The choice is clear: if the Federal government is going to meet its commitments, the 2%

[indepat]

will have bear an equitable portion of the tax burden for the first time in 30 years. Or we can stay the course that has got us to where we are today. ;)

[taught_me_patience]

1. Actually, everybody will have to pay more

and cuts will have to be made. Taxing the top 2% will not close a 1T budget deficit. It's a small step in the right direction, though.

[dkf]

2. Yup. We all think we will be immune from higher taxes cuz we can tax the rich.

That is so unrealistic it is laughable. It's another sign of the lack of seriousness of the debate.

[doc03]

4. I agree I think all of us have to be adults for a change and

accept the fact we have to pay higher taxes or drastically cut government services. Nearly half of Americans pay no income tax.

[indepat]

18. And the Warren Bs send a smaller percentage of their income to Uncle Sam that do their secretaries

;)

[FiveGoodMen]

6. Ending the wars would surely help

[taught_me_patience]

9. Ending the wars and cutting the military back should be step 1

completely agree.

[avaistheone1]

3. The tax cuts for the wealthy need to be rolled even further back.

Never mind just rolling back the Bush tax cuts, rollback the Reagan tax cuts too.

[dkf]

5. You could tax over $250,000 100% and that doesn't balance the budget.

Now what?

[avaistheone1]

7. Are you kidding? Rolling back these tax cuts will make a huge difference.

It could potentially increase tax receipts by approximately 30%. Check out this chart. Those tax cuts are costing more than the Iraq-Afghan wars, the economic downturn, and TARP added together.

[dkf]

8. That is if you remove all the tax cuts to all Americans. The top 2% won't do it.

[avaistheone1]

12. If you just did just the top 2% --- then 40% of these tax cuts would be recovered that is HUGE.

These figures don’t even count in taxes. The $1.3 trillion Bush tax cut of 2001 was a huge windfall for people earning over $500,000 a year. They got about 40 percent of its benefits. The Bush tax cut of 2003 was even better for high rollers. Those with net incomes of about $1 million got an average tax cut of $90,000 a year. Yet taxes on the typical middle-income family dropped just $217. Many lower-income families, who still paid payroll taxes, got nothing back at all.

And, again, nothing trickled down.


http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Robert-Reich-s-Blog/2010/0922/Who-should-get-the-tax-cut-The-rich-or-everyone-else



This certainly would be a pretty painless way of turning things around, especially considering the wealthy could endure the tax cuts without a problem.

[dkf]

15. Then why does reinstating cuts for under $250k cost 3.2 trillion and all cuts cost 4 trillion.

Those numbers don't add up.

[avaistheone1]

16. Link please.

[dkf]

20. Sorry...$3 trillion for $250k and under vs $3.7 trillion for all.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-09-21-taxcuts21_ST_N.htm

Now, Democrats in Congress, at the urging of President Obama, are poised to make at least 80% of those tax cuts permanent, at a cost of $3 trillion over the next decade. Up for debate is another $700 billion in tax cuts for the 2% of taxpayers with taxable income above $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples. Obama wants to raise taxes on income above those levels.
...

A: Extending all the tax cuts would cost nearly $3.7 trillion over 10 years, according to the Treasury Department. Obama's plan to let tax rates rise only on upper-income groups would reduce the cost by nearly $700 billion. That won't do much to a national debt that's at $13.4 trillion .

[exboyfil]

10. $200B from the Defense Budget for a start

A tax on all stock exchange activity

A single payer health insurance plan with a funding source (super Medicare). Roll all federal plans into it. Decouple insurance from employers etc. What should have happened before we ended up with this steaming pile. Current Federal spend on Health Care is $875B. Lots of room for improvement.

[dkf]

17. No need to decouple from employers if there is single payer.

That is the one big thing that makes sense Economically.

[starroute]

13. The middle class is already running on empty

Taxing people who are already driving 15 year old cars or putting off dental work because they just don't have the cash is no answer to anything. Neither is cutting services to people whose lives depend on those services.

The rhetoric of shared sacrifice is all very well when good times are followed by a sudden crisis, but when times are already bad for so many it's just rubbing salt in the wounds.

[avaistheone1]

14. Who should get the tax cut? The rich, or everyone else?

I think Robert Reich and most of us are agreeing with you.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Robert-Reich-s-Blog/2010/0922/Who-should-get-the-tax-cut-The-rich-or-everyone-else

[Scuba]

11. Capital gains and inheritance taxes need to be on the table too.

[indepat]

19. And the favorable taxation of dividends has been been welfare for the wealthy who own most of the

equity securities. To add insult to injury, this schmuck and those in his class pay income taxes on all his dividends (IRA-deferred savings) at his highest marginal rate, another example of a grossly inequitable tax scheme benefiting the most affluent, but not the middle/lower income schmucks. ;)

[exboyfil]

21. How about a French style wealth tax?