[JWsleep]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

There's the problem, bloated government programs. They take on a life of their own. Many need to be cut back.

Reagan couldn't do it in '81. W and co most certainly didn't do it, even with a repub congress. Clinton managed to cut a fair bit off Federal welfare. But neither party has shown the stomach for real change. I'm fine with gov't playing a role, but it must be done with some intelligence. And some restraint! The issue here is that the repubs had there shot--what did it get us? Smaller gov't? Better economy? Improved health care? Improved education? Talk is cheap. Maybe Obama won't be able to do anything. But he's worth a shot because the other side messed up.

This is a very debatable point many economists disagree with. Also, we've always had some form of progressive taxation since the inception on the income tax. But at what point is the "progression" too much? I would argue when the top 1% of income earners are paying 34% of the Federal tax burden and the next 2-10% are paying the next 33% than it's too much. The bottom 50% are only paying a total of 3% of the tax burden.

Ah, the dismal science. The historical analysis I saw recently suggested otherwise, but no doubt it's debatable, as is everything in economics. Why do you think 34/33 is too much? What is the right amount? In any event, if we are going to pay for the programs we want, we need to tax. The bottom 50% has experienced stagnating and sinking wages in relation to inflation. Plus, they can least afford to pay, because the loss of income directly effects basic stuff like mortgage payments, health care, food, gas, etc. So raise the rate to 39 (back to the Clinton number). And if I'm right about the debatable economic point (the post war boom? the Clinton years?), it's better overall. I'm not sure how McCain's further ballooning of the debt is going to help--we can only borrow so much from China.

Why? What government programs or government advantages have they received? What government services do they use more than anyone else? Answer: probably none. (I'm not talking the top 1%, I can't speak to how they got where they are, but the 2-10% have mostly gotten there by their own hard work and financial risk taking.)

You are taking a too narrow view of the benefits. It's not simply a matter of direct gov't assistance (protectionism and corporate welfare--but that's for another post), it's a matter of the benefits of living in a free and open society like this one. That it exists and allowed them the opportunity to succeed as much as they have. The top 10% have benefited from that. So they can reasonably be asked to bear a greater share of the load of supporting this system. Isn't this the rationale for progressive taxation? If you are ok with progressive taxation in general, we're only disagreeing about the numbers here. I think 39 (i.e. back to Clinton's numbers) makes sense.