I think the message is pretty clear:

Raising taxes = better economy. Clearly.

Or, raising taxes to reduce national deficit works better than cutting spending in providing more capital for tax revenues. Or something.

Or, it could just be that the economy wasn't so heavily globalized back then, and companies that earned profits overseas had to pay the full tax rates to bring it back to spend in the US, including spending on things like US salaries.

Or, it could mean that those companies that went from about a 50:1 ratio in their highest:lowest paid salaries that have now gone to 300-400:1 in ratio are crying about not having enough tax breaks, even though they've gotten the ability to pay their massive salaries overseas and avoid the income taxes back home, where they use specified loopholes created by Gingrich and signed by Clinton to bring smaller amounts back home, while the income tax still goes to the other countries at a much lower rate.

Frankly, I have no pity for the rich who feel persecuted. That's what happens when people finally catch on to how you're gaming the system; they get angry. I see Marx's work not entirely as an attempt to create utopia, though he definitely supported the idea. I see it as an attempt to warn people what happens when you have severe economic inequality that exceeds what most people consider to be fair. Most of these people are not providing enough value to justify a 400:1 ratio in salaries. Hell, many of them aren't providing any real value, just stock market value, which is purely for those invested and paid through stocks. Then, stocks tank as they pull out of the ridiculously over-valued company, workers get laid off, and anyone who didn't get out is holding $70 chunks of toilet paper. And the people get poor, and homeless, and lose credit, and all that stuff. And they get angry. You have people who worked in this company, providing real products of real value, for 20+ years, and all of a sudden, the nice pension plan that they've been promised and counting on is worth less than the paper they use to wipe their asses. And their home equity is lost because they can't afford to finish paying their mortgage off, nobody wants to hire them in that industry because the close of the plant has rippled through the suppliers and retailers, etc. The ball keeps bouncing. And, sooner or later, a ball is going to stick to the CEO that ran off with his hot secretary. And that's when everything, according to them, goes wrong. No, it went wrong before that.

And seriously, I don't care if it's legal. The fact that you don't expect people to get pissed off about it and try to write that in law as fraud is just displaying a total, almost pathological, disconnect from reality. A society that is based on greed as a principle, that extols the "value" of selfishness, is not a society that will work for very long.

You hear rich people complain about the poor's entitlement on the same day they write off an entire holiday meal as a business expense and retire to their vacation home where they claim the rent as a deduction because a hunting lodge is vital to their widget business in the city.

If we get rid of all loopholes then we might have a level playing field.

While you can still write off your parrot as a secretary you deserve to have your taxes raised another 40%

Nick, apparently Steve is right because you are so damned scared that everyone might realize he IS right and then you might have to pay YOUR FAIR SHARE. I would LOVE for taxes to go back to what tey were before Reagan. Then corporations might actually try to make money THE OLD FASHIONED WAY by hiring people and making product instead of shuffling money through financial trickery.

I think it is because everyone remembers what they want to remember, even if it is wrong.

Are you F"n kidding me?!?

GOP is "afraid" of a tax increase without spending cuts? That's the funniest thing I've heard in a LONG time.

They are the architects of tax CUTS, with no concurrent SPENDING cuts (or spending cuts EVER).

Which is more fiscally responsible? Tax and spend, or tax cut and spend?

Does NO ONE have a memory beyond 5 years?

Obama and the Democrats have NEVER proposed a single penny in spending cuts. All they have proposed is reducing the rate of growth in spending from 7% annually to 5%.

The Federal Govt has NEVER reduced year to year spending.

as shown in the Obama budget proposal, there are NO cuts in spending over the next 10 years, only cuts in the rate of growth

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/tables.pdf

What I read in this article (now that's read it), it that those tax increases in 1982 and 1990 worked.

Forget politics, they both made a bad problem (deficts) better, and spending did not end up increasing as a function of GDP.

Without those tax increases, the Reagan-Bush I defictis would have been much worse, which they already were--DOUBLING the national debt compared to GDP, and nearly QUADRUPLING it in raw monetary terms.

NBCNEWS: PUT SOME EFFORT AND ANALYSIS INTO YOUR REPORTING!

if only there were liberals around like JFK

“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."

John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference

“Our present tax system ... exerts too heavy a drag on growth ... It reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking ... The present tax load ... distorts economic judgments and channels an undue amount of energy into efforts to avoid tax liabilities."

John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, press conference

"Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate."

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, message to Congress on tax reduction and reform, House Doc. 43, 88th Congress, 1st Session

Larry,

Republicans never have either.

That said, 5% is less than 7%, right?

It's government, a projection is what is expected. If you spend less, it's savings. That's just the way it is.

Larry,

Top tax rates were 91% in 1960.

Kennedy brought them down to 70%, Carter brought them down to 50%, Reagan brought them down to 28%. They're up to 35% now.

Relatively speaking, they are VERY low right now.

If you look at unearned income, current rates are the lowest they've been EVER, at least since the modern tax code has existed.

Are you really complaining about 15% and 35%?

SMBus,

You have an excellent point, however remember that we are dealing with people whose mentality and frame of mind is real facts are just a fantasy , their truth is whatever the tea party, fox and the corruptblicans say, to them is the gospel, science does not matter, the earth is flat, and they preach they want a small Government, however when in power they take all your rights away. IE: Michigan (Voters repealed the "dictator law" emergency manager powers, where all elected officials are fired and one person (appointed by the Governor is the one who makes all the decisions beyond question,in other words: Democracy no longer applies here.

Second look at all the States where Corruptblicans took over the legislature and the executive, we are heading back to the beginning of the 20th Century,Red States have the biggest uninsured citizens, the biggest poverty and inequality levels, the biggest analfabetism, etc.

The funny thing is that the red red states are the ones who take more from the federal Government that what they pay in federal tax, hmmmm fair share? to them is a big no no .

The deficit is due to loss in revenue and increase in spending correct. Well let's see if you want to reduce your deficit you need more income, correct? So what you do you create more revenue by creating jobs!

However Corruptblicans cannot afford to create jobs, because then the credit goes to the un-american foreign born, socialist black president.

The mantra they say is you cannot increase taxes on job creators! if that was true then why we lost so many jobs since 2001, no increase in job creation but a huge increase in outsourcing loss of jobs and also loss of revenue.

Who made like a bandidt the corporations who outsourced the jobs, got lowers taxes and lots of profits.

For republicans to now try to pin our financial problems on the president is just a cowardly act, be a Man/Woman republicans own up to your ideas and policies, it was because of your irresponsibility that we are in this hole, Democrats, you own this too, Show some B..lls and stop caving to these ideologues.

If The republican congress would have passed the jobs bills, the president sent to them, cut the loopholes for rewarding outsourcers, and love our country we would be 100% better.

Now everyone says cut entitlements!, stop calling them entitlements and call them by what they are: Earned Benefits! We all have been paying into the funds.

It was Bush who gave the tx cuts to the rich, writing iou's to social security.

Government does not work when is in the Republicans hands. The Country Prospers with The Democrats!

Merry X-mas to all!

The country went into a tailspin after Reagan,

Superman Clinton briefly saved America - remember fiscal surplus? But boy toy Dubya has even been even more destructive, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the Middle East, and destroying American fiscal health along the way.

.

But the GOP has lost its ability to reserve its destructive policy path.

.

Luckily for America, Superman Barrack is here.

It's really quite simple. America doesn't actually have a "spending" problem. There is nothing left to cut.

Look at the entitlements from the broader perspective, rather than America's usual navel-gazing one. The benefits provided by Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are already the smallest, lowest, least useful, and least helpful of all equivalent programs throughout the entire civilized first world. Meanwhile American infrastructure crumbles and rots for want of adequate maintenance funding. On social programs American is almost at the bare minimum per capita outlay that is needed to maintain a civil society worth living in.

That is why the GOP, though they bang the drum again and again on spending cuts, can never seem to put useful specifics on the table about WHAT they want to cut. If you really had a big spending problem, with big obvious wasteful spending, it would be EASY to put many things on the table. But the GOP doesn't do that. Instead they go after things puny teacher's pensions, pathetically tiny outlays for fruit fly research, sesame street, a few $10 millions, insignificant drops in a $6 trillion debt.

