There are many things that the government spends money on that are essential that individuals would not choose to pay for if given the option.

Excellent! How do we tell which things are "essential"?

Look at the Budget.

Defense, education, the depts. of the government like Homeland security. The obligations like pensions help to people who need help and the interest we must pay because we refused to balance the budget in the past. When you look at where most of the money goes, except for the interest on the debt, it winds up going to people who in turn spent it or companies that hire people and make a profit that adds to the economy.

The biggest lie is that some how if the Fed spends money it is BAD. If we took $100 billion and said we can either cut taxes on the top 2% or rebuild the Gulf area which would be better for America? No question rebuilding the Gulf is better for the country. Not only would that money spent on the Gulf stimulate the economy but the largest port in America would be available for our country into the future. If we give it to the wealthy that $100 Billion they can increase their new worth or but another Beemer, which is better for our country?

What is BAD is the Fed spending $600 Billion more then it takes in from Taxes and then borrows the money and pays interest, 40% of which is paid to foreign inveators!

Look at the Budget.

Who are you talking to?

Lets look at Bush and Cheney in 2005:

Bush had AGI of $735,180 and paid federal Income tax of $187,768 or 25.5%

In 2004 Bush paid 26.4% so he paid an even smaller percent this year. Way to go George!

Cheney had AGI of $ 8,820,000 and paid Federal income taxes of $529,000 or 6%. Most of his income, $6,870,000 was from stock options that he set aside for charity. Thus
his $8.82 Million less the $6.870 set aside gives him $ 1,950,000 with taxes of
$529,000 or 27.2%

In 2004, Cheney paid 21.3% so this year he paid a little more to offset the reduced tax paid by his boss.

No the Boys are NOT OVER TAXED!!!!!

I'm going to be paying over $1M in taxes this year between my personal taxes and my company's taxes.  Do I get to drive on special roads? Do my kids get to go to a special school? Do I get a single extra service from the government that you're not getting? No. 

Col Gene never really makes a sound argument as to WHY, on what ethical basis that "the rich" should pay massively more in taxes other than "they can afford it".

The government is supposed to provide us services.  If I'm paying 100X as much in taxes as say Col Gene, what am I getting in return?

Draginol

First We MUST PAY for what the Government Spends. I have no problem cutting Federal Spending IF that is what the majority want. However just cutting what the conservatives believe is unneeded is not acceptable. Cuts MUST be what are acceptable to the majority of Americans. The reality is that since the GOP took over Pork and spending has moved to an ALL TIME HIGH.

Second, when we have settled on the level of spending the Tax revenue MUST equal the Spending. To have tax cuts when we are SHORT $600 Billion per year does not work.


Today there is NO COMBINATION of spending CUTS that will balance the budget. Thus, we will need three things:

Spending Cuts – starting with about $30 Billion in Pork.
Increased enforcement of existing taxes (Tax simplification would help)
Increased tax rate to finish the job of making Spending = Tax Revenue.

When we look at the increased tax revenue we can have an overall tax increase to generate the added revenue or it can be skewed to one economic group. It we were to increase taxes OVERALL WE WOULD TAKE MONEY FROM THE MIDDLE INCOME WORKING FMILIES which would negatively impact their spending and our economic growth. If we obtain the added tax revenue more from the wealthy, there is far less impact on demand and our economic growth. That Draginol is the ECONOMIC REASON for higher taxes on the wealthy.

The other reason is that higher taxes on the wealthy will NOT impact their life style and put them in a position of not being able to afford what is NEEDED for their families. The added tax will come from their SURPLUS. That is the Social reality Draginol.

As to your taxes, I bet most of that $1 million is Not Personal federal Income taxes. If you have company profits that require you to be paying anything close to a million dollars, you must not be in financial trouble. The issue is not how much more YOU get out of the higher taxes you pay. It is that collectively we MUST balance the Budget and having the wealthy pay more has both an ECONOMIC and SOCIAL benefits as I have explained above. The reality is that during the BOOM of the 1990's the economic group that did by far the best were the wealthy. Please answer me how did the wealthy do so well if the tax rates before 2000 were so oppressive?

To say people like Bush and Cheney are over taxed is absurd. Bush made $ ¾ of million dollars and paid about 25% in taxes. Cheney adjusting for his transfers made almost $2 million and paid 27%. Make the tax cuts for the middle income tax payers permanent. However to borrow money so we can continue tax cuts to people that DO NOT NEED THE MONEY is harmful to this country. The interest on the debt will be moving toward $ ½ a Trillion dollars EVERY year because of the fiscal policy we are following. The interest when Bush took over was % 1/4 of a Trillion dollars.

Draginol- Could your company prosper if you were spending 20% more every year then you took in and were putting that 20% on your credit card and NEVER paid down the Balance?

Draginol - It is your turn to address the points I have made. In my last job I was responsible for a $120 Million dollar per year operation and had to BALANCE the Budget EVERY YEAR. That is what I want Bush to do. Not cut the deficit in half!

First We MUST PAY for what the Government Spends. I have no problem cutting Federal Spending IF that is what the majority want. However just cutting what the conservatives believe is unneeded is not acceptable. Cuts MUST be what are acceptable to the majority of Americans. The reality is that since the GOP took over Pork and spending has moved to an ALL TIME HIGH.

You make a couple of assumptions that we've discussed before:

1) You assume that everyone considers any deficit spendings to be unacceptable.

2) You believe that the majority are okay with raising taxes on "some people" to pay for said pork.

There's far too much waste to justify raising taxes.  We could eliminate the deficit any time we wanted if we simply curbed spending INCREASES. We don't even have to make cuts, just quit increasing spending each year.

I'm paying enough in taxes.  You raise taxes any higher and people like myself will find legal ways to avoid paying those taxes by off-shoring it.   People like you argue about increasing taxes and then decry when companies outsource or take jobs out of the coountry.

Anything over 20% (of actual income) is too much.

Daiwa
Just how did you come up with that one? Until we have balanced the Budget we must have a combination of spending cuts and added revenue to bring our SPENDING equal to the TAX REVENUE!

Is it just me, or does Col sound like he wants to solve the deficit problem in one year? If so, what will happen with the rest of the money made after we fix the deficit problem? Or does he also believe that once the deficit is gone that we can lower the taxes again?

I can't believe this article has gotten so many replies when the point was made clear by half the people posting here. This is like trying to get my 3 year old to understand something and even though you repeat yourself to him hundreds of times he doesn't get it.

It is not logical, moral or even ethical to make those who earn more pay more. It's even worsew when those who pay more already are not elligable for Gov't assistance like those who pay little or no taxes.

This is not a concert where if you can afford better seats you pay for them, the Gov't should see everyone the same, no one should pay more simply because they earn more.

This is stupid and so is the writter when he can't even admit defeat and just ignore what everyone else says.

BTW, my favorite reply was when Col said the Lee's link was just one opinion yet that all he ever does but according to him they are not just one opinion.

One last thing, can someone tell me who made Col Gene the voice of " The Vast Majority of the People" in the US? Since when does he speak for everyone?

CharlesC

Please read #127

The issue is very basic The United States Government is spending more then it takes in Taxes. We must END that since we are creating an amount of debt that will require ever increasing interest payments. That interest will take the money we need to pay for things like defense, health, homeland security etc. No company, person or nation can spend more then they have in revenue. We are borrowing money, paying interest on that borrowed money so we can give tax cuts to the wealthy that DO NOT NEED MORE MONEY. If we were running a surplus in tax revenue over expenses a tax cut would be justified. That is NOT the case. I do not think we can balance the budget in one year. My proposal is to have the budget balanced by the end of 2008 and then begin generating a surplus of $200 billion EVERY year thereafter to be used to pay down the debt. It would take 30 years at $200 billion per year to repay the debt that will be on the books when King George retires to Texas!

Yes Gene, it's very basic.  The government spends more than it takes in.

You want to cure this by having us give the government a raise.

In the "real world" people cut their spending to make ends meet.  The government should look to do the same.

Everyone sing along, now...

"Workin' for the ma-an,
Workin' for the ma-an..."

A year-old thread, no less.

Draginol

In the real world you BOTH cut your expenses AND increase REVENUE. Today we have allowed the problem to become so great that NO CUTS ALONE will solve the problem. WE are $600 Billion out of balance and ONLY both cutting expenses and increasing revenue can solve the problem!