Deficits merely mean the next generation pays your taxes. And you pay more in the present for interest rates. It's foolish to cut taxes when you're in deficit.

Deficits merely mean the next generation pays your taxes. And you pay more in the present for interest rates. It's foolish to cut taxes when you're in deficit.

Another option is to spend taxes more efficiently. Maybe that is what you're getting at by saying "stop spending taxes in Iraq" but aside from Iraq, waste is endemic. I have a feeling we wouldn't need to increase taxes and we would be able to afford necessities like universal health care and fill in the social security gap if existing taxes were used fairly and efficiently. Since neither social security nor health care are apart of normal consumer markets, I think the government should play a part in providing them for its citizens. so that may mean raising taxes. However, I think its definitely possible to accomplish these things without raising taxes. It would just entail some reform to our existing (and what I consider an extremely inefficient) tax scheme. I think we can raise the revenue we need to provide the basic necessities and security to our citizens while also fostering global competitiveness with a progressive tax scheme modeled after some European states. "Progressive" tax scheme implies there would need to be some changes to Bush's tax plan.

Another option is to spend taxes more efficiently. Maybe that is what you're getting at by saying "stop spending taxes in Iraq" but aside from Iraq, waste is endemic. I have a feeling we wouldn't need to increase taxes and we would be able to afford necessities like universal health care and fill in the social security gap if existing taxes were used fairly and efficiently. Since neither social security nor health care are apart of normal consumer markets, I think the government should play a part in providing them for its citizens. so that may mean raising taxes. However, I think its definitely possible to accomplish these things without raising taxes. It would just entail some reform to our existing (and what I consider an extremely inefficient) tax scheme. I think we can raise the revenue we need to provide the basic necessities and security to our citizens while also fostering global competitiveness with a progressive tax scheme modeled after some European states. "Progressive" tax scheme implies there would need to be some changes to Bush's tax plan.

Vandystar says:

"I agree with Bethany. Further, I think that the idea of "taxing the rich" is too simplistic and is unfair. If a person works hard enough to make a nice big pile of money, why should they have to pay a higher percentage of it than the person who chooses to work a flat 40 hours a week and take weekends off? I think that is rotten. It is very easy to idealize Robin Hood and "take from the rich" as though being rich were some kind of unfair entitlement, and being poor is somehow a virtue. My husband and I, with a business partner, built our business from nothing, and ultimately, after ten years, got to a six figure salary. Eventually, after 20 years, we were able to sell it and retire. The income we have now classifies us as among the "rich." We don't feel rich, we still fly coach, and we don't operate yachts. But I read the speeches and see that Hillary and the rest are ready to pounce on us and raid what we worked so hard to achieve. Our employees worked hard too, but they were out the door at five, when we worked nights and weekends. We made the choice to forgo the rock concerts and vacations when we were younger, now we are expected to subsidize the ones who took the easier path. It's the old fable of the grasshopper and the ant. I resent being demonized as though I took the bread off someone's table. It's more the other way around."

You make some good points Vandystar. People who chose to work hard shouldn't be "punished" by losing a higher percentage of their income. I would like to add the opinion that Americans should stop thinking of taxation as a punishment. It may seem unfair that hard working people have to subsidize the income of the poor, but think of the benefits of ensuring a minimum standard of living- FAR LESS CRIME, fewer sick people, fewer drug addicts, more educated people who make the US more competitive, etc, etc. etc.

Vandystar says:

"I agree with Bethany. Further, I think that the idea of "taxing the rich" is too simplistic and is unfair. If a person works hard enough to make a nice big pile of money, why should they have to pay a higher percentage of it than the person who chooses to work a flat 40 hours a week and take weekends off? I think that is rotten. It is very easy to idealize Robin Hood and "take from the rich" as though being rich were some kind of unfair entitlement, and being poor is somehow a virtue. My husband and I, with a business partner, built our business from nothing, and ultimately, after ten years, got to a six figure salary. Eventually, after 20 years, we were able to sell it and retire. The income we have now classifies us as among the "rich." We don't feel rich, we still fly coach, and we don't operate yachts. But I read the speeches and see that Hillary and the rest are ready to pounce on us and raid what we worked so hard to achieve. Our employees worked hard too, but they were out the door at five, when we worked nights and weekends. We made the choice to forgo the rock concerts and vacations when we were younger, now we are expected to subsidize the ones who took the easier path. It's the old fable of the grasshopper and the ant. I resent being demonized as though I took the bread off someone's table. It's more the other way around."

