: supply or demand?

The answer is, of course, that they feed each other. But if the economy is lagging because a majority have no money to spend, then there is less demand. Business owners create fewer jobs, because they don't have the revenue. In fact, they cut jobs.

Ensuring that business owners pay minimal taxes is not, by itself, enough to create jobs. The evidence is all around us, in the form of the jobless rate. The wealthiest among us pay the least percentage in taxes… and yet they are not creating jobs. So, saying that allowing business owners to keep X or Y in taxes will create jobs doesn't play out logically.

And that's because there's much more to it than tax rates for the rich.

Taxing everyone fairly is one way to put more liquidity into the economy, allowing the markets to be more free, allowing capital to flow more easily and find its "natural level" – with business owners or an hourly workers.

As Nick said, trickle-down doesn't work. It never has. But those with money will continue to stump for it, since the concept supports preservation of capital at the top.

But those who argue for preserving capital mostly or only at the top are actually arguing against a free market – not for one.

And there's the rub. In many respects, the building and preservation of capital are totally logical and legitimate, and serve as drivers of our economy. It motivates a business owner, and motivates a worker to save money to buy a home.

But a problem occurs when capital is unevenly distributed, and large amounts of capital are kept sequestered in one place or another, removing the "lubricant" from the economy.

As for those who say that the government is "spending out of control"… It has been proven repeatedly that there are certain times in a free market economy when government is the only entity that can nudge the mechanism back into forward motion, and back into balance. Because there is never a shortage of those who would abuse and unbalance a free market, there are times when government intervention is logical, necessary, and effective. Regardless of whether the "bailouts" were perfectly implemented, it's hard to find an economist who would argue that the economy would have been better off without intervention.

Government intervention – government spending, done right – has a beneficial role.

But there is much waste and pork in our government, and that's another of many factors that need to be addressed. Spending efficiently helps assure that the government has enough liquidity of its own to intervene when needed, while keeping taxes lower.

On the other side of the spending coin, it's been shown that severe government budget austerity measures are not healthy for an economy. But some spending cuts can obviously help bring a budget back into balance.

That is the key: balance.

A market out of balance – no matter how "free" one cohort or another may perceive or want it to be – is not a healthy one.

And the fast-growing gap between the super-rich and the middle and lower classes is not a sign of a free or balanced market; it's a sign of a constricted market, with capital liquidity damaged, though not entirely, by the current imbalance of tax burden.

There is no single-faceted solution.

And screaming at each other about a single hot button issue doesn't help.

It's time for everyone to take a deep breath, use their brains, and be willing to find balance. Otherwise, the American economy will morph from enabling the American Dream to being the American Nightmare.

it is the same old silly question...our government spending is out of control and once again the government wants small business owners and other "wealthy" individuals to cover their poor management. We have theoretical free markets for a reason. No one should be penalized for doing legal work in the US. Let's focus on cleaning up fraud and waste and see where that gets us first!

Sure, go ahead but this is such a silly distraction from the real issues driving the deficit - eliminating these supposed 'tax cuts' won't make even a minor dent in the problem.

The only way to truly address the deficit is by significantly reducing spending on entitlement programs. The ONLY way.

The stirring up of class resentment against 'oil companies, hedge fund owners and those who travel in corporate jets' is just a distraction from that core discussion which the President is either unwilling or unable to participate in.

"The president’s most recent budget plan would add $9.5 trillion in cumulative new debt over the next decade. Eliminating a tax break for the purchase of corporate jets – it’s called “accelerated depreciation” and Obama has endorsed the deduction twice before to boost growth and create jobs – would save $3 billion, or 0.03 percent of that total." (http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2011/06/30/obamanomics-leaving-on-...)

The question to me appears backward!

The FIRST QUESTION is how large should government be? Currently the U.S. Federal Government spends (consumes) 25% of the entire Nation's GDP. The U.S. Federal Government essentially "burns up" 1 out of every 4 dollars that is generated in revenue in this nation.

That my friends is insanity!

Oh please, I can't believe people still spout off about this. this is such a tired argument from liberals. Stop blaming people who are more wealthy than you for your problems. Instead of cutting tax breaks, cut Obama.

The entire tax system is not working, so instead of talking about taxing specific 'classes' or income levels, let's deal with basic issues. Fix the tax system, eliminate waste, and shrink government. Yes, we have serious social issues too, but entitlements also need a rework.
Rick

The government is an economic middle man that redistributes money.

Does it ever make sense to have a middleman?

Leave the money with the people who drive the economy and let the growth in the economy fund the government.

If you want to take your money and give it to those less fortunate than you, I am all for it, and that is your prerogative. That is also why we have charities and volunteerism. But why on Earth would you think for one second that the government can do a better job of doing that than you? The free market is not just about making more money at other people's expense. If it was, we wouldn't be one of the most altruistic countries in the world. Americans are givers. I just don't want to give it to the government and have them decide for me. I wish people would stop watching CNN, stop listening to John Stewart and Anderson Copper and Joy Beyhar or whatever her name is, stop being victims, stop thinking everyone else is getting the bum rush and start taking advantage of all the wonderful things this country has to offer.

Great debate. I love to hear opinions from smart people. My answer is simple. You should not spend money that you do not have, which is what our government has been doing for decades. Who among us would encourage our children to live such an irresponsible way. Increased income is not the answer for those who spend more than they earn. As for increasing taxes on our highest income earners?...how many times can we 'go back to the well?' Our high incomes are already paying 3X the low incomes. Well, there is my $.50 worth. Have a great day, everyone!

Almost forgot, the OIL COMPANY TAXES!

I love this one. Has anyone looked at the amount of Capital they have employed and the $ return? Nearly all of them make less than 10% return and the larger ones are around 4%.

Hmmm... and the Federal Highway tax is at 10%...

