german: "it is the government being more successful with Capitalist principles than the private sector". Wrong, friend. The government cannot be Capitalist, because, by definition, government confiscates wealth and produces little or nothing. People, unfettered by excessive government interference and taxation, create untold innovation and wealth, moreso for society at large than themselves! This is a hard point to understand. Bill Gates is a great example - he created far more wealth for society in general (by increasing productivity), than he did for himself and others at Microsoft.
"if the private sector does not do more to regain their share of GDP, the Government will contribute more than half of GDP in the future".
Again, you are misinformed. Government adds NOTHING to GDP - zip, zero, nada. Because government confiscates money before spending and/or redistributing it, the net gain to the economy is zero. Actually, it's less than zero because people spending other people's money do so in a less efficient manner.
german - you have some interesting ideas, although I totally disagree. May I ask what industry employs you?

SuperDave- Sure, you may have been a bit condescending, but that ok. Your points were really no more than a semantics argument anyway.

I am well aware of the fact that the rhetoric in politics defines 'redistribution of wealth' as government redistribution. I am also aware that Socialism is a loose term describing money being spent by the government on social programs.

However, when I address an issue and use a more formal definition to make my argument, that does not reduce my understanding of economics.

Now, to address your point concerning America becoming a Socialist state. In many ways, I too see this as a possibility. It is not however due to the same reason that you may believe.

Your argument basically attributes the fact that the government role in the economy is growing because they are taxing more, and then doling the money out. Therefor, you want to see the governments revenues reduced to cause it to then play a lesser role in the economy.

I on the other hand believe it is the government being more successful with Capitalist principles than the private sector. If you look at a graph of Government contribution to GDP, it steadily increases. The times that this isn't true is during the World Wars. The underlying cause during these period is obvious since the government was spending great amounts to fund these wars.

Now, one could say that the government is overstepping its bounds. Yet, I believe that the private sector hasn't been doing enough. I'm not saying they need to start giving all their money to the poor. Instead, they need to reinvest their capital to have growth high enough that it will offset government growth.

As it stands, if the private sector does not do more to regain their share of GDP, the Government will contribute more than half of GDP in the future.

Simply put, the Government spends its money and then some. The private sector continues to save instead of reinvesting.

The argument from many such as the TEA party is to cut off revenue from the Government and create a situation in which there is a reduction of its role. However, this won't do anything to make the private sector increase its own output.

If this were to happen, GDP would simply go down.

The economy is so shaky, even after trillions of dollars of stimulus, that we need another $50b stimulus. But it's not so shaky that we can't afford hundreds of billions of tax increases on the most successful small businesses that create the most jobs.

Got it.

mirror: "it is wrong for one person to own four homes and multiple cars and planes when other people are homeless, sick, and hungry".
I disagree! I think you are confusing life circumstances with morality. While it may seem unfair for some to have less than others, this does NOT mean the person having less is more virtuous, or that the person having more is less! Did you ever hear the story of the ant and the grasshopper?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ant_and...
And, NO, I am not saying that "all poor people are lazy", or "all rich people are industrious". What I am saying is, just because you are successful doesn't make you a bad person.
Who is your favorite sports figure? Entertainer? Let me pick a couple examples. Michael Jordan. Oprah Winfrey. Jay Leno. Are these people "wrong" because they have multiple residences and automobiles? Or are they fueling the economy by spending their money?

german: re: your 1207pm post. Sorry, this is going to sound extremely condescending. Your thinking is way off, you have a lot of confusion and misconceptions regarding economics and the proper role of government.
The term "redistribution of wealth" refers specifically to government taxing (confiscating) wealth from some, and doling it out to others in various forms. The most obvious example of the latter is welfare, but there are a myriad of other ways (AFDC, EITC and various other tax credits).
At any rate, yes this is an example of Socialism. The US has a "mixed" economy, meaning both Capitalism and Socialism co-exist to various degrees. Those of us who oppoese Socialism do so, not because we don't care about the "poor", but precisely because we care about everyone. Capitalism gives everyone a chance to prosper; Socialism, carried to extreme, ensures that only those running the government, and their cronies, will prosper. This is the direction we are headed and that is a big reason we are now seeing the grass-roots organization called the Tea Party.

I don't think true socialism is the answer. But I do think it is wrong for one person to own four homes and multiple cars and planes when other people are homeless, sick, and hungry. Maybe the wealthy guy earned his money and maybe the poor guy lost his, but it still seems wrong.

djs4464- While I can understand why you may feel the way you do, I think the notion that we must save our money to provide a future for our children is a shameful one.

While I will admit, my children are still quite young, I think it is in their best interest if I provide them the skills and knowledge I have obtained in my life. In doing so, I hope that they can achieve greatness for themselves, by their own efforts.

I am already determined that I will leave them little when I die. Not because I will have lacked success. But simply because I hope that by the time I die, they will have become self sufficient.

I know of far to many people, older than myself, that are still relying on their parents financially. I hope that this trend soon dies out. Otherwise, what kind of society will future generations live in when there is nobody left to take care of them.

Germancaveguy, Thats why I stongly believe in off shore banking. The govt has taken enough, now I must provide a furture for my children my own way.

SuperDave- After reading your post, it seems that you believe that wealth redistribution automatically equates socialism. This is simply not true. Wealth redistribution must happen for an economy to prosper. This is true regardless of the economic principle guiding the economy.

However, in a capitalist society, this can happen in basically three ways. The first is simply taxes. The government taxes money that is earned and then redistributes it for what ever it has determined it will spend money on. To a degree, this will always need to happen. However, the point to argue is not the fact that the government will need to tax its citizens. There should instead be focus on whether or not the government is spending its money appropriately.

The second form of redistribution is lending. When individuals save money, that money can be lent to others. The only problem with this form is that while it has positive short term effects, the interest factor creates negative effects in the future. This means that it cannot be the sole form of redistribution.

The last form of redistribution is simply the individual doing it themselves. I believe that this form is by far the best form. If an individual in any income bracket spends their money in any way, it has an immediate positive effect on the economy. When it comes to the richest of individuals, they are better apt to do this themselves than the government is. However, they do not always do this.

That is when it becomes the responsibility of the government to step in in one way or another, most likely through taxes or tax incentives, and redistribute the wealth.

There are many things the rich could do that would benefit society now. For an example of how this can be done, just look to the life of Andre Carnegie. Yet, many of them, in an effort to look good, have decided that they should just pledge their fortunes to charity. The only problem is the fact that this won't have its desired effect for some time. it does however beat relying on the government to do so through the estate tax.

I find it almost tragic that people don't see that there is indeed a difference between socialism and what is going on today.

"poor people may not earn enough to pay income taxes, but instead pay a higher percentage of their earning as excise taxes".
True! Poor people typically pay a larger percentage of their incomes towards food, rent, medical care etc. That seems evident, but my point is that the "rich" continue to pay a larger and larger share of the total federal income tax burden. There has to be a point beyond which this can't work. There are not enough "rich" people to pay for everything the federal income tax goes towards. Moreover, taxing income (taxing anything actually) incentivizes those being taxed to produce less of it. Just as subsidizing something causes those who benefit to demand more of it. The more wealth is taxed (confiscated), the less people are encoursged to create it in the first place. The Soviet Union comes to mind here - that country completely collapsed largely because of ther economic system.
"If for instance we were to just do away with the income tax. The wealthiest would pay the least amount of money back to the government because they spend the least, as a percentage of earnings".
Again, I am trying to confine this converation to federal income taxes, that's what the article is about.
"So, taxing the highest more on the money they take out of the economy..."
Interesting point of view - are people taking money out of the economy? I thought only the Federal Reserve could do that in any meaningful way.
"People paying at this level (the highest bracket) are still going to be wealthy when compared to even a person earning $100,000 per year".
So you're saying, as long as they are still "wealthy" compared to other people earning less, it's okay to take more and more and more from them? That's simple wealth redistribution. It has never worked, it never will. This country was founded on the notion that people are free to be as successful as they can be, and to benefit from that success. Not - you can only be successful to a point, then we're taking the rest because obviously you have enough!
The main problem with Socialism is that, at some point, you run out of other peoples money.

german - from your last two posts:
"If the people paying the highest amount in taxes decided earning the money they pay on isn't worth it anymore, they may simply just quit earning it. This wouldn't hurt the economy because someone else would step in to take their place".
Disagree. The economy is not a zero sum game. If said income is from productive activity, that activity may cease altogether. Take the example of a highly skilled surgeon. If she decides to retire because she is tired of being fiscally raped every year, there may not be anyone else to fill her shoes. If income is from investments, there are certainly many creative ways to make that income non-taxable!
"Even Warren Buffet has said that what he does is simply a mixture of being in the right place, at the right time, with the right set of skills. There are other people who could do what he does. But not many people can do this at the same time. Someone else will always be their to fill the void".
Again, not necessarily. As an investor, Buffett brings a unique set of skills to the table. Without his expertise, money could and would be directed into less efficient investments, distorting and negatively impacting the economy. Again - the economy is not a zero sum game.
"..they (the wealthiest people)..continue to protect their extreme advantage over society. Take that away, and it would be harder for them to do what their doing. Competition would become greater at that point".
I think you are making some real class-based assumptions about the "rich". May be true in some instances, but certainly not all.
"the notion that by taxing the wealthiest more in income tax is shifting the total tax burden onto one group of people is false".
If I said that, I was referring only to income taxes, and federal income taxes in particular.

SuperDave - "What do you foresee as the unintended consequences of such a policy? When do those with the means to do so, stop playing along?"

I'll answer the latter question first. If the people paying the highest amount in taxes decided earning the money they pay on isn't worth it anymore, they may simply just quit earning it. This wouldn't hurt the economy because someone else would step in to take their place. Even Warren Buffet has said that what he does is simply a mixture of being in the right place, at the right time, with the right set of skills. There are other people who could do what he does. But not many people can do this at the same time. Someone else will always be their to fill the void.

Now, this is essentially the unintended consequence that the wealthiest people don't want to have happen. As it stands, they continue to protect their extreme advantage over society. Take that away, and it would be harder for them to do what their doing. Competition would become greater at that point.

SuperDave - To address your 8:59 question, I'll do so in a round about way.

First of all, the notion that by taxing the wealthiest more in income tax is shifting the total tax burden onto one group of people is false. Income taxes are not the only tax paid in this country. They may be the largest piece of the pie, but payroll tax still accounts for a large portion.

When it comes to payroll taxes, these are proportionately less of a wealthy persons earnings over a typical workers earnings. Furthermore, poor people may not earn enough to pay income taxes, but instead pay a higher percentage of their earning as excise taxes.

Every person in this country pays taxes. Yet, we all do so by our ability to earn money. If for instance we were to just do away with the income tax. The wealthiest would pay the least amount of money back to the government because they spend the least, as a percentage of earnings.

So, taxing the highest more on the money they take out of the economy isn't going to kill the economy. It would more likely encourage them to spend more of it. The reason I believe this to be true is that most people hate paying taxes and would rather control what happens with their money.

Besides, say the taxing is done at the highest bracket. People paying at this level are still going to be wealthy when compared to even a person earning $100,000 per year. Just refer to my previous post.

Fair enough. If we take the status quo (the progressive tax system) as "fair", in and of itself, then the question becomes, is it fair to target those with higher incomes for the entire amount of a tax increase? And if your answer is yes, at what point, continuing this policy over many years, does it become unfair? What do you foresee as the unintended consequences of such a policy? When do those with the means to do so, stop playing along?

SuperDave- First off all, I'd like to say thank you. It is refreshing to have pseudo-debate about things on here without the points breaking down into hyperbole. However, I still have to counter your argument.

Your argument ignores a couple of key principles that are in play for each of the two cases. First of all, the necessity for each person to make the extra money isn't necessarily comparable. Each person could in fact be putting forth the same amount of effort in both cases. However, the person with more money earns more for their effort. This may be justifiably so. Yet, if this is indeed the case, the higher earner would likely earn the $1000 dollars in less time.

Furthermore, to compare the wealth building abilities of the two cases shows an even bigger advantage for the higher earner. I'm going to change the numbers some to make this point, but the underlying principle is still there.

If say both two people were to have the same monthly expenses. Each pays $1200 per month for food, car, housing, etc. If person A were to make $1,300 per month. They would then have an extra $100 to save or spend where they wanted. Now, lets say person B had $2,400 per month in income.

Many people would say that person B makes twice as much as person A. Yet, given the fact that person B has an extra $1,200 per month to save or spend, it could be said they are 12 times wealthier than person A.

To further put this in perspective, if both were to save their money, it would only take 5 years for person B to save what person A would save in 60 years.

So, to address the issue of fairness. No, I do not think that it is unfair to have higher tax at the larger brackets. Considering whomever earned money at that level has gained a huge advantage over most other people in society, they do indeed have the means to contribute more to the country they reside in.

german: You're correct, in that most people don't understand the concept of marginal tax rate. It is true that everyone is treated the same, in that they pay the same rate for the first x amount of dollars, regardless of their total income. In that sense, it is "fair". The unfairness becomes evident when you examine what happens at the margins. Using your numbers, a person making $5000/year who decides to take a second job to make another $1000 pays an additional $100 of tax, that is, 10% of $1000. But a person who makes $50000/year who takes the very same second job, working right along side the first person and adding an additional $1000 to their income, will pay $250 in additional taxes, that is, 25% of $1000.
Is it fair that the second person pays 2.5 times as much tax on the same amount of labor and income as the first person? I say no.
But beyond that, is it fair, given that our tax system is already progressive, to target those making more than x dollars for the entire amount of a tax increase? I say no.
For those that disagree, I am still waiting for you to answer my question posted Sep 10, 2010 at 8:59 a.m.

After reading many of the comments here, I've seen a couple of comments addressing the 'fairness' issue of the progressive tax system.

The way this system works in the US is that there are 6 tax brackets. Each person, once they have calculated their taxable income, gets taxed the same on every dollar they earn. So, this is where the fairness aspect of the argument comes in.

For example, and I'm simplifying the numbers for illustration, you were to compare two people with the same deductions. If the tax brackets were set up that:

0-$10,000 was taxed at 10%
$10,001-$25,000 was at 15%
$25,001-$50,000 was at 25%

Then, if person A had $10,000 in TAXABLE earnings, they would owe $1,000 dollars in taxes.

If person B had $50,000 in taxable earnings, the would owe the same $1,000 dollars on the first $10,000; $2,250 on the next $15,000; and $6,250 on the final $25,000; for a total of $9,500.

They would however NOT owe $12,500, or 25% of $50,000. I think for the vast majority of people in this country, they assume the latter to be true.

The point I'm trying to make is simply the fact that dollar for dollar, both people pay the same tax. It's just that in case A, that person did not have any money to be taxed on in the higher brackets.

lol, future that is the best you got, complaining about the words used to show how lame your points are? Yet, no backing to support your ludicrous whining.

Superdave - actually even if the top bracket reverts back to 40% from 35% that is still very low historically speaking.

North Korea.

It's funny to see the leftists spout their fairness drivel while even Castro has given it up. To them, life will only be fair when the government owns everything, individuals own nothing, and everyone's on the dole (there's no other way to get to their implied fairness of everyone having an equal share.)

In the meantime, if through hard work I earn ten times what my neighbor does, I pay 100 times the taxes. This is fairness to them!

It's especially ironic that they decry profits when the reality is that they couldn't afford any of the programs offered by the most expensive govenment in the world here in the U.S. if there were no profits to tax. In fact, the whole reason they are running up trillion dollar deficits year after year is that while their spending goes up, profits are down, thus depressing tax receipts.

If you think about it, this should be as close as liberals will ever get to their utopia: evil profits are down, greedy profiteers are subjecting fewer hapless customers to their predations, fewer people are being forced to work for greedy corporations, greenhouse gas emissions are way down, government programs are bigger than ever, the government is more fairly distributing more of the country's wealth. How much better could it get?

still waiting for an answer to my 859am question...

RetiredAirForce, someone got out the thesaurus I see. I may be "delirious with disingenuousness contemptment" (contemptment is not a word by the way), but you're feverish with mendacious condescension.

The crowd that continues to cry over the wealthy is delirious with disingenuousness contemptment toward those that have achieved while tossing statistics and words of control around. The economy is not a one-for-one trade-off. If someone gets a raise it doesn't mean another gets a reduction. Having more wealthy people does not make more people poor. If you "feel" you have no control I suggest you see a professional; either to look at your own financial situation or medical situation to determine where your feelings of helplessness and lack of control stem from.

Financial wealth does not happen overnight. If you are in the 80% it is up to you alone to secure your financial future. That means going without some of the wants and focusing on your needs. Putting 10-15% of your income in savings for wealth building even on a modest salary. I know to many people who save nothing, live paycheck to paycheck, but have a lot of toys.

"The top 10% of the RICH taxpayers already pay 90% of the taxes." Here's a scary one for you, the top 20% of Americans control 93% of the financial wealth of this country. That leaves 7% of the financial wealth to 80% of the population. My guess is that most of you defending the rich are a part of that 80%. Hope your happy with your little sliver.
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesameric...

The top 10% of the RICH taxpayers already pay 90% of the taxes. Don't you think that is enough.Most of the complainers are probably in the bottom 50% that pay NOTHING.
.
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesameric...
The most disturbing is TABLE 6.
.
Here is the REAL problem...
Last week, Forbes magazine published what the top U.S. corporations paid in taxes last year. “Most egregious,” Forbes notes, is General Electric, which “generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion.” Big Oil giant Exxon Mobil, which last year reported a record $45.2 billion profit, paid the most taxes of any corporation, but none of it went to the IRS:

Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that (legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi. No wonder that of $15 billion in income taxes last year, Exxon paid none of it to Uncle Sam, and has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas.

Do not fall for the class warfare bull! It is not "us" against "them". We already have a so-called progressive tax system, the more you make the bigger percent you pay in taxes.
Let's talk about sustainability. If we keep making the "rich" pay a higher and higher share of the total income taxes going into the treasury...well let me ask those of you who think the "rich" should pay more. What will be the long-term result of concentrating more and more of the tax burden on fewer and fewer people? How will this inevitably play out? Think this through - seriously, I would like an answer from those who support "soaking the rich".

Wouldnt you say that most members of congress are in the "rich" class? Would they be exempt from the tax increas on the wealthy? They are usually exempt from everything else. Obama keeps harping on the rich, I guess that is just for political reasons.

Ret -- Both sides can do their share of wasting on pet projects that add no value or waste taxpayer money. If analyzing the affects of cocaine on monkeys had any real value, private investment would find the cash to do so.

There are pet projects on t he Rep side as well.

Sarah, as with most polls the internals tell most of the story.

Last weeks poll showed:
Republicans favored their own 96-3
Democrats favored their own 88-9
Independents favored Republicans 48-31

This weeks poll shows:
Republicans favor their own 93-5.
Democrats favor their party 93-5.
Independents favor Republicans 49-33.

I am no expert on polling or stats, but these numbers show a sampling difference between this week and last week; meaning, I suspect this weeks poll had a higher number of dems than reps in comparison to last week. Considering other polls have not had similar swings gallups conclusion is questionable.

