« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Balanced Approach: The Tax Hikes That Democrats Should Propose

By: Francis Cianfrocca (Diary)  |  August 9th, 2011 at 09:10 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

So this year’s fiscal-policy code word is “balanced approach.” This means nothing more or less than higher taxes on high earners, business income, and capital gains.

Congressman Eric Cantor remarked at one point in the debt-ceiling debate that the Democrats (including Obama) were totally stuck on the idea of raising taxes. But Cantor stressed that they never presented an economic rationale for higher taxes. It was all about class warfare, pure and simple.

Class warfare is like catnip to progressives. The problem with class warfare is that it doesn’t give us growth and jobs. At least a few of the Democrats recognize that growth is a mandatory part of a fiscal-reform strategy (higher taxes and spending/entitlement cuts are the other two).

Remember the Bush tax-cut debate last year? Then, Democrats readily admitted the numbers: the Bush tax cuts on high earners were worth an estimated $700 billion in revenues over ten years, while the same cuts on everyone else were worth about $2.8 trillion.

You can raise taxes on high earners, but you don’t solve any economic problem that way. There just aren’t enough rich people to buy candy and bubble gum for everyone else. Plus, you kill job growth by wiping out their incentives to take on economic risk.

So it’s plain and obvious that the ONLY motivation that Obama and the Democrats have for their “balanced approach” is class envy. Economics has nothing to do with it.

Let’s challenge the Democrats on this one. If they’re so committed to the idea that we need higher taxes, then let them propose a broad-based, regressive increase: either a VAT, or a large payroll-tax rate increase (which Reagan also did).

Just do it, Democrats. You want higher taxes? Then propose higher taxes that really will reduce deficits while minimizing the effect on job creation. Otherwise, shut up.

Tags: , , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • mbauer

    Would some form of tax hikes, combined with entitlement reform that saw a balanced budget in 2012 or 13 (and projected to hold for the next decade) be worth voting for?

    Perhaps something along the lines of what Krauthammer proposes here?
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-the-super-committee-can-strike-a-grand-bargain/2011/08/04/gIQA9tJ7uI_story.html

    I agree with Francis post here, I’d love to see Democrats have the guts to propose what they claim to support (tax increases to balance the budget). Just as Republicans have already gone out on a political limb by proposing and endorsing Ryan’s various plans.

    If one thing is certain about the current congress, it’s that our side has greater political cajones.

    • jeffreywturner

      The reforms Krauthammer suggests (like nearly everything he suggests) are extremely positive.

    • APA Guy

      …that ensured equal tax contributions for a government that actually serves the people. Granted, that would mean a tax hike on many income earners who thus far haven’t been paying the marginal tax rate, but it would also give those same wage earners a chip in the game and incentive to work instead of take handouts. It would also strengthen our pitiful dollar and increase purchasing power across the board.

      My two cents, anyway…

      • waynemiddleton

        Two or three points:

        1). Our Income Tax System needs reform – too complicated – too many intricate-details/loopholes/bureaucratic-crap/special-interest-fixes/etc. We need a simple tax system – Flat Tax Seems Good.
        2). We need everyone feeling some ownership in this country and the only way that will happen is when everyone has some skin in this game. Meaing: everyone pays taxes.
        3). We have too many tax collection agenies: IRS for Federal, State for State Income Taxes, Local for Local Taxation, Sales Taxes which often involve community and even neighborhood taxation on everything you can name. Too much duplication! Too many employees! Lets simplify: A tax on consumption seems the simplest way to make that happen – most states have some form of sales tax and the systems are in place for collecting it without the need for the thousands and thousands of IRS and State Income Tax System employees doing the same thing.
        4). Corporate Tax reform is also in my thinking. Why not tax Revenue instead of income? Simple System! No deductions or credits.

    • http://www.voteforteri2010.com teridavisnewman

      Here’s a look at America’s debt crisis from a business point of view. Our current Congress did virtually nothing and our “President” is useless.This is much easier to understand when you take away all those zeros. Federal Budget 101

      The U.S. Congress sets a federal budget every year in the trillions of dollars. Few people know how much money that is so we created a breakdown of federal spending in simple terms. Let’s put the 2011 federal budget into
      perspective:

      * U.S. income: $2,170,000,000,000
      * Federal budget: $3,820,000,000,000
      * New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
      * National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
      * Recent budget cut: $ 38,500,000,000 (about 1 percent of the budget)
      It helps to think about these numbers in terms that we can relate to. Let’s remove eight zeros from these numbers and pretend this is the household budget for the fictitious Jones family.

      * Total annual income for the Jones family: $21,700
      * Amount of money the Jones family spent: $38,200
      * Amount of new debt added to the credit card: $16,500
      * Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
      * Amount cut from the budget: $385 OVER TEN YEARS OR $38.50 PER YEAR!!
      So in effect last month Congress, or in this example the Jones
      family, sat down at the kitchen table and agreed to cut $38.50 from its annual budget. What family would cut $38.50 of spending in order to solve $16,500 in
      deficit spending? It is a start, although hardly a solution. Now after years of this, the Jones family has $142,710 of debt on its credit card (which is the equivalent of the national debt).
      You would think the Jones family would recognize and address this situation, but it does not. Neither does Congress.
      The root of the debt problem is that the voters typically do not
      send people to Congress to save money. They are sent there to bring home the bacon to their own home state.
      To effect budget change, we need to change the job description and give Congress new marching orders.
      It is awfully hard (but not impossible) to reverse course and tell
      the government to stop borrowing money from our children and spending it now.
      In effect, what we have is a reverse mortgage on the country. The problem is that the voters have become addicted to the money. Moreover, the American voters are still in the denial stage, and do not want to face thepossibility of going into rehab.

      • http://www.voteforteri2010.com teridavisnewman

        This budget information was sent to me, I didn’t write it, but I did check it and it’s correct.

  • 6eorge Jetson

    that will herald the end of the republic.” -Ben Franklin

    Executive Summary of the 2008 OECD Study

    A study of the progressiveness of household taxes (income plus social security taxes) by the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development charts the percent of taxes paid by the top 10 percent of households in OECD countries and compares that number to the percent of income earned in each country by the same top 10 percent. The U.S. finishes at the top of the list, with the highest tax-to-income ratio of any country. Above are the top countries, as well as the average for all 24 OECD countries studied.

    A little more detail

    Of course, these measures do not include the litany of other taxes households pay in each country, such as Value Added Taxes, corporate income taxes and excise taxes, but they do give a good indication that our system places a heavier tax burden on high-income households than other industrialized countries.

    The inclusion of the Value-Added-Tax, hidden, but passed along to the end consumer, would surely increase the share of European taxes borne by the middle and lower classes.

    The Source ($98, I have not bought/read it)

    • ag8tor

      Raises at least once a year. It doesn’t make much news but they are getting paid well for the idiocy we’ve just witnessed. How about these Congressmen and Senators get the ball rolling on the economy by taking a pay cut of say 25%. You know, as a good faith gesture for the people!

      • edintexas

        A number of years back Congress figured out the people got riled up reading about Congress voting the next Congress* a pay increase. So they did the only thing that made sense in a PR world – they voted for future pay increases to be tied to the pay increase of Federal employees. The Fed pay increases do not need to be voted by Congress, the system to calculate and authorize the increase was set up and voted on several decades ago (IIRC after Congress never got around to voting on a pay increase for about a decade, possibly including the Carter years?).

        * Congress is prohibited from voting for a pay increase which benefits themselves while in office, so the pay increases were voted on for the next Congress. While Senators would technically be voting themselves an increase unless they were up for election for the next Congress, the system satisfied the legalities.

      • 4suramcan

        and one term. Two if they do a good job. And no benefits after their term(s) Just social security, like ours.

  • johnt

    and moving it over to the morgue loosely referred to as government, will not do the usual harm? However archaic or arcane the tax, better to leave it where it is than shovel it into the furnace of lost capital.
    This is like telling Dracula to take only small bites, the ones that don’t hurt.

  • Joe_B

    Repeal the limits on campaign donations to presidential campaigns, but if you give more than $2,000 you need to ‘donate’ $2 to the IRS for every $1 to a candidate.

  • mbswolf2003

    If they increase capital gains, what incentive do I have to invest in this economy? I take all the risk and they confiscate my reward.

  • Ausonius

    Never forget BIG BRObama’s response to Joe “The Plumber” Wurzelbacher that taxation was not about revenue, but rather “fairness.”

    • edintexas

      Of course we don’t have party registration in TX, but I like the idea. Maybe we could include those who vote in the Dem primary?

  • Death_of_the_Donkey

    though, as they should. The ideal (from an economic perspective) tax code would be one in which there were no deductions and we had much lower rates across the board (and hence a broader base). Just raising cap gains in a vacuum (outside of complete reform) though is a bad idea.

    • JSobieski

      If corporations don’t have to pay income taxes, I agree with you.

      If corporations do have to pay income taxes, then capital gains tax rates should be lower than income tax rates for reasons relating to fundamental fairness, and more importantly, global competition.

      As it stands now, corporate profits are(1) taxed as income in foreign countries (2) taxed by the US when the money is brought back here and (3) taxes when paid out as dividends.

      Capital gains-specific tax rates needs to stay intact unless you are able to implement the “ideal” system. Anything short of 100% comprehensive reform means we need to keep CG separate. In other words, its a college dorm discussion, not a realistic achievable policy.

      • The_Gadfly

        Corporations NEVER pay capital gains taxes, they merely act as the collection agent for the federal government at the additional cost of at least a normal profit for the trouble.

        Saying otherwise gives Progressives cover to disseminate their poison.

        • JSobieski

          Also, investors pay capital gains taxes. Capital gains taxes are paid when a capital asset is sold, not when a profit is made.

          Capital gains is distinct from profit from business operations.

          So I will refrain from repeating what you say, although the broader point is correct. The public is largely uneducated because the media never gets below the broader point.

          • The_Gadfly

            But the truth of the matter is that where the rubber meets the road, corporations only know expenses and income and their derivation profit. If income after expenses isn’t enough for sufficient profit the corporation changes something (the price it charges for its good, how much its workers get paid, the quality of its goods, or even just plain going bankrupt).

            Taxes are an expense, albeit a special one: one that gets you put in the federal pen if you don’t do it the way you are told to, even if it means telling people it’s not an expense, it is a tax.

            Individual investors, yes they pay taxes. But never corporations, which is part of why the Progressive Jihad against Evil Corporations is so poisonous.

  • spinoneone

    will the people tolerate? Further, how much can the Feds actually collect? To date, the limit seems to be about 18% of GDP, although it has been higher for some short periods.

    Europe on average has a 22% value added tax on most goods and services. Exceptions vary by country. That is a very regressive tax system since the amount taxed for basic goods and services has a much higher percentage impact on the low income earner than the high. Why? Because the high income earner will save and invest more of his money, avoiding the VAT.

    Congress has spend all of the various “lock boxes” thought up to cover Social Security, medicare, etc., and we are now covering those costs from general revenue. Let’s do away with all Federal taxes on income except for a flat 15% on all income from all sources for all earners up to, say, $250,000 indexed for inflation. No deductions. Above $250,000, tax wages and bonus income at 25%; leave dividends, capital gains, and other income at 15%. No deductions. For corporations, 20% tax on all profits, regardless of source.

    • edintexas

      What makes you think corporations pay any taxes at all? As others point out, taxes are paid by the customer and not the corporation. If the corporation can’t increase prices for the product sufficiently to cover the cost* of taxes, the corporation declares bankruptcy or simply goes under (the latter unlikely for anything other than very small “Mom and Pop” business). Taxing corporations is simply a hidden tax on the customers.

      * Everything a corporation pays out is a cost of doing business which must be paid for, plus a profit, by the customers

  • mbswolf2003

    I agree with your taxation policy. The government shouldn’t be in the business of picking winners and losers, which it does with the various deductions and credits. Unfortunately, those tax loopholes allow politicians to buy votes, therefore, any such policy is not likely to happen. It makes to much sense and would undoubtedly grow our economy and revenue stream…..

  • http://stevemaley.com Steve Maley

    Asked about the fact that lower cap gains taxes always results in higher govt revenue, Obama admitted that tax revenue is a secondary consideration to “fairness”.

    • Ausonius

      As I mentioned above in reference to the “Joe the Plumber Debate” in Toledo, BIG BRObama is on record as wanting fairness, even if it brings less revenue.

      Here is a YoutTube version to refresh the memory:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__L5DOxghD4

  • biglarryk56

    Most people here are calling for tax reform by talking about lower or flat income taxes, taxes on capital gains, the death tax, corporate income taxes, ad nauseum. Everyone here misses the point…all these taxes are on production and savings; therefore, everyone is punished for success!

    HR 25, the FairTax, which is a consumption tax on new retail sales only, would broaden the tax base where everyone has skin in the game; be fully transparent (look on your sales receipt, and there it is); say goodbye to $365 billion in compliance and paperwork; with no corporate taxes, we would repatriate trillions of dollars parked offshore; illegals and the underground economy would finally be paying taxes like we all do; and, best of all, YOU have control over the amount of taxes to pay (simply put, you want to pay less in taxes…don’t overspend!).