Are we talking about reducing the 10% highway tax? Of course not! Again I ask, if they Oil Companies are "greedy" at 4%, then what about the highway tax? Is the government too big?

And when that 4% margin gets squeezed by higher taxes (i.e. eliminate "tax breaks") then the margins will have to be made by raising prices. The never ending cycle of demagoguery about the "greedy" oil companies while the government makes MORE money by taking it from the unsuspecting through the higher highway tax!

What a great scam! Scapegoat the victims, then victimize them even more!

Greedy oil companies can't even get drilling permits or new refinery permits!

Let's get real. Tax cuts for the wealthy have little to nothing to do with the deficit. Doesn't matter what study or survey is presented. Yes - waste is the primary issue. If we ran the government; Federal, State, and Local like a well run business we'd be so much further ahead. This governmental business should be held accountable by we the shareholders.

I can not even fathom how a citizen of the United States of America can advocate for a 92% tax rate (if you are in fact a citizen?). It just boggles the mind.

But here is the funny part. The same person who bashes trickle-down economics is also the same person who advocates for higher taxes. Well, what do you think happens with that money? The government spends it! Does that sound like anything familiar to you?! Whether its the govnt spending or the wealthy spending, it's still spending which stimulates the economy and spreads around the wealth. But there's a difference. There have been countless studies that compare a dollar spent in the free market vs a dollar given to govn't and then spent in the economy and it shows that that same dollars gets cut to 8 cents by the time it gets decimated by the fed, state, county, municipal pockets. So which would you rather be given, a dollar by "the rich" or 8 cents by the govnt?

Study the science of economics, understand the failures of Euronomics, and take a page out of Reaganomics.

More congressional economists have law degrees than degrees in economics, and they really will eat their young to push the political agenda of the day.

"Stimulus Package to Increase Government Hiring"
- By Dona DeZube, Monster Finance Careers Expert

It goes on to say that 200,000 government jobs would be open to replace roughly half of the government positions being vacated by attritions. But in reality, government employees have delayed retirements, and those projected to leave for higher paying private sector jobs, are unable to find those lucrative positions due to declining economic security.

Every new government social program generates government jobs, both directly and indirectly. Administration jobs AND oversight jobs, this actually increases the tax burden, it cannot reduce it. Yes, they do pay taxes, but do the math... with salaries and 'better than private sector' benefits that are also tax funded, do not come close to a zero point gain.

The proposed Government cuts to pay for those "jobs" attack the lowest hanging fruit... cut the size of the Defense and reduce subsidies to emergency response and civil defence programs. Seven to eight hundreds of thousand are now out to fend for the few jobs that may be available or to rely on more social programs to feed and shelter families, so that a quarter of that can enjoy a goverment job that cost far more than those that were cut.. its a downhill spiral.

Reading "the sky is falling" in the liberal group-think web sites only serves to distract from these economic realities. IMHO.

I am disgusted by the political demagoguery at work on and around fair taxation policy issues: how readily some people feel morally justified in forcing someone to be financially raped, and then suggesting that they should just relax and enjoy it.

Obama and company are espousing an age-old, ultra-liberal solution designed to win reelection and perhaps win back the House; the numbers of those unaffected or benefitted by such policies work in their favor. So once again, partisan politics is likely to result in policies which do not solve the problem, but rather exacerbate it. Only a House divided stands in the way of the ultra-liberals, but for how long?

Tax rates have swung up and down often enough now to zero in on the rate at which "wealthy" individuals and business entities believe the results of their efforts are being confiscated; this would be the point at which they undertake extraordinary efforts to avoid paying the tax, such as creating offshore accounts and shifting production to foreign countries. It is an individual matter, some believing anything above a range from zero to tithing to be burdensome. Yet there is enough data out there to find the tipping point at which the increased revenue stream from the taxation of those willing to take the hit is offset by the tax-avoiding mechanizations those unwilling to do so.

Generally, raising rates will always increase unproductive activities designed to avoid the tax; therefore, higher taxes on the very small percentage of the "wealthy" will not solve the problem. In fact higher taxes could well end up generating a net decrease in revenues. Lower, more efficient spending and a much broader base of folks with the means of paying a modest tax would be the better step in the right direction - in other words, shift the policy focus to increasing employment, and increasing revenues will ensue.

Last time I checked, "wealthy" was defined by the government as annual family income of $250K or more. This group already pays the lion's share of the tax revenue and are already in the highest tax bracket. They are also people who run small businesses and family farms--the sector hiring the largest share of workers. Seems like adding to the financial burden of this group is anti-growth and would have the opposite impact on improving the economy. It always makes great political jargon to label the $250K earners as the wealthy, rich fat cats not carrying their fair share--they get lumped in with the billionaires. But, the facts to not support such accusations. Seems to me the fairest approach is a consumption tax or flat tax or a strategy that truly equalizes the revenue burden. Want to get an eye opener? Take a look at what percentage of the federal revenue is funded by the taxes paid by Americans in the bottom 50% of wage earners? Less than 5%. Fair? Is is fair that the top 10% of wage earners pay over 40% of the tax burden? Is it fair to hit them with even more burden? What percentage of wage earners pay zero tax? Is that fair? The path to economic stimulation and federal debt reduction should not be through a tax strategy but rather serious expense reduction, including overhaul of all the entitlement programs.

You can Eat the Rich if you want...it won't make an ounce of difference. This article says it best AND it rips Paul Krugman - the poster boy for raising taxes because it is "fair". http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2011/03/eat-the-rich.html

Raising taxes is simply class warfare...instead abolish the IRS and establish a flat, national sales tax. The mechanisms to collect the tax are already in place (merchants) and it only taxes consumption. Then a balanced budget ammendment.

