Openmind
Well-Known Member
As I have mentioned numerous times, the CBO has already stated you could tax the rich at 90% and it wouldn't balance the budget.
This idea that we don't need drastic spending cuts, and we can offset any pain with tax hikes has no basis in reality.
You also didn't answer my first question: Did your husband earn his paycheck and earn his job?
Again. . .you are talking EXTREMES!
I am not talking about "NOT NEEDING DRASTING SPENDING CUTS!" I did state we needed spending cuts, I just think the "drastic" part of it should focus more on corporate welfare than on social welfare.
I didn't say tax hikes could OFFSET the pain of those cuts. . .I said they would make the pain less profond, because some of the cuts may not have to be so drastic.
And OBVIOUSLY taxing the wealthy at 90% wouldn't offset the deficit. . .in the short term! First NO ONE proposed to tax the wealthy at 90% (although it has been done before!), second, the tax hikes proposes are TEMPORARY, while we are facing such a terrible economic downturn. Once the economy goes back up, the revenue will increase automatically (if there is no more Bush or Perry, or Romney, or Cain, or Bachmann new tax cuts for the wealthy!), and at that time the "special tax assessment" would disappear.
However, if we kept a much higher tax rate for the very wealthy (let's say, over $10 millions a year), for an extended period of time (let's say, 25 years), it certainly would make a BIG dent in the deficit!
And, why should I answer a question when you already know the answer, and you plan on using my honest (although subjective, as a wife) answer to try to prove a point that I totally disagree with?
It is not because people get an amazing income that the "deserve every penny of it," and should forget about others who haven't been as lucky, or as smart, or as supported in their venture as some others.
That is my answer. If it is not good enough for you. . .too bad!