<p>
My gratitude is simple - I don’t get upset that people who are already paying orders of magnitude more in dollars than me aren’t paying even more. Every dollar they pay means less that I pay and every dollar I pay means less that those who make much less income than me pay and when I pay more than them I don’t expect to have to hear them whine that I should be paying even more and them even less.</p>
<p>I posed the question and no one answered. So let me pose it again. given that most economists believe that taxes will need to be raised in order to reduce the $482 billion, whose taxes should be raised and how?
I’m not interested in whining about fairness or lack thereof.</p>
<p>I am one of the very fortunate ones who would like to pay more taxes because my family can afford it and because I see so many needs out there. Education, health care, roads. . . I increasingly feel like I am living in a Third World country in which the rich build fences around themselves and couldn’t care less about the poor. </p>
<p>The United States is my team and I want to see all team members doing as well as possible. That also dovetails w/ my belief system.</p>
<p>But I also want to reduce wasteful spending (Iraq war comes first to mind) and I welcome watchdog groups to keep spending on track.</p>
<p>I don’t think the middle class can afford a tax increase. I can’t think of any other way to get the money than to tax those of my ilk (many of whom feel the same way I do).</p>
<p>“I posed the question and no one answered. So let me pose it again. given that most economists believe that taxes will need to be raised in order to reduce the $482 billion, whose taxes should be raised and how?
I’m not interested in whining about fairness or lack thereof.”</p>
<p>Isn’t the prior question whether it should be a goal to reduce the deficit? Our owners in China and Saudi Arabia don’t seem to have a problem with it. Obama’s plan would raise the deficit by $3.4 trillion over 10 years; McCain would raise the deficity by $5.0 trillion over 10 years. Neither of them sees it as a problem.</p>
<p>Now if you want to talk about ensuring access to health care, or the strength of Social Security, or rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure, or “going green” - those to me are worth discussing. But who cares about the deficit?</p>
<p>Oh SuNa, can I write the IRS and tell them that you and your family are going to take over a portion of my taxes? I mean, since you WANT to pay more, I would hate to deprive you of that, and my family could sure use the extra money.</p>
<p>Mini: raise taxes on all the wealthy people voting Democrat. I’m being facetious, but it does seem to me that many (like me) are willing to begin paying our fair share.</p>
<p>Ag54: I really don’t know if your taxes should be lower 
but I sometimes wish it was that simple. Back in 1994, my suburb had a tax revolt over an additional $20 to $30 per month per family for its school system. The bond issue failed, the school laid off dozens of teachers, and the high school went to 3 class periods per day with an 80 minute study hall monitored by paraprofessionals. I would have been happy to pick up the additional tax burden for ten families, but alas, that was not possible. My husband and I chose to switch our kids to a private school that cost a lot more money than $300 per month. </p>
<p>I am a very, very fortunate person, even though my family is only one job away from financial trouble. A couple of weeks ago I asked my husband, who works at a large company, what would happen to my health insurance if he died. The eternal optimist, he replied that he was certain I would continue to have coverage. I am just as certain I would not!</p>
<p>Who cares about the deficit? You are right, Our “owners” in China and Saudi Arabia are very happy to yank our chains thanks to the deficit.</p>
<p>I think both Obama and McCain are far too timid in addressing this issue. But if we are going to compare plans, what difference does it make that one will raise the deficit by $3.4 trillion and the other by $5.0 trillion.
A billion here, a billion there, soon you’re talking real money–as they know all too well in Zimbabwe right now.</p>
<p>I’ve always thought it was childish when people argue that anyone who believes that irresponsibly low taxes are harming the nation should just pay more themselves. Kind of reminds me of Beavis and Butthead level humor. <heh heh=“” …=“”></heh></p>
<p>U-U-Dad - have you never considered that the regressive tax system under which the wealthy pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than the middle class and poor means that you have to pay a larger share of your income than you would if we restored the balance of tax burdens to where it was 40 years ago? And that slick propaganda has convinced you that you’re getting a favor done for you by a system which makes you pay more?</p>
<p>I think taxes should be raised to capture at least 50% of the Bush tax-giveaway during the past 8 years, compounded over that time period. Then I think we should add Social Security taxes on income over $250,000/yr. As a provision of government-sponsored incorporation, CEO/CFO total income should be capped at 100 times that of the lowest-paid employee. Then I think there should be an assets tax.</p>
<p>I do NOT think taxes on the middle class should be lowered.</p>
<p>Oh - and I wouldn’t spend one red cent of this on deficit reduction. I would spend it on public/private partnerships in oil and natural gas recovery (with taxpayers reaping a portion of the profits), public/private partnerships in wind and solar production (again with taxpayers reaping a portion of the profits). And then I would allow “trickle up” to take its natural course.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think they should be lower. Who can spend my hard earned money better? Me or the government? They don’t seem to be doing that well with my portion - I want it back!! ;)</p>
<p>It’s true - they’ve thrown away so much of it on an aggressive, hostile occupation.</p>
<p>And I think you should get your taxes back, ag54 - right before we ship you off to Iraq to fight the war there - in person. ;)</p>
<p>If you don’t like that, you can personally repave the road from your house to your job, your kids’ schools, the store, etc. And don’t forget to hire your personal security guards, firefighter, EMTs, food tasters, medicine testers, etc. 'cause Lord knows, the government won’t be coddling you anymore after you withdraw from the social contract. But you still have to pay off your share of the National Debt - that was incurred on your watch, by the guys you voted for. That’ll be $31,333 for each member of your family. C’mon - interest is running!</p>
<p>
Now there’s an idea.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why count on the gov’t to disperse your extra income? How about finding a charity or contributing in your community. If you pay the gov’t, the funds will be severely diminished by the time it’s funneled thru all the bureaucracy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Anyone that wants to pay more taxes is always perfectly free to do so… there’s nothing stopping you. Please put your money where your mouth is and send your cheque to:</p>
<p>Department of the Treasury
c/o Internal Revenue Service
Austin, TX 73301-0002</p>
<p>Personally, I’d like to see the Federal Government better use the funds it already has rather than just blindly collecting more funds.</p>
<p>Me, too, which is why I’d like to see the troops withdrawn from Iraq tomorrow! I’d also like to see all those subsidies to pharmaceutical companies and oil companies end, with taxpayers owning a share of the royalties that results from all government-supported research.</p>
<p>rocketman:</p>
<p>S paid too much tax a couple of years ago, got a refund check which he forgot to cash. The check validity expired. Just last week, he got another check from IRS without his asking for it. Uncle Sam does not want his extra tax money unless there is legislation for it!</p>
<p>As for charity, I’m not sure they are more efficient with our money than Uncle Sam. Look how much of the fund-raising goes into administrative costs as opposed to those in need.</p>
<p>I posted this in the CC Cafe, but it’s rather appropriate for this thread.
</p>
<p>Yeah. I’ve seen this floating around for a long time. Very insightful but I’m sure the “rich don’t pay enough” will find some argument with it. </p>
<p>I’m hoping that for just one year the top half of the top .5% decide that they don’t need any income and stop working. What would happen if the Gates’ and Buffet’s of the worlds just decided they were done working and dramatically reduced their taxable income? How many of the bottom 50% would have to start paying something substantial to make up for it? It’s easy, they couldn’t!</p>
<p>Nice analogy… sometimes people like to quote stats along the lines of saying the top 5% of earners take home 50% of the wealth. The same crowd, however, rarely likes it pointed out that this same 5% is also paying for 50% of the services provided to everyone else.</p>
<p>(my percentages might be slightly off a bit up or down, but you get the idea)</p>