KennethJ

If they followed Bill Clinton's tax plan then they could raise more revenue every year and balance the budget to boot..But that's to easy for them and they don't want to admit Clinton was the best at being President regardless of what he done outside the Presidency.

jpenergysbcglobalnet

The property of this country is absolutely concentred in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards... I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on."--Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, October 28,1785. ME 19:17, Papers 8:682 http://teachingamericanhistory.org/libra... WASHINGTON - When President Bush signed legislation Wednesday to extend lower tax rates for capital gains and dividend income through 2010, he suggested that his tax cuts are behind a surge of new revenue into the Treasury, and implied that it's enough to offset the revenue lost by these reductions. At a ceremony o*n the White House lawn, Bush said his tax cuts had helped the economy grow, "which means more tax revenue for the federal Treasury."That's just not true. A host of studies, some of them written by economists who served in the Bush administration, have concluded that tax reductions mean less money for the Treasury.The cuts Bush extended Wednesday will cost the Treasury an estimated $70 billion over five years. They may help spur economic growth, but they still lose more revenue than they generate. And unless they're matched by lower federal spending, they worsen federal budget deficits.To be sure, tax revenues grew by $274 billion in 2005, a 15 percent increase over the previous year, and receipts are growing this year too.But does that mean the president's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts generated enough additional revenue to pay for themselves?"No," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin. He was the chief economist for Bush's Council of Economic Advisers in 2001 and 2002, then the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office until late last year.Holtz-Eakin said other factors were behind the surge in tax revenues. o*ne is that revenues rise as the population and the economy grow. Revenues would have risen in the post-2001 economic recovery with or without tax reductions, just as they did in the `90s.Treasury Secretary John Snow conceded Tuesday that the much-touted tax cuts for capital gains and dividend income don't drive today's strong economy.Asked by Knight Ridder if the tax reductions paid for themselves, Snow acknowledged that they don't. He also acknowledged that economic growth and stock market gains were strong in the late 1990s, when the capital-gains tax stood at 20 percent and dividend income was taxed at rates as high as 38.6 percent.Bush and Congress cut both to 15 percent in 2003; the legislation that the president signed Wednesday extended that rate through 2010.Only politicians can spew such crazy talk and people want to believe, take in less money spend the same or more and you will have more money, or it will make money appear. Think people why do he have record deficits? what happens when you do this at home? is this nation your home? Well think!No wonder they think we are stupid

Becca

I believe tax cuts do increase revenues. All these folks that want to tax the rich man are crazy. They need to give them a hug. They supply jobs and let the free market work it's magic and we can get straight.

JohnF

The rich pay billions in taxes that go to support many social programs the government puts in place. These social programs of course don't work very well, but it's easier to tax and spend and not really do anything, while giving the illusion of doing something.Thing is, it's many of the rich that employ the rest of us. Tax them more and they can't buy new equipment and less people either get hired, or those who have jobs will have hours cut or lose their jobs entirely. Not a good idea.

NoahH

In real life, no rich guy ever went belly up paying taxes. Also, the top bracket doesn't pay the top tax from the first dollar. The progresive tax rate goes up in five stages. Most people pay their federal taxes at the bottom two rates. A few more pay at the next two rates and only a few of the 'super-rich' pay at the top 26% rate. But wait.....there's more. Generally people in the top rates bring in most or at least a good part of their income from investments.....and investments are taxed at the much lower capital gains rate. Some wealthy people are heavily invested in municiple bonds which are tax free at both the federal and state level. But wait.....there's more! The 'rich' are showered with tax deductions that few wage-earning Americans could even dream of. This lowers their taxible income by a third, so in the end they pay less than the full amount if these deductions weren't in place. But wait....there'seven more! FICA taxes on earned income stops azt $93,000. Since many of the super rich make more than that in a week their contributions as a percent of income is less than the blue collar shlub who pays on his total income. I also get a kick out of this 'death tax' BS. The super rich have their income and property deposited to a 'trust'....the trust 'owns' all the assets, the trustee can spend the money as he or she likes, but when the trustee passes the moola and property stays in thec trurst and the next trustee, usually a family member can then use the trust money tax free. So, don't feel sorry for the rich.....they have advantages you may only wish for. (I have no idea how all those 'f'' got there.) ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff