[Double_Take]

This graph gives us a very clear picture of what is happening in America. The right graph is the important one. The top 5% control 72% of the financial assets. The top 10% control 84% of the financial assets.

Middle class income is completely stagnent, middle class debt has been increasing for decades. I am all for equality in taxation, but right now its not equal at all.

Income on stocks is taxed at a mere 15%. Since the top 10% own ~81% of stocks it is unfair to tax this income at a rate below what the middle class would pay on regular income. If you really want to remove the progressive tax then all income must be taxed at the same level.

When R's passed the tax cut it was unfunded. All of the tax cuts have added to the deficit. If you call yourself a fiscal conservative then extending the tax cuts or making them perminant must be offset by reducing spending. Since the tax cuts for families making over $250000 will cost this country $700,000,000,000 over 10 years where will the money come from? If you have a solution for that, then I am all for the tax cuts, but good luck finding a free $70B a year.



Source of graphs

 

[Double_Take]

Your analogy is incorrect. There never was a tax cut. Once the initial rate was exceeded, everything afterward was a hike. This was a reduction in that hike and not extending it is another hike because it moves opposite of the initial rate.

:cheers:

Regardless of how you look at it, the spending must be balanced by the income. Reduce income, reduce spending....

Your statement shows how nothing ever changes. These were exactly the same points being made by the Trotskyites and Marxists in 1917 when the "proletariat" decided to confiscate everything the rich had and kill them. Something like 30 million people were killed by their own government in the next 50 years. This sinister hate for those who have accumulated wealth can lead to very bad things. It starts with the assumption that economics is a zero sum game, which it is not. The very rich can prosper greatly while the middle class also prospers. In fact, the middle class cannot prosper if the rich do not since most jobs are made by the rich. Like I said earlier, shove the rich down and see what happens to the middle class average lifestyle. It will go down.

There is a big difference between your example and what I am talking about. I am saying that since a significant amount of wealth and assets (stocks, bonds, mutual funds etc) are taxed at a lower rate than normal income. Since the rich own almost all of these assets they are being taxed unfairly low when compaired to a middle income family making the same amount of money in the form of a pay check. For example, if someone makes $50k a year, they get taxed ~25%. If a rich guy makes $50k after the sale of stock, he pays ~15%. Both are forms of income, why are they taxed at different levels?

 

[Double_Take]

Because tax law is routinely used to encourage behavior that is good for the overall economy. Investment is extremely good for the economy, so the government has decided to encourage it with a lower tax rate. There have been eternal arguments over that and always will be. Same for mortgage interest deduction. Why do homeowners get off easy on that? Because government wants to encourage home ownership for the many good things (construction jobs, social stability, etc. ) it brings to society.

I can make the same argument about a progressive tax. A progressive tax gives a break to the people with less money to encourage them to spend money. The economy is driven by middle and lower class spending, putting more money in their pockets will encourage spending and help the overall economy. There are 2 sides to every argument.

Exatly how do you "fund" an adjustment in taxation? If you must fund a tax cut does this mean you unfund a tax hike?:huh:

You dont fund a tax cut necessarily. My first comment was directed towards budget hawks. If we are to balance the budget and reduce the deficit the government needs to spend less than it brings in. If tax revenue decreases, we must decrease spending by at least that much. Its not funding a tax cut, but rather finding expenses that can be removed.