Re: Why Do the Republicans Hate the Clintons so Much?

George Z. Bush wrote:

John Galt wrote:

"George Z. Bush" <georgezbush@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:cghqj.5$Wz7.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

John Galt wrote:

"Rumpelstiltskin" <PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1k4jq35gmql2e1hftstm1ai1tnh8nesuni@xxxxxxxxxx

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 04:41:08 -0600, "John Galt"
<whoisjohngalt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


(Snip)


At least they'll raise taxes so we can start paying for stuff
again. That is at least better than not paying for it.

Raising taxes during a time of economic stress prolongs the economic
stress.

Not when failure to pay as you go is what has markedly contributed to that
economic stress.

Even then.


Nope.

George Z.


Sorry to *** in George, but he may have a point. But given the increasing income gap, selective raising of taxes( on high wage earners, not on business or corporations ) may very well be an alternative, since the wealthy, as an aggregate group, DO pay the larger share of the revenue from income taxes, but DON'T necessarily spend all that extra money in the economy. Taxing money that would never be spent in the economy may be an alternative. If the books can balance, it may be possible to keep the tax cuts for the middle classes while raising them on upper income levels.

I understand that Rangel is crunching the numbers on that now, or at least trying to. The big stumbling block is the AMT, which generates revenue that is needed and would have to be replaced somehow, in part, from the middle class, as the codes now stand.
.

Loading