Many economists estimate that tax cuts replace about 40% of the revenues lost. The Reagan administration may have recouped, say, 45% (more than expected) but that still wouldn't pay for them.
You misunderstand me. Under the Reagan tax cuts, the total sum of money collected was higher than what was expected if those cuts had not been in place. More money, not just a smaller decrease than expected.
The Reagan and Bush, Jr. tax cuts were/are paid for with borrowed money. It's not just the stimulus package that put the country into debt.
What put the country into debt was the gross overspending of our elected (quasi-)representatives. I think this is our main disagreement. I see too much money going out; you see not enough coming in. Either will balance the budget, but severe tax increases on the 'rich' (those who buy the most goods and therefore provide jobs for those who manufacture them) will only hurt the economy. It will also do nothing to stop the falling dollar. Cutting spending will have a positive effect on the dollar's value, and can not cause distress on the wealthy class. Now, should we cut spending and more income is still needed for worthwhile expenses, I might go along with a tax increase on the upper 1%. I simply see no reason to pump in more life-blood without first stopping the hemorrhaging.
Right now the middle class is shouldering a higher tax rate than either of the other two. Obama's plan would relieve the middle class somewhat and raise taxes on the upper 1% of the income distribution. That could be called a "bottom up" or at least a "middle up" plan. None of that would require the U.S. to borrow more money.
Untrue. I have already posted a source which shows the percentage of taxes paid is pretty close to in line with the percentage of income made.
Without quoting, I understand being paid in stock options, which is a possibility for several companies. I have worked for some of them, and never for more than $50K/yr. This is not the exclusive realm of the wealthy.
Neither is the IRA/401K. Most companies have some kind of retirement account available for those who wish to take advantage of it, and IRAs are available to anyone.
A strong, healthy and growing middle class is what is needed.
I agree completely with this. However, I do not see how a class can be made strong by regular infusions of unearned income or breaks from paying their fair share. That would seem to be a hindrance to strength, since it is nothing more than a crutch.
I do suggest help of some kind, though. How about allowing smaller companies (started by those middle-class) some sort of relief from the grievous and sometimes asinine regulations that all that tax money is paying to enforce upon them? That will strengthen the middle class by allowing them to gain wealth, the poor by giving them jobs in these small businesses, and will make the wealthy have to try harder to compete (making them more innovative and stronger as well). Plus, society will gain from more choices and more and better products. Government will make more money because more income is being made (and taxed). Sounds like a win-win to me.
TheRedneck
