I wish I could pay my fair share; not 43.6%.

"all millionaires, which now doesn't actually mean a million but those who earn a 1/4 of a million"

actually, millionaire used to mean, and still does mean, someone with a million dollars in assets. the designation has nothing to do with income.

So..if you make 25 k a year...you pay 9% FICA Medicare. 8% sales tax on probably a third of your income. Over 12% all in. How much more do you want them to pay and why?

Cathie Black just lost her job. How long until she finds a new one? I give her one month. If your the average joe and lose your job, you could easily spend the next 2 years unemployed.

people who want to lower taxes on the rich and raise them on the poor come up with all sorts of clever ways to disguise the ugly truth of what they want. the reason that the wealthy now shoulder such a large tax burden is because they have become so grossly, disproportionately rich. income and wealth are so concentrated among a small number of us that it's simply a mathematical impossibility to raise all that much from the poor and middle class. a small tax increase on poor folks would cause enormous pain and do almost nothing to address the deficit problems. but still rich people would prefer that to having to cut into their wine and personal training budgets.

Whenever I hear a politiican mention the words "Shared Sacrafice" I grap my wallet because I know that is code word for raising taxes on the middle class and cutting taxes for the rich. Shared sacrafice my a$$.

Millionaire still means millionaire but the new rich is apparently 250K or more and Obama refers to them as the millionaires and billionaires.

Socialist, there are always going to be haves and have nots. That's just the way it is. To suggest that the wealthy should just pay more because they have more is ridiculous.

"To suggest that the wealthy should just pay more because they have more is ridiculous."

Why is it ridiculous? Are you saying that someone who owns a $5 million house should pay the SAME amount of property taxes as someone who owns a $500,000 house?

Raising taxes on people who make less than $20k won't even come close to balancing the budget. Not to mention that it could encourage them to quit their jobs and go on welfare. OOPS! There goes all of the savings!

I want them to pay income tax to contribute to the public services they receive. I would actually prefer no income tax at all and a progressive consumption tax. Never happen because big government wouldn't be able to dictate when and how much they take from the masses.

"Millionaire still means millionaire but the new rich is apparently 250K or more"

millionaire is a designation based on assets. has the president referred to anyone with 250k of assets as a millionaire?

If you want poor people to pay taxes bob, then I assume you support raising the minimum wage, right? This way they make more money, and can now pay income taxes.

Obama talks about raising taxes on jointly making over 250K, the top 2%(rich) and then in the same sentence talks about how the millionaires and billionaires can afford it. Purposely lumping the 2 together.

Socialist, the person owning a 5 million dollar house should pay the same % as the person owning a 500K house.

"3 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse I want them to pay income tax to contribute to the public services they receive. I would actually prefer no income tax at all and a progressive consumption tax. Never happen because big government wouldn't be able to dictate when and how much they take from the masses."

Bob you're exactly right. How is it possible that 50% of our fellow Americans pay ZERO to their country? Social security and medicare are direct benifit programs.

I support raising minimum wage if they actually pay taxes but my guess is that they still wouldn't be paying any income taxes.

>millionaire is a designation based on assets. has the president referred to anyone with 250k of assets as a millionaire?

When the President is talking about tax cuts for "millionaires and billionaires", is $250K in annual earnings a millionaire or is it a billionaire?

top rate should be raised to 50% AND deductions should be greatly reduced for that income group

If you don't like you can go to England which has this already LOL

well then raise the minimum wage significantly, and the tax them. Sounds like a good proposal. It helps re-distribute money from corporations into the hands of low wage workers and the government.

Obama has come to divide. He is an abject disgrace.

Or you can riase the top rate to 91%, which is what it was under the Communist regime of Dwight Eisenhower.

I really thought the next president after Bush would have no problem winning a 2nd term. Obama is one and done.

Kind of pre-mature to make that comment, no? Especially since we have no idea who the GOP nominee is going to be.

I have a feeling it won't matter who the republican nominee is going to be just like it didn't matter who the democrat nominee was after Bush.

GITMO still open.

Still in iraq.

Still in afghanistan.

New war in Libya.

Liberals quiet as a mouse.

Most of the potential Republican nominees are unelectable. Haley Barbour? Michelle Bachmann? Donald Trump? Really? The smart Republicans are not running.

I can guarantee you that Haley Barbour, Michelle Bachmann nor Donald Trump are anywhere near the ballot.

"I have a feeling it won't matter who the republican nominee is going to be just like it didn't matter who the democrat nominee was after Bush."

funny, i thought bush was reelected.

We need to abolish sales tax and institute a flat national real estate tax, with the same rate per $ of value nationwide. That, along with restoring the peak FDR-era progressive income tax (only without an adjustment for inflation). That will produce a healthy surplus.

>well then raise the minimum wage significantly, and the tax them. Sounds like a good proposal. It helps re-distribute money from corporations into the hands of low wage workers and the government.

Or raises unemployment.

>That will produce a healthy surplus.

Why do we want a surplus?

Which government program(s) do you want to expand alan? More money spent on healthcare? More money available for wars? More money to subsidize agriculture? More money for government workers who on average already make more than non-government workers? Money to fund the next TARP? Money to fund the next Cash for Clunkers? More money to support the inflation in higher education?

"Which government program(s) do you want to expand alan? More money spent on healthcare? More money available for wars? More money to subsidize agriculture? More money for government workers who on average already make more than non-government workers? Money to fund the next TARP? Money to fund the next Cash for Clunkers? More money to support the inflation in higher education?"

To credit back to the 98% of the country not considered "rich", of course!

Increasing minimum wage does not increase unemployment. That is the oldest myth in the book, brought to you by the same people who think unemployment insurance increases unemployment.

Wah! Wah! Wah! I feel so sorry for the top 2%. How terrible you have it! Such lack of opportunity! Blah, blah, blah. Stop crying into your copies of Atlas Shrugged, and get over yourselves. Sure, you've probably worked hard, but a lot of other people do too. And no, I'm not one of the working poor. I'm actually in your tax bracket ... I just don't have your persecution complex.

Ron Paul 2012

And I am the exact opposite of you. Not in that tax bracket and don't have 1M in assets but still don't think a tiny % of the population should pull the weight for everyone.

Is real estate in Manhattan going up or down?

Sorry, a progressive tax system has been part of our history for a looooooong time. Look, I'm all for fiscal responsibility, but you'll be hard pressed to find a serious economist who doesn't support a progressive tax system. Can we please get beyond this government is the devil mentality? It's not always the answer, but it can be a force for good. And there are plenty of examples of that in our history. Ok, I'm done.

Self-loathing underclass, bob420? Or just living vicariously through the royal family?

Neither. Just not looking for a handout.

Not at this particular time.

"Sorry, a progressive tax system has been part of our history for a looooooong time."

Actually, the income tax itself is less than 100 years old.

I guess that was just yesterday?

Actually, a progressive income tax structure was first instituted in the U.S. in 1862 to support the civil war. So ... it's more like 139 years. Over and out.

In 1868, Congress again focused its taxation efforts on tobacco and distilled spirits and eliminated the income tax in 1872. It had a short-lived revival in 1894 and 1895. In the latter year, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the income tax was unconstitutional because it was not apportioned among the states in conformity with the Constitution.

In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system.

Over and out.

History of the Income Tax in the United States
Source: Tax Foundation.

The nation had few taxes in its early history. From 1791 to 1802, the United States government was supported by internal taxes on distilled spirits, carriages, refined sugar, tobacco and snuff, property sold at auction, corporate bonds, and slaves. The high cost of the War of 1812 brought about the nation's first sales taxes on gold, silverware, jewelry, and watches. In 1817, however, Congress did away with all internal taxes, relying on tariffs on imported goods to provide sufficient funds for running the government.

In 1862, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation's first income tax law. It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source. During the Civil War, a person earning from $600 to $10,000 per year paid tax at the rate of 3%. Those with incomes of more than $10,000 paid taxes at a higher rate. Additional sales and excise taxes were added, and an “inheritance” tax also made its debut. In 1866, internal revenue collections reached their highest point in the nation's 90-year history—more than $310 million, an amount not reached again until 1911.

The Act of 1862 established the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner was given the power to assess, levy, and collect taxes, and the right to enforce the tax laws through seizure of property and income and through prosecution. The powers and authority remain very much the same today.

In 1868, Congress again focused its taxation efforts on tobacco and distilled spirits and eliminated the income tax in 1872. It had a short-lived revival in 1894 and 1895. In the latter year, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the income tax was unconstitutional because it was not apportioned among the states in conformity with the Constitution.

In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. The amendment gave Congress legal authority to tax income and resulted in a revenue law that taxed incomes of both individuals and corporations. In fiscal year 1918, annual internal revenue collections for the first time passed the billion-dollar mark, rising to $5.4 billion by 1920. With the advent of World War II, employment increased, as did tax collections—to $7.3 billion. The withholding tax on wages was introduced in 1943 and was instrumental in increasing the number of taxpayers to 60 million and tax collections to $43 billion by 1945.

In 1981, Congress enacted the largest tax cut in U.S. history, approximately $750 billion over six years. The tax reduction, however, was partially offset by two tax acts, in 1982 and 1984, that attempted to raise approximately $265 billion.

On Oct. 22, 1986, President Reagan signed into law the Tax Reform Act of 1986, one of the most far-reaching reforms of the United States tax system since the adoption of the income tax. The top tax rate on individual income was lowered from 50% to 28%, the lowest it had been since 1916. Tax preferences were eliminated to make up most of the revenue. In an attempt to remain revenue neutral, the act called for a $120 billion increase in business taxation and a corresponding decrease in individual taxation over a five-year period.

Following what seemed to be a yearly tradition of new tax acts that began in 1986, the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990 was signed into law on Nov. 5, 1990. As with the '87, '88, and '89 acts, the 1990 act, while providing a number of substantive provisions, was small in comparison with the 1986 act. The emphasis of the 1990 act was increased taxes on the wealthy.

On Aug. 10, 1993, President Clinton signed the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993 into law. The act's purpose was to reduce by approximately $496 billion the federal deficit that would otherwise accumulate in fiscal years 1994 through 1998. In 1997, Clinton signed another tax act. The act, which cut taxes by $152 billion, included a cut in capital-gains tax for individuals, a $500 per child tax credit, and tax incentives for education.

President George W. Bush signed a series of tax cuts into law. The largest was the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. It was estimated to save taxpayers $1.3 trillion over ten years, making it the third largest tax cut since World War II. The Bush tax cut created a new lowest rate, 10% for the first several thousand dollars earned. It also established a slow schedule of incremental tax cuts that would eventually double the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000, adjust brackets so that middle-income couples owed the same tax as comparable singles, cut the top four tax rates (28% to 25%; 31% to 28%; 36% to 33%; and 39.6% to 35%).

The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act of 2003 accelerated the tax rate cuts that had been enacted in 2001, and temporarily reduced the tax rate on capital gains and dividends to 15%. In 2004, the U.S. was forced to eliminate a corporate tax provision that had been ruled illegal by the World Trade Organization. Along with that tax hike, Congress passed a cornucopia of tax breaks, which for individuals included an option to deduct the payment of whichever state taxes were higher, sales or income taxes.

Two tax bills signed in 2005 and 2006 extended through 2010 the favorable rates on capital gains and dividends that had been enacted in 2003, raised the exemption levels for the Alternative Minimum Tax, and enacted new tax incentives designed to persuade individuals to save more for retirement.

Read more: History of the Income Tax in the United States — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html#ixzz1JqCHZ520

Over and out.

In summation ...
1812: tax on only the rich (sales tax on luxury goods)
1817: tax on only the rich (tax on imported goods)
1862: income tax tilted towards the rich, not a flat income tax; and inheritance and production taxes that would only affect the rich
1913: US voters approved a Constitutional Amendment (!!!) giving the Federal government the right to impose personal and corporate income taxes.
Et cetera.

In 1812, only property owners were allowed to vote.

In 1913, Social Security wasn't in existence, neither was Medicare or Medicaid.

When someone mentions that 47% of the U.S. pays no federal income taxes, Socialist yells "You are going after people who make $20k a year!". Like the 40th percentile only makes $20k a year.

More misleading argument from Socialist. He can't win on the facts, so he just makes things up.

Socialist - maybe you should move to Greece. Your plan worked out well there.

LICC, not all people not paying income tax are necessarily in the poorer 47%. In any case, the 40th percentile stands at $31,000, so the median income for the bottom 40% of Americans is without a doubt below $20,000 a year, as the median income for those in the bottom quintile is $10,000, and the median income in the second quintile is $24,000.
I doubt even the sheriff of Nottingham could steal enough from the paupers to finance Richard the Lion's adventures in Jerusalem.

Household income at the 40th percentile isn't $20K, but it's less than $40K.

If you look at personal income instead of household income, average personal income in the second quintile is indeed about $20K:

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/american_income_taxation.htm

LICcomm thinks there's a magical place where people earning less than $ 20K/year can go, where nothing costs anything ... they can all move to Queens, he supposes.

Lets get the correct facts here people. According to the census bureau, the 45th percentile for household income made approximately $42k. The 40th percentile is at approximately $37k. $20k incomes are at approximately the 20th percentile.

Raising tax rates does not increase revenue as much as the static data suggests. You'll get some increase...

Licc, my facts are not incorrect, you're talking about the top line, whereas I'm talking about median income for the bottom quintiles. I took my numbers from the 2007 Census report on poverty, where did you get yours?
In any case, I don't think they are materially different, except the report I saw gave the 40th percentile at 31K and the 45th percentile at 37K, maybe you are looking at a slightly different measure or year?
It doesn't change the fact the median income for people in the bottom 40% is below 20K. I would think it wouldn't be hard for a household with dependents to almost completely avoid Federal income tax liability even if they made 40K. Now if we're done sputtering about whether we can get some blood from these stones, how about getting the capital gains tax back to 25%?

We're broke. 10,000 baby boomers turning 65 ever day sucking the system dry. The big government politicians have bankrupted the wealthiest greatest country in the world.(congratulations progressives, you've accomplished your goal) You can tax income over $100,000 at 100% and you can't fill the entitlement hole. The socialist welfare state has failed. You can't give people money without producing. Today s&p downgraded America's credit outlook to negative. Within 3 years, America will have a major debt crisis. The politicians can demagogue the "rich" all they want, but the tsunami is coming. The free lunch will end.

Happy,

What is the number that would make you jump up and down and say thank you!

As a member of the group that risks my own capital and creates businesses and jobs to employ others I ask you, please answer, don't hide behind semantics.

What percent of my income do you want society to have???
What percent do you want it to be where you would be happy and say thank you for creating jobs and footing the bill for 1/2 of the citizens?

Here is the same chart I had before, only this time including all state and local taxes as a percent of GDP. Again: the US is a low tax nation by OECD standards, with only AAustralia being lower.

http://www.cbpp.org/images/4-13-11TopTenTaxCharts1.jpg

maly- increases in the capital gains tax has always led to decreased tax revenue.

And your focus on $20k is irrelevant and misplaced. It does not affect the fact that people in the 40-47th percentile pay no federal income taxes.

While everyone frets about who pays more or less tax, the top 1% has been slowly redistributing the wealth upwards for the last 30yrs. How they have done it is fairly clear, they control the corporations and most of the the government. There is socialism, and has been for the last three decades, its just different than people thought. Obama knows this, anyone with a brain see this, he is fairly complicit in this. Maybe he thought that he could change this a bit, but I think that he sees now that he is simply watching it happen under his watch. I say, great tactics by the wealthy to not only maintain what they have but to increase it. THey have used psychology and marketing in an almost artistic fashion to increase their market share and pit the diminishing middle class against the poor. Done and done.

>What percent of my income do you want society to have???
What percent do you want it to be where you would be happy and say thank you for creating jobs and footing the bill for 1/2 of the citizens?<

patient09,
I wish you would post more on this board. You are the voice of reason.

It blows me away that the supposed intelligentsia believe that the best way to avoid our impending bankruptcy is to raise taxes as opposed to cutting spending.

Case in point: Face the Nation's Bob Schieffer's interview of Paul Ryan:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsU6oeOChuM

Schieffer seems unable to grasp the concept of cutting spending. We don't have the $, so stop borrowing, stop printing & cut spending.

And now, S&P Puts US Debt on Negative Outlook.

I have never seen an administration more bent on destroying this nation.

You can cut spending all you want dwell, it will not work. You can reduce all domestic spending to ZERO and you would still have a $1 trillion deficit.

Not to mention that deep spending cuts will most certainly result in a double dip recession, as they have in England.

-------------------------

Jan. 28 (Bloomberg) -- Sorry, fiscal austerity doesn’t work. For evidence, look no further than the U.K.

This can’t be good news for the U.S. political right, whose mantra has been: cut spending, put a lid on deficits, and growth will improve.

Fiscal austerity has already been started in Greece, Ireland, Spain and Portugal, and this seems to be pushing all of them back into recession. Over the last four quarters, growth in Greece was negative and falling, and bond investors are once more demanding sky-high returns to compensate their risk. The excuse in these countries was that they have little choice because they are stuck in the European monetary union and don’t have the ability to depreciate their exchange rate.

The U.K. may be a purer case of the harm austerity at the wrong time can inflict. Britain now looks as if it is headed back into recession on fear about the damage that will be done by massive spending cuts and tax increases, which haven’t even gone into effect yet. Government ministers with their talk of austerity have already smashed confidence.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-01-27/conservative-austerity-idea-is-failing-david-g-blanchflower.html

Oh jeez, how dumb of me to even post this stuff on this board.

>You can cut spending all you want dwell, it will not work. You can reduce all domestic spending to ZERO and you would still have a $1 trillion deficit<

Ok, so cutting spending will not work? So, the only solution is to raise taxes? Oh, that's great!

Refer to my post above because you prove my point: the supposed intelligentsia seem unable to grasp the concept of cutting spending. We don't have the $, so stop borrowing, stop printing & cut spending.

You have to raise taxes AND cut spending. Doing one without the other is guaranteed to fail.

"stop borrowing, stop printing & cut spending."

Those make for good talking opoints, but bad policy. How about listing the areas you would cut spending in? WARNING: It's going to be a very long list if you want to come close to balancing the budget. Give me REAL spending cuts, not nonsense like cutting PBS funding.

Here is my proposal to balance the budget:

54% tax increases
46% spending cuts

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=w3t145qt

patient, you are asking the wrong questions. many here will suggest that you should be all to happy to continue to feed the beast and thank your lucky stars for your ability to manipulate the system on the backs of others. the ability to manipulate the system was no doubt the secret to your success.

just stop complaining, continue to pay despite the widespread graft and political corruption that exists on every level of goverment, especially here in nyc and nys. reminds me of a famous line from goodfellas - eff you! Pay Me!

Socialist, I agree with you regarding cases like GE, who didn't pay a dime; of course that Imelt-O thing stinks to high heaven. Nonetheless, our tax code is so freekin' stupid that we incentivize companies to take jobs off shore, (impoverishing a huge part of our population because jobs go abroad) & then pay no income tax. There's no common sense.

>- eff you! Pay Me! <

Well, that is the reality of life in America today. Orwell's nightmare has come true.

dwell Thanks for the Ryan video.. Great. They want their checks dwell without producing. They will fight to the death for their entitlement birthright. Pathetic, really pathetic.

patient,

in a democracy, we don't thank people for paying their taxes. there is no percentage of your income that i would thank you for paying as taxes. we are a democratic society. you are expected to pay the taxes that your elected representatives ask you for, just like i am expected to pay my taxes, and a janitor is expected to pay his. none of us get thanked.

now, if you are asking what percentage of your income i think you should pay in taxes, i can't possibly answer that question without knowing how much you earn. but here's a few things i consider essential for tax reform: eliminate the carried interest tax exemption (from which i personally benefit enormously). tax capital gains as regular income. apply capital gains taxes to the sale of inherited assets (no reset at time of inheritance). eliminate the cap on payroll taxes. eliminate the mortgage deduction. eliminate 401k and IRA subsidies for high earners. return to an estate tax of 50% on estates above $1 million. if we did all of those things we could drastically reduce deficits without raising marginal tax rates at all.

as for what can be cut: military spending can be significantly reduced, perhaps the retirement age can be inched up a year or two, and we can reduce healthcare spending enormously by moving, gradually, toward a single-payer system with controls on prices.

It's interesting that the people who want to cut spending and NOT raise taxes refuse to list which spending they will cut. The only person on this entire forum who has put forth a detailed plan to balance the budget is ME.

"Orwell's nightmare has come true."

Have you actually read Orwell?

Which spending should we cut? Are we allowed to cut defense? What about closing the carried interest loophole? Can we do that? What about raisig the estate tax? Is taxing rich dead people so awful?

Hi julialg,

Could it be that the supposed intelligentsia-elites are just really dumb?

Let's make it simple for 'em:
You want to buy something which costs $10, but ya only got $5. Additionally, your bankruptcy is looming. What is the most logical choice:
a. borrow money
b. print money
c. mug someone
d. don't buy it

The correct answer is "d".

What if the iterm you need to buy is life saving medicine and if you don't buy it, you will die? Is the answer still "d"?

socialist - your detailed "plan" is a source of entertainment. it might be black comedy but entertainment nonetheless. by definition, your handle requires no rebuttal because you obviously live in the wrong country but hey, one can dream. i have failed to respond to your numerous postings/entrails but thought you should know some of us take you for what you are and then just laugh.

No, never read Orwell, I just wiki'd him, duh!

What if the iterm you need to buy is life saving medicine and if you don't buy it, your loved one will die? Is the answer still "d"?

And speaking of iterms, what if the iterm you need to buy is life saving medicine and if you don't buy it, a stranger who never did anything wrong or bad will die? Is the answer still "d"?

rangersfan, we live in the UNITED States of America, a UNION. Are you sure we live in the wrong country? Really? Has somebody who's named after park police officers started on the sidecars a little too early in the morning?

OK, I'm out, there's no point posting my pov here. Yup, let's simply keep raising taxes, borrowing & printing money cuz it's such a good strategy.

SOCIALIST, Alan. SOCIALIST. Where should i start breaking that down for you??

happyrenter- so you want massive increases in taxes and government planning and control. Not very creative, and it would be severely damaging to the country.

The opposite of a socialist is someone who doesn't socialize at all: a hermit. Hermits are crazy people who live alone in caves, have beards down to their knees, and wear empty tissue boxes for shoes. Not pretty. Socialists are much more prettier (especially if you go for Nordic types). America rewards pretty.

>And speaking of iterms, what if the iterm you need to buy is life saving medicine and if you don't buy it, a stranger who never did anything wrong or bad will die? Is the answer still "d"?<

Alan,
I like you & respect you, but this is not the only choice. There's huge fraud & waste in the medicare/medicaid system & it needs huge reform. How about this: Does it make sense that in order to qualify for a nursing home, the average American must pauperize themself, unless they buy long term care insurance (which the avg American can't afford)?

IMO, so many of these issues have been kicked down the road for decades & we finally have to face them now & decide: What is the best way to change things & how will we do it?

I passionately believe that w/o a solid middle class & w/o the hope of achieving the American Dream, we cannot have a democracy. I believe in small government & individual responsibility.

OK, I'm done here.

hahaha. okay, now we've got the quippy alan back. hmmmm, let me see if i can roll with you. well, given those choices, i sorta try to stay away from those communal types. you see they have the tendancy to go all jamestown on you at any moment. you know, those group plowharing bonding moments can get competitive. however, aside from the isolated unabomber anamolies, living in a cave or off the land a la davey crockett does have its virtues.

So Happyrenter has 2 homes because he benefits from the carried interest loophole, but he doesn't just want to give up that completely abusive shelter, he wants others to suffer as well even though others don't benefit from the special consideration given to Happyrenter and Steve Rattner.

dwell, dont give him too much credit. he has taken a turn for the worse lately.

ooops, that was jonestown.

Socialist, what if the person has been a lifelong smoker? Should he still get the free medicine? What if instead of $10, the cost is $100 per week, for the rest of the person's extended miserable life

Dwell, what do you mean, "keep raising taxes"? Taxes have been going down, down, down for the wealthier 10% for 50 years.

dwell.. take a look at our future. Obama is planning with great happiness for this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2N8gJSMoOJc&feature=pyv&ad=6050032234&kw=obama

> If your serious about balancing the budget, this is what you do:

Which would prove that you are not serious, or just dumb.

You need to deal with entitlements, plain and simple. Its just too much of the total.

"so you want massive increases in taxes and government planning and control. Not very creative, and it would be severely damaging to the country."

SO you agree that Ronald Reagan's policies were damging to the country?

How can you "keep" raising taxes if taxes are not being raised?

And how can you be opposed to eliminating deductions and loopholes in the tax code and be opposed to raising taxes? Eliminating deductions and loopholes IS A TAX INCREASE!

correction: How can you *supoort* eliminating deductions and loopholes...

200

"...Michele Bachmann says top 1 percent pay 40 percent of all federal taxes...

...Here’s the rundown of the federal tax burden for the top 1 percent:

Federal income taxes: 39.5 percent share
Federal payroll taxes: 4.1 percent share
Federal corporate taxes: 57.0 percent share
Federal excise taxes: 4.7 percent share

Total federal tax share for the top 1 percent: 28.1 percent..."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/18/michele-bachmann/michele-bachmann-says-top-1-percent-pay-40-percent/

If you add in state and local taxes, which in EVERY state but Vermont are in aggregate regressive, then you end up with essentially a flat tax system when Federal, state and local taxes are combined.