This is a bit simplistic in perspective...no offense. If you study what is referred to as "supply-side" economics that all of our last three Republican presidents used as a so-called economic policy (and all three administrations causing havoc, to include the collapse of our savings and loans industry that President Clinton inherited if you are old enough to recall), you will perhaps learn that "Reaganomics" (a.k.a., "voodoo" economics) gives disproportionate (huge) tax cuts to the wealthiest billionaires in the hopes that these billionaires will then spend enough to have its positive effects "trickle on down" to the rest of society. Doesn't work...never did. Our middle-class all but disappeared, and they (along with small businesses) are the backbone of our economy. Why doesn't it work? Because not content with the tax cuts to their billions, the rich got greedier and wanted to expand their profit margins even more...so they began moving their companies (and the jobs those companies represented for the American worker) to places like India, where the average annual salary is $300/year. The taxes of which you are speaking are simply a RETURN to the tax rates they had during Clinton years---a time of tremendous prosperity and strength for this country. When Bill Clinton left after eight years as our President, he had a surplus of $271 billion; had paid down our deficit by $362 billion; and had created 2.2 million jobs---all squandered by the Bush/Cheney administration (Flynt, 2004). And what you don't seem to understand about taxes, which have been turned wrongly into a "dirty word" by propagandizing right-wingers, is that they are used to support all of the things Americans take for granted, but use or rely on every single day: roads, bridges, school systems, public school teachers, public parks, highways, etc...just a tremendous amount of return for the investment. And middle- to low-income families actually get their taxes back at the end of the year, especially if they have dependents. The money is not "taken away" from the wealthy actually, because the taxpayers continue to benefit from its use and our nation is made stronger, our revenues swell (which helps reduce our deficit---something that hurts everyone for generations to come)...all countries have a tax system, but what Democrats have always tried to do is make sure the tax system in the U.S. is fair. Right now, there is very little fairness, but President Obama is attempting to change that in ways that benefit consumers and working Americans, and the wealthy will still have their multiple homes, their yachts, their multi-million dollar bonuses, their private jets, and all the other perks that come with wealth---but they will now pay their fair share in taxes, as many of them are in favor of doing (Warren Buffett being one of them). An analogy you might understand is a large family with many children where the parents work to provide all of the basic luxuries and necessities, but the children each have to do their part too--they each have a contribution to make prorated by age and abilities so that the burdens of the household do not fall only on the shoulders of the ones already carrying the biggest portion of responsibility. The principle is similar. Rational moderation seems to be the key for balance.
· 1 decade ago