The revenue obtained from eliminating the Bush tax cuts wouldn't make a measurable difference in the trillions of dollar debt crisis that we are now in. Runaway, drunkin spending has us in this current ecomomic crisis.It can only be corrected by a drastic decrease in spending. Listen to Obama, and you will realize that his plan is to raise taxes down to the middle class, not just the "very wealthy".
There are many inequities in the current tax law, but they have little to do with the present economic crisis. EVERYONE should pay their fair tax since EVERYONE receives the benefits of government services. 50-51% currently pay no taxes, but are receiving taxpayer-paid welfare. That is an incredible drain on our economy, compared to the very few "very wealthy" who also pay no tax. Both ends of the situation have to be corrected. The Fair Tax, a single sales tax on all purchases, except food, is the only reasonable solution. That would eliminate the income tax, and shrink the IRS federal bureaucracy, which is due to grow by 16,000 agents under Obamacare.
It is ironic, and criminal, that Inmelt, CEO of GE pays no income taxes. Obama appointed him as "Job Czar", and he moves the entire X-Ray division of GE to China, including its headquarters!
Those tax breaks Bush gave to the rich are the reason we are in this trouble. Explain this to me if you feel I am wrong. The rich and wealty companys pay no federal taxes under Bush's tax cuts. We can all agree with that. So if the Oil Companys and the rich aren't paying federal taxes but who is paying for the tax breaks. The middle class working man or women. Well it very hard for the middle class to pay for those tax breaks for the rich when the rich have sent our middle class jobs overseas. The middle class worker that use to have a job that he or she made $40,000 to $50,0000 a year paid not enough taxes to cover those taxes breaks back then, now those $40,000 to $50,000 a year jobs are gone oversea, and the middle class worker can only get jobs now that only pay $19,000 to $27,000 a year. So that is now even less money the middle class made before, and we are to still give the rich those taxes breaks? How can we keep doing it? Well, they have just added those cost to our debit. If those tax cuts for the rich aren't paid for and now you have less tax money coming in from the middle class because they can't make the money they use to because those jobs were sent overseas then you need to do away with the rich tax breaks. This is a no brainer, but I guess something that easy is to hard to understand!
You keep saying that ...maybe you think the more you say it, it will become fact. Again, we had HIGHER taxes under Clinton, balanced the budget, 23MIL jobs created, and he left office with a SURPLUS.
Bush, LOWER taxes for 8 yrs, + 2.5 more years of an extension of those cuts, and what? LOSING 750K jobs per month & near 8% unemployment when he left, and $9T in debt when he left ..... Do you see the difference?
If he had to pick n choose who gets paid, I bet it won't be the Big 3 affected, but many will still get hurt.
And it will be the Tea Republicans fault, not his. They are trying to be PIGS! We have 2 bills with NO REVENUE, and just CUTS, and they are still not happy. Well, you know what happens to PIGS ....they get slaughtered.
Nothing you said explains why WB is in the 15% bracket and his secretary is in a higher bracket. By YOUR definition, he should be in the higher bracket, but he isn't due to deductions, loopholes, w/e. That is not right.
A Tax bracket is based is base on income, *if* anyone is in the 15% bracket, they are making less income then someone in the 25% bracket by definition. Some that makes more income pays more taxes -- may not be fair but that is the way it works.
Wealth is not taxed. Since you are an investor, maybe you can relate better to investment wealth: you are not taxed on the money you invest (wealth), rather you are taxed on income you make off that wealth. Do you believe you should be taxed on the money you invest or everytime you invest?
Now Warren lives cheaply in Omaha -- I know because I used to live in Omaha. He doesn't live with the other omaha rich, he lives in the middle class neiborhood in the home he paid $30K for. He just doesn't need a big income he certainly doesn't flaunt money -- that isn't warren. Is what you think is unfair is the fact that he doesn't flaunt money on luxuries, thus doesn't need more income (which would cause him to pay higher taxes you want?). What is unfair about only making what you need to live on? Now I do not know what warren's income was, but if his income placed him in the 15% bracket why shouldn't he pay 15% like everyone else pays in the 15% bracket, which of course is fair.
But I'll tell you something that isn't fair. I know you make some good market moves, and you are sidelined base on current events which I think is a fair move -- one I should have made. What I think is unfair is you complaining about others that are sidelined when you are. I'm refering to about 1.2T in retained earnings that you complain about, some of which is in other countries. If GM and banks would have had sufficient funds set asside, they wouldn't have needded a bailout would they? But you are complaining about some of thoese very same companies that now have retained earnings, not only because it is wise, but also because the government says they must. Tell me why that isn't being a bigot?