I would agree. We also should make sure that we don't consider anyone who gets a refund to be in that 40% (after all, you only get a refund of what you've overpaid, not what you've paid).

That said, again, I agree with your sentiments about the plan. I want spending decreased, not taxes increased.

Maybe if we stopped funding SWAT teams in every suburb...

-Mark

No, you get Social Security and Medicare benefits. Which for folks at the low end of the income scale already exceed what they pay in.

A tax cut without an accompanying spending cut is useless. All you're doing is saving a little on the front end, to pay a lot more on the back end. And yeah, both parties are guilty of this.

Borrowing a lot of money to give me a slight tax cut actually make the problem worse.

Borrowing money makes sense in certain circumstances, but to pay for operating expenses or ongoing expenses it does not.

How about scapping the whole tax system and going with a consumption tax. If I want to buy something, I get taxed. If I don't buy stuff I don't get taxed. That way, everyone pays the same amount for taxes. As it is now, a little more than 15% pays 70+% of the tax. That is not right, regardless of your political stripes.

What we in the 95% got was a reduction in the tax withholding, not a tax cut. We'll just owe more next April 15th.

jb

In theory I agree with you. But in practice it gets a lot more difficult but then doesn't everything! If you're only taxing consumption you create a terrific incentive for black markets to avoid taxation.

I'm 32 years old. Want to place a bet if I'll ever see a dime of that money back in any fashion?

-Mark

Why can't people understand that when taxes are too high (like now) and you cut them revenue to the gov. gos up. Taxes cuts pay for themselves.

Because it's not about paying for government, it's about increasing the power and influence of politicians.