    Of course, with the prebate mechanism (rebating all taxes on spending up to the federal poverty level), the argument that the FaitTax is regressive goes away. Naturally, unlike a VAT (which would tax every level of production, plus keeping the onerous income ta system), the FairTax REPLACES the entire federal tax code, along with eliminating most, if not all, of the IRS.

    Therre are three books that outline the F airTax, and all of the research that went into the development of the FairTax can be found at http://www.fairtax.org.

    • The_Gadfly

      I’ve come to the conclusion that the fair tax suffers from much the same problem as communism: the cost in human terms is not evident to the proponents of either.

      To get to the fair tax, you either move in one massive shift, or you change it incrementally. Move in one massive shift (as you seem to advocate in your post) and the disruptions to the normal processes of business and tax collection are so huge you either collapse the economy or the government or both. Move incrementally and you never get to the end, instead winding up with both an income and a consumption tax.

      Additionally, studies prove that sales taxes in excess of 10% are doomed to failure. Part of the reason for the move to income taxes, and more specifically to federal withholding to collect income taxes, was to support more money as a percentage of GNP going to the government. The problem of the moment is that as an earlier poster noted, the maximum sustainable rate of our current tax system is 20% and current government expenditures greatly exceed that. Cutting that in half is simply unthinkable until there is a greater change in societal expectations of what government should do.

      Fundamentally I like the idea of the fair tax. It just isn’t workable in the current environment.

      • edintexas

        Federal income tax withholding was instituted during WW II as a “temporary” measure to stabilize the flow of cash to a government which was spending huge (for the time) amounts of money and needed a steady income, rather than all in the early months of the year (including those who filed a bit early).

        Of course the politicians figured out that when people didn’t have to write a check for the lump sum, they didn’t notice/wouldn’t object so vehemently to increased levels of taxation. And another “temporary” measure became permanent.

  • biglarryk56

    Here are the books on the FairTax that I mentioned in my previous post (all available on Amazon):

    “The Fair Tax Book: Saying Goodbye to the Income Tax and the IRS,” by Neal Boortz and John Linder

    “The FairTax: The Truth: Answering the Critics,” by Neal Boortz, John Linder and Rob Woodall

    “The FairTax Solution: Financial Justice for All Americans,” by Ken Hoagland

    • JSobieski

      The incentive for cheating with a 23% tax rate will be immense. Adding an incremental cost of 23% on a large transaction (think house, car, boat, etc) is definitely a market altering impact.

      It is far more difficult to detect cheating on a transaction basis than on an annual (i.e. aggregated) income basis. Bank data is very helpful to the IRS, and bank data will continue to be monitored for national security issues anyway.

      In response to the cheating, a new and even more invasive version of the IRS would need to be created, or the rate would be insufficient to collect the needed revenues.

      Part of being conservative is in understanding that government systems can be administratively impractical. Things may sound good (like a balanced budget amendment for example), but you need to think about how the system would play out in practice.

      Under an income tax system, the IRS can detect obvious fraud using computers and very little manpower.

      Under an transaction-based tax system, who is going to monitor activities on transaction by transaction basis?

      I have only one aggregated annual income each year. I conduct of thousands of transactions each day.

  • skorrent1

    If it were based on economic principles instead of power and envy?

    If you want to discourage something, tax it. To discourage it more, raise taxes. That’s the logic for taxing things like liquor and tobacco. So, where does our government get most of its revenue? By taxing work (payrolls) and the results of work (income). You want to discourage work more? Raise taxes on payrolls and income!

    You want to encourage savings and discourage debt, private and public? Then why are we taxing savings (dividends, cap gains, property) and doing our best to keep interest rates low?

    You’re worried about balance of payments? Then why are we taxing the making of exports but letting most imports in tax-free?

    If this is sounding like a pitch for the Fair Tax, that’s because it’s so logical.

    • http://nerds4cain.com Brookhaven

      Only one justification was given in the Federalist Papers for granting the federal government the ability to tax: to raise revenue for the operation of the government.

      That’s it!

      The only legitimate reason for a tax is to raise revenue for the operation of the government.

      Any other reason to establish a tax–any other reason what-so-ever–makes the tax illegitimate.

      • http://nerds4cain.com Brookhaven

        fat fingers!!

    • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

      a simple national sales tax, no income tax or FICA taxes at all. A simple sales tax, with NO exemptions would not have to be very high, and would be the easiest to collect, and the most efficient.