Here are 2011 Facts:

In the USA the top 10% pay 45.1% of all taxes, but their net worth (or market share) is just 33.5%. If taxes were completely fair, the top 10% would only pay 33.5%. Will it help the economy if we ask those paying more than their fair share to pay even more? Maybe we should ask: Who is not paying their fair share and tax that group more.

No. Rather than ending tax cuts, let's extend them. Moreover, let's broaden and deepen them. It's about time we cut off the government's allowance.

Nick, I have been following the left since 1959 and have paid close attention to their words, deeds, and rantings.

In 1970 as a freshman college student I was asked by a student to sign a petition to increase welfare payments. I asked her, "Where is the money going to come from?", she replied, "We can just print more money." Nothing has changed with left since then.

Yes, there are countless books to read that support the idea that we need to take from some to give to others, however, didn't Margaret Thatcher say, "The problem with Socialism is that we eventually run out of other peoples money."

You are correct that the 2008 financial meltdown was the fault of the US but it was the fault of the US politicians. I have had the luxury of watching the House and Senate on television since I stated working from home after my MBA in 1992. I listened and watched as the left did their dirty deeds and now I listen and watch as the left denies doing what it is I saw them do.

It was House and Senate Democrats that prevented President Bush from implementing reform measures to mitigate or avoid the coming financial melt down. Oh wait, yes, it was Rep. Barney Frank (D) and I know that because I watched him do it and I listened to him admit it. Some readers may not know this but Rep. Frank did admit it in 2011. It is time to revise the Blame Bush playbook. Rep. Frank said that he opposed any new regulations out the White House because they were not Liberal Democrats. I know he did that since I watched him do it on television.

By the way, using of the word "diagnostics" does not increase the credibility to your conclusions.

The following is from an interview with Mrs. Margaret Thatcher.

"I would much prefer to bring them down as soon as possible. I think they've made the biggest financial mess that any government's ever made in this country for a very long time, and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them. They then start to nationalise everything, and people just do not like more and more nationalisation, and they're now trying to control everything by other means. They're progressively reducing the choice available to ordinary people. Look at the trouble now we're having with choice of schools. Of course parents want a say in the kind of education their children have. Look at the William Tyndall School—an example where the parents finally rebelled. Of course they did. These schools are financed by taxpayers' money, but the choice to parents is being reduced.

Look at the large numbers of people who live on council estates. Many of them would like to buy their own homes. Oh, but that's not approved of by a Socialist government … . oh no! But that's absurd. Why shouldn't they? Well over thirty per cent of our houses are council houses. Why shouldn't those people purchase their own homes if they can?

Will England's past be the US's future?

Define wealthy.

Some government officials estimate that operational levels of waste in our government are as high as 50 percent in some cases. If better processes and technologies could reduce that waste by a mere sliver, the deficit could be eliminated within a few years, without the need to argue about whose ox gets gored. Or activating lobbyists who earn a living by protecting questionable subsidies and tax breaks. (Check out www.thepaidforoption.com, which focuses on a book co-authored by Edward M. L. Peters, CEO of process intelligence solution provider OpenConnect, about improving process intelligence to reduce health care costs.) This is really a question about voter awareness and political will -- but it's so much easier to argue about whether or not elimination of special-case subsidies are in fact tax hikes, isn't it? ;-)

First I how do you define wealthy? Define the difference between a tax cut and tax break.
The wealthest among us pay the majority of the taxes already, and these are the job creaters. Do we really want to put more of a burden on them?
What about the 50% of the population that do not pay taxes because of their income levels? Not only do they not pay taxes they get tax credits and we give them money back because they do not make enough.
I worked for H&R Block and the ones that did not pay taxes and received the earned income credit were the ones most likely to take the RACs and RALs. When you explain the interest rates on the money at that time around 175% why would you do this they said it is not my money it comes from those who actually pay taxes.
Does our tax code need some revisions, I believe so.
Should we tax the wealthy and take tax breaks from the oil companies I do not think so. If we put an extra burden who is going to create jobs? Who is going to search for oil and other sources of energy?

Increasing Tax Revenues has little to do with deficits, when so many attachments to budget bills before the Congress have little to do with the main reasons for the bill in the first place (yep, we'talkin "PORC" here).

For instance, the DoD appropriation bills contain an increasing amount of non-defense spending, since it is a bill that must be passed, and attaching un-necessary projects that would never pass on their own.

Raising tax revenues should be purpose driven, attached to a specific solution to prevent the abuse of public funds. The current system provides more spending money to entertain pet projects for elected officials to get more district votes. These do not reduce deficits, but adds to it.

Nick, not one word about the other option, spending cuts, in your reply. It's as if the default is spend no matter what. Is that how it works in your household? Better yet, because you likely are the main bread winner, do you give away your excess cash to your kids just because you earn more?

Actually, spending cuts are one of the most important issues facing our congress today. If we do not cut spending we are going to be in big trouble in the future.

I am not in favor of raising taxes on anyone, and am totally in favor of making spending cuts if they are done in the right areas. I am approaching the age where I would be eligible for Medicare, however, if that or other entitlement programs need to be cut then so be it, but personally I would start with the welfare programs.

What is interesting about this debate is that no one has really addressed the real problem. Taxing the rich is a symptom of the problem of wealth envy.

Gallop's productivity poll shows only 1 in 4 workers is giving 8 hour of work for 8 hours of pay. Bush 43 signed a law giving economically disadvantage families essentially free cell phones. Those who produce pay for this with another tax on their cell phone bills.

The bigger problem is not a gap between the haves and the have nots but a culture of my freedom comes as the expense of your freedom. As Lynn Marie Thompson wrote "Let the American people as individuals decide where to spend their own money."

The real problem is destruction of freedom through productivity envy as manifested through the demonziing of the wealthy. If this dangerous trend continues, we will no longer be free, but the government will control all of our productivity (think freedom) to create "a fair and just society."

I'm not a fan of big government, but without sufficient taxes, who will build and maintain roads, police our cities, inspect our food supplies, regulate and punish industries that are prone to pollute, protect our borders, or provide adequate schooling for our children (all children, not just those who can afford private schools).

All these things and many more are paid for with tax revenues. Our government is far from perfect, but who or what is going to do these things if we do not tax citizens to pay for services we all benefit from. No country on the planet offers the opportunity that the US does and the US does it by taxing its citizens at far lower rates than many first world nations. Moreover, no country allows its citizens to "decide where to spend their money," as has been suggested in this discussion.

Travel abroad and you'll see how much better we have it. Our cities are safer, our water and air are cleaner, our military is stronger, our goverment is less corrupt. Is it perfect? No, but pretending that we all don't have a stake in this country's welfare is beyond foolish, it's dangerous. Come August 2nd, if neither Republicans or Democrats blink on the debt ceiling, we may very well see what it's like to live through a severe depression. I hope not, but this is a dangerous game our politicians are playing.

Here is my short, sweet answer... For all of you who believe we should pay more taxes, pay all you want out of your own money! I've worked hard for what I have so go take a flying leap YOU THIEF! Advocating taking what I have worked for makes you a THIEF, a lousy, filthy, THIEF!

-------------------

Since the U.S. Constitution forbids "taxation without representation" and Democrats are so fond of taxes I say tax every registered Democrat. That would be a tax on the direct constituents of the party that they elected. That is the clearest "taxation WITH representation." If you're a Dem and support tax increases then go howl at someone else!

Second, let's get a mandatory felony law imprisoning any politician or government appointee who dodges their taxes (i.e. Timothy "taxes are for the little people" Geitner [sp?]).

How about it?

It is now August 8 and the S&P has been downgraded the US's rating from AAA to AA+.

S&P had said that it would take $4 trillion in debt reduction to stave off a downgrade yet Obama signed a bill far short of $4 trillion in debt reduction. Obama called S&P's bluff, but unlike Obama, S&P wasn't bluffing.

Nick, and who will decide what are the right few things to centralize?

It is the Tea Party that prevented the Bumbler in Chief from getting an increase in the debt ceiling without any spending cuts.

It was Harry Reid who prevented the Dems from increasing the Debt Ceiling when they had control of the House, the Senate, and the White House. Reid wanted to force the Republicans to share the blame for increasing the Debt Ceiling.

The head of S&P said the US would not have lost their AAA rating had the Dems passed the Cut, Cap and Balance bill.

Let's boil this discussion down to its essence.

How would you feel if your son, daughter, child or even yourself had a report card of all As especially if you knew the young person worked very hard for those grades? Then a new management team comes in and demands that all high performers (A students) must give up their As to the F and D students. The end result is everyone now has a C.

This is what we are discussing. Sharing our productivity with others who choose not to work as hard. Productivity research already demonstrates that only 1 out of 4 is giving 8 hours of work for 8 hours of pay. The other 3 are loafing to some extent.

I would rather end salaries for our elected officials and all of their perks including full retirement, health care far better than the average citizen than tax cuts. Let them truly become servants of the people instead of acting like the masters.

As Benjamin Franklin said "You are entitled to the pursuit of happiness; not the guarantee of it."

Leanne, "all men are created equal" now means "all people should have equal outcomes even if it means stealing from Peter to give to Paul." Someone suggested that the driving force behind redistribution is empathy. Too many people feel guilty, i.e., too much empathy, so they are willing to steal other people's money and wealth to ease their own guilt. I'm all for letting people give their wealth away until their pain subsides but I'm against stealing other people's money to assuage their guilt.

hi; your resident Obama Republican here, ready to offer my $0.02 which all you Tea Party radicals will diss and attack me for, but the conversation so conceals! and distorts the truth, as to require me at least to say: stop distorting history.
In fact, the reply that drove me back here had to do with applauding the demise of Eurpoean social democracy. Clearly , as I said, I will be under attack even before I post this but I would encourage all you who seek to have an Historical and Futuristic viewpoint; read :
read, J. Attali's A Brief History of the Future; read "Freefall"; read "Cornered"; read "Sustainability by Design", read "Against the Day" or any of the Historical fiction by Thomas Pynchon. There are more things to read in the business section but not to recognize the destructive damage done to the global economy by the outrageous, war-mongering and trickle down theories of Republicans and Tea Party radicals who want to go back to the 1785 period is mind-boggling. To advocate for less or no regulation after living during (NOW!) a worse ! period of economic crisis than ever before, in history- a crisis and tragedy brought on by lack of oversight, lack of proper regulatory bridles, and fueled by banker greed and irresponsibility: i think a lot of individuals would agree that one huge problem is valuation: the world is over valued by 25 to 35% and until the valuation is properly set these tumultuous times are inevitable. European social democracy is not to blame. this is on the US and its failure to be ethical in banking; its failure to communicate honestly; its desire to become a Plutocratic Oligarchy ; and not knowing when "carrying a big stick" should be placed second to the health, welfare, and stability of its own national infrastructure, regulations, etc. and citizens
the reference to 1984 is cute but really off point. that is my $0.02.
don't get too ugly please! just an opinion based on my reading and diagnostics.

Yes - sort of.

I'm willing to include the reduction (if not outright elimination) of such tax breaks in any package that also forces us to address critical spending issues around defence, social security, & Medicare. I think there should still be tax exemptions or incentives for certain areas of the economy that can generate job growth through additional investment. One example might include investments for U.S.-based manufacturing operations. I also believe we should NOT increase tax burden on lower and middle class Americans.