Perhaps next weeks numbers will reveal that either this week or last week was the more questionable.

andre: You know exactly which GALLUP poll I am referring to in my earlier comment. It's the same poll that you like to point out regarding the November elections. Right now, the righties and lefties are "EVEN STEVEN" ... this includes a 10-point climb for the Democrats in one week. Will it hold? Maybe or maybe not.

"I'll agree the Dems aren't perfect, but at least when they waste money its on domestic items with some return on investment,"
-
What kind of non-sense is that? Did you not read some of the items included in the stimulus package approved by dems?

- research on how cocaine affects monkeys, how does that fit your premise?

- Forest Service in Washington state, spending half a million dollars to replace windows on a visitor center at Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument that sits closed with no re-open date, how does that fit you premise?

- $529,648 to study the effects of local populations on the environment…in the Himalayas, how does that fit your premise?

See more of these great projects here: http://coburn.senate.gov/public//index.c...

make that 22 million

future, that would be the points that 22 sole proprietors filed in 2008 after you claiming there were very few, also that 200 grand was the starting point for tax increases not 250.

The top 10% of the RICH taxpayers already pay 90% of the taxes. Don't you think that is enough.Most of the complainers are probably in the bottom 50% that pay NOTHING.

frg: i assumed your name meant rich in things that have meaning in life...not money;)

Future -- theres no way you can claim all in one case is waste, jsut as you cannot claim all the other is positive.

Government -- more government is waste at its worst. If you think for a moment that the ideologies of one side are better than the other you are drinking the lemonade.

GW -- equipment manufacturers had to build equipment for Iraq and Afgan.. Out that we transform a dictatorship into a democracy. Solve human rights issues/concerns. Yes there will be waste, its inevitable.

BHO -- Developes large govmt programs, employs people to administor the programs, builds roads via taxes, increases coverage for healthcare. Government procarams are extremely inefficient, we end up covering illegals, spend money on useless programs with no return in some cases.

Its the all one siders that have NO credibility. Thats you and the people in both parties.

Tell ya what....Keep the tax cuts in place, but lift the ceiling on Social Security contributions. Why should the wealthy pay less than the poor?

As jcommon said earlier, who in their right mind would want to be taxed more, or wish for more taxes. I will never understand that.

Andre Linoge, your link reported that 75 seats were left unfilled. In other words, about 5% of the invitees were no shows and about 95% of the seats were taken. You said, "They actually had to recruit people to even hear one of his teleprompter speeches...LOL". That was the same thing Hannity said.
My username is futurerichguy guy because I want policies in place that enable me to get rich. I'll agree the Dems aren't perfect, but at least when they waste money its on domestic items with some return on investment, such as roads and health care for productive individuals. Thinking back to GW, he wasted money in Iraq, Afghanistan and prescription drugs for the elderly, thus zero return. On tax policy, explain to me how Republican policies, such as the elimination of the estate tax, will help me get rich when my parents have little to nothing?

Nobody would have to argue about who should pay more taxes if our elected politicians would quit spending our future great-grandchildren's money now. Then we wouldn't have to decide between higher taxes or selling our country's debt securities to foreign countries who are just itching to own us.

jv92 wrote:
"It is better for the economy for them to take that $532 and spend it at a store, put gas in their tank, go to the Dells, donate it to the Rock Aqua Jays fireworks fund for all I care."

On average, the rich don't spend the extra money they keep. They put it in the bank. Besides, we're talking about maybe 3% of the working population.

"OK, what if they make 10 mil? That's almost 1 million in taxes more. That could be a manufacturing plant in Janesville and roughly 300 jobs. 1 mil is a good amount of start up money for a new location or to fund an expansion."

First, 3% of $10 million (minus the first $250,000 that won't be taxed more) is $292,500. Second, as germancaveguy pointed out, investment (which reduces income) comes BEFORE taxes, so your example doesn't make sense.

Ooooh, how shocking! Anybody out there still think there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans?

WI
They also controlled the White House, Congress and the Supreme Court 6/8 years of GW.
.
Your point?
.
My point...President Clinton signed bills that worked..GW, no so much.

andre_linoge, based on your last response about Obama "recruiting people" it's obvious you get your info from Sean Hannity.
http://www.newshounds.us/2010/09/09/was_...

RAF said, " the 34% was from another website, they also provide no link to actual data...not sure what stats they derived it from. Irregardless my other points stand." Umm, why would your points stand after what you just said?

Justonepost.....Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Republicans control Congress for 6 of the 8 years Clinton was in the White House?

Just saying........

Does anyone remember the 1990's? The decade of growth and the decade that ended with a SURPLUS. Does anyone remember the NOW HIRING signs during that decade.
.
If the tax cuts for the rich expire we return our tax rate for the rich to the 1990's. A time of less home foreclosures and a better economy. I say why not?
.
BTW...unemployment rates...
Reagan/Bush (1981-1992) avg. 7.1 %
Clinton (1993-2000) avg. 5.2%
GW (2001-2009) 6.4%
.
just saying...

This tax increase will happen. The important question, who pays it, he strapped middle class or the rich? How successful was this tax cut? Don't remember? It never happened. As a matter of fact, it was followed by a 2005 recession. The rich don't put the money to work, (or haven't). Let them expire, raise these rates on the top 2% multi-millionaires, and give the struggling middle class a break.

RAF - Your looking at the tax rate for service corporations. These are corporations set up to conduct certain service type businesses. (i.e Engineers, Lawyers, Doctors, etc.) Basically, their individuals or small groups looking for the other benefits of a corporation.

Your typical businesses have a progressive system. It currently starts at 15% on the first 50,000. The next 25,000 is taxed at 25% and the next 25,000 is at 34%. It peaks at 39% but moves around some depending on what the bracket is. Mind you, this is on profit after all business expenses are taken out. So, a business could gross a million and spend 950,000 and only pay 15% on their 50,000 of profit. Business expenses also include bonuses, which is one way many companies reduce their tax burden at the end of the year.

"corporations all ready have one of the most favorable tax structures available, with lower rates than many individuals."
-
??? My understanding is the min for federal is already 35% not sure how that is better than individual rates.

caveguy, yes they could file as a corp after submitting to extra federal and state legalize to do so. As it stands, as of 2008 over 22 million people filed as sub-S.

future the 34% was from another website, they also provide no link to actual data...not sure what stats they derived it from. Irregardless my other points stand.

Across the world, the higher government spending is in proportion to GDP, the lower growth is. There's no exception.

That fact belies the silly contentions of people on this string that governmet 'waste' is merely all in the eye of the beholder, that we should pay our taxes happily no matter what they are, or better yet, the higher taxes are (and by extension, the higher government spending is) the more growth we'll have.

If that was the case, we wouldn't be in this damned recession for a record 20 months!

Liberals are willfully ignorant, purposely close-minded to any facts that contradict their orthodoxy. It's scary that they run anything.

Does anyone remember the debacle that was created when the govt imposed a 10% excise tax on luxury items a while back. Of course it was only supposed to affect the rich. However a lot of yacht builders lost their jobs. Even a boat builder in Wisconsin. Their was a halt on the purchase of luxury cars in dealerships.It did not take long for that tax to be repealed.Good example of trickle down.

SuperDave- Fraud and corruption happens no matter where you look. It happens in the private sector too. It has to be dealt with when it occurs, and can't really be seen as a justification of why we shouldn't pay taxes.

As far as waste goes, it is in the eyes of the beholder as to whether or not certain spending is indeed waste. With all the government programs, I'm sure everyone here would agree there is at least one program they would like to see eliminated. There is also at least one they would want retained. What is waste to one many not be waste to another.

As far as taxes go, I'll always pay what I owe. As far as reverting to the old tax, it is fine with me if it goes back. Everyone else in the playing field will complain, while I adjust.

Since I was 12 I understood the fact that I would always have to pay taxes. I just learned to accept them, and know that I would have to budget with the money I keep.

RAF - Finally, someone that is being specific about a tax situation.

You do make a valid point. Someone that runs their business as a corporation, that elects to file under sub S could indeed get hit hard by this.

Yet, with a good accountant, they could instead file as a standard corporation and utilize the many tax saving tools that aren't afforded to other business structures which would in turn reduce the amount they pay in.

My original point still remains the same though, if this company were to be spending more of its money on business expenses, it would reduce its overall burden. Besides, corporations all ready have one of the most favorable tax structures available, with lower rates than many individuals.

german: Some interesting points. I disagree.
Taxes are indeed passed on to consumers, they are just another cost of doing business and thus must ultimately be paid by customers.
You said "profits that don't get taxed are less efficiently retained in the private sector". Not sure where to start with this one! I hope you are just pulling our collective legs! Government spending equates to waste, fraud, and corruption. The bang for our buck is extremely small. I don't know where you could have seriously gotten the notion that government is somehow better at spending money than the actual owners of that money. And as RAF would point out, if you're not volunteering to pay more taxes, you must not believe what you're saying.

916WI, your assertion that folks in the highest tax bracket are more "productive" and "efficient" is a joke. Who out there really believes that? Keith Olberman is in the highest tax bracket. Do you believe he's part of this group?

RAF, I still can find no data that supports your statement that 34% of sole proprietorships make more than $250K per year.

916WI- What aspect of the market are you referring to as being efficient. If it is in terms of generating revenue, then yes, the private sector is more efficient. If it is in terms of creating jobs, that holds true in the case of shear volume because the market is larger.

However, if it comes down to moving money around, the federal government does a good job at that. Since they are spending at a deficit right now, they are actually spending more money then they take in.

Additionally, do you think that this money being spent has a negative effect on the economy. Eventually, and quite quickly, much of it makes its way back into the private sector.

I think people fail to realize, that the profits that don't get taxed are less efficiently retained in the private sector. Much of this money is saved in one way or another in the banking sector.

The only way this money gets back to the public is through lending. Granted, I'm not saying do away with banks because the provide a need service themselves. But if lending is down, they aren't doing their part for the economy either.

" there is no logical way to pass on income taxes to consumers."
-
What? Income taxes are an expense on anyone who files a sub-S return. These expenses are then made up by charging more for labor, materials, or services to customers.

jv92- "And by the way, business does not pay taxes, they simply pass it on to consumers. If you ever wonder why gas, cigarettes, or such costs what it does look no further than taxes. You can tax the businesses all you want but you same folks are the first ones to complain about how much goods and services cost."

With this point, you are addressing excise taxes. These do indeed get passed on to consumers, as they are meant to. Yet, there is no logical way to pass on income taxes to consumers. Profit is profit. If a company wants more profit, they need to do more business.

Besides, income tax on businesses only comes out of profit, not revenue. Therefor, my point remains the same. Yet, I will try to clarify.

If the tax goes back into effect, business will still be able to choose how this tax will effect them. They can choose to pay the additional 3% on their profit. Or, they can invest in their business, and invest in the economy, to avoid it.

I agree with you that the latter should be done. I would rather see the money work in the private sector instead of going in as tax. Yet, if a business decides it wants to slow down, it should have to pay the taxes.

This is a pretty good trade off because if a business has been growing and investing over the years, they would have payed less taxes in the past. Now that they're doing well enough to make and keep profit, it is time for them to pay in like everyone else. Otherwise, they are simply removing money from the economy.

It's pathetic--they only argue for taxes when they are not being required to pay them. Take from the most productive, most efficient market segment and funnel it into the least productive, least efficient market segment......somehow this makes perfect sense to them.......

I find it truly amazing that there are people who argue FOR taxes.

Hey, andre: How about that latest Gallup poll?

fairness attempt #1 - everyone pays the same AMOUNT in taxes. No, that's not "fair", some people make more than others.
fairness attempt #2 - everyone pays the same PERCENT in taxes. No, that's not fair either! Basic needs should be met, without having to pay any taxes.
fairness attempt #3 - same as #2, but we let everyone take a standard deduction from their income to account for basic needs. Still not fair! Those "rich people should pay more!
fairness attempt #4 - Okay, let's make it "progressive". The more you make, the higher the percent you pay. And keep the standard deductions, the earned income tax credits, and all the other goodies to help out the poor.
So our income tax system is like #4. Not only do wealthier indivicuals pay more dollars than the less wealthier, they pay a higher PERCENT of their income. The more you make, the less of your own money you get to keep, in terms of PERCENT.
This being so, can someone explain to me how it can possibly be "fair", in any real sense of the word, to attempt to target a tax increase to higher income levels, when the whole system is already set up against them?
If you buy into class warfare sentiment, you are truly the type of person that politicians love. It's just too easy for them to use the same old cliches over and over and over, and then sit back and watch people nodding away. Yep, let's soak those darned rich people! That will solve the problem!
Then these same people sit around later and wonder why they got layed off.

"In my view this is no time to do anything that could be jarring to a fragile recovery," said Rep. Gerry Connolly of Virginia, a first-term Democrat. Look Germancaveguy even a first term democrat can figure out how damaging taxes are to the economy! And he's part of the slow group.

"they [taxes] have little effect on current investments." I am speechless. This is on par with, "it depends on what the meaning of the word is is...."

