Tax cuts

[TeePee4Prez]

Simple question, but here seems to be a lot of animosity regarding this issue.  Of course I want more money in my pocket, but when there'a a deficit, tax cuts are a bottom priority.  I also feel the cuts were skewed largely to the top brackets (namely top BRACKET) being from 39.6 TO 35% while smaller groups got a much smaller margin.  Newsweek did an escellent articel on this and said that someone getting a million dollars would essentially get a brand new BMW every year.  

Another crock of BS are the reductions in capital gains and dividends (though I have a proposal on that).  Why should "unearned" income be taxed less than "earned" income.  One argument I can give to the GOP regarding dividends is the concept of "double taxation" and they're very right.  My solution would be instead of a corporate tax a retained earnings tax of say 15% flat while dividends and capital gains will be taxed at the individual's marginal rate.  I know I've championed progressive taxation in previous posts, but some firms are much greater than others and employ a lot of people.  I feel this is a fair and balanced proposal helping business and making sure executives pay their dues.

Another one is the estate tax.  I feel it should not be eliminated, but the exemption should be MUCH hihger and indexed to inflation to say $3-5 million for now.  A lot of upper middle class estates fall into this category and this was only meant to supermillionaires.

Lastly, the AMT is wrongly targeting the middle class.  Higher income individuals somehow dodge this burden; however, middle class taxpayers especially in high local income tax ares like most of the NE Corridor get trapped into this.  The exemption also needs to be fixed on this one as well.  

[TeePee4Prez]

Well, I agree that the government should learn how to balance the budget.

The problem with your philosophy is that government helped you to earn your money. The services that are provided by government and society helped enable you to earn your money. If there was anarchy and no government at all, you wouldn't earn as much money as you do. Thus, it is only fair that you would help pay for the system that enables you and others to make money in the first place.

You added to my point quite nicely and I didn't get the time to mention it.  To all you GOPers in here, what pays for roads and interstates to transport goods for you to make money?  What pays for education so you don't have idiots working for you?  What defends your profits from foreign attacks?  TAXES!!!!  I still feel those that benefit from the aforementioned things should pay a higher rate not only to help those needy, but for their own sake as well.  It's not Communism, but common sense!  

[TeePee4Prez]

Excuse me, but what is wrong with all of you?

Two pages of posts, and no one has mentioned the fact that this was the first time in history that America has cut txes in a time of war.  Economics arguments aside, until the Third World War is won, there should be no tax cuts or spending increases that are not directly related to victory in the war.  All tax cuts and spending increases that have occurred in the last three years had ought to be repealed, and every penny sent to fund the defense of America.

I agree with you to a point, but we need education and infrastructure increases as well.  Bush's tax cuts were quite boneheaded and desensitized.  I love how the GOPers are touting them and a war at the same time.  It makes no sense.  I was an independent when I registered in 98, but 2002 I realized BUsh is a moron and I became a Democrat!

[TeePee4Prez]

i agree with obepo somewhat - the interstate highway system did destroy walkable cities - but surburbanization allowed for massive homeownership and wealth (people invested in homes instead of paying rent in the cities) and helped create the middle class.
-but i think the solution is not tax-cuts but some urban planning - i'm am so sick of these mcmansion communities and strip malls being built all over NJ.

i also agree with an earlier post - the argument about small vs. big government is really a simplistic one - its really about what govt should and should not do and how they should do it.

im inclined to take a more socialist position on govt functions - meaning that the more government does (in a democracy) the more equal control the population has over the functioning of society - leaving it all up to the market is a system of one dollar, one vote - and i dont have a lot of dollars.  
while welfare handouts are a bad idea - public universities, public trans, national health care etc. i think are good ideas whose benefits cant be individualized - in other words the education, environmental, and health standards of the entire nation are important, they are collective goods and should be paid collectively -everyone benefits whether they use these things or not.

Are you Jim Dowd formerly of the Wild?  I know he was from Brick, NJ.