They do this because they can't do anything else. THERE IS NOTHING ELSE THAT CAN BE CUT. What waste there is (and yes there is waste) is systemic, the natural unavoidable inefficiencies of a government working in an imperfect world with imperfect human beings with imperfect knowledge of an unpredictable future. If you want democratic government to work properly you have to accept these inefficiencies. They are the inevitable cost of doing business in a democratic system, short of genetically engineering a wiser, smarter, stronger, and tougher species of superhuman to become your new citizens.

ALL real and meaningful cuts are going to be painful ones, cuts that will do real harm to things that have real importance.

And meanwhile, America's effective taxes are the lowest per capita in the entire civilized first world. There is no nation of above-average wealth that asks less of and provides less to its citizens than the USA.

America doesn't have a spending problem. America doesn't even actually have a revenue problem.

America has an expectations problem.

Americans expect that their country should be a civilized first world nation, one that provides the kinds of services and safety nets that wealthy first world nations should provide for its citizens. That means Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. That means decent infrastructure. That means environmental regulation. That means consumer protections. All these things are already at the bare minimum levels of spending required to sustain them. None of it can be substantially cut without sacrificing real-world functionality.

Americans also expect their country to be a world-bestriding superpower, with a military that could take on the rest of the planet combined and win, that could fight four front wars and win, that can not only win, but win easily, crushing all opposition so that the nation would never need to suffer deprivation at home in order to support some foreign war effort, the way they had to do to win World War II. That not only can they win any and every imaginable military engagement against any and every imaginable opponent or groups of opponents, but that they can win without taking significant damage, without suffering significant losses. And that means a giant bloated military, constant foreign interventions, expansive intelligence networks, weapons research investments kept constantly 50 years ahead of all conceivable rivals. The military budget could be cut substantially, but not without giving up the pretense of being the world bestriding colossus, the uberpower that none dare offend.

And on top of all that Americans retain the expectation of a small government, a light government, that the ruggedly individualistic individual can take care of himself without needing society to help him in times of extremity, and thus expect low taxes.

The only way to solve this fiscal spiral is to take a good hard look at these expectations and give up at least one. If you want to be 1 then you must dial back on 2. If you insist on being 2, then don't maintain the pretence of being 1. If you MUST have both 1 and 2 then you have to be realistic with yourself about 3, and realize that such expectations must be paid for, and accept MUCH higher tax rates across the board.

Nick-XXXXXXX .Typical RWNJ, talk smack but don't have the brains to run a business. Steve's not talking about mom and pop businesses that will never see the tax benefits of large companies, he's talking about scum like Romney and ALL his tax avoidance schemes. "All they know is they getsa they gobment check on Friday". Sounds like deflection to me Nick. I think you are a RLNOW (Republican Loser Nutjob On Welfare).

Another corrupt system on TV too....

Just watching Wolf Blitzer on CNN with a guy who has some expertise on school shootings.

Guest says "we have two problems, we have a failing system to take care of disturbed people, and no system to keep those people from getting guns"

He has a daughter that was in the same hallway as some that were killed at Virginia Tech, so he has some closeness to this kind of episode. He starts sounding emotional, imploring that NOW is the time to talk about these things, because if you wait for the current tragedy to settle, the will goes away to do anything.

Wolf promptly cuts him off and goes to something else.

there's plenty to cut

We need to abolish the Depts of Education, Energy, Health & Human Services, Labor, OSHA, EPA, Transportation, phase out SS & Medicare, abolish the Federal Minimum Wage, abolish the FCC, FDA, FTC, NLRB, return student loan programs back to private lenders, end all Food Stamp programs, Federal welfare, Federal unemployment insurance payments, Obamacare, and a host of other unconstitutional programs. These are all unconstitutional programs that promote a socialist totalitarian state. We need to get rid of the Federal Reserve and take back control of our monetary system.

We need to remove ourselves from the UN and ask them to relocate to another country

We need to sell off some of the 245 million acres of Federal Lands. There are 10's of millions of acres of Federal lands that lie dormant and are not used for anything (I'm not referring to National Parks or Forests). In some states like Nevada, the US Govt is the largest landowner. Use that money to pay down our debt. Selling off this land would provide cash to the govt for debt reduction and would result in massive economic growth.

The Federal Govt needs to stop meddling into issues of drugs, alcohol, or tobacco. Those are issues to be determined by the States

We can reduce defense spending by approx 10-15% through technological advancements and greater use of drones and special forces. This should also include removing the stupid ban on assassinations. While we have closed a number of bases in Europe, we could probably close the remaining bases in Germany without affecting national security.

I'm talking about the shooting here because the other threads have thousands of posts. A few of you here might listen.

Obama needs to come out and say something like this:

"I can't take the lead on fixing our gun violence problem or else it will become political and nothing will get done. I need the gun lobby and supporters of gun rights to come up with some common sense rules that will stop this kind of killing. How can we make sensible rules to keep guns out of the hands of such clearly disturbed people. Help me help America's children. Send me sensible legislation you can live with to stop this from happening."

Larry:

We need to abolish the Depts of Education, Energy, Health & Human Services, Labor, OSHA, EPA, Transportation, phase out SS & Medicare, abolish the Federal Minimum Wage, abolish the FCC, FDA, FTC, NLRB, etc.

How 'bout we just move back into a cave.

those are all state and local issues according to the Constitution

In the 19th century, the great French libertarian philosopher Frederic Bastiat who influenced many Americans nailed liberals like yourself in his book, the Law

“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.
We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.

When is the GOP going to stop blackmailing our Nation for their 1% mega rich buddies, When !!!

Government is part of the society, dude.

Don't forget about that great phase in the constitution" "promote the general welfare"

If any of those parts of the Federal government were "unconstitutional" don't you think the Supreme Court would have discovered it by now?

Cuts to be named later is what Democrats have been selling for decades. Of course everyone is still waiting for later to arrive. It is the old adage, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. Slowing the rate of growth is simply not a spending cut, and Democrats have never delivered on tax reform anymore then they intend any meaningful cuts in spending. As if there isn't a colossal amount of waste in the federal government, if only they did the oversight that is a major part of their job. We have a government so out of control, reigning it in will be next to impossible. Nothing short of a balanced budget amendment, something Democrats always vote against, will give this nation a chance at survival.

"W" Threw Gas on Reagan's Fire, they were a disservice to America !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, the lesson in all of this is that big spenders in Congress, regardless of party, will always say anything and lie about anything just to get more taxes to spend on new stuff. They will never even try to reduce the federal debt or the annual deficit as evidenced by the liar in the White House.

Poor! Poor! Poor corporations-----always have their hand out and then complain that it's the other guy that is the socialist. Apple has agreed to move one of their operations to Austin Texas--if we tax payers hand over a cool $20Million dollars. Guv Perry brags about companies WANTING to move to Texas--Hell, Yeah! If Perry bribes them with his taxpayer funded slush fund that he has the nerve to call the Texas Enterprise Fund. Hasn't anyone heard of the Industrial Revolution.......first the textile mills were moved to the US for cheap labor. Doesn't anyone remember the first textile mill in New England.......a guy name Slater! He 'employed' kids that were under ten years of age to run those looms. Then they moved their mills to the south when they got electricity to run the former water powered mills in NE, but when people and adults started demanding a liveable wage--------South here they came. Now when the Southern finally started making a liveable wage---------South East Asians became the workers. WE fought the war in Viet Nam to save our country, only now they have our JOBS so Sam Walton's heirs make $3Billion dollars a year in stockdividends and poor them........they have to pay a huge 15% tax rate. POOR, POOR Waltons! Damn that sperm that made its way in ol' Alice so that the workers of the US could really get screwed.

Janstince #1.1

Raising taxes = better economy. Clearly.

There is no economist that says this. However, politically, power driven people say this all time. Creditors also will tell you this, but they simply are more concerned about collecting the debt and really don't care. It is to the advantange of politicians to raise taxes rather than cut spending. Spending is how they buy their the voters favor.

Or, raising taxes to reduce national deficit works better than cutting spending in providing more capital for tax revenues. Or something.

First, I cannot find one tax increase in 80 years that resulted in reducing the national debt. At best, raising taxes decreased the amount we borrowed in a year. Even in the 4 years of "balanced" budgets from 1997 - 2000, the national debt increased by at least $18 Billion.

