Quote:
Originally Posted by JWsleep
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.
|
Obama has proposed at least several hundred billion in new programs and is promising a tax increase already. My money is on government will expand greatly and taxes rise to levels above the Clinton years if Obama wins and the dems gain a supermajority. Gov't expansion and tax increase happened both times before when the dems had it.
Quote:
|
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.
|
I think the top 10% of the wage earners paying 2/3 of the taxes in the country is very unfair. The top 10% can't out vote the other 90% so there's no incentive to cut any programs, or increase taxes on a larger section of the population, just keep taxing the "rich". When the bottom 90% feel no pain, or even get tax cuts, where is the incentive to control gov't? BTW $ 250K / yr. isn't rich, it's upper middle class, but not rich.
Look at it this way; you work a full-time job as an attorney, dentist, sales professional or you own a couple of small stores or restaurants. You job it 60 hours + per week to hopefully over time become independently wealthy. You live below your means and make smart financial decsions. You take your income from $ 250K to $ 350K with no help from anyone or the government, just hard work and the investments you made in your own education or financial risks you took. So of the $ 100K over $ 250K you made, you keep only $ 61K of, not to mention state and local taxes, at the end of the day you've busted your hind quarters and only take home about $ 55K. Is that fair for the Fed to take more than most people earn in a year in taxes on just the $ 100K to support people who haven't made the sacrifices you do?
Quote:
|
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.
|
I'm not talking about CEOs who are making mega-bucks here. Those guys do have corporate lobbyists and get benfits for themselves and the corporations they work for from folks in the government, on both sides of the aisle.
I'm talking about the guys/gals I mentioned in the paragraph above. What additional benefit of a "free & open society" do they get that the other 90% of wage earners don't get? It is not reasonable based on that to, not ASK but DEMAND, they pay higher and higher percentages of their income. The IRS doesn't "ask" for your tax payment. I understand progressive taxation is necessary, but it's too high at 35% and certainly is at 39%.
The only way to control government expansion is to slow down the funding and force cuts in programs and more frugal expenditures of OUR money.
Pretty scary stuff here. We've got to put the brakes on spending and revamp SS, Medicare, Medicaid now.
United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia