<p>
</p>
<p>I believe liberals would say the same thing. The argument exists in defining the words “needs” and “limited.” Nobody is saying “let’s give the federal government carte blanche.”</p>
<p>"The argument exists in defining the words “needs” and “limited.” Nobody is saying “let’s give the federal government carte blanche.”</p>
<p>When people say that they are upset by how low their taxes are in a time when spending is out of control, carte blanche is exactly what it sounds like. Take my money, please!</p>
<p>You must be very discouraged, zm; it sure doesn’t seem like the Republicans have been too wise with our money. Maybe the Dems will do better and turn things around, first by getting us out of Iraq in a timely manner so that we can at least end that expense (though I wouldn’t mind continued deficit spending to give our traumatized soldiers state-of-the-art lifetime medical and psychiatric care, and I wouldn’t mind spending tax money on helping a hundred thousand Iraqi refugees come to the US. Pity such things are necessary now).</p>
<p>I am upset that my taxes are so low when I know others who are less fortunate (and I mean less fortunate, not less industrious) than me are paying so much more as a fraction of their disposable income. And these tax cuts were given to me precisely during a time of war when billions of dollars were being spent/wasted in Iraq and the government was sinking in a deep hole of a budget deficit from a historic surplus. That surplus should have been used to fully fund social security (Al Gore was promising just that, BTW). </p>
<p>I strongly detest government waste. I am a deficit hawk, which is a primary reason why I consider myself a fiscal conservative. I don’t want my tax dollars to go towards financing debt. Take my money now and pay back principal rather than making me pay these interest payments for ever.</p>
<p>zoosermom: I hope you do not take this too personally, but didn’t you say somewhere on these forums that your husband is either employed by government or does business with government? If so, doesn’t that money come from taxes? We need taxes for essential governmental functions.</p>
<p>My main point is, the tax cuts for the richest few Americans at a time of war were unconscionable. They should be reversed and replaced with tax cuts for the middle class. That is what Obama is promising.</p>
<p>"You must be very discouraged, zm; it sure doesn’t seem like the Republicans have been too wise with our money. Maybe the Dems will do better and turn things around, first by getting us out of Iraq in a timely manner so that we can at least end that expense "</p>
<p>Very discouraged. Deeply, profoundly discouraged, although Iraq wouldn’t be first on my list. Second, perhaps.</p>
<p>“zoosermom: I hope you do not take this too personally, but didn’t you say somewhere on these forums that your husband is either employed by government or does business with government? If so, doesn’t that money come from taxes? We need taxes for essential governmental functions.”</p>
<p>As long as you don’t call me a nazi, I don’t get offended! My husband is a NYC garbageman. Which is absolutely paid from taxes, but local taxes. As I said earlier, I believe that some things should be done locally, really whatever the local electorate thinks appropriate for their individual communities. That’s just fine. It’s federal that I think should be kept always small because I don’t think the federal government should be doing a lot of things that it does at our expense. In my opinion, much of what the federal government does is unconscionable. I think income taxes for everyone who earns income are a good thing.</p>
<p>ZM, I agree with you for the most part about federal spending, but do you believe that it’s fair for those earning less income to pay a greater percentage of their earnings in federal taxes than those who make more? I don’t mind poor working folks paying some federal taxes because it gives them a stake in our government and everyone should contribute something but I find it sad that H and I pay 13-15% in federal income tax and our relatives who earn half our income pay 25% or more. </p>
<p>And then there is the issue of anti-tax minority factions in local communities shooting down every attempt to increase local services. In our community our police and fire chiefs and City Council are begging the taxpayers to pass propositions that would fund a few more cops and paramedics because we have a lower than average 911 response time. The hard-core minority “government shouldn’t dip into my wallet” folks (about 37% of the voters last city election) refused, and the measure failed (bond and tax measures in CA require 2/3rds vote to pass). I happen to think the city did a bad job communicating the need and the consequences of a poor 911 response time, but I’m pretty sure they were trying to save money by not hiring a PR or ad firm. Their hands were tied. They can’t afford to convince people that sometimes raising taxes is necessary for improved quality of life. And these people are experts in public safety!</p>
<p>I can never forget those lower and middle income people in Connecticut coming out in full force and marching to Hartford to protest the institution of the first ever State income tax there by ex-Republican-turned Independent Gov. Weicker. He had drastically cut the sales tax and replaced it with a very progressive income tax in such a way that most ordinary working people would come out ahead under the income tax. Yet, the same people who stood to benefit under the new system were out there protesting against the income tax. </p>
<p>That is what I call a “knee-jerk” anti-tax bias in some people.</p>
<p>BTW, I think the federal government performs a LOT of very essential functions that need more funding. FBI, CIA, NIH, FDA, USDA, lots of other agencies need lots of money to run. Should they be held accountable and should they run more efficiently? Absolutely. We should have zero tolerance for waste. It is not an either-or choice. We need to do all we can to bring down that deficit. It is like carrying a debt on our collective credit card. We have to stop doing it.</p>
<p>Mom2inca, I have the deepest respect for your beliefs and do, in fact, share some of your concerns. I think the flip side of the jerks who don’t want to pay for public safety, education, etc., is the group of jerks who have no respect for others’ ability to run their own lives and are happy to suck the life out of them with taxes.</p>
<p>As far as taxing low-earning people more, I look at the issue in terms of real dollars, rather than percentages, but please keep in mind that I’m specifically talking about income taxes. I think that all income taxes are much, much too high and I have respect for the people who earn high incomes by going to work every day and don’t think they should be demonized/penalized or forced to pay more. The upper income brackets in this country pay their fair share and then some. Again, income. I think it’s impossible to seriously make the point that income isn’t taxed enough. For example, me. My husband and I have no college degrees but work a lot of hours to have what appears to be a high income on paper because we want to do better for our kids. If he wants to work a second job to pay for our daughter’s college, then why should more of that money be taken? Why shouldn’t that money be used as he chooses because he is the one who labors to earn it? Why isn’t enough enough?</p>
<p>“BTW, I think the federal government performs a LOT of very essential functions that need more funding. FBI, CIA, NIH, FDA, USDA, lots of other agencies need lots of money to run. Should they be held accountable and should they run more efficiently? Absolutely. We should have zero tolerance for waste. It is not an either-or choice. We need to do all we can to bring down that deficit. It is like carrying a debt on our collective credit card. We have to stop doing it.”</p>
<p>I guess the difference is that I think essential functions and deficit reduction can be achieved without raising taxes, certainly not as a first resort.</p>
<p>VP, that was a very eloquent summary of “enlightened self-interest” - I couldn’t agree more.</p>
<p>zoosermom, I am wondering what you think of the current very low tax rates for dividend income and capital gains.</p>
<p>“zoosermom, I am wondering what you think of the current very low tax rates for dividend income and capital gains.”</p>
<p>What I think is this. Again, no one has to agree. First efficiently use the money collected, then and only then, if absolutely necessary, raise taxes in small increments. Income taxes should be last.</p>
<p>Oh, please! You self important condescending people! Yakking on about your curtains and new million dollar kitchens and vacations, and then you have the nerve to ask a working woman what she thinks of CG and dividend taxes. This is KEEPING UP WITH THE JONESES AT THE NASTIEST AND SHALLOWEST. TAKE A LONG LOOK IN THE MIRROR!</p>
<p>Your tax breaks only extend another year. Remember it when you vote!</p>
<p>I think we all agree that tax money should be used efficiently. But what I meant was: what do you think of the fact that the marginal income that you and your husband earn by working long hours is taxed at a much higher rate than the dividend income of a rich investor who is earning that income passively?</p>
<p>“I think we all agree that tax money should be used efficiently. But what I meant was: what do you think of the fact that the marginal income that you and your husband earn by working long hours is taxed at a much higher rate than the dividend income of a rich investor who is earning that income passively?”</p>
<p>Since I was so adamant about specifiying income, I thought I was clear but obviously I wasn’t so I apologize. NOT MUCH.</p>
<p>ZM: What NYMomof2 is trying to point out (I think) is that the tax rate on UNEARNED income (dividend, capital gains) was lowered under the Bush admin, helping the rich investors keep more of its profits, while EARNED income such as you and your husband earn remains exposed to high taxe rates. </p>
<p>Also, if you are in the 100K-200K bracket, then you may already know about the infamous AMT. Those Bush tax cuts mean much less to people who are hit by the AMT. AMT just kicks in at an earlier income level.</p>
<p>On the other hand the truly wealthy are frequently left unaffected by AMT, and can reap rich rewards from the Bush tax cuts.</p>
<p>And I suggest VM, that someone in your situation with the tiniest bit of sensitivity, political politeness,
savy, member of the right club, would never, ever think of insulting someone with such questions.</p>
<p>"ZM: What NYMomof2 is trying to point out (I think) is that the tax rate on UNEARNED income (dividend, capital gains) was lowered under the Bush admin, helping the rich investors keep more of its profits, while EARNED income such as you and your husband earn remains exposed to high taxe rates. "</p>
<p>I thought I answered that pretty succinctly above, but in case “not much” wasn’t clear, I favor tax cuts paired with spending cuts universally. In the unlikely even that taxes have to be raised, income taxes should be the last to be raised. Taxes on wealth should be the first to be raised, but that shouldn’t have to happen. We’re in the 200+ bracket and know from the AMT very, very well.</p>
<p>God Felix, it’s so Nazi-like of me not to answer questions the way others would like, isn’t it?</p>
<p>Zoosermom, it is so out of this world, one can only laugh. What do they want you to say? Yes, we working Americans really love it, especially paying more taxes, while your maids and contracters enrich your life on my hard work. Comedy of the absurd, I am sure to those reading.</p>