Second, every additional dollar of tax collected either to reduce the deficit or pay down the debt is one dollar less that is turning over in our economy. Federal revenues are based the amount of money turning over in the economy. When the economy slows because more money is removed from economy, that means there is less volume of money to collect taxes on. This is why England who raised taxes on the Rich in 2010 has shown a decline in revenue, even though they raised taxes.

People believe that the rich should be taxed more because they don't understand the concepts of wealth, capital, and investments. People have been told by news media and Democrats that the wealthy are sitting on money. The wealthy never sit on money, ever. They park it in investments that will allow them to draw a living and still grow or at least not lose it's value. These investments normally don't make near what they could make if they had a project in their own business, but unless there is enough volume in their market and a large enough revenue to give them a greater return than that of investments in others, they are not going to invest in their own business.

it could just be that the economy wasn't so heavily globalized back then, and companies that earned profits overseas had to pay the full tax rates to bring it back to spend in the US

I've been around over 50 years now, and I don't remember profits from over seas not being taxed if the money was brought into the US. But, I can tell you that for them to bring these earnings back into the US, it will cost them between at least 35% of that value, that in most cases was already taxed to 25 - 30% of the original profits. In same conservative circles, the idea of discounting the taxes on this off shore money provided it was re-invested in US facilities was being kicked around a good bit. There would be no greater policy change that would improve our deficits and weak economy without the Government spending one penny.

Steve

You hear rich people complain about the poor's entitlement on the same day

Your are confusing Rich and Republican. Of the richest in our country, over 50% are democrats. The Republicans are really mostly made up of people in the $40,000 - $250,000 annual salary. What you are seeing complain are those in the middle class who have figured out that $250,000 - $500,000 annual salaries are not so rich as they once thought.

SmBusOwner. What you are failing to grasp is that the tax and spend actually always works out to tax more and spend much more than taxed more brings. That was kind of the point in what the Repuplicans are saying.

SmBusNY

They are the architects of tax CUTS, with no concurrent SPENDING cuts (or spending cuts EVER).

Can't take credit for that one. That was actually JFK. "the tax cuts I propose will increase our deficits for a short time, but the revenues will pick up as the economy improves and businesses begin to hire more."

Reagan ran on $1 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax cut. Congress balked at many of his requested cuts (attacked their campaign contribution base) and only gave Reagan $1 in spending cuts for every $3 of tax cuts. After fighting and losing the cutting battle for 3 years, and the GDP rising at 4.5% and unemployment beginning to drop, some in the White House decided that not getting the requested spending cuts didn't matter as much. Wrong - it does matter if your revenue doesn't rise enough, At the time Reagans's annual increases in revenues set records.

Bush 43 is the one who really didn't crack the whip on keeping spending down at least not until the democrats sent him their first budget in 2007.

Larry Robinson-1323081

if only there were liberals around like JFK

“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."

Larry, never in history has reduction in taxes produced a more prosperous, expanding economy and bring a budget surplus. Lets just look at the last 4 Presidential elections and what happened. George Bush senior reduced taxes, economy went in the tank and deficit went up and poor jobs market. Clinton took over and raised taxes, economy stabilized and created a surplus in the budget good jobs market. Bush Jr took over taxes went down, economy tanked, bubble burst, jobs tanked, 2 unpaid wars, recession. Obama took over, brought us out of recession, constant improvement on jobs, economy got better, stock market stabilized. Big businesses showing record profits. Now if he can increase taxes on the wealthy and keep them the same for the middle class and poor, then we will see an even better economy. Also he is going to reduce spending by 600 billion. Only thing holding us up again is the Republicans in the House playing games with the American people to continue to try and make Obama look bad.

"Obama and the Democrats have NEVER proposed a single penny in spending cuts. All they have proposed is reducing the rate of growth in spending from 7% annually to 5%."

Ditto for your Republican buddies Larry. And don't even try to tell us you're not a Republican. That's just another one of the many, many BE stories you put out.

Sean Hannity and the Tea Loonies think the Sandy aid is HogWash !!!!!!!!!!!

"This just in from Bizaarro World. Republicans say they are fearful of cutting a deal with Democratic President Barack Obama because they've been led down the garden path by two REPUBLICAN Presidents in the past..."

Sorry, I'm getting whiplash from all the double-takes I'm doing these days. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? First Senator Mitch "my goal is to make Barack Obama a one term President" McConnell filibusters his own legislation and now the GOP says they can't trust Obama because they were screwed by Reagan and Bush I. Unbelievable.

Folks, you just can't make this stuff up.

DB,

Nope, sorry, you're wrong on several fronts.

.....raising taxes to reduce national deficit works better than cutting spending in providing more capital for tax revenues. Or something.

First, I cannot find one tax increase in 80 years that resulted in reducing the national debt.

These contradict each other. "...raising taxes to reduce national deficit works better..." is the opposite of "I cannot find one tax increase that resulted in reducing....."

If Kennedy was the first one to be wrong about tax cuts generating extra revenue, well, so be it, but Reagan put that incorrect assumption on steroids.

Reagan-Bush nearly Quadrupled the national debt in dollar terms and nearly doubled it in GDP terms.

Reagan may have run on 1 for 1 taxes vs spending cuts, but he didn't deliver, and didn't even try. It wasn't Congress's fault either. Congress during the 80's actually spent a little LESS than Reagan asked for in his budgets.

If you want a real nice primer on economics of the 1980's and how "trickle down" continues to screw us right up today, see here:

http://zfacts.com/p/gross-national-debt.html

Please, everybody and anybody, click through to that link to learn a lot about recent economic history.

Increased revenue and deficit reduction are not synonymous as depicted by the 1982 Reagan tax increase. Taxes were increased on the middle class and reduced on the top 2%. Tax rate ceilings were legislated for the same top 2% to include capital gains taxes which at the time and today is used by the richest of the rich in investments. The 3:1 ratio offered and supported by the TEA-Republican's didn't then and will not now be properly followed and implemented. Sadly, no one addressed the excess deductions, exceptions, exemptions and caps which had already been imposed by previous Congress's limiting or reducing tax liability. In 1990 the $282 billion dollar reduction in entitlements and discretionary spending effected the middle class disproportional-ly, while again no one addressed the excess deductions, exceptions, exemptions and caps benefiting the super-rich. The Reagan-Bush tax concessions barely touch or addressed the previously passed tax limitation tax code fixes which benefited the upper echelon of investors. Those with massive amounts of money(pooled or otherwise) benefited most by allowing other investment tools to further limit tax liability. The current tax code has massive tax dodging paragraphs and exceptions which have been law since inception of the tax code. The only ones benefiting are the massive corporations and excessively, well-funded millionaires and billionaires. All deductions, exceptions, exemptions and caps should be removed and taxed at ordinary tax rates. Leveling the playing field by evenly and proportionally distributing the tax pain across every segment of our society is not re-distribution of income as is often cited. It is bringing to the forefront the past indiscretions and preferential treatments given to those who had tremendous influence and money. There is no justification for any portion of society to gain preferential treatment just because they have money or political influence to effect such.

Hey Skip #1.34, The GOPigs says they can't trust OBAMA because they got "Screwed" by Reagan & Bush, this is got to be a joke ???? - By the way, my name is also Skip, see you !!!!!

The debt problem can be fixed very easily...Just roll every tax break or deduction ever enacted back to 1979 IRS code. Problem solved!

Reagan came in with a national debt of $997 Billion. After his give away legislation to Corps. and high income earners and a totally overall failure of his economic policy (trickle down) he left office leaving the country $2.85 Trillion in debt. In Reagan's own words he said "the debt he placed on America was his greatest disappointment" of his presidency.

colormepurple

by 1980 inflation was double digits, unemployment was double digits, interest rates were double digits.

Next!

The facts are obvious to all.The rich are increasing their share by hundreds percent. the workers share is stagnant the retirees ,who made this country into the superpower are continually being threatened with reduction of earned benefits and even have their taxes to guarantee those benefit's looted by their employees,their elected Representatives,who loot them to hide their mismanagement from we,their employers.We the backbone of American economy ,are even being cheated by the rich,through theirgifts/bribes by the super rich into giving them and the indusries what they now claim as entitlements,which are not entitlements, yet their minions in Congress continue to claim as their true name. The only true entitlements are S.S. Medicare and unemployment benefits .