      It would also have the least impact on economic growth, though it would have some impact, especially the period of transition might be difficult. It would also require a form of tariff since you would have to charge the tax on all goods coming in from other nations else people would just ignore things sold here and ship in everything from abroad.

      I am not a fan of the Fair tax because of its many exemptions and it’s unworkable kick back scheme.

  • johnt

    to take anyone’s voluntary contributions, really. Make sure to include the SS #. I can’t imagine what leftists are waiting for. There should be a flood coming in from the progressive[?] community.

  • victrola

    I would argue the most politically popular plank of the conservative movement is their stance on raising taxes, but the problem now is we’ve cut taxes too much at the bottom end of things in order to get a reasonable rate at the top. You now have 1 out of 2 Americans paying zero federal income taxes that (of course) have absolutely no problem with the “rich” paying their fair share.

    Conservatives need a unified front on tax reform. As much as I like the abstract idea of a Fair Tax (national sales tax) the reality is the federal government would likely get BOTH an income tax and a sales tax. It would also get an incredible amount of resistance from retailers, and since 70%+ of our GDP is consumer spending, it would likely have damaging effects on the economy in the short term. I think the idea needs to be dropped because it’s getting in the way of a more realistic plan.

    I still think a flat income tax is the most politically viable and makes sound public policy, even if the average American technically paid “more” in taxes. It just needs to be paid by EVERY American. You’d be amazed how politically popular a flat tax is, even among people who don’t consider themselves to be conservatives.

    • edintexas

      I think we could make it slightly progressive. A person with an annual income of $10,000.00 would struggle to pay $1,000.00 in a 10% flat tax. So make it 1% up to some maximum amount of income, increasing with the income to the full 10%. That could even be effective for family situations (e.g. 1% for a family of 4 with $20,000.00 annual income). But under no circumstance should anyone pay no tax at all, and absolutely no welfare payments in the income tax (i.e. refunds when no tax is owed).

  • Risky

    Over here in the UK, VAT was roughly doubled under Mrs Thatcher’s first government. Sometimes conservatives have to increase some taxes to sort out the financial mess left to us by the left or to allow cuts in more stupid taxes.

    • snowshooze

      We just cannot afford to even begin that journey here.
      Our problem isn’t tax revenue, it is spending.
      Same over there.

      • Risky

        spending is always the big one but don’t ignore tax. You can have a government subsidy, repeal it and introduce a tax break with the same cashflow. This does not make it a better thing in any way I can manage without illegal substances.

        Simplify tax and make it obvious where the goverment takes your money. Then the left won’t find it as easy do do the “Whoa look at how much we’re whacking the fat-cat..oh was that your wallet” trick.

        • snowshooze

          Is it makes me into a tax collector…
          I am anyway with the payroll, but I just hate having to deal with it.
          You would think that they would give me a kickback for my efforts…

          • Risky

            As as we have a retail business as well as my own employment, the VAT rate does affect me. However taking the whole economy, I’d rather we taxed spending rather than income. My least favourite taxes are employers payroll taxes are they’re hidden in some ways.

            If I pay an basic rate tax paying employee an extra ?100, it costs me ?113.8 and or she gets ?66.2. The Goverment cans say the Basic tax tastes is 20% but to keep that low they’ve pushed up the NI (payroll tax & SS contribs)

            the real marginal tax rate on the is 41.8% – it goes up and down ar different levels but successive governments have now played around to make the real tax rate more than double the one that they talk about. Now you have a different tax system, different rates and names for the taxes and the state and federal taxes to pay, but the same truth holds that all these rates, taxes and exemptions create the smoke and mirrors that help the government take more of your money and convince you that someone else is paying for the spending.

            Take away these tools and they have less ability to con people. If they want so spend money then it is pretty clear where it is coming from.

          • Doc Holliday

            vat is fine if they take away income taxes. There should be no government attack on earning money.

          • edintexas

            The problem with VAT is it is hidden to the person who ultimately pays the tax – the consumer. At least I don’t believe each product has a list of the VAT which various producers added to the cost of a product. I could be wrong, but I believe there isn’t a set amount or percentage which a consumer could apply to the cost of every article purchased to determine the VAT they are paying for the product. VAT is charged on those companies which “add value” to a product, so a mining company would pay, and a metal stamping company would pay for a set of tableware. But what about a car – there are multiple contributors of parts to the average car (even the “Prince of Darkness” * in England).

            * Lucas earned that for the failure frequency of their lighting and electric components in British autos.