Yes.

the debate is fun to watch.
This is an anguish-filled time for many americans. We don't do a good job of talking or listening during such times.
Clearly we are in need of reform, of change, and a willingness to see the changes through.
Polarizing viewpoints, however, is not going to get us to co-create a sustainable future: and, that more than anything is what i would like to see us do in america, now.
I want the partisan paralysis to stop.
Course correction for a nation is akin to turning around an aircraft carrier cruising at 35 knots: our ship of state had been rudderless and without a working control panel. Obama replaced the control panel, placed a working rudder in place; and, now, it is time to allow the correction to take effect.

so sorry about the "e" and the missing "a" .
clearly we have an example of the proverbial hornet's nest

You can not spend more than you make* and your mother should have taught you not to take things that do not belong to you.

*Only way to live a happy financial life

Nick, "if we sail long enough and are off be a degree, we will miss the continent, the destination" is true but you miss the wisdom in your own words. The Tea Party has been around for only a few years but the economy is at the brink of disaster which was brought about by generations of misguided economic policies. The Tea Party has no impact on the Gambler in Chief other than preventing him from spending money that we do not have. The bloom is off the rose.

“POLL: Are you in favor of ending tax cuts for the wealthy as part of a deficit reduction program?”
______________________________________________________________

Changes in the tax rate/code would simply be a tool to achieve a better outcome. Ideally,the idea is neither good nor bad. My bigger concern is that tax increases/changes not be used as a means of maintaining the status quo. The facts are, 1) we are running fiscal deficits with a no potential end, 2) the structure of our discretionary spending leaves little room for meaningful cuts, 3)our global economic position is changing/eroding, 4) our federal tax burden on high net worth individuals and corporations (actual rate) is among the lowest in the developed world and historically low for U.S. individuals (high end). If we do raise taxes I would also like to see cuts , not just in programs, but in salaries and benefits of Federal workers (elected, appointed and civil servants). Without those cuts, I am opposed to tax increases. The fact that the average government worker makes more than the average U.S. private sector worker is anathema to the American way and borders on a form of government other than a democracy/republic.

It is not tax cuts for the wealthy. For too long the press has been allowed to mistate matters. No longer. Clarity is needed and will prevail. For clarity's sake, it is "tax cuts for the high-income earners." There is a difference. Just because someone earns a high income one year does not make them rich. Now, if you want to institute taxes on the wealthy, then propose a tax on assets.

Finally, to answer the survey question, I am against the proposition of taking more from the high income earners.

"How did the US run up so much debt? The crucial turning point came back in 2001. At the time, Uncle Sam was actually running surpluses, and "the outlook was so rosy" that forecasters were predicting the US could pay back every dime it had ever borrowed. That's when President George W. Bush made a pivotal decision: Rather than use the surpluses to pay down the national debt or fix Social Security, Bush elected to push through two massive tax cuts, on the grounds that "the surplus is the people's money." Bush and Congress then financed two wars at the cost of $1.3 trillion, spent $272 billion on Medicaid prescription benefit, and expanded other defense and domestic spending. When the economy cratered in 2008, it cut deeply into revenues already diminished by Bush's tax cuts. All told, Congressional Budget Office statistics show, Bush's policies account for more than $7 trillion of the debt the US has accumulated over the past decade. President Obama's policies, including his $719 billion stimulus program, have added $1.7 trillion to that debt. Today, future budget forecasts "are unrelievedly gloomy, showing huge deficits essentially forever." And it all began with a choice, 10 years ago, to cut taxes to their lowest level in 60 years, with no cuts in spending."
-Lori Montgomery, Washington Post (as excerpted in The Week 8-19-11)

Also of interest:
"Thirty Five Internal Revenue Service agents are assigned full-time to ExxonMobil headquarters in Houston, where they conduct a non-stop audit of the company's tax accounting. In 2009, Exxon paid no U.S. income taxes on profits of $19.3 billion, receiving instead a $156 million credit. The company paid $15.2 billion in foreign taxes. -Fortune.com (as excerpted in The Week 6-3-11)

It is now August 18, 2011, and the European Nations are reaping the benefits of decades of socialism. I'm sure some posters will dismiss the financial chaos in Europe as a manufactured crises but the end is near for European socialism. It is too bad for Obama since he is intent on "spreading the wealth around" and "making the rich pay their fare share" and all the other nonsensical phrases he uses are now inoperative. We now know that his ideas will lead to the financial ruin of the nation. If only Obama was 15 years older, he could have defeated RR in 1984 and he could have led us into 1984, the book, how appropriate.

Here's a classic example of a misguided federal government program that spends $126.5 million a year to round up and inhumanely slaughter wildlife: http://bit.ly/q9Vlqw
And yet, the federal government will also spend bunches of money in legal fees to prevent a private company from building a plant that would create jobs and provide a useful product if any species deemed "endangered" lives anywhere near the site. How does this make sense in any way?

If we had a 0% income tax rate, we would collect $0 income taxes.

If we had a 100% income tax rate, we would collect $0 income taxes since no one would work for nothing.

What income tax rate will produce the most income taxes?

Jay, thanks for adding your comments.
Yes, those of us who agree that taxing the wealthy is pro-american, pro-capitalism, and pro-our economic stability: we don't necessarily want big government. We do want effective government. We do want our infrastructure to be in top form; to support job development and education. The numbers do not lie: evidence and fact-based decision making should bring a pellucid answer to all.
I did want to add one other consideration which I do not believe has been posted, although some commentators - none on the right or far-right, however, so far as I can tell - have brought this to light.
Few people seem to take into consideration how this partisan paralysis and refusal to get the wealthy to pay their fair share (yes!, there, i said it again: fair share - not marxism!) plays out across the stages of the global theater. Does anyone ever feel as though we are kidding ourselves about our place in the world and our inability to do the right thing economically and how the world views us? Perhaps a parallel universe exists and I am in the other one: best, ;-)o ngp

@jay
thanks for adding to the balance of the conversation.
If we were to allow the use of "a tapestry" as the working metaphor for many of these heated, difficult, and necessary conversations, we might then see certain threads, perhaps only filaments exposed; the real issue being hidden.
Can we find analogues here?
If we were repairing, reweaving, and re-narrating the story within the tapestry,there are a number of steps we would then have to take. Among them, we also would be redrawing the tapestry's "cartoon", we would pull brand new plaits of warp thread and then the narrative of the weft could be added - the weft which, when finished, completely covers and hides the warp.
None of what we face as a nation or planet is simple. Every time we yank on a thread or filament, every time we see a small rip in the current warp, the whole should be examined. We are not very good at looking at and weaving the new whole

Diagnosis simplistically is a judgment about the meaning of facts.
W all due respect to the Tea Party members here, I believe that the diagnosis that propels the Tea Party message is several degrees off course: and of course, we all know that if we sail long enough and are off be a degree, we will miss the continent, the destination.

Since I know there isn't a partisan bone in the body of anyone posting on this topic, ;-)o , let me add this:
While decentralization has brought trillions of correct decisions, not centralizing the right, few things can destroy the world.
Such would be the effect if we were to allow the Tea Party to have their way , dismantling regulation even further. God, help us all!

Warren Buffet makes a very compelling arguement for raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires in the NY Times. Here's the link:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Warren-Buffett-Pushes-bloomberg-4088896717.html...

It's hard to argue with his facts and figures, especiallly given that he would face a large tax increase as a result of his argument.

Democracy is ablout legitimising the lazy and the poor to rob the rich by passing taxes on one class of person in preference to another class. And we all know were that lead the USSR!

Cut your taxes, cut your government in order to live a free life.

Whew! I need to take a breath, Gary.

I stand by statement: we need to eliminate the tax breaks: It is wrong to - in effect - demand and force those with less to support those more fortunate. The wealthy are not by default some elite to be protected. I don't get that attitude. The wealthy should pay proportionately, in accordance with their ability not according to spending hundreds of thousands of dollars finding loopholes.
Yes, I do believe in social responsibility, ethical conduct, giving back, sharing: I also believe in equality and that greed is bad.
Establishing a plutocratic exclusionary society will not allow the United States to participate as fully and as meaningfully as alternative decisions.
Tax breaks were a "Fix that Failed" in systems thinking terms. Actually didn't fix anything in truth.
Now as to the attack: I do not believe that throwing money at something is the default answer, ever.But "Cuts" for the sake of cuts - especially without finally getting the wealthy to contribute fairly - disregards reality. The wealthy should step up, pay their 45% and just enjoy their standard of living. But then again, I really didn't know where the attack came from or upon what it might be based. hope that helps. ngp

Actually, this is become a fascinating cross-section of the current public conversation.
In case I didn't "telegraph" this belief earlier, i will state that I think this partisan-based political paralysis is unconscionable!
I had been a lifelong Republican until this "nonsense" of negotiating in bad faith: Taxing the wealthiest 1 to 2 % and removing the very specialized breaks certain industries or individuals receive MUST "be on the table."
Does removing the tax breaks on the wealthiest and having them contribute dollars and cents to the management and contribution of their country and its services signal a marxist leaning?: i don't think quite that.
Instead I ask the group if they want to discuss this issue to think and answer: what is "the desired end-state" you wish for the United States?
For myself, I refer to "A Brief History of the Future" (jacque attali) and "Sustainability by Design" (john Ehrenfeld) . again, interesting cross-section. best, ngp

92%: our family did quite well under that environment. Not one I would return to if given a choice....
As to the false argument: the tax breaks to those wealthiest and special interest groups yielded NO NET NEW JOBS. Plus, how many jobs have been shipped over-seas to trim costs and line executive pockets?
Frankly, I would rather see a massive works project creating a new infrastructure for america than watch the rich line their pockets, yawn, and add NO NET NEW JOBS.
sorry.best, ngp

According to the Washington Post, "The top 0.1% of earners in the U.S. take in more than 10% of the personal income, with business executives leading the way. The income of the wealthiest executives has soared 400% since the 1970s, while for most workers, it has stalled."

We are all very fortunate to live and work in the United States. Before you jump to any conclusions, my wife and I are fast approaching the nation's top tax bracket and expect to be there for another 15-20 years before retirng, but we would glady go back to the pre-Bush tax brackets. It's clear that changing the top bracket from 39% to 36% (for what will soon be an entire decade) has not created more jobs or boosted our economy.

But I'll be the first to admit that just taxing citizens, such as myself and those who earn even more, at a modestly higher rate will not fix our nation's economy by itself; but coupled with significant spending cuts, an effort to eliminate waste and phasing out the most egregious corporate loopholes, will work better than any one solution.

That's unlikely to happen because we as a country get the leadership we deserve and are unwilling to do what it takes to get our economy back on track. Not until the economy truly implodes will we accept solutions that involve pain. Sadly the solution could be much less painful if we accepted that all of us need to do our part now, instead of waiting until we have no choice.

I apologize. the phrase "political demagoguery" , however, seems designed to allow the writer to take the so-called higher ground, but I suspect it is evidence actually of what is claimed; as i suspect many of the comments or innuendo throughout our discussion may appear. We don't communicate well in the nation about important issues. We allow partisan paralysis to dictate replies, thinking, yelling,
Collectively, (myself included) we do a bad job of listening, authentically listening, and then of moving towards a sustainable, inclusive future.

I like using the metaphor of a tapestry.
Just this section of the conversational tapestry is in need of further inspection, repair of the warp, recrafting of the weft, greater detail, more colors. ;-)
It is convenient to point to the man in the corner office. Obama, whether you are republican or democrat, of color or not, has turned in an incredibly strong performance.
And, certainly, the Republicans have counted down the days until they can YELL that the problems of America are OBAMA's and NO LONGER BUSH's = you get the point.
Tax breaks did not create jobs in the United States. We are lying to ourselves if we asset that. Fact-based, evidence supported assertions that proffer the nation's best interests will be served if the wealthiest contribute to the operation of our country.
It is counter-intuitive, at the least, to hear (well, read) comments to the contrary. If you like living here so much: create a sustainable future, invest in human capital in the US of A and not in Bangalore or Taiwan or mainland China or ; create jobs , and stop hoarding the wealth. As we grow to 9 Billion further isolating a plutocratic minority will hurt the human race.
As background reading i might suggest A Brief History of the Future (j attali); Freefall (Steiglitz), Cornered (Lynn), The Necessary Revolution (Senge), Sustainability by Design (Ehrenfeld), and toss in a lot of Heidegger.
Then let's talk about what actually did transpire over the last 40 years of laxness in regulation, industry consolidation, or wars started or participated in, the loss of jobs, banker greed and the removal of Glass-Steagall constraints, and the collapse of the markets because of bthe loss of value in the human capital of this country because we shipped that capability off-shore to bring down costs and increase profits.
Trickle down economics has done nothing for the United States. It never worked: check out David Stockman on the topic: he's "The Man". There have been no net new jobs. The Banking and Equity crises have been muted as to their true and devastating global effects - in all likelihood significantly worse than the Great Depression.
This , to me, is not about taxes or republican or democrat or who can YELL louder than the other. I believe it is time for us to come together as a country to put ourselves on the road to a sustainable future. We need to define our "Desired End-State" and we need to listen authentically.
I would ask you to hear even this , perhaps radical notion: just what if the vision that President Obama has articulated and fought aggressively to achieve is the better one for the US to be a meaningful member of the global community.
With an entire party , Tea Party, lesser and greater conservatives, all shouting factual distortions, how can we as a nation move ahead and be successful again.

Someone please explain to me how giving tax breaks to the wealthy has created jobs? The number of job ever created has never equaled the amount of tax break given so lets not even go there. If jobs were created, over the last 10 -15 years it hasn't been here in the USA, they were created offshore.
They need to tax the wealthy now because the middle class is now the lower class and the tax revenue that once existed is no longer there. It is just pure economics their demand is high but their supply is dwindling.
It will not reduce the deficit as long as spending is out of control. If the government wants to really help they need to eliminate much of the burden they have placed on business and citizens to invigorate more cash flow into the system. They need to stop increasing all spending and look for ways to reduce the existing spending. They need to get rid of the waste that is in government and set up checks and balances to keep it from happening in the future.
As it was alluded to in a previous comment this is nothing more than the typical rhetoric to get votes by one party vs the other. Let the babble begin!

@Lynn Marie
It is always interesting to me with my background in diagnostics and analytics to see how individuals interpret the same data set.
But now, I can feel my own energy reawakening: so let's have a little fun. ad forgive my soapboxing - watching the news too much can make that happen

First: much of our national dilemma is based upon Language misunderstood. we lack authentic listening in this public debate.

now: LynnMarie

actually wouldn't you rather argue that the voters were tricked and lied to; manipulated and downright fooled into believing one thing (now you see it, now you don't)? and, now, in great panic at their mistake, and paralyzed by the political paralysis of the party of no not being an inclusive but an exclusionary party, the better informed as well as the "average" voters have realized what a disaster it was to believe that nonsense the Koch Brothers and Fox are flooding the air with
I might anger a few people and say - 1. we don't give The Prez enough credit nor did we allow any of the much-needed time for change to take effect, to even begin to enable the changes to take place; on the whole, the nation's "rank n file" hasn't paid close enough attention to what is really going on.
and, here is my final "soapbox" comment: but I hope a legitimate concern for our nation's well-being.
Language and money are deceiving the nation.
Sadly, big money pays an awful lot of Messaging-Dollars to come up with "words that work": please let's honestly assess the current conversation. We have two lovely republicans: both "big draw". Both weak as heck relative to being able to lead a nation or with any accurate sense of History or Global Politics. Then we have the frontrunner, MR, who is having trouble keeping a straight face because the truth is that the economy is much better since the President took over, based upon a variety of metrics and indicators. and then there are the just plain folks so damn wealthy they got an extra $500MM with which to grab their 15 minutes....
all creating discord. not necessarily shining the light on what lies concealed in the Truth of our present now.
*Sure, I know : I can hear you all yelling at me: foo-foo dust; idealist; heck...academic at heart that I am...
But we've turned our nation into immediacy junkies in a world quite similar to the Orwellian state. At the same time we seem ready and eager to deny the past
Those of you leading our nation, our firms, we have responsibilities to ourselves to see things through.
The "Ship of State" the President was gifted is akin to turning around an aircraft carrier that has been operating w no control panel, without a rudder, and going 35 knots.
the instrument panel had been removed. it was rudderless. Both have been replaced and yet the party of no is grandstanding for all the world to watch: much of our national dilemma is based upon Language misunderstood. we lack authentic listening in this public debate.

whew!

Seems most of you have forgotten --or never learned-- that economics do not, cannot, exist all on their own. Economies are functional only when the R of 'ROI' is higher than the I, no matter what resources is 'invested' on for a 'return'. Without that R being higher than the I, there's no point to modern economics --it would only be trying to maintain a status quo, push the granade further down the road until it has to explode on our faces.

Seen in that light, it hasn't been so much American "ingenuity" nor "entrepreneurship" and neither "free markets" that has seen this nation grow so "exceptionally" over the past 150 years. Rather it's been the vast availability of a resource now so intractably imbedded in our daily lives that is like water is to fish.

Now, that resource (ie., petroleum) is nowhere near as available as it was 100yrs ago, and not even as it was 50yrs ago. 50yrs ago the USA became the #1 importer of that resource whereas up until that time it had been the #1 producer of it. That without factoring in the demand by the rest of the world on that same resource which was nowhere as much as there is today.

Rather than invest heavily in alternatives, efficiency and conservation, we found it easier to put up blinders and start exploiting the next cheapest resource, human capital (ie., the poor amongst us) + in addition to being sold into the self-righteous-greed of Aynd Rand and the alternate reality provided by Milton Friedman, his shock doctrine and then the hocus pocus of supply-side economics.

The only problem with exploiting the poor and robbing them of their rights, their chance at reasonable income and their chance to climb the "American Dream" is that "poor" is relative. Eventually enough "poor" are exploited that the next layer up must acquire the label in order to continue the pyramid scheme.

We've exported the exploitation of the poor so well over the past 30yrs, while at the same time undermining our poor here at home the whole time, that they have not much more to give. But still we turn inward. From the margins of Latin America we moved to the margins of Asia, then to the margins of Europe on to the innards of it, Greece, Ireland. And is all getting ready to come over this way. Eventually 'poor' catches up to our definition of 'wealthy', today's wealthy being the new poor.

Get used to it. Up until recently I had a few Ford F-150s in our 'small business' venture thanks to W's asinine tax breaks to get us to consume + thus grow. HAH, 2 wars + lowest taxes, how long did we think it would last? I honestly hoped for longer. Just like I had to give up my F-150s since I can't no longer have it subsidized on the sweat of the unwashed masses, so will you have to give up your Learjets.

Of course, we can all continue to forcefully yell, "damn reality, full speed ahead" and hope that when we all drop into the latrine at least we're at the top of the pile.

whew! breathe.

"It is proper to every gathering that the gatherers assemble
to coordinate their efforts to the sheltering;
only when they have gathered together with that end
in view do they begin to gather."
this palpable screaming tension, I believe, is what we as a nation need to avoid: words, language destroying all possible open conversation.
I started a short piece on Language http://chrysalismktgllc.blogspot.com/2011/05/on-way-to-language.html
we can create world.
the issue in truth isn't "taxes", per se. I know that none of us likes to have to pay taxes.
Isn't the issue the very fate of our nation? What do we want for ourselves individually? for our families, children, progeny, neighbors, and those across our physical space?
what is the desired end-state we seek for our country? our country as part of the global tapestry of life?
Are we attempting to create, to co-create a sustainable world for the planet's current and future inhabitants?
Are we only worried now about those within our borders?
And, within our borders, are we worried only about "the right ones"[ - wink, wink: double wink - whatever that might mean]?
what data points really matter?
Evidence can be brought forward, eloquent evidence from David Stockton, proving that trickle down economics does not work: no new jobs were created Stateside
and isn't what we are trying to protect, stimulate, and regenerate our shores, our ship of state?
no one is going to like a sacrifice of any kind.
Those of us already pushed beyond what we thought possible even less.
Do we protect the construction of ethanol plants even though construction is worse for the environment than the recovered benefits will be after the fact?
we have created a tapestry that really is hidden from view, despite looking directly at its colorful picture of our 50 states and the globe.
What makes sense? Tax breaks for taking a jet to work!
Tax breaks to stimulate investment in buggy whips?!
Jobs for everyone!
what about nuanced language? does global warming exist? or, is it climate change? does either matter?
Isn't it true that ....
the questions can go on and on. Sadly we are having a very difficult time listening, absorbing, authentically listening. Let's go on
is the ozone level deteriorating? well, do we force mfgrs of farm equipment to change their products to stop .... ?
do we care; does any one really care for the entire nation any longer?
Or, since we will be dead before we see the consequences of the societal decisions we make today, should we protect what we feel most comfortable with for ourselves!
Do we default on our national debt?
Do we have the societal privilege of acting as though we, the United States, occupies a parallel universe, wherein only what WE - the US of A- do counts? ignoring the possible existence of the rest of the world:you know, that the flat world of always on, 24 / 7 interconnected, answers demanding immediately at all times, results as well.
If we look at the mental model jacque attali portrays in his "A Brief History of the Future" has the US already lost its true ranking as a center of power?
Are we societally tone-deaf to the rest of the world? The tragedies in Japan, the economic death-knell of the European States, the network of terrorists, the changes in the Middle East: faith, life, commerce, politics, and just being really does exist, does matter: just not in the universe in which we exist?
I guess I am confused by this[Now, be nice, ;-)]

it strikes me as unconscionable to debate this any longer. Trickle-down economics doesn't work, if it ever really did.
At issue is the definition of the "Desired End-State" we want for our country and its citizens; for its place in the global community; and, our real commitment to co-creating a sustainable future for our children's grandchildren.
I cannot envision a Plutocracy in the United States that doesn't lead to a deeper partisan division than already exists and is paralyzing our governing at all levels.
Whether we need to raise the nominal tax rate back to 92 % where it was when I was a young kid or just to 45%, the wealthy should pay up according to their proportionate share. Who what why when : in what way could it be right to do otherwise?

To quote Fareed Zakaria, "Conservatives now have one prescription for all problems: Cut taxes. Shrink government. But tax rates are now at their lowest level since 1950, and the U.S. has lower taxes than almost all the other big industrial nations. Germany and Denmark have much higher taxes--but their economies are booming...Our own economy was healthiest in the 50s and 60s when the U.S. government made massive investment in science and technology."

"Conservatives ignore history, and evidence from around the world, insisting that the U.S. budget deficits can be eliminated simply by cutting taxes further. It's nonsensical. But like the Marxists of old, today's doctrinaire conservatives are so in love with theory that the real world is irrelevant."