No. I am just going to say that people need to be aware of the second option: Cutting spending.
Considering half of you pretend that this option doesn't exist, i think it's safe to say that most people aren't informed about this.
I have said cut or freeze or limit the growth of spending, whatever is needed, ACROSS THE BOARD, repeatedly.
And that means the establishment right doesn't get to take defense off the table, which, btw, is already happening with the new GOP Congress.
AND raise taxes, btw. The new tax cut bill was simply insane; it dug the hole we're already in a trillion dollars deeper.
Oh.. I am right there with you in support of raising taxes...
Particularly on the 50% that pay no income taxes.... have them taxed at the same rate that the 'evil rich' pay on their upper levels of income... and dollars to donuts, I bet ya that you would have more people calling for more massive cuts in government spending and cutbacks on the government footprint... funny that usually when you have a stake in the game, that you scrutinize more
Say that's a pretty high horse you're riding there......
Neither one of those ideas is true. They rely on a cleverly selective reading of the facts. So does the 47 percent number.
Given that taxes are likely to be one of the big political issues of the next few years and maybe the biggest one its worth understanding who really pays what in taxes. Once you do, you can get a sense for our countrys fiscal options. How, in other words, will we be able to close the huge looming gap between the taxes we are scheduled to pay and the services we are scheduled to receive?
The answer is that tax rates almost certainly have to rise more on the affluent than on other groups. Over the last 30 years, rates have fallen more for the wealthy, and especially the very wealthy, than for any other group. At the same time, their incomes have soared, and the incomes of most workers have grown only moderately faster than inflation.
So a much greater share of income is now concentrated at the top of distribution, while each dollar there is taxed less than it once was. Its true that raising taxes on the rich alone cant come close to solving the long-term budget problem. The deficit is simply too big. But if taxes are not increased for the wealthy, the country will be left with two options.
It will have to raise taxes even more than it otherwise would on everybody else. Or it will have to find deep cuts in Medicare, Social Security, military spending and the other large (generally popular) federal programs.
All the attention being showered on 47 percent is ultimately a distraction from that reality.
The 47 percent number is not wrong. The stimulus programs of the last two years the first one signed by President George W. Bush, the second and larger one by President Obama have increased the number of households that receive enough of a tax credit to wipe out their federal income tax liability.
But the modifiers here federal and income are important. Income taxes arent the only kind of federal taxes that people pay. There are also payroll taxes and investment taxes, among others. And, of course, people pay state and local taxes, too.
Even if the discussion is restricted to federal taxes (for which the statistics are better), a vast majority of households end up paying federal taxes. Congressional Budget Office data suggests that, at most, about 10 percent of all households pay no net federal taxes. The number 10 is obviously a lot smaller than 47.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html
