the problam is what david stockman says. we keep cutting taxes but we never cut spending. there is an expense for living in the greatest country. bush cut taxes during a war. it is great for getting reelected but bad for the country. as a percentage we take in less money from corporations then ever before. the rich pay 14%. we need to cut spending and raise taxes. regan raised taxes when needed
... you are, of course, referring to Obama's megaphone-blasting of the fact that Mitt Romney's overall tax rate was just under 15%.
Obama took the average american's stupidity to such a level on that one that he planted Warren Buffett's secretary in a prime seat at the State of the union address to showcase the idea that she paid many percentage points MORE tax than Mitt Romney did... on a tiny fraction of Romney's overall income.
Now, the reality of it... which Obama is counting on 98% of Americans to be totally un-aware of:
The corporations that paid Mitt Romney and Warren Buffett's secretary their money pay taxes in the range of 20 to upwards of 35% (yes, Virginia... 35%, which is why so many U.S. corporations are hoarding the earnings of their overseas subsidiaries overseas employing foreigners rather than pay that rate... which is the highest in the industrialized world except Japan).
The difference is, Mitt Romney's company paid taxes on it's earnings BEFORE he got his dividends whereas Buffett's secretary's company DEDUCTED her pay. Long story short... Romney and his company ended up paying over TWICE as much in taxes as Buffett's secretary and her company did.
Further, earlier in life, Romney had to EARN his investment captial by working (eg: earned income) which taxed that money well above the 15% rate he pays on his current dividend income.
And even further... Romney will also likely get nailed by a death tax rate of over 40% on his estate... a tax that Buffett's secretary will never see.
All told, every "original" dollar that Romney ever earned will end up having 70 to 85% of it taken by the federal government...
... so much for the "American Dream".
And Obama want's to take more of it... thus ensuring that none of us, no matter HOW hard we work and toil, will ever be able to rise above the socialist utopia that Obama has in mind for us.
we took in less taxes from corperations ar a percent then ever befor. you are yrong on what the average percent that corperations pay. get your facts straight. and i will listen to buffett before any polition. he has created more jobe and wealth and is far smarter then anyone you jnow or can mention
John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president’s news conference
“Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.”
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964 “In today’s economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit – why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.”
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”
“It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today’s economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates.
Point is forget Bushs' tax cut, it is a party focus issue which creates polarization. Focus as you have on the finite problem of not having a budget that works.