"Since taxes for businesses occur after business expenses are deducted, they have little effect on current investments. Sure, if a business owner gets taxed on profits, they will not have as much money to save for future investment. However, with the economy the way it is, this country needs more investment now." (pulling my hair out) Did you proof read this before you posted it? You are arguing against yourself! Or maybe you think government is the vehicle to "invest in the country?" If you believe that, I simply cannot respond to you because you are in a whole other universe. And by the way, business does not pay taxes, they simply pass it on to consumers. If you ever wonder why gas, cigarettes, or such costs what it does look no further than taxes. You can tax the businesses all you want but you same folks are the first ones to complain about how much goods and services cost.

future, not only were you completely wrong on the amount of sub-S filers you are wrong on the tax level. For single rate the increase begins at 200 grand.

Now that you have figured the "mean" average of sole proprietor fillings do you really think the average is what all of those people made? Since many of those fillers reported negative income your conclusion is on par with your other assumptions.

jv92- Just want to make a point about your comment "taxing those with capital is destructive and suppresses investment".

Since taxes for businesses occur after business expenses are deducted, they have little effect on current investments. Sure, if a business owner gets taxed on profits, they will not have as much money to save for future investment. However, with the economy the way it is, this country needs more investment now.

For any business, if they anticipate making $200,000 dollars or more in profit, they could easily avoid the tax Obama is proposing should expire. They do so by investing their money in a tax deductible way. They could easily do this by either buying products for their business, or by hiring more employees.

Considering the government is the entity that provides the environment and services that allow the business to be conducted, it only makes sense that businesses should have to pay taxes. In fact, they have a much more favorable system in which they must calculate how much they owe in taxes.

It is better for the economy for them to take that $532 and spend it at a store, put gas in their tank, go to the Dells, donate it to the Rock Aqua Jays fireworks fund for all I care. Collect that money in taxes and it is gone. It will not have the effect it could have if still in the private sector. Also many of the decision makers make way more than 1,000,000 per year. Good for them. Their tax increase is way beyond $95,000. You will of course say "well they can afford it." OK, what if they make 10 mil? That's almost 1 million in taxes more. That could be a manufacturing plant in Janesville and roughly 300 jobs. 1 mil is a good amount of start up money for a new location or to fund an expansion. But according to you it's better to give it to the government in the form of taxes where 1 dollar in will definitely not equal 1 dollar out. Maybe you think we should use that money for stimulus? Take it from those who use it to expand their private businesses and create jobs, give it to the government so they can "stimulate" the economy. Yeah, that's worked out well.

Gouge?

"Under Obama's plan, taxpayers making between $200,000 and $500,000 would face an average tax increase of $532, according to the analysis. Those making from $500,000 to $1 million would average an increase of a little more than $9,800. Taxpayers making more than $1 million would average an increase of just over $95,000."

In the case of a small business, "income" equals net income, or profit. This is what you are arguing against.

I don't know how to resolve your issue with "hyperbole." As irritating as it may be to you, people with money make decisions that resonate through our local, state, and national economy. Yes their resources matter. If we make it difficult for them to invest, they won't.

And a completely different time in history. Now money is much more mobile, more global. I don't even need to get on the phone now. I just get on the computer and in one click move millions out of WI or the USA if need be. We have to be globally competitive. We are not. And what do you want? You want to gouge the very people who can create a job for you or SarahB1 or Steve Knox or dozens of other usernames on this website. Its heartbreaking to read these stories of unemployment but in this environment, taxing those with capital is destructive and suppresses investment, no other way around it. If the economy is flying high, yes businesses will not complain because the economy is rolling. Now is not the time.

jv92, small businesses owners didn't "leave for greener pastures" the last time the tax rates were the same for the rich, during the Clinton administration. In fact, job growth was pretty large.

Really, the hyperbole among you conservatives is getting pretty thick.

You all keep up with this class warfare BS. The people with money and the ability to make a job for you will leave for greener pastures. You will be belly aching even more. If I have to listen to one more of you talk about how many jobs they have applied for out of one side of their mouth and then talk about how the "rich" need to pay more out the other side, I think I am going to vomit. Just go ahead keep taking money from those evil rich and see where it gets you.

Omg. I just realized I suck at math. I meant ten times that amount. And I can't believe nobody caught that. Pheewwwww. :x

SuperDave - Because they make more. End of story. You make more, you pay more in taxes. That's how it should be. It just makes sense. If I made 250K a year, I sure as hell wouldn't be whining about paying less than 50 bucks a month extra. Someone who earns 25K a year shouldn't be taxed the same as someone who makes FIVE TIMES that amount. It's just silliness.

spunk: If it's only fifty bucks, why not tax EVERYONE fifty bucks more? After all, it's ONLY FIFTY BUCKS!
This kind of thinking leads to economic collapse, a la Greece.
I LOVE the way people say, "it's ONLY FIFTY BUCKS" when they're talking about someone ELSE'S fifty bucks. Hypocrite.

916WI, please thank your brother for the food stamps. Good one.

Futurerichguy--10 to 12 hours a day in the field--not including what he takes home with him--the estimating, the payroll, having to take phone calls and put out fires at all hours of the day/night--yeah, I guess you could compare someone working four 10 hour shifts stocking shelves to that........Just be thankful there are people out there running businesses like that--paying for your food stamps and rent assistance--at least for the time being.....

No Spunkmeyer, your spin of my post is inaccurate.

billnewbie - so you think that businesses making $250k a year are gonna start closing up shop and the country is gonna go belly-up over an extra 50 bucks a month? seriously?
that sounds like fear tactics to me.

916WI, there are many people that work 10-12 hours per day who make a whole lot less then $250K per year. Besides, this is not about the goevernment "taking more", it's about reverting back to our tax code pre-GW. Remember 1999? Was your brother complaining then?

My brother's construction/contracting company eclipses the $250K limitation. The guy spends 10-12 hours a day in the field and his office, and then takes work home on top of it. He currently has 6 or 7 employees. I talked to him over the weekend. Between the costs of state taxes, federal taxes, unemployment insurance, health care expenses, licensing and bonding expense, etc. he wonders why he even bothers. I really don't think he's far from shutting down the construction side, laying off his employees and just becoming a general contractor who just pushes paper. I hope he does--it would be a lot less stressful for him although his employees would obviously be without a job....I just don't understand how the government can justify taking more from those that work the hardest and are the most productive to give to those that work the least and are the least productive? It will be a great day when Obama is sent packing......

The main issue right now is jobs. Private sector jobs, not government jobs that are a drain on the economy. Tax increases targeted at the folks who own businesses and use the money they earn to hire people is a pure folly in this economic reality we face. Those who support these increases do so on the grounds that justice demands that he rich pay more. These tax increases are the equivalent of cutting off our collective noses to spite our collective faces. So should we let the pending tax increases stand and make all those rich people pay their "fair share"? If we do, we had best be prepared to increase unemployment benefits for yet another 99 weeks and hope that the new tax revenue will help pay for some of the expense of those UC benefits.

Many farmers in the local area have estates over 1M. Why should the govt be able to take what has taken generations to build up.

futurerichguy, if this was about money going to roads, I would be all for it. But you and I both now that it is not. It is about taking money that is not rightfully theirs and giving it to individuals who have not rightfully earned it. Period. What right does Nancy Pelosi have to rent an office building for 18000 dollars per month of taxpayer money. That's over 216,000 per YEAR just for rent. I want some fiscal responsibility from these bozos first

jcommon, what right do you have to drive on tax payer funded roads?

RAF, not sure where you got that figure. I checked out the irs web-site and as you say 22M sole proprietor returns were filed in 2008, but the total receipts of sole proprietorships in 2008 was $1,324B, which means an average of about $59,000 per return. Besides, the issue is the $250K threshold, not $200K. The following article points out that sole proprietorships make up 84% of businesses with gross receipts below $25K.
http://www.nuwireinvestor.com/articles/s...

"At some point, one extra dollar of tax breaks the camel's back, no matter how much someone makes. Moreover, taxing the "rich" more, hurts everyone else! Doesn't hurt the rich! (much)"

There is no evidence of that, unless you count the fiction of Ayn Rand as reality. Tinkle Down economics has already been proven false. There was no economic boom after the Bush tax cuts were inacted, and there won't be a bust when that high income marginal tax rate is increased 3% to it's previous level.

future: I don't mean to "imply" anything! Just trying to give you some real-world examples of everyday people who make obscene (to you) amounts of money from their hard work. As RAF pointed out, there are millions of tax returns filed showing large (to you), sole proprietorship incomes to support my point. I am amazed that you think this is such a rare thing. And again, it's important to realize that you are falling for phony class warfare arguments. Don't let yourself think this way. The reason politicians continually throw out "hard" numbers "no individual making less than $125000, or $250000 for a married couple" is because they know the numbers: most people make less than that, so they figure if "those" people (who can obviously afford to pay a little more.......rriightttt???) get a tax increase, well it will only hurt those darn rich people. And that statement is INcorrect, as explained in my previous comments.

jcommon, are you trying to argue that the government can't collect taxes?

"Under Obama's plan, taxpayers making between $200,000 and $500,000 would face an average tax increase of $532, according to the analysis. Those making from $500,000 to $1 million would average an increase of a little more than $9,800. Taxpayers making more than $1 million would average an increase of just over $95,000."

This is what Republicans are arguing against.

I'll ask this simple question. So called "rich people" earned this money, what right does the gov't have to take it when it is NOT the governments money to begin with?

Never ceases to amaze me how little people who think they now things get them wrong.

There were ~22 million tax returns reporting sole proprietor income in 2008. 34% of those business paid taxes on income above 200,000 dollars.

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/...

SuperDave, the only problem I have with your argument is that you seem to imply that hair salon owners, bar owners, grocery store owners, etc. make over $250K per year. First of all, the age of the mom and pop store is over. Most of these entities are national if not globabl chains, or at least owned by one. The actual mom and pop stores and businesses make no where near $250K per year. That's actual earnings, not revenue. The only sole proprietorships that have a chance of making that kind of money are private practice doctors, dentists, lawyers, etc. Of course even these private practices are becoming more rare. Bottom line is the Republicans act as though their protecting "small businesses", when in actuality their protecting high income earners, such as the liberal Holywood elite you refer to, and high net worth individuals, such as Paris Hilton and the like.

Spunk: You are right :)
But pls read my previous posts to get a little perspective. At some point, one extra dollar of tax breaks the camel's back, no matter how much someone makes. Moreover, taxing the "rich" more, hurts everyone else! Doesn't hurt the rich! (much)

SuperDave - I make a little less than 30 grand a year. So yes, those making $250K a year ARE rich. And I'm pretty sure they can afford.. and not even blink an eye at I'm sure.. paying an extra $532 a year. It's less than $50 bucks a month.

How about your neighborhood bar owner? If it's a well-run place, the owner could easily make more than $250K/year. Does that make her "rich"???

First of all, who are you calling a Republican?!?!?
Regarding my examples, again I have no idea how much specific businesses earn. I am not a tax attorney, accountant, or government agent, and if I was I could not disclose that information. How about a medium size contracting firm? A bakery? A popular pizza parlor, use your imagination for pete's sake!! Future, I get the impression you have very limited social contacts and perhaps that is why these new ideas are so foreign to you. The fact is that small businesses create more new jobs than big business! And again, don't fall for the class envy nonsense! We're all in this together, don't let them pit one group against another, whether it's income, gender, or race. "They" say they're for equality, and yet seem to do everything in their power to ensure unequal treatment.

I find it interesting that Republicans use the plight of the small business owner as a justification for lower taxes, but when I ask for an example of a small business owner who makes more than $250K per year, I get examples like Woodmans and "one of the larger car dealers in town". If you consider those "small businesses", then maybe that's where our ideological differences lie.

re: your challenge...I am sure there are many thousands of small business owners throughout the country who have over $250K in annual income and $1M in net worth. Sounds pretty rich to you doesn't it? And many folks in that category lose it all in an economy like we have today. I can't give you an example without making assumptions since I am not privy to their numbers. I could take a few guesses - think Woodmans, or one of the larger car dealers in town.
And yes, a 3% increase can cause a business to fail! Keep in mind this is not just a 3% tax, it's a 3% increase in the taxes already being paid. Think about it. If you pay x amount of dollars for car insurance (just one examnple) per year, and it goes up 3% above inflation, no big deal right! But if it continues to go up 3% year after year, there comes a time when you can no longer afford to pay it! Even though it only went up by 3% each year. It's called compound interest, or interest on interest. If you've ever seen it graphed, you know that the curve starts out almost horizontal and quickly approches vertical - in most real-world situations it is not sustainable.

It seems like it is really well-defined when you see hard numbers and realize you are not the target of the increase. But those numbers are always subject to change. When Clinton wa president, the Democrats tried to tax the "rich" so broadly that their definition cut deeply into the ranks of the middle class. That is what happens, because 1) there are not enough truly rich (Gates, Buffett, etc) to make a difference - they could be taxed at 100% and it wouldn't be enough, let alone make you feel better, and 2) the truly rich can hide and delay income and assets (both legally and otherwise), or turn non-deductible expenses into deductible ones, to protect their property, and who can blame them? They react rationally to any changes in the tax landscape, just like anyone would, but also they have the means to hire the best tax attorneys, accountants, financial planners, etc. to do so!
future: You are buying into the class warfare argument - don't let them sucker you in! The poorer you are, the more likely you will be negatively effected by "tax cuts for the rich". And besides, what about your screen name? Don't you want to be better off in the future than you are now? Will you feel like it's okay to soaked by a tax increase then?

SuperDave, in tax policy the "rich" are very well defined. This political argument is addressing the $250K marginal tax in terms of income, and $1M threshold in terms of estate tax. You for some reason threw out the occupations of beauty salon and hardware store owner. I would challenge you to give me an example of a beauty salon owner or hardware store owner who have over $250K in annual income and $1M in net worth. On top of that, how would increasing the marginal income tax above $250K per year by 3% negatively impact that business? How would implementing an estate tax on estates greater than $1M impact those businesses?

future: I know that. I am asking people to have empathy - to put yourself in another's situation. First of all, realize that sweeping terms like "the rich" are all relative. Your idea of "rich" is different from another's idea. For example, I think we can all agree that Bill Gates is "rich". But is the guy that owns the local hardware store rich? Is a local woman who owns a hair salon rich? How about your neighbor that has a regular job but seems to always keep her house in good condition, drive a new car, etc.? How about your boss' boss, who you assume must make a lot more than you simply because his position is two levels up from you?
That being said, you have probably observed that, as one's income rises, one's expenditures tend to rise right along with it. So, while a "rich" person won't miss a meal because of a tax hike, it can still hurt in the sense that it's an unexpected change in the rules of the game - a disruption to the status quo, a hit to the budget. And when the rich (or anyone) starts to cut back on spending, that hurts the poor and middle class.

SuperDave, why do I have a problem with your comment? You said, "listen to their stories (the rich) and hear them express how it feels to have their burden constantly increased." When there are people who are struggling to meet their basic needs, comments like that typically don't resonate with me.

SarahB1 - Those that have money willed to them. Which is a majority of people at some-point, whether it be thousands or millions. Where do you think the money should go if not to the family?
-
I have also worked hard, and I'm not rich. Probably never will be. For those that are, good for them. Many of them worked hard to, some of them didn't. Oh well, I have still have a great life and some things they probably don't have.

"My point was that this issue involves the EXTENSION of a "tax cut" ... one that we, obviously, cannot afford right now."
-
Good, then you will have no problem at all paying back the bush tax cut you have enjoyed now for 9 years. Time to step up to the plate or crawl away in shame....

Sarah, you'll be happy to know that wealth does not automatically equate to happiness. Go into any country club and look around. Then go to the park and look at the people there. Odds are, the people in the park are poorer, and happier, than those in the country club.

And btw, it's not the "rich" that "hold up the world", its the productive. That's the metaphor.

future: Please express your problem with what I wrote. And sorry to hear about your digestive difficulties.

spark: It's not pure jealousy. Mixed, perhaps, but not pure. My point was that this issue involves the EXTENSION of a "tax cut" ... one that we, obviously, cannot afford right now. The continuation of it will cost $4 trillion over the next decade. I can understand different viewpoints on the issue, but that doesn't mean that I have to agree with them. (And, I am sure, many of you will argue that the taxes never should have been in place to begin with.) As far as others with more money than me, I do hold some negative feelings toward those with millions of dollars that they only have because it was willed to them. Is it unfair of me to feel this way? Probably. But I have also worked hard all of my life, earned three college degrees (including a master's degree) but have never been wealthy. Like I wrote, just for one month, I would like to tackle the problems of the super-wealthy. I don't doubt that there are others who feel the same way. Meanwhile, I need to go cut down some shrubs and count my blessings. Have a nice holiday, everyone.

futurerichguy - So they're not to enjoy what they have? Isn't that what most strive for? That's what makes you puke? Could you explain the goal of your user name again?

Super Dave, your comment made me puke a little in my mouth. Compassion for the rich...puke, the rich hold the world up with their shoulders like Atlas...puke, the rich buy boats...puke, the rich take trips...puke.

You explained that very well SuperDave. I could not agree more.

Sarah- no offense, but a comment like that sounds like pure jealousy that someone makes more than you. That is not the point. The Government wants their money. It's not there's. What are you gaining from it? That is a socialist thinking.

I liked the comment: " 'In my view this is no time to do anything that could be jarring to a fragile recovery,' said Rep. Gerry Connolly of Virginia, a first-term Democrat."
Even a Democrat knows that tax increases are jarring to the economy.
This whole "tax cuts for the rich" debate is going to bite the poor where it hurts. If those making big bucks are hit with a tax increase in 2011, I predict the economy will worsen - unemployment will go up, the stock market will go down.
Sarah - if you have always made a moderate income, it's hard to understand how the "rich" live. It seems like they should be able to absorb any increase in taxes. But there comes a point where they have to make economic decisions, for example whether to buy that new boat, whether to take that trip, whether to hire a worker. And the brunt of those decisions affect those in the lower and middle classes - the people who make the boats, the people who work at the hotels and restaurants, the person looking for a job.
Those wanting to constantly increase taxes seek to pit us against one another, please don't buy into that simplistic mentality. If you ever develop a friendship with someone who is "rich", or if you have a child that becomes a doctor, lawyer, or government appointee :) listen to their stories and hear them express how it feels to have their burden constantly increased. We've reached the point where Atlas is indeed beginning to shrug - as explained above, that is not good news for the rest of us.

Like you said, "What's $532 to me if I am earning between $200,000 and $500,000?"
If it is nothing, then why should the government get it? They didn't earn it, yet the government wants it, why?

Sarah if its no big deal than you pay it...

I am always amazed how some are so willing to give away other people's money while never willing to part with their own.

PER THE ARTICLE: " ... Under Obama's plan, taxpayers making between $200,000 and $500,000 would face an average tax increase of $532, according to the analysis. Those making from $500,000 to $1 million would average an increase of a little more than $9,800. Taxpayers making more than $1 million would average an increase of just over $95,000."

I should be so lucky to face the struggles of the upper class. I know that I will be attacked for my so-called Socialist thinking here, but for crying outloud, these folks can afford to lose the tax cut. What's $532 to me if I am earning between $200,000 and $500,000? That McDonald's double-cheeseburger is still only a buck no matter how rich I am.