If you spend less, it's savings.

No wondewr you're a small business owner with logic like that.

If I spend $1.25 instead of $1.50 when my income is only $1 where is my savings? Spending less is only "saving" money to entitlers.

Buying yourself a dress just because it is on sale is not saving.

@DB Akron

by 1980 inflation was double digits, unemployment was double digits, interest rates were double digits.

What's your point? That deficit spending like Reagan's and Obama's is necessary to correct an ailing economy?

Reagan & Bush!! HA HA ROFL...GUESS WHAT most voters now weren't even eligalble to vote then....

NO SCAPE GOATS LEFT OBAMA....

#1.35.To consider R.Reagan at the same time as taxes is ridiculous when he payed no taxes when he obtained the post of Gov.of Cal. The facts are known that the majority of American citizens are experiencing stagnation and even decreases in their economics,yet the rich are gaining by leaps and bounds in their economics.The skilled legal immigrants from the European countries has declined . The majority of illegal immigration has increased enormously,because the poor and unskilled of those countries still better themselves by risking all to come here. Our payed for Social Benefits are continually under attack by our oligarchic rulers,who still demand lower unfair taxation for themselves and non-entitled so called entitlements from our Employees/Representatives

I was thinking to myself,why do I always comment on the tax paying of a former P.O.T.U.S. and a former Governor, When another former P.O.T.U.S. W.Clinton commented that the tax paying system was so unfair that He legally paid a lesser percentage of his income than most of his Employers i.e. the ordinary citizens did. I am sure that what he said was true as I would not imagine that any of our Representatives have voted for themselves to increase their taxes. Do many of my fellow citizens think the same as he and I ?

Correction: people wonder why right-wing politicos are not trusted.

GOP Wishes the 1% merry x-mass and will oppose most of the $60 billion aid for Sandy, looks like grandma got run over by a reindeer !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This government is bloated and awash in waste and fraud. Yet there isn't 60 billion to find and spend on Sandy? Give me a break, the Democrats are a bunch of clowns that can't find so much as a penny of wasteful spending. As if reducing the rate of projected growth is an actual cut in spending. It is simply amazing what clowns can sell and idiots will buy.

Correction: people wonder why right-wing politicos are not trusted.

And those left-wingers are so trustworthy. <sarc>

Does anyone notice the Republicans want to reduce entitlements to the working class and poor in the US, but never once mention cutting the 3 billion in aid we send to Israel each and every year. That aid amounts to more than $500.00 for each man, woman and child in Israel. It appears our politicians, Republican and Democrat, would rather see Americans displaced and living on the street, than have Israelis suffer a slightly lower standard of living, than what they enjoy today, which is one of the highest in the ME.

Does anyone notice the Republicans want to reduce entitlements to the working class and poor in the US, but never once mention cutting the 3 billion in aid we send to Israel each and every year.

Ron Paul wanted to end all foreign assistance. They called him an anti-Semite because of it, despite the fact that we give Muslim countries just as much money as Israel.

What I got out of the article is that we consistently increase the spending of government(i am not sure "size" is the right word) and if we do not have the growth to match the spending than we have serious deficits. I am a "progressive" but the Republicans have a very good point that our Presidents and Legislators rarely move us back to sustainable spending(Obama and Bush included). Therefore, tax cuts like Bush and the Republicans implemented which I believe were well meaning....actually ended up increasing deficits and in the long-run hurt growth in our econony.

And the Dems have their folks they patronize. And our budet crises isn't just too little inflow, it's the promises for increased outflow as well, and both parties are responsible. To make out that Repubs are the only ones without control on the fiscal spigot is simply propaganda that goes down as easy as krispy kreme donuts here on MSNBC. Major adjustments have to be made, but there is only so much you can siphon off the private sector before you begin to shrink your economy into a downward spiral. The majority of the fixes must be on the "human resource" spending which has quadrupled in the last 50 years as a % of expenditures. But this is never pointed out on the left-leaning MSM. But it has to. There is no choice. The original actuarial assumptions were flawed. But this is never discussed. The problem was set out succinctly about eight years ago by former Comptroller General Walker, who went on a nationwide NON-PARTISAN tour to try and educate people as to the crisis and that taxation or hoping for increased productivity per person or whatever simply won't close the gaps facing us. And we can certainly rely on the old stand by of invasion and stealing other countries' wealth, but let's not keep doing that. There is a REALITY involved here that is avoided by the likes of MSNBC which makes them no better than Foxnews.

If the problem is too much spending, why is it that the GOP can only offer cutting off PBS, Planned Parenthood and Medicare. Surely you must realize that the amounts spent on the former are not even a rounding error on the deficit or the debt. Surely you must realize that not one penny of the current debt is the result of Medicare or Social Security payments, since those programs are funded by dedicated taxes. The one spending program that is driving us to bankruptcy, Military and Homeland Security is not touchable. In fact, Romney & Ryan even proposed increasing those further. If you are truly committed to reducing spending, start there.

The problem for the GOP is that while the Democrats are communists, the Republicans in reality are mostly socialists. They just think they can manage their socialism and stem full blown communism via their controls- but they are almost as bad as the communist dems.

Socialists, and communists?

You sir, are likely a fascist. Do you realize that?

Please get back to doomsday prepping, then stay in your cave.

No- I'm a libertarian who believes in liberty- fascists believe in centralized power in the state- not too far removed from the ideology of Obama.

I'm not engaged in doomsday prepping

I run a very successful global business while also serving as founder senior pastor of a global ministry that feeds and helps many thousands of people here and around the world. And because I earn my own living I've never taken a dime of salary nor do the pastors in my ministry.

Alright, fine, not fascist, but you're a little closer to an anarchist. You want to get rid of everything, which I have to say is a little fantastic (as in, out in la-la land). But I guess everybody can have a dream.

Good for you on helping others. Most people think we need a government for that. I'm with them. Sorry, off to a Christmas party Cheers!

No I've explained that the Founders established to create a small central govt. Let me provide the words of James Madison to explain it better than any.

James Madison who wrote most of the Constitution stated in Federalist #45:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

Unfortunately Larry it aint that simple. I find your claims of operating a business very suspect. You don't demonstrate even the basics in terms of understanding how the world moves around you. But keep it up and we will continue to not have a meaningful discussion on solving the issues at hand.

Well swallow-

I have started and run businesses in the US, Taiwan, and the Philippines. I've put together business deals involving not only multiple companies, but multiple nations. I've worked with members of Congress on contracts as well as the president of a nation and members of his cabinet.

I ran some fairly large Aerospace companies in the US (the largest I had 4000 employees working for me) in the 80's and 90's.

I probably pay more in quarterly tax installments than you earn in a year.

Simply because you are a true believer in a marxist/socialist system doesn't mean that those of us who prefer liberty are your intellectual inferiors.

Now tell us why Madison is such a simpleton?

Great to hear of your successes Larry, but without the various governments of those countries, especially ours, you wouldn't have had the systems and capabilities in place to have made the business that you have. Especially in aerospace, where the government has been the main funder of technology innovation since the beginning.

Hey, I don't believe in Marxism either, but I also don't think Republicans are socialists. Pretty generous with the definition to call them that.

With a society, you have to have government. Government does more than operate the Army. I don't expect much from government, nor have I taken much, but I think it's a positive thing for the sake of our society to have it manage nearly all that it does. I'm not alone to think a lot of it is worth keeping, including most of the things on your kill list. Most people think my way, and I'm sure glad for it.

"I run a very successful global business while also serving as founder senior pastor of a global ministry that feeds and helps many thousands of people here and around the world. And because I earn my own living I've never taken a dime of salary nor do the pastors in my ministry."

BS, BS, BS and MORE BS. So rev Larry -- you claim to be a minster, a tax prep guy, a defense consultant, a NASA consultant, an historian, a politician, a veteran , then a disabled veteran, (like that tax pres gig, that's a relatively new one) and you tell us you've started and sold who knows how many businesses over the years. You tell us you don't have health insurance. You tell us you don't see doctors. You even told us you did surgery on yourself at one time. You tell so many BS stories even you can't keep them all straight. Bottom line rev ---- you're as phony as a 3 dollar bill.

"I probably pay more in quarterly tax installments than you earn in a year."

Sure rev Larry!! We have a lot of multi-billionaires on anonymous computer message boards. Why a person can be anything they want -- a minister, a war hero, a big time high roller, a pro athlete, a tax prep guy,you name it, you can be it. Computer message boards are great places for the Walter Mittys of the world.

http://bnrg.cs.berkeley.edu/~randy/mitty.html

If the Bush tax cuts caused the problem then let them all expire. This ridiculous endless liberal spewing about the top earners is but a drop in the bucket and solves nothing. History proves the Democrats won't cut so much as a penny, and will more then likely just increase spending far above any tax increase. But liberals have done nothing for the past four years but complain about all the fiscal devastation caused by the Bush tax cuts, and now they are only willing to raise them on the top earners and not on everyone. Typical of the not in my backyard crowd. The do as I say not as I do generation. The crowd that finds two wrongs do make a right. Liberals are not at all about working together to solve anything, they are all about getting their way. It would be one thing if Democrats had a track record of success, but they don't, and all they offer is blame.

"No I've explained that the Founders established to create a small central govt. "

Rev Larry -- the founding fathers created a small central government at one time. It was under The articled of confederation. It didn't work so they created another, much stronger government.

Increased revenue and deficit reduction are not synonymous as depicted by the 1982 Reagan tax increase. Taxes were increased on the middle class and reduced on the top 2%. Tax rate ceilings were legislated for the same top 2% to include capital gains taxes which at the time and today is used by the richest of the rich in investments. The 3:1 ratio offered and supported by the TEA-Republican's didn't then and will not now be properly followed and implemented. Sadly, no one addressed the excess deductions, exceptions, exemptions and caps which had already been imposed by previous Congress's limiting or reducing tax liability. In 1990 the $282 billion dollar reduction in entitlements and discretionary spending effected the middle class disproportional-ly, while again no one addressed the excess deductions, exceptions, exemptions and caps benefiting the super-rich. The Reagan-Bush tax concessions barely touch or addressed the previously passed tax limitation tax code fixes which benefited the upper echelon of investors. Those with massive amounts of money(pooled or otherwise) benefited most by allowing other investment tools to further limit tax liability. The current tax code has massive tax dodging paragraphs and exceptions which have been law since inception of the tax code. The only ones benefiting are the massive corporations and excessively, well-funded millionaires and billionaires. All deductions, exceptions, exemptions and caps should be removed and taxed at ordinary tax rates. Leveling the playing field by evenly and proportionally distributing the tax pain across every segment of our society is not re-distribution of income as is often cited. It is bringing to the forefront the past indiscretions and preferential treatments given to those who had tremendous influence and money. There is no justification for any portion of society to gain preferential treatment just because they have money or political influence to effect such.

Charlie to which they hoped that they did not give it too much power.

I Think when Larry Robinson performed surgery upon himself he put in a smaller steel plate in his head than what what neccesary.

L.Rob./ Madison was a man of his time,but you are not . As far as assuming that you are a mental inferior that would depend on the i.q. of both of you. I do believe that your thinking belongs to a much earlier and certainly unkinder time,which appears to be a major fault of many of you who falsely claim to be of the Christian faith.Before you disagree with this opinion I suggest that you study the actions of many Religious leaders of the past. As far as your political leanings. I consider you to be a Right leaning T.P. supporter. You may sneer at me as a Liberal Democrat,but to me that is complementary and correct.

Have to love the names being tosssed arorund - fascist, commmunist, socilaist etc.. It certainly is easier to make a snap gneralization than it is to think. I suggest every usage of the above terms does nothing but expose the historical illliteracy of the poster.

The GOP is fighting very hard to protect the richest in America from paying slightly higher rates. That's what this is about....

WTF??? The Reupublicans so called "B" plan was to implement tax increases on those making a million or more a year? How does that protect the richest Americans? Ohhh wait a minute. I get it. Tax increases on that level would only affect the Hollywood elite, Major Media, & a large percentage of the Democratic Party.. (Check the facts people. Which party has the highest percentage of people that make over $1 million a year)...so it wouldnt be fair unless the upper middle class have to pay too....

Slugs and parasites like those lazy retired folks collecting Social Security and paying NO Federal Income Taxes on that money?

Those slugs and parasites?

Dang them - lazy slackers! Get your walker and get to work, Grandma!

Does that include full time workers who after taking the same personal exemptions for themself, their spouse and children and using the standard deduction as you yet make so little that no tax is owed beyond the FICA and Medicare taxes they have already paid? And what is that 50% number based upon? Does it include retired, disabled and children? Is it total population or just voting aged persons? Do you have a clue or just like to babble mindlessley?

And let's not forget that most of the Fortune 500 corporations pay less than 10% (an average for all 500 of them is around 27%). Most of the taxpayers in the 30-35% range pay very little.

Uhhm Dean, if most of them pay less than 10% wouldn't that mean a few of them pay way more than 27%? Something seems off with those figures.

Funny how the Democrats have parlayed themselves into the party of fiscal responsibility. Even if it has been over 40 years since a Democrat controlled congress put forth a balanced federal budget. Or the fact that every time a balanced budget amendment is proposed in congress it is the Democrats that vote it down. Why do you suppose that the new Democratic Party of fiscal responsibility is opposed to a balanced federal budget?

Increased revenue and deficit reduction are not synonymous as depicted by the 1982 Reagan tax increase. Taxes were increased on the middle class and reduced on the top 2%. Tax rate ceilings were legislated for the same top 2% to include capital gains taxes which at the time and today is used by the richest of the rich in investments. The 3:1 ratio offered and supported by the TEA-Republican's didn't then and will not now be properly followed and implemented. Sadly, no one addressed the excess deductions, exceptions, exemptions and caps which had already been imposed by previous Congress's limiting or reducing tax liability. In 1990 the $282 billion dollar reduction in entitlements and discretionary spending effected the middle class disproportional-ly, while again no one addressed the excess deductions, exceptions, exemptions and caps benefiting the super-rich. The Reagan-Bush tax concessions barely touch or addressed the previously passed tax limitation tax code fixes which benefited the upper echelon of investors. Those with massive amounts of money(pooled or otherwise) benefited most by allowing other investment tools to further limit tax liability. The current tax code has massive tax dodging paragraphs and exceptions which have been law since inception of the tax code. The only ones benefiting are the massive corporations and excessively, well-funded millionaires and billionaires. All deductions, exceptions, exemptions and caps should be removed and taxed at ordinary tax rates. Leveling the playing field by evenly and proportionally distributing the tax pain across every segment of our society is not re-distribution of income as is often cited. It is bringing to the forefront the past indiscretions and preferential treatments given to those who had tremendous influence and money. There is no justification for any portion of society to gain preferential treatment just because they have money or political influence to effect such.

How come everyone is hesitant about discussing tax exempt churches? It's always corporations, or middle class, or military spending, or something like that. It's never about churches, or regional property taxes, or sales taxes, anything to do with day to day living in your own region.

Hey Mikey- It is my understanding that some do pay higher rates. Although I can't explain why.

Dean,

It just seemed to me that if the majority were at 10%, there wouldn't be enough paying the top rate to create the average rate you cited, which, iirc, is not much lower than the top rate itself.

Wrong. Current highest individual rate is 35%. The marxist wants to raise it to 39.6% so that he can spend the proceeds on another "stimulus".

We received tax revenues as a higher percentage of GDP under Reagan and Bush's tax cuts than under Eisenhower.

Mostly because no one paid the higher rates. There were so many more deductions people could take in the 50's that have been eliminated and/or reduced.

Also, existing deductions are now reduced and/or eliminated based upon AGI. So many wealthy no longer get full or any deductions for mortgage interest, or student loans.

when the tax rates were up to 90%, the company owners would pay employees better, reducing turnover and the expense of training new people. They plugged money back into their companies, improving the product and expanding capacity. This is one of the reasons America was the #1 exporting nation in the world. When American made was a sign of pride. When men BUILT companies and ran them, and had the intelligence to realize that a smaller piece of a larger pie was still pretty damn good, and that next years pie would be better.

Hey MasterQ,

I see you made an idiot out of yourself again. There's approximately 1.5 million active military personnel and another 1.5 million in reserve. The troops are but a small fraction of the 50% and I'd be more than happy to exempt them. Looks like you proved how uneducated that you are again. Maybe you should pick another hobby.

And then he lowered it to 28%. (He and Congress of course)

And the deficit went up under Reagan when he did it. That is one of the reasons he agreed to raise it to 31% a YEAR LATER. Tax cuts for the wealthy only hurt the county and help no one but the rich.

Clinton raised it to 31%, not Reagan.

And both of these presidents existed before the Internet was commercial. To look at past economic history without taking into account globalization and current technology is asinine. During Eisenhower, how many robots were performing manufacturing? How easily were items shipped from one country to another? How many manufacturing robots existed during Reagan's presidency? Our country can either keep up with the rest of the world or be left behind. Part of that is being competitive. Why should a rich person live here and pay high taxes when they can run their company from somewhere else (and make more money in China or Brazil selling widgets there than in the U.S. anyway) and pay half the taxes.

P.O.T.U.S. Reagan ,who formulated the throw the dogs a bone economic philosophy,when he was Governor of California paid no taxes so if he raised the tax rates he certainly did not believe in paying that himself. A person who ,when in power , has that view is not of such a fair view point that anything that he believes could be of benefit to working people. If he ever did advocate betterment for our general population it would have been under protest.

"It’s not clear why Reagan used the $280 billion figure, but contemporaneous accounts by the authoritative Congressional Quarterly put the agreed-to spending cuts at $17.5 billion."

Could severe Alzheimer's disease that Reagan suffered from been the reason? How could anyone trust anyone so clearly suffering from that disease with anything that person said?

Hey MasterQ,

Since you obviously type before you think, let me educate you on a little something so you can stop making yourself look like the fool that you are. The majority of small businesses are taxed at individual rates because the income flows through to the owners as ordinary income. So your argument that "most" wealthy people generate their income from dividends is wrong.

I do not see you citing any sources for any of your drivel, yet you accuse me of parroting the right's talking points. Hmm, I think that makes you a hypocrite. Now shut your pie hole.

Let's help you MasterQ

According to 2009 IRS data, nearly 70 percent of all tax returns with qualified dividends were filed by taxpayers with an adjusted gross income of less than $100,000.

According to 2009 IRS data, 62 percent of the 15.6 million tax returns with qualified dividends from direct and indirect utility investments were filed by taxpayers age 50 and older. Of those investors who held only individual stocks, including utility stocks, Ernst & Young estimates that 81 percent of the returns with qualified dividends were filed by taxpayers age 50 and older; 61 percent were filed by taxpayers age 65 and older.

IRS Statistics of Income, 2009 Individual Income Tax Returns.
Preliminary Ernst & Young calculation, 2012.

Hey Nick, let me educate you. So what? If small business owners use S Corps or LLCs to avoid double taxation, then their "profit" is their income and should be taxed at a maximum rate. Let's not forget, all "income" is, is profit, which is after expenses and all are taken out.

Are you advocating that if you own a small business, you should pay less income taxes than someone making the same amount of money that works for a business? That's awful inequitable of you.

I don't feel bad one bit about raising the top tax rate. If you're a small business owner and pay individual taxes on your "profit" and you fall into the highest tax rate, then you pay the highest tax rate. I don't feel bad for the guy making a million a year working for a company paying the highest tax rate and I don't feel bad for the guy who owns his own business netting a million a year in income, paying the highest tax rate. It's literally the exact same thing.

If he wants to pay less in taxes, invest more in the company. Find more deductions, buy more equipment, higher more workers. These are all expenses that can be deducted. Also, unlike a small business which can deduct for nearly every expense related to the business, I, as an individual, cannot really take that many business related expense deductions because it's not my business.

I'm not picking on small business, I think it's great. Open up a business, take a risk, employ people, make money. But you have to pay taxes like the rest of us. So owning a small business is not an excuse to keep the tax rate lower. It's just a convenient excuse people who are completely uninformed or ignorant use to justify a position that has no basis in fact or reality.

Larry, don't confuse the gorillas on the left with numbers. THey don't understand them and it makes their heads spin! :)

@Larry, qualified dividends ok, what about capital gains? As in, I invest 1,000,000 into a company, let it sit for a year and the stock rose 10% and now I have 1,100,000. See, that's where the rich get rich. Most people would have to pay 35% when they earn $100,000 in year. But not the super rich who can invest multiple millions, they pay a max of 15%. That's the real issue, not qualified dividends, but percent increase. Find me the statistics on the percentage of people who pay 15% for capital gains related to stock price increase (not dividends). Equity traders don't make their money on dividends, they make it on investments that pay off as increased stock price.

Hi ED,

Ever heard of double taxation? That's what happens when a C-corporation pays tax and then dividends it's shareholders, after which the shareholder pays tax AGAIN on the same money that has already been taxed.

No one who earns 100,000 pays a 35% tax rate. the 35% rate kicks in on taxable income over $388,350

someone who makes 100k pays an average rate of approx 8% depending on marital status, dependents and deductions according to the IRS data for 2009.

I own a tax preparation service and know something about the subject.

BTW Ed, where did they get those millions to invest? Most wealthy are those who take their earnings and begin to leverage their after tax money into investments. So they have already been taxed on the initial investment

Larry, you're making too much sense.

The Democrats have never been fiscally responsible, and history proves that fact. The Democrats have controlled the House for 46 of the past 60 years and 40 of the past 60 in the Senate. Congress passes the laws, including taxes and spending and president can only sign them. But despite all that control in congress, it has been over 40 years since a Democrat controlled congress has put forth a balanced federal budget. It has also been the Democrats that have defeated every attempt in congress to pass a balanced budget amendment. So how the Democrats have parlayed themselves into the party of fiscal responsibility only shows how gullible their supporters have become. The Democrats are nothing but the party of higher taxes, more spending, and bigger more invasive government.

Increased revenue and deficit reduction are not synonymous as depicted by the 1982 Reagan tax increase. Taxes were increased on the middle class and reduced on the top 2%. Tax rate ceilings were legislated for the same top 2% to include capital gains taxes which at the time and today is used by the richest of the rich in investments. The 3:1 ratio offered and supported by the TEA-Republican's didn't then and will not now be properly followed and implemented. Sadly, no one addressed the excess deductions, exceptions, exemptions and caps which had already been imposed by previous Congress's limiting or reducing tax liability. In 1990 the $282 billion dollar reduction in entitlements and discretionary spending effected the middle class disproportional-ly, while again no one addressed the excess deductions, exceptions, exemptions and caps benefiting the super-rich. The Reagan-Bush tax concessions barely touch or addressed the previously passed tax limitation tax code fixes which benefited the upper echelon of investors. Those with massive amounts of money(pooled or otherwise) benefited most by allowing other investment tools to further limit tax liability. The current tax code has massive tax dodging paragraphs and exceptions which have been law since inception of the tax code. The only ones benefiting are the massive corporations and excessively, well-funded millionaires and billionaires. All deductions, exceptions, exemptions and caps should be removed and taxed at ordinary tax rates. Leveling the playing field by evenly and proportionally distributing the tax pain across every segment of our society is not re-distribution of income as is often cited. It is bringing to the forefront the past indiscretions and preferential treatments given to those who had tremendous influence and money. There is no justification for any portion of society to gain preferential treatment just because they have money or political influence to effect such.

Rudy/You must stop letting reality and fairness get in the way of the tax realities.

Hey Larry,

THat's a trick question for the lefties because in their eyes, the so-called "rich" never pay their fair share since fair share keeps being re-defined. It's not OK that the top 10% pay about 70% of the total bill. The want the top 10% to pay it all until there is no more top 10%.

when I challenge them with this, they never answer it directly- just engage in strawmen and red herrings to avoid answering.

It's like all the dems in Congress. The government never has a spending problem, but they just can't ever seem to collect enough taxes from people! Damn criminals they are.

Larry,

The first question that needs to be answered before anyone can answer yours is what percentage of total income of the entire country, probably as a percentage of the GDP, is necessary to provide for the legitimate expenses of the Federal Government. Then we address how that revenue is obtained. Not all of it is raised through taxes as you know. Once we know how much needs to be raised through taxes additional questions arise. Is there an income level below which no taxes will be owed? Do we assess seperate taxes for Social Security and Medicare independant of the Income Tax and require even those below the above minimum income level to pay those on earned income? Do we switch to a flat tax or continue with a graduated tax? Does it make sense to tax earners of low income if they will simply receive it back in the form of government aid of some sort? Frankly, I fall on the side of the progressive income tax where higher earners pay more since they are better able to afford more. When we switched from top rates of 90% there were many more brackets than we have now and I see no point to returning to that scale.

To address your specific question, we also need to know what percentage of total income the top 1% represent. If they earn 40% of the total income of the country, and we know that a significant portion of the remaining 60% falls into the low wage category then perhaps they should be paying 70-75% of the taxes.

Ah, Larry...

For a self-proclaimed tax expert you really are ignorant. You are collaborating in the construction of the myth that the rich pay a higher percentage of taxes in comparison with the percentage of their earnings. Now logic tells us that this is mathematically impossible. If your tax rate is set at a lower number, you will by definition pay a lower percentage. The way to overcome the math is to base the statistic on taxable income, not on total. If you can, as many on the upper income levels do, structure your compensation to favor capital gains, or keep the money overseas, you will dramatically reduce your taxable income and begin to look like Mother Theresa. You're still shifting the burden to the wage earners, but you can pretend that you're undergoing IRS extortion. Nice try, but it does not change the facts.

really 1% should be paying 75% of the taxes- and explain to us how that equals fair share?

And let me help you before you answer

The top 1% earn 16.9% of the income according to the IRS and pay 37% of the taxes

the bottom 50% earn 13.5% of the income and pay 2.3% of the taxes

So while their share of the income is pretty close the top 1% already pay a very UNFAIR share of the taxes. ONLY a marxist would suggest otherwise

A "fair" share would be a flat rate on anything you recieved during the year as profit. Regardless of it's source. Income is income.

I don't care if you are in the 1%, 10% or 100% income group.

Larry,

Forgive me here. Somehow I got the mistaken impression someone had stated the top 1% are paying 70% of the taxes. I know you did not.

Of that 50% paying only 2.3% of the taxes, how many earn so little that they owe no taxes? What is the percentage in that income group of actual tax payers and what is the percentage of their income? Do you agree or disgree that there should be an income level below which Income Tax is not owed?

Top 10% pay 70% of the tax.

Thank you Jim.

"Top 10% pay 70% of the tax."

And how much of the national wealth do they control -- over 95%.

"What is the "fair share" of income taxes that the wealthy should pay?"

• Well rev Larry -- I'll try this again. Why don't you take a shot at the question? We ALL know you're a big time, high rolling, international businessman, multi billionaire super American, probably in the top 1% of the top 1% --- so what amount should you kick into the federal till --- a dollar, 5 dollars, 20 dollars --- or nothing at all??

Increased revenue and deficit reduction are not synonymous as depicted by the 1982 Reagan tax increase. Taxes were increased on the middle class and reduced on the top 2%. Tax rate ceilings were legislated for the same top 2% to include capital gains taxes which at the time and today is used by the richest of the rich in investments. The 3:1 ratio offered and supported by the TEA-Republican's didn't then and will not now be properly followed and implemented. Sadly, no one addressed the excess deductions, exceptions, exemptions and caps which had already been imposed by previous Congress's limiting or reducing tax liability. In 1990 the $282 billion dollar reduction in entitlements and discretionary spending effected the middle class disproportional-ly, while again no one addressed the excess deductions, exceptions, exemptions and caps benefiting the super-rich. The Reagan-Bush tax concessions barely touch or addressed the previously passed tax limitation tax code fixes which benefited the upper echelon of investors. Those with massive amounts of money(pooled or otherwise) benefited most by allowing other investment tools to further limit tax liability. The current tax code has massive tax dodging paragraphs and exceptions which have been law since inception of the tax code. The only ones benefiting are the massive corporations and excessively, well-funded millionaires and billionaires. All deductions, exceptions, exemptions and caps should be removed and taxed at ordinary tax rates. Leveling the playing field by evenly and proportionally distributing the tax pain across every segment of our society is not re-distribution of income as is often cited. It is bringing to the forefront the past indiscretions and preferential treatments given to those who had tremendous influence and money. There is no justification for any portion of society to gain preferential treatment just because they have money or political influence to effect such.

Charlie-I want the marxist 16th amendment repealed and a national sales tax implemented to replace it.

In the interim I propose

a flat tax of 15%

With personal exemptions of 10,000 per person

Standard deduction of 10,000 single, 20,000 married

Minimum tax of $1 so every person pays something

I'm not a billionaire, but I am a multi-millionaire (self made) and one of my sons who is a firefighter is a self made millionaire who used his wages to buy foreclosures as rental properties

"Charlie-I want the marxist 16th amendment repealed and a national sales tax implemented to replace it."

You STILL haven't answered mu question rev Larry --what amount should YOU kick into the federal till --- a dollar, 5 dollars, 20 dollars --- or nothing at all??

"I'm not a billionaire, but I am a multi-millionaire (self made)"

Right Larry -- just like I've won the Masters 4 times and the US Open twice.

Jim you have to consider the source. OBama and the rest of his ilk do not operate on logic. They operate in a fantasy world.

Nick: I hope you're not TOO young. If so, you'll have a long time to experience this train wreck.

More Obama logic. "I'm not being partisan, I'm not being stubborn. It's just a question of math." (talking about tax increases on the rich. Those increases will take care of 7-8% of the DEFICIT, but then you have another 92% of the DEFICIT to get rid of ... before you even start to take care of the DEBT.

Howard Dean, and Eugene Robinson I think (writes "On the Left" column for Investors Business Daily) and other writers in the New York Times and Washington Post all agree that taxes will have to go up on EVERYBODY.

Then, down the road, we'll get to the Value Added Tax (which Europe has ... along with high tax rates ... and still they don't have enough revenue). And of course then you get to the Wealth Tax, yada yada yada.

PS. I'm not shouting at YOU Nick, I think we're mostly on similar pages. Just capitalizing for emphasis.

Jim,

You are rich to some extent. I never made in my entire working life even as a Naval Officer what you are making in retirement. My highest earning years were between retiring from the Navy and when I fully retired and even then I only earned slightly more than half what you earn in retirement and that was with a PhD in a highly technical field. I'm still 5 years away from a comfortable retirement as I cannot yet receive SS nor do I want to touch any of my IRAs. Fortunately I had other savings to cover the intervening years but unplanned major expenses have taken a chunk out of that and I have to decide if every purchase is needed or not.

Hey Mikey: I never said what I make. . But, I hope you do well. Try Stansberry Research's "12% Letter" ($99 yr) for advice on dividend generating cash rich businesses that raise their dividends every year. Or try Palm Beach Current Income (I pay $650 a year - new subscribers pay more) newsletter for info on selling options. I average 15-20% a year ... this year was 24%.

Before you dismiss the idea, check it out. You can get your money back for up to 6 months I think.

Jim,

Ah, then the <250K was more to say that you were not in the group the President wants to raise taxes on then that you earned near to that. Misunderstanding.

Investing of the sort you mention should only be done with disposable income, not required. Be a few years more before I can achieve the disposable level.

Suppose you work, collect a salary and pay taxes on it. You then go to the grocery store, buy food and pay for it. The store pays their employees, who pay taxes on their salaries; it pays their suppliers, who also pay their employees, who then pay taxes on their salaries, and pays taxes on their profits. You see how it works? This idea that has become so popular that double-taxation is somehow immoral flies in the face of reality. Money is taxed every time it changes owners, and that's the way it is.

macdeezy- did your marxist teachers brainwash you with that or is there another answer for your being ignorant?

Nothing Marxist about calling out shenanigans & hypocrisy. You know I'm correct about out of control spending by BOTH PARTIES!

Well then answer this

the left is always regurgitating Obama's spin against others, claiming the wealthy need to pay their "fair share" of the income taxes

What is the "fair share" of income taxes that the wealthy should pay? Let me make the question quite clear to you.

I'm not talking about tax rate- what percentage of the income taxes the Federal Govt receives should the top 1% pay--

Next one for you Macbreezy

1. What is the number one responsibility of the US Govt

2. What section of the Constitution gives Congress authority for Food Stamps or welfare of any kind?

First question: Determining a "Fair share" is inherently contradictory. Flat tax is fair in a very straightforward way but the result would cause the big deficits that the GOP suddenly has a problem with when Obama took office. Graduated tax rates may not seem fair on the surface but it allows the poorest people to SURVIVE. They already have no pot to piss in. I have a feeling you think the top 1% should pay exactly 1% of all revenue the government collects, because it seems like you are a flat tax guy. But how would the government function if that happened? How many more people would be panhandling by the freeway if we had a flat tax?

Next question: National defense. what was the point of asking that?

last question: I don't understand what you mean. the Constitution gives Congress legislative powers and the elastic clause permits the ratification of new amendments. So it's within Congresses authority whether you agree with the politics of it.

Still feel like calling me ignorant? If so, I'll get mean next time.

It is true that the Democratic Congress passed budgets that were SMALLER than what Raygun requested year after year. The rebulicons have always spent like drunken sailors.

Liberals claim that the top 1% aren't paying their fair share so the question is legitimate- If the question is not legitimate then Obama and liberals should quit making the accusation.

Since you agree that national defense is our number 1 priority, why did you attack our nation's military, calling them peasant killers?

Congress (and all of the Federal govt) only has what is called enumerated powers. Article 1, Section 8 specifies the what specific items the taxing authority allows them to spend on

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The State governments possess inherent advantages, which will ever give them an influence and ascendancy over the National Government, and will for ever preclude the possibility of federal encroachments. That their liberties, indeed, can be subverted by the federal head, is repugnant to every rule of political calculation.

Alexander Hamilton, speech to the New York Ratifying Convention, June 17, 1788

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress… Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”

– James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792

Milkit= you have it backwards.

Reagan vetoed 72 bills and the Congress overrode him 28 times to spend more

Tip O'Neil pronounced every Reagan budget that tried to control spending DOA

Larry/ We have amendments to our Constitution because most people,even some in Government, recognise that we can't always get it right the first time and even if we do the times insist on changing. The Framers of our constitution did not envision a time when we could be anywhere on this planet in less than eighty days. Read J. Verne. fiction but still entertaining. National Defence is not always priority no.one.That can and often is, used to inflate our Military budget until it is out of reality as it is in this present time. I do not consider that only we Liberals ,know that the 1+%.of population are paying less than their fair share of taxation for the running of our country. To see the inequities that are a fact of life here is a denial of the consideration of any sense of fairness. I would encourage you to start thinking of studying Liberal Conservatives as a political philosophy, although I feel that it wouldn't appeal to you,but who knows ,try it you might like it!

you repeat these lies often but it doesn't change that they are still lies- other than the comments about Nixon who conservatives despise as a Rockefeller far left liberal.

"you repeat these lies often but it doesn't change that they are still lies-"

You got it rev Larry. Now try looking in the mirror.

Larry/ P.O.T.U.S. R.Nixon was the blue eyed boy of Reps. when he instituted wage controls,but he then became anathema when he took the next logical step by advocating price controls. Then it was Good-by Nixon you crook!

Rural- just because you are willing to pay higher taxes doesn't mean the rest of us should.

What gives you the right to determine how much of my money I should keep and how much I feel is enough?

IT'S NOT your money, IT'S NOT the govt's money

Nothing stops you from not taking all of your personal exemptions or deductions; and nothing stops you from making voluntary payments to the treasury

from the US Treasury Dept

"Gifts to the United States Government

How do I make a contributi­on to the U.S. government­?

Citizens who wish to make a general donation to the U.S. government may send contributi­ons to a specific account called "Gifts to the United States." This account was establishe­d in 1843 to accept gifts, such as bequests, from individual­s wishing to express their patriotism to the United States. Money deposited into this account is for general use by the federal government and can be available for budget needs. These contributi­ons are considered an unconditio­nal gift to the government­. Financial gifts can be made by check or money order payable to the United States Treasury and mailed to the address below.

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsvill­e, MD 20782

The US should add a VAT tax: value added-tax, which has been well-tested in the rest of the world as a reliable - uncontroversial - source of revenue. It's not unreasonale.

"What gives you the right to determine how much of my money I should keep and how much I feel is enough?"

Well rev Larry -- it's called a society governed by the consent of the governed. Using your logic, why should I have to drive on the right side of the highways if I want to drive on the left side? Why should I have to be screened before I fly on a commercial aircraft? We live in a constitutional republic rev Larry, not in anarchy.

Why shouldn't all people pay their taxes? You people who think the rich shouldn't Please give me an answer on this because last time I checked only people with kings and queen are stupid enough to keep these families up.

For those of you on this page (especially Larry Robinson) complaining about tax rates going up on the top 2%. You are arrogant, selfish, delusional, and narcissistic folks.

The coporate tax cuts of 2001 until present day were unfunded. It has exploded our deficit over time. The spending cuts to entitlements are a decrease to entitlement spending.....end of discussion. Entitlemnt spending cuts are not strictly increase in Medicare policy holder premiums for the elderly or decrease in benefits guaranteed by ACA. Obama already saved $716 billion from Medicare Advantage fraud/waste. As a matter of fact, the GOP swore this was an entitlement cut. Now, the GOP swears Obama refuses to offer cuts to entitlements within Fiscal cliff negotiations. Which is it??? Did Obama cut Medicare or not??? You folks are Liars. After the election, Obama additionally identified $400 billion in further waste/fraud entitlement cuts to be slashed during the Fiscal Cliff negotiation.

The GOP is lying. The GOP refuses to acknowledge the present National budgetary deficit they themselves ahve created. And you folks on this page complaining about raising taxes on the rich are Advocates of the lie. You all can go to hell. The middle class/poor will not pay for your unfunded Coporate tax cuts. Get over it !!!

Obama has already offered $400 billion in cuts to entitlements with the slashing of enititlemnt spending waste/fraud cuts after just cutting $716 billion in Medicare Advantage fraud/waste when the GOP walked away from last years Budget negotiations.....

The GOP is now just stalling on negotiations, as they lie by claims Obama is offering no cuts when he actually did......

Again with the lies TonyNEVERtellsthetruth

The Bush deficit was 458.6 Billion at the end of FY2008 (Sept 30, 2008).

The Democrat controlled Congress refused to pass a budget because they wanted to wait for Obama to take office.

You can legitimately add 194 billion which was released from TARP between October 2008 and December 2008. that brings the deficit under Bush to 652.6 billion

All the rest is Comrade Obama's.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2008_0.html

As to Clinton- he had a deficit of 89 billion and a recession that Bush inherited

Clinton's Chairman Of Council Of Economic Advisors, Joseph Stiglitz, Said Recession Started During Clinton's Tenure. "It would be nice for us veterans of the Clinton Administration if we could simply blame mismanagement by President George W. Bush's economic team for this seemingly sudden turnaround in the economy, which coincided so closely with its taking charge. But … the economy was slipping into recession even before Bush took office, and the corporate scandals that are rocking America began much earlier." (Joseph Stiglitz, "The Roaring Nineties," The Atlantic Monthly, 10/02)

Stiglitz noted that during the Clinton Administration "the groundwork for some of the problems we are now experiencing was being laid. Accounting standards slipped; deregulation was taken further than it should have been; and corporate greed was pandered to …." (Joseph Stiglitz, "The Roaring Nineties," The Atlantic Monthly, 10/02)

"So the table itself, according to the figures issued yesterday, showed the Federal Government ran a surplus. Absolutely false. This reporter ought to do his work. This crowd never has asked for or kept up with or checked the facts. Eric Planin--all he has to do is not spread rumors or get into the political message. Both Democrats and Republicans are all running this year and next and saying surplus, surplus. Look what we have done. It is false. The actual figures show that from the beginning of the fiscal year until now we had to borrow $127,800,000,000. - Democratic Senator Ernest Hollings, October 28, 1999

"Why shouldn't all people pay their taxes?"

I wish some of you so called conservatives would tell me how to avoid paying taxes because I sure as hell can't figure it out. How do you NOT pay gasoline taxes, sales taxes, real-estate taxes -- even if you rent, all the hidden taxes on just about everything you purchase?