Some thoughts on taxation

I am on several message boards, one of which is my favorite. There was one discussion about coservative versus liberal politics that covered idealogy on taxation. Here is what was posted and my replies to the fellow member of the forum.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me that the people who make the most money should pay the most taxes. Does anyone have a problem with that?

One of my objections to the Bush administration is that they cut taxes, then went on a spending spree like they were Tip O'Neil on speed. Does anyone really think that spending more than what's brought in is either right or practical?

And the president stands in front of friendly crowds, blathering about "sacrifices" for the war. He's the only president who ever cut taxes during wartime, and he did it for people who were doing just fine without the cuts. Where's the sacrifice in that? Or the sense? I seriously resent having my children and grandchildren stuck with the bill for this administration's profligate ways

My reply is in blue. Quotes are in red.


Quote: (Originally Posted by troy2000)
Sounds pretty reasonable to me that the people who make the most money should pay the most taxes. Does anyone have a problem with that?

Yes, I do. As a percentage of income, they pay more in taxation than the bottom income earners. That is a problem, in my opinion, and grossly unfair. If the rate was more "flat", they would still pay more in actual dollars, but not in proportion to income. That would be fair.

Quote:
One of my objections to the Bush administration is that they cut taxes, then went on a spending spree like they were Tip O'Neil on speed. Does anyone really think that spending more than what's brought in is either right or practical?

There, you have the big issue that really incenses many conservatives. It shows the divergence between so called Republicans inside D.C. and those who elected them. Spending has been one of the biggest disappointments I have seen with the current administration and Congress. There are other issues, as well.

Quote:
and he did it for people who were doing just fine without the cuts. Where's the sacrifice in that? Or the sense? I seriously resent having my children and grandchildren stuck with the bill for this administration's profligate ways

That part is just plain inaccurate. The tax cut was 1. minimal and 2. broad based. It was not for the well off exclusively, as was characterized by the left and the media. Tax cuts increase tax revenue EVERY TIME it is tried. This was no exception. JFK knew this and did it in the 60's. Reagan knew it and did it in the 80's. Bush knows it and did it in the 2000's. His tax cuts didn't go far enough, however.

The profligate ways, as you put it, is relevent to spending, but not the minor tax cuts. Sorry, but it is econ 101.

In regards to the idea that the "well off" not needing tax cuts, consider the following basic truth. The wealthy are the ones who hire people. Poor people do not. When their money is more heavily taxed and therefore not available for business growth, then they will not be investing more into their businesses, hiring more people, buying new equipment, increasing existing wages, etc. When less money is sent to the governemnt in the form of taxation, more capital is available for business. More business capital means business growth. Business growth means that more tax money is generated by more employees and more commerce. Since the economy is not a static or a "zero sum gain", the resultant tax revenues actually increase.

I have never gotten a job from a poor man.