You make some good points Vandystar. People who chose to work hard shouldn't be "punished" by losing a higher percentage of their income. I would like to add the opinion that Americans should stop thinking of taxation as a punishment. It may seem unfair that hard working people have to subsidize the income of the poor, but think of the benefits of ensuring a minimum standard of living- FAR LESS CRIME, fewer sick people, fewer drug addicts, more educated people who make the US more competitive, etc, etc. etc.

sam says:

"So, we could sit here forever and debate whom is benefitting from the Bush tax cuts, but I think that it's bad when, in the next 10 years, if things keep going like they are, that the only thing the American government will be able to do is pay interest on its loans. Even if you believe in small government, I think that we can agree that no government isn't the solution. We either need to 1) end the tax cuts, which you don't benefit from unless you are in the top 1% of wage earners, which you aren't. (17% of Americans think they are in the top 1% of wage earners.) And one of the following: 1) Stop spending money in Iraq, or 2) start making sacrifices, which include taxing the rich. In no other time of war in American history have taxes been cut, and in World War II, things were rationed. (Support the troops: use less gas.) Georgie Porgie doesn't get to have it both ways: a war and tax cuts for his fat friends."

---

First we must fully understand the effect of the 2001 Tax Cut ⁽¹⁾. As can be seen in the chart below

---

---

The RNC's 2001 Tax Increase for The Poor

Individual tax liability

The minimum wage was stuck at $5.15/hr from 1997 to 2007. The minimum wage earner has lost $54.00 per week in buying power since 1997. The RNC is raising their TAXES

---

Cost of the BUSH tax Cuts per Person

From the Children's Defense Fund

---

It may be useful to look at the "shifting" of the tax burden to the lower 4 quintiles. A back door tax increase for the poor.

sam says:

"So, we could sit here forever and debate whom is benefitting from the Bush tax cuts, but I think that it's bad when, in the next 10 years, if things keep going like they are, that the only thing the American government will be able to do is pay interest on its loans. Even if you believe in small government, I think that we can agree that no government isn't the solution. We either need to 1) end the tax cuts, which you don't benefit from unless you are in the top 1% of wage earners, which you aren't. (17% of Americans think they are in the top 1% of wage earners.) And one of the following: 1) Stop spending money in Iraq, or 2) start making sacrifices, which include taxing the rich. In no other time of war in American history have taxes been cut, and in World War II, things were rationed. (Support the troops: use less gas.) Georgie Porgie doesn't get to have it both ways: a war and tax cuts for his fat friends."

---

First we must fully understand the effect of the 2001 Tax Cut ⁽¹⁾. As can be seen in the chart below

---

---

The RNC's 2001 Tax Increase for The Poor

Individual tax liability

The minimum wage was stuck at $5.15/hr from 1997 to 2007. The minimum wage earner has lost $54.00 per week in buying power since 1997. The RNC is raising their TAXES

---

Cost of the BUSH tax Cuts per Person

From the Children's Defense Fund

---

It may be useful to look at the "shifting" of the tax burden to the lower 4 quintiles. A back door tax increase for the poor.

It's not a matter of taxing from the rich to give to the poor. It's a matter of basic fairness. A poor person doesn't have much money and to have them pay the same tax rate is unfair, they're just struggling on what they have already! A poor person has less of an ability to pay taxes than a rich person and it's not fair to ask them to both pay the same rate, that is what it comes down to, a poor person can not spare as much of their income on taxes. Anyway, it seems to me that social security should be privatised but made compulsory, other wise you'd have a bunch of old people without any money the government would have to bail out, this is one way to save money. Also, pay for education programs for people on welfare and assist them in looking for work, teach them job interview skills and have someone assist them in writing a resume, make them job ready, you'll reduce the number of people on welfare, should save money in the end. Reduce military spending, kind of wars US will be facing in the future are more the type that need manpower and elite forces than expensive large weapons. Seems to me that things like new nuclear subs are a little wasteful. Focus should be on reducing spending, spending is the real tax, a tax cut during a deficit only postpones you from having to pay it off and costs you more in the interest fees the government has to pay on the debt.

It's not a matter of taxing from the rich to give to the poor. It's a matter of basic fairness. A poor person doesn't have much money and to have them pay the same tax rate is unfair, they're just struggling on what they have already! A poor person has less of an ability to pay taxes than a rich person and it's not fair to ask them to both pay the same rate, that is what it comes down to, a poor person can not spare as much of their income on taxes. Anyway, it seems to me that social security should be privatised but made compulsory, other wise you'd have a bunch of old people without any money the government would have to bail out, this is one way to save money. Also, pay for education programs for people on welfare and assist them in looking for work, teach them job interview skills and have someone assist them in writing a resume, make them job ready, you'll reduce the number of people on welfare, should save money in the end. Reduce military spending, kind of wars US will be facing in the future are more the type that need manpower and elite forces than expensive large weapons. Seems to me that things like new nuclear subs are a little wasteful. Focus should be on reducing spending, spending is the real tax, a tax cut during a deficit only postpones you from having to pay it off and costs you more in the interest fees the government has to pay on the debt.

ffdesmond says:

"I believe that there should be a flat tax across the board for everyone in the US. This takes away the argument of attacking the rich to take care of the poor."

A flat tax is more of a myth then a probable solution. My father is an accountant and does taxes for individuals and small businesses on the side and we are what you would consider middle class, and he greatly disapproves of the idea. Here’s the problem with calculating what the flat tax should be. You have your current system of brackets which exponentially increase according to taxable income/deductions/etc. however once you get to somewhere around the middle upper class it has a ceiling somewhere around 35percent (keep this in mind) now most people think okay well half of  35 percent is 17.5, which sounds great if you are in the upper tiers. But here’s the problem, it is estimated that the top 10% of people pay 90% of the countries taxes (due to the concentration of over wealth in that area) and by lowering their tax you aren’t getting enough money into the federal government to pay for services like national defense, education, etc.  so then you have to raise it probably to somewhere like 20-25 percent, and also consider that a higher tax on the poor and middle class still yields less tax income for the government so it probably will have to raise even higher to 25+ and all of this eats away at the gross income the other 90% of workers. Does that seem fair to you?  I don’t think those Americans want a quarter of every dollar going to federal services.

While I’m at it, the whole trickle down theory is bogus as well. Giving tax cuts to the rich is absurd. They have more money, but that does not mean they have more money to spend to stimulate the economy, you can only spend so much money of goods and services and the rest of it they save (hence why the rich stay rich) some play the stock market, others invest elsewhere but when you have more people cashing into government programs like welfare to help make ends meet because their taxes are too high, does it really help that much? You give a middle to lower class person money, they’ll spend it and spend it fast, you give the rich person money, they’ll put in the bank with the rest of their millions

ffdesmond says:

"I believe that there should be a flat tax across the board for everyone in the US. This takes away the argument of attacking the rich to take care of the poor."

A flat tax is more of a myth then a probable solution. My father is an accountant and does taxes for individuals and small businesses on the side and we are what you would consider middle class, and he greatly disapproves of the idea. Here’s the problem with calculating what the flat tax should be. You have your current system of brackets which exponentially increase according to taxable income/deductions/etc. however once you get to somewhere around the middle upper class it has a ceiling somewhere around 35percent (keep this in mind) now most people think okay well half of  35 percent is 17.5, which sounds great if you are in the upper tiers. But here’s the problem, it is estimated that the top 10% of people pay 90% of the countries taxes (due to the concentration of over wealth in that area) and by lowering their tax you aren’t getting enough money into the federal government to pay for services like national defense, education, etc.  so then you have to raise it probably to somewhere like 20-25 percent, and also consider that a higher tax on the poor and middle class still yields less tax income for the government so it probably will have to raise even higher to 25+ and all of this eats away at the gross income the other 90% of workers. Does that seem fair to you?  I don’t think those Americans want a quarter of every dollar going to federal services.

While I’m at it, the whole trickle down theory is bogus as well. Giving tax cuts to the rich is absurd. They have more money, but that does not mean they have more money to spend to stimulate the economy, you can only spend so much money of goods and services and the rest of it they save (hence why the rich stay rich) some play the stock market, others invest elsewhere but when you have more people cashing into government programs like welfare to help make ends meet because their taxes are too high, does it really help that much? You give a middle to lower class person money, they’ll spend it and spend it fast, you give the rich person money, they’ll put in the bank with the rest of their millions

OK, I am like 15 years old and I would like to understand this issue a little more. Can someone explain this whole 'high taxes, low taxes' thing to me, in a 15-year-old-friendly way? Thanks for your time.

OK, I am like 15 years old and I would like to understand this issue a little more. Can someone explain this whole 'high taxes, low taxes' thing to me, in a 15-year-old-friendly way? Thanks for your time.

ah, anyone there? Maybe I should explain myself a little bit more. I have grown up in a very conservative family, with the word 'liberal' almost considered a swear word. I have been told to despise liberals, and everything about them. Well, I just wanted to see for myself if liberals are really that bad. To me, all of the liberal explainations of their tax stances make sense. What I do want to ask is: are you saying that families like mine (according to Obama, my family is rich, really, we are more middle income or less) are making too much money, so we have to give to everyone else? We work our butts off to support a family and make money, and then some of that money gets taken away from us and given to people who don't work as hard as us, thus don't have as much money? Poor people will come dependent on the lower taxes and the money given to them, just like when you give an animal food so often that it forgets how to get food on its own! Not saying that humans will forget how to work, but if people are given money a lot, like to the poor, they will see no reason to work. Does that make sense to any of you? Do I have any flaws in this, eh, explaination? So, I believe that everyone should have the same tax rate (tax percentage, example:8% tax, 7%) based on their income. Then, it is possible for everyone, the poor and rich, to pay taxes. My explaination above may sound like I want there to be no taxes at all, but as I said, I think that tax percentage should be the same for everyone.

ah, anyone there? Maybe I should explain myself a little bit more. I have grown up in a very conservative family, with the word 'liberal' almost considered a swear word. I have been told to despise liberals, and everything about them. Well, I just wanted to see for myself if liberals are really that bad. To me, all of the liberal explainations of their tax stances make sense. What I do want to ask is: are you saying that families like mine (according to Obama, my family is rich, really, we are more middle income or less) are making too much money, so we have to give to everyone else? We work our butts off to support a family and make money, and then some of that money gets taken away from us and given to people who don't work as hard as us, thus don't have as much money? Poor people will come dependent on the lower taxes and the money given to them, just like when you give an animal food so often that it forgets how to get food on its own! Not saying that humans will forget how to work, but if people are given money a lot, like to the poor, they will see no reason to work. Does that make sense to any of you? Do I have any flaws in this, eh, explaination? So, I believe that everyone should have the same tax rate (tax percentage, example:8% tax, 7%) based on their income. Then, it is possible for everyone, the poor and rich, to pay taxes. My explaination above may sound like I want there to be no taxes at all, but as I said, I think that tax percentage should be the same for everyone.

Changeis, the biggest flaw is the idea that your family works harder than poorer families and that is the reason they are poor. I know people who work 80 hours a week and can barely afford to keep themselves and their children alive. The concept behind taxes is this, there are expenses that everyone must pay for (food, housing, utilities, etc...). There is a minimum cost that must be spent to feed and house a family of four (or any size for that matter). People who make more money have the wonderful option to spend more than the bare minimum and live in nicer neighborhoods, eater nicer foods, and generally have a better standard of living. So if there is someone who works hard and has to spend 75% of their income just to meet the basic necessities of life why should they have to pay taxes when there are people who earn enough money that the bare minimum of expenses is only 1% of their income? This example shows the problem with the flat tax. All of a sudden total expenses for the poor family is 85% of their income while it is only 11% for the rich family. The system has been good to people with money and they need to be willing to give back to the system that has helped them. You do bring up a good point though even the rich should not be over taxes. People need to feel that they can accumulate lots of money if they work hard, this encourages them to work harder and encourages innovations in technology. But what is too much? American taxes on the wealthy have not prevented entrepreneurs to pursue making millions of dollars because people still get to keep enough of the money they make to make their efforts worthwhile. The wealthy choose to spend more money on things like food and housing, that's fine and their right to do so, but they shouldn't say that taxes overburden them because of their expensive (optional) amenities. Obama wants to get rid of tax breaks that Bush implemented he does not want to create record setting taxes on the rich and he wants to help the burden on the poor. 10% income for a poor family is a lot more of a blow than it is for a rich family (as I explained above). I appreciate and respect your exploration into other ideas and I encourage you find a way to talk to some hardworking lower class people. You'll realize there a lot of people out there that don't want handouts they just want their government to make their lives a little easier. Though there are those that rely on handouts and they stay in lower class neighborhoods, and more than burdening you or me the hurt the lower class hard working families. Also real quick very few of your tax dollars go to handouts to people. Most are wasted on pork-barrel spending and excessive military spending. The big hope I have for Obama is that he will find ways to better spend our money and help not only the lower classes but the middle and upper classes as well. Hope this helps and I encourage you to keep looking into progressive politics.

Changeis, the biggest flaw is the idea that your family works harder than poorer families and that is the reason they are poor. I know people who work 80 hours a week and can barely afford to keep themselves and their children alive. The concept behind taxes is this, there are expenses that everyone must pay for (food, housing, utilities, etc...). There is a minimum cost that must be spent to feed and house a family of four (or any size for that matter). People who make more money have the wonderful option to spend more than the bare minimum and live in nicer neighborhoods, eater nicer foods, and generally have a better standard of living. So if there is someone who works hard and has to spend 75% of their income just to meet the basic necessities of life why should they have to pay taxes when there are people who earn enough money that the bare minimum of expenses is only 1% of their income? This example shows the problem with the flat tax. All of a sudden total expenses for the poor family is 85% of their income while it is only 11% for the rich family. The system has been good to people with money and they need to be willing to give back to the system that has helped them.

You do bring up a good point though even the rich should not be over taxes. People need to feel that they can accumulate lots of money if they work hard, this encourages them to work harder and encourages innovations in technology. But what is too much? American taxes on the wealthy have not prevented entrepreneurs to pursue making millions of dollars because people still get to keep enough of the money they make to make their efforts worthwhile. The wealthy choose to spend more money on things like food and housing, that's fine and their right to do so, but they shouldn't say that taxes overburden them because of their expensive (optional) amenities. Obama wants to get rid of tax breaks that Bush implemented he does not want to create record setting taxes on the rich and he wants to help the burden on the poor. 10% income for a poor family is a lot more of a blow than it is for a rich family (as I explained above). I appreciate and respect your exploration into other ideas and I encourage you find a way to talk to some hardworking lower class people. You'll realize there a lot of people out there that don't want handouts they just want their government to make their lives a little easier. Though there are those that rely on handouts and they stay in lower class neighborhoods, and more than burdening you or me the hurt the lower class hard working families.

Also real quick very few of your tax dollars go to handouts to people. Most are wasted on pork-barrel spending and excessive military spending. The big hope I have for Obama is that he will find ways to better spend our money and help not only the lower classes but the middle and upper classes as well. Hope this helps and I encourage you to keep looking into progressive politics.

"Liberal" is meaningless, except as a scare word youn attack others with. Obama will give your family a tax CUT unless your parents make more than $250,000 a year. Most tax money does NOT go to the poor.

"Liberal" is meaningless, except as a scare word youn attack others with.

Obama will give your family a tax CUT unless your parents make more than $250,000 a year.

Most tax money does NOT go to the poor.

There have been lots of good comments here. For and against our present system. One of the first things we have to do before raising taxes or giving anymore cuts (which I would like to see) is get spending under control. Yes the demonic word - CONTROL. Then and only then are we truely in a position to be able to tweek around with the tax rates. A lot of the so called tax cuts we have had are not true cuts. Fancy book work and shifting from one form of tax to another would be more correct. This subject is so massive it hurts, and takes in so many other areas which must be taken into account. That's on of our other problems with the tax system and doing anything about it. No one wants to take the time to look at this from an across the boad deal. Digging in every little corner to get things done. That would require real work and not just lip service. I'll give some more food for thought. Montana (where I live) had $86.7 million added to our 2008 budget from Federal Earmarked or "pork-barrel" projects. That's $90.67 per resident. Alaska leads the way with $555.00 per resident. Hawaii - $220.00 per person, North Dakota $208.00 per person. All in all from 1995 - 2007 Montana received some $1.1 billion in earmarks. There has been 116,000 pork-barrel projects this year. Just a few examples, do the math, and stop the exucesses. We can't do it because the truth is that very few elected officials or private citizens really want to fix the problem. It takes away our bitch points and finger pointing and makes for great campiagn sound bites for both sides of the republican/democrate debate.

There have been lots of good comments here. For and against our present system. One of the first things we have to do before raising taxes or giving anymore cuts (which I would like to see) is get spending under control. Yes the demonic word - CONTROL. Then and only then are we truely in a position to be able to tweek around with the tax rates. A lot of the so called tax cuts we have had are not true cuts. Fancy book work and shifting from one form of tax to another would be more correct.

This subject is so massive it hurts, and takes in so many other areas which must be taken into account. That's on of our other problems with the tax system and doing anything about it. No one wants to take the time to look at this from an across the boad deal. Digging in every little corner to get things done. That would require real work and not just lip service.

I'll give some more food for thought. Montana (where I live) had $86.7 million added to our 2008 budget from Federal Earmarked or "pork-barrel" projects. That's $90.67 per resident. Alaska leads the way with $555.00 per resident. Hawaii - $220.00 per person, North Dakota $208.00 per person. All in all from 1995 - 2007 Montana received some $1.1 billion in earmarks.

There has been 116,000 pork-barrel projects this year.

Just a few examples, do the math, and stop the exucesses.

We can't do it because the truth is that very few elected officials or private citizens really want to fix the problem. It takes away our bitch points and finger pointing and makes for great campiagn sound bites for both sides of the republican/democrate debate.