Phil, this is for you.To reduce the deficit in a weak economy, new taxes on high-income Americans are a matter of necessity and fairness; they are also a necessary precondition to what in time will have to be tax increases on the middle class.The federal government isn't collecting enough money. There is no spending problem, and as we've seen in other recent articles, a cut in the growth of federal spending, called sequestration, is going to poison the air, pollute the water, and cause thousands of federal employees to have their wages and benefits cut,Contrary to Mr. Boehner’s “spending problem” claim, much of the deficit in the next 10 years can be chalked up to chronic revenue shortfalls from the Bush-era tax cuts, which were only partly undone in the fiscal-cliff deal earlier this year.Still blaming Bush, after 10 years. What power Bush had, to have the effects of his decisions ripple on for 4 years after he left office. Surely, if his policies were so terrible, they could have been undone by a Democrat Congress and a Democrat president? It stands to reason that a deficit caused partly by inadequate revenue must be corrected in part by new taxes. And the only way to raise taxes now without harming the recovery is to impose them on high-income filers, for whom a tax increase is unlikely to cut into spending.Rich, you have more money than you need. It must be taken from you and used so that the federal government can fund studies of Asian prostitutes.As it happens, those taxpayers are the same ones who benefited most from Bush-era tax breaks and who continue to pay low taxes. Even with recent increases, the new top rate of 39.6 percent is historically low; investment income is still taxed at special low rates; and the heirs of multimillion-dollar estates face lower taxes than at almost any time in modern memory.Life is so unfair, and it's the federal government's duty to make outcomes more equitable.On the spending side, Republicans are resisting cuts to defense. That implies brutalizing cuts in nondefense discretionary areas, like education and environment, which are already set to fall to their lowest level as a share of the economy since the 1950s.As for entitlements, Republicans mainly want to cut those that mostly go to the middle class and the poor, while ignoring nearly $1.1 trillion in annual deductions, credits and other tax breaks that flow disproportionately to the highest income Americans and that cost more, each year, than Medicare and Medicaid combined.Tax credits and deductions from income tax are entitlements. They are a cost. Socialism doesn't get any more blatant than that.Raising taxes at the top is neither punitive nor gratuitous. It is a needed step, both to achieve near-term budget goals and to lay the foundation for a healthy budget in the future. As the economy strengthens and the population ages, more taxes will be needed from further down the income scale, both to meet foreseeable commitments, especially health care, as well as unforeseeable developments, from wars to technological challenges.The federal government just has to get bigger and bigger, and you're just going to have to pay for it. There is no other way.Why Taxes Have to Go UpPublished: February 21, 2013 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/22/opinion/why-taxes-have-to-...Remember,Faith in GodHope in the future based on knowing the truthCharity to our fellow men and womenDuty to ourselves, our community, and our country.Gilbert
ggleblanc2,Phil, this is for you.This is exactly the sort of thing I see liberals say in print, where no one can ask them for details or elaboration. When a liberal is standing right next to me, they almost never* say things this idiotic... I presume because they know they can't respond to any questions I might ask.Phil* the "almost" part being: sometimes they will say something this stupid, but then just immediately go into name-calling mode or something similar to disallow questions.
What power Bush had, to have the effects of his decisions ripple on for 4 years after he left office. Surely, if his policies were so terrible, they could have been undone by a Democrat Congress and a Democrat president?Can't unreal an egg. Or in Bush's case, a carton of eggs.
Can't unreal an egg. Or in Bush's case, a carton of eggs.I breakUnrealUh breakUnbreak(Damn iPad autocorrect.)
This is exactly the sort of thing I see liberals say in print, where no one can ask them for details or elaboration. When a liberal is standing right next to me, they almost never* say things this idiotic... We've come to expect more substantive commentary from you than this.
xLife,We've come to expect more substantive commentary from you than this.Uh... "learn to live with disappointment"?Phil
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |