I'm with you on providing this funding right away, but I will not support you or anyone else that wants to go back and rescind the tax cuts.

It's been said time and again, taxes are high enough, and enough revenue comes in.

Cut spending. Cut spending. Cut spending.

I know I just posted articles that discuss further potential spending cuts (link follows: Deeper Budget Cuts on the Horizon) and discusses further ballooning in costs of post Bush budgets (link follows: After Bush Leaves Office, His Budget's Costs Balloon), but in reality, enough is enough.

There would have to be a much, much better sales job done before someone can convince me that the government isn't taking in enough money to fund the basic needs of it's citizens.

There are many, many places where our budgets continue to include far too much pork (see this oldie but goodie, link follows: Bring back fiscal sanity - PLEASE!!! Budget bill has $15.8B in extras), and that pork should be first thing jetissoned from the budget before asking citizens to dig deeper and give more.

Finally, seriously, before you toss around great mythical figures like "top two income brackets", slow down a second and remind us who those top two income brackets are. You could create more problems like this: 1999: free home, 2005: taken away by taxes? or like the problems with the "free" cars that Oprah famously gave away to those needy audience members that left them all with tax burdens that were as bad or worse than being without the cars to begin with.

Oh, for the record, top two income brackets (and others) is here:

2004 Federal income tax brackets
When Your Taxable Income Is Over:				Your Marginal Tax Rate Is:
Single	Married - Joint Return	Married - Separate Return	Head of Household
$0	$0	$0	$0	10%
$7,150	$14,300	$7,150	$10,200	15%
$29,050	$58,100	$29,050	$38,900	25%
$70,350	$117,250	$58,625	$100,500	28%
$146,750	$178,650	$89,325	$162,700	33%
$319,100	$319,100	$159,550	$319,100	35%

Table comes from here

Just to confirm, those income brackets may seem fairly high on the top end, but I would remind people that housing costs and other "costs of living" are not uniform across the U.S. What it costs to live in New York City or Los Angeles is not the same as it would cost in Salt Lake City or Boise. I believe one of the golden rules is thou shalt not covet, and when I see articles that encourage more and more taxation of those in the highest income brackets, I'm reminded much of the same.

And just so there's no mis-understanding, I'm not adverse to taxing those with incomes that are obscene -- MLB players for example, Corporate CEOs (example, Ms. Fiorina, formerly of HP, awarded $21.1 in severance packages just to go away), and others that are paid sums of money that most U.S. citizens can only dream about. If you can figure out a way to get more money from them, that's fine, but do it in such a way that average citizens won't be impacted, and won't be asked to pay higher prices along the way. When you can figure out how to do that, you'll really have accomplished something.

I'd eliminate social programs first. IT's not the FEDERAL govenrments job to steal money from the citizeny to hand it over to others. Let people pay for their own pills and their own health care. Or if communities are really worried about "the poor" then late the states handle that where they are more answerable to voters.

Cutting social prograns would not pay the cost needed. Why should our people in need pay for the Iraq War? The top 5% did just fine during the 1990's under the higher tax rates. In fact the wealthy never did better than in the period from 1992 to 2000 and that was after they paid the tax rates in effect PRIOR to the Bush tax cuts.

I would cut the pork but that is only about 25Billion. Bush is asking for another 82 billion. The only way to pay for what we are doing is to return to the higher tax rates on the wealthy and eliminate the ways corporations are avoiding paying their fair share of taxes. Cuts will not provide anything close to what is needed to restore fiscal sanity to the Federal budget!!!!!

The only way to pay for what we are doing is to return to the higher tax rates on the wealthy and eliminate the ways corporations are avoiding paying their fair share of taxes.

So, you'd start finding ways to make corporations pay more taxes?

And those corporations would just willingly pay those taxes without passing the costs along to their customers, right?

If you really believe that, try this info: (linked) Maryland plans pass HMO tax on to employers subtitled: A state insurance commissioner argues he's obligated to approve HMOs' rate requests, but some in the state Legislature see it differently.

The grand and glorious legislature thought that they could pass an HMO tax without having the public pay for it. Of course, immediately the HMOs went before the state insurance commissioner and demanded that they be allowed to raise rates to pay for the tax. The commissioner looked at what was before him and said "yup, go ahead". Boom, 2% increase in costs for all HMO members in the state. Great way to get the public to pay for what was supposed to have been a corporate tax.

Think this is the only example? Do some simple googling. When taxes are raised on businesses, they pass the costs along. It's happened for eternity, and will continue. What's the alternative? Ooooooh, you might love that one. The corporations move themselves off-shore. Outside of U.S. jurisdiction, or at least primarily outside U.S. jurisdiction where they can take advantage of being incorporated in Bermuda or the Bahamas or some other such location, yet can continue to do business back here in the states thanks to treaties like NAFTA or other free trade policies.

What happens to the jobs for the people that were working for those corporations? Not to worry, those jobs will be exported to someone that works for 1/3rd or less the cost of the original employees. The corporation can stop paying benefits too. Save a ton of money all around and bank it all for the future.


Taxes on the rich? Again, you're smoking something or are delusional (must be mad cow or alzheimers) if you really think you can collect that much more money by raising taxes on the "rich." Again, you have to define rich, and then you have to be aware that many times those individuals that have money to pay to tax lawyers and accountants to take advantage of every loophole they've successfully lobbied for. AMT or no AMT, there's more than one way to avoid paying income taxes. Instead of salary, collect other benefits such as stock options. Hold the options for long periods of time, and take advantage of one time tax breaks that cycle along every so many years in an effort to spur growth in the economy.


It's not an easy problem to solve, but carping about getting rid of pro-growth tax cuts will most definitely not solve the problem. The biggest need is more and better paying jobs, and for that, we really need some direction and over-all greater goal. In the 60s we had the space program. In the late 60s there was the Vietnam war. Both helped to drive the economy. In the 70s, with neither there, the economy tanked, inflation killed everyone, and we sat with the misery index going through the roof while we sat in gas lines.

In the 80s, we had tax cuts and tax simplification that helped spur growth and kill the inflation of the 70s.

In the 90s, we had this little anomaly called Y2K to look forward to. It drove job growth as companies replaced old systems with new ones that were promised to be Y2K ready. A monkey (some might say that Clinton was one) could have overseen growth during that time frame.

Finally, we have had the Y2K+ time period, and now that we're at 2K5, we're really starting to see revenues increase, and growth start to be near where it needs to be. See other articles by this this blogger (and others) on recent news of increases in government revenues.

Now, yet again, we see people like Gene and his hero before him (John Kerry) who want to take back the pro-growth Bush tax-cuts and stop the economy as it starts going again. Yup, that's the solution we need.


How about (as I allude to above) a real plan - how about really getting behind something like the manned space missions and pulling a John Kennedy - set this country on a goal. Make it one that requires high-technology, educated workers, and a decent amount of manufacturing skill. Put workers in factories back to work building parts that will be assembled into space vehicles. Put scientists to work solving the problems involved in propulsion technology, heat shielding, and other similar problems. Develop newer, smarter, faster computers to solve the complex computations involved in a trip to Mars. Sell it as a patriotic effort to do what is hard so that we may learn and advance our technology. Spend a reasonable amount of the federal budget on programs like this, and programs like better transportation here on terra firma in the form of better roads. Spend money on finding fuels other than fossil fuels that we have to pay a bunch of terrorist supporters to get. Basically set realistic goals that involve keeping workers busy solving problems for us, rather than spending money in handouts to retirees and those who have never worked.

Get Social Security fixed so that young employees can invest in the businesses that will provide these jobs and manufacture these goods and provide these services. As the economy grows, these employees will enjoy growth in their own personal accounts, and will make themselves secure for the future.


Alas, all great programs, almost none of which are supported by people like Clueless Old Liberals.

I'll give you 1-1-1 on this article.

1 agree, 1 "The beat goes on, and 1 "It would be great, but politically impossible.

We'll start with the "agree".

Yes, Congress does need to hurry and approve this money for the war effort. Congress also needs to make good on it's promises to audit where money's going also. When the first episode of the "$87 million Question" was going through Congress, many Senators kept saying that they would keep a sharp eye on how the money is being used. Apparenly that was too much to ask any of them (regardless of party) to actually do. As you know, I support Prs. Bush, but no one deserves a blank check.

"The beat goes on". The constant "rescind the tax breaks for the rich" is nothing but class warfare BS. Class warfare arguments are weak!

"It would be nice but politically impossible" is in reference to making this $82 Billion a loan. Prs. Bush and the UN have both worked hard at getting other countries to forgive loans made to Hussein's Iraq. To then go ahead and tack on billions in debt to us would not be a good idea at this point.

(((Just between you, me, the walls and the good agents at Echelon, 1-1-1 ain't bad!))) ;~D

Returning to the tax rates prior to 2001 is not class warfare. They were just fine in the 1990's when the wealthy did better, after tax, then ever before.

The fact is we are not producing enough revenue to pay our bills. Since 1980 we have spent $7 Trillion more then we taxed. No country, company or person can continually spend more than they have.

If we had a balanced budget and paid down the debt a tax cut for the wealthy would be good policy. The only tax cuts that we should continue is to the middle income workers who spend the added money which stimuilates demand.

Returning to the tax rates prior to 2001 is not class warfare. They were just fine in the 1990's when the wealthy did better, after tax, then ever before.

So you wouldn't have a problem if the Defense Department announced that, as a way to defray costs and cut the budget they are going to reduce retirement pay for say O-6 and above to 1990 levels. Afterall, retired Colonels and General Officers did fine back then. ;~D

I can assure you retired 06 and above are not in the top 5% from their military or retirement pay! Let thoes who can truly afford to help slove our fiscal problems roll up their sleeves! If some retired military fall into that income bracket, they should help too.

You are in the top 5% of recipients of military retirements... right?

You calling for an increase in Income and Social Security taxes on those who make more than you is no different than if I called for an increase in those for retirement benefits of O-6s and above. In both cases we are being very generous, with other people's money.

Or if communities are really worried about "the poor" then late the states handle that where they are more answerable to voters.

AND where the programs can be administered with fewer administrative costs (more NET dollars to the one receiving assistance).

No I am not in the top %5 income bracket. My tax bracket is at the 25% bracket. I am talking about people with annual incomes $150,000 and above. The top two tax brackets need to have their tax rates returned to the pre 2001 level. Retain the Estate Tax (doen not end under current law until 2010) and restore the tax rates on dividends to pre 2001 levels. Keep the new 10% bracket, higher exemption for children under 18 and elimination of the marriage penality. The congress also needs to increase the income levels for the alternate minimum tax which was established years ago.

Your bracket is which? Top 25% bracket or bottom 25% bracket?

I don't see a single reason why I should have my taxes increased. Is the government providing some new service I'm not aware of? Can I start charging you to use JoeUser.com then to help make up the difference or should I lay off an employee?

No I am not in the top %5 income bracket.

Sorry I didn't write that more clearly. I didn't mean that you are in the "25%" tax bracket, I meant that the amount of your military retirement is probably in the top 5% of all of who collect a military retirement.

Your points seem to be based on taxing those who make more than you do (the "rich"), I'm simply pointing out that YOU make more in military retirement than most, so why shouldn't we consider YOU, "The rich"??

Class warfare arguments are meaningless, because so much is based on a person's idea of what "rich" actually is.

It's just as easy for me to point my fingers at those who make $60,000 a year as you pointing yours at those who make $150,000. Both numbers are arbitrary and worthless.

for the life of me....i really cannot figure out why the democrats are so into raising taxes (well, raising taxes on everyone but themselves i guess...love the military retirement deal )

But really.....why raise taxes on ppl? If taxes should be raised at all, it should be raised across the board, right? Hey, this is coming from someone who only made about 18k last year....FAR from rich....and I really do not think that those who make more than me should pay a larger percentage than I....I mean, afterall, we are all part of the same country, right?

It just astounds me that this war drum of raising taxes on the richer keeps being pounded....

Draginol

The reason to restore tax rates on the top 5% is to pay for what we are currently receiving. The reality is we are NOT paying for the services we are reveiving to the tune of $675 Billion this year.

Parated2K

The inciome of the top 5% of the population combines all income - Wages, interest, dividents etc. I may be in the top 5% of military retired pay but my total incomne is not in that bracket.

We need to look at the overall budget- cut where we can and in ways that are acceptable to the majority, plug tax loop holes and then fund the remander with more revenue. That is the only real solution!