          • Risky

            Sorry, it’s below http://www.redstate.com/blackhedd/2011/08/09/balanced-approach-the-tax-hikes-that-democrats-should-propose/#comment-5457

          • BA Cyclone

            I am totally fine with a sales tax, but it has to be exclusive. It should be obvious to the end-user what the “cost of government” is, because it directly affects the public policy debate to whatever level that user understands it.

            I think the benefit of an actual sales tax (and its visibility) that replaces all other federal taxes would outweigh the supposed simplicity of an income tax.

            Really I would be fine with a flat income tax as well, or very minor progression (3 brackets maximum) of an income tax, but the existing code must be thrown out altogether. Loopholes, deductions go to zero to get the simplest, lowest published tax rates.

            Problem with the income tax in general is that you still leave the cooks in charge of that condition. If we created this income tax reform and passed it tomorrow, what is to keep the same-old-thing (tax rebates, loopholes, etc) from starting all over again in the next legislative session? Income taxes and their general invisibility on a daily basis tend to foster insipid behavior on the part of the obfuscators in the Capitol building.

  • Change Jar Conservative

    I would propose a different approach for tax brackets altogether.

    First off, no deductions period.

    Secondly, 4 tax brackets.

    Call them:

    X (bottom half of earners)
    2X (next quarter of earners)
    3X (next 15% of earners)
    4X (top 10% of earners)

    The total of 10X has to be enough to balance the budget.

    This way everyone pays more as government gets bigger. The bottom half has to feel the cost of bigger government.

    • snowshooze

      ?

      • The_Gadfly

        kill it too.

        Anything that distorts the markets gives politicians too much room to engage in the politics of envy.

        Where I disagree with him is I would only have one tax bracket. I might allow an exclusion for those who would cost more to process their payment than the government receives in income. And I emphasize “might.” Even at just a single rate, the guy at the bottom of the earnings curve is using more government services than he is paying for, and the guy at the top is paying way more than he is using.

  • carolina

    Baucus should be OK. Murray and Kerry sound like a problem to me.

    • edintexas

      Wait until Nancy puts her choices in the pot – Barney Frank? James Heartburn – er Clyburn? Markey? I guess we should be glad Alan Grayson is gone.

    • BA Cyclone

      If the GOP holds the line, it only takes one of them to get the right answer.

  • Common_Cents

    should lead by example and sit down and write out a check to the US Treasury. It’s voluntary and not forced. If all those people did, it would go a long way.

    Why do DEM elites take advantage of every loophole/deduction when they call for higher taxes? They should just pay the full amount.

    Hypocrites need to be called out and challenged.

  • arthurmanger17

    The left is not engaging in class warfare. It is engaging in a war to establish a ruling class.

  • popster

    need to stop and plans need to be put forth. If you do not have any worthwhile input don’t just ridiculous names around try being civil for a change, it might just work.

    • edintexas

      You were a troll, but I see you have been posting for a while and not Democrat spin.

      Do you think Republicans have failed to put forth a “plan”?

      I realize the Bible advocates turning the other cheek, but it also has passages advocating response in like kind (eye for an eye). Do you really think civility from the Republicans will result in a “kinder, gentler” Democrat? Do you think Bush 43′s refusing to respond to nasty attacks resulted in the Democrats treating him nicely? Or are they still blaming him for every ill of humanity (a bit of hyperbole there).

      I’m afraid the remainder of your post is not particularly coherent, but I take it you were trying to say something along the lines of “If you don’t have something positive to contribute, don’t say anything.” I decline to follow that advice. I reserve my right, as a taxpayer and citizen, to complain.

    • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

      Yeah a kind and gentle democrat party is just going to lie there while they lose union power and see votes and government dollars drying up right?

      We are in a war with a lot of evil looters who are trying to put us in permanent chains. They will stop at NOTHING, and have shown no mercy or kindness in their hearts whatsoever.

      Wake up.

  • Risky

    The VAT is a tax on the sale price. The retailer then reclaims VAT on his purchases and other cost but that’s his matter. Hence it’s pretty transparent to the purchaser. It doesn’t affect companies down the supply chain as they pay or reclaim the net.

  • Wayne

    for 2012 should be Flat Tax, Cut Cap & Balance…

  • travis690

    One other thing that happened over the past two years is we now have over 50% of the voting-age population being net tax sponges: They get more from the government than they contribute. The country needs to have more net taxpayers instead of fewer. Or else the nation needs to reduce spending. Any questions, progressives?

  • carolynr

    Baukus…Murray and Kerry….ANOTHER HEALTHCARE MESS. ANOTHER DOWNGRADE.