The White House has already launched the spin that the GAO issued a "Democratic Party requested" report. These guys have a spin for everything! Lucky for them they also own the Media.

You know it's pretty pathetic for them when they cannot dispute what's in the report, but argue about who requested it.

Following that logic would mean that we should disregard everything issued by the Bush Administration or right-wing think tanks because they initiated it, right?

We need to help the wealthy. They have always been there for us, we need to be there for them. The reason there hasn't been a significant rebound in the economy in spite of record overall corporate profits and an aggresive tax cut in their favor is that the wealthy don't feel appreciated. They are tired of being marginalized and are weary of the contempt directed their way. They represent the last and final unprotected minority. They need our support. Let's dig deep (it is in our character to do what we can) and send them our money so they do not have to further devise sophisticated quasi-legal means of extracting money from us in 1,000 imperceptable ways.

Help the wealthy. Give what you can. This is their moment; this is their time. With their help we have built a great America...from sea to shining sea. They have honored their committment to Capitalism and the Gods of Commerce. What can we do to help them in their hour of uncertainty?

Help the wealthy be all they can be! They will hire us, give us health care benefits, give us retirement benefits; a good life. All they ask is that we suckle at the breast of their goodwill and give them all our money. It is the least we can do.

This issue is a classic example of the failure of the Democratic party to communicate it's core principles. The conservatives have been very good at pushing the line of how unfair it is to tax people more when they succeed. The progressives have completely failed to articulate the belief in social justice and civic society which underlie the argument for progressive taxation. The fundamental point underlying this is that conservatives have turned taxes into a purely economic discussion, when the strongest arguments on the progressive side are political.

For example, the estate tax. This isn't about fairness. It's not about punishing people for being rich. It's about the fundamental argument that the American Revolution was fought to build a system that was more fair and equal than the inherited wealth and power of European aristocracy. By allowing the ultra-rich to pass their fortunes largely intact from generation to generation we have created a wealth aristocracy in America. In today's political climate this inherited wealth translates quite readily into inherited political power. At some very fundamental level abolition of the estate tax is un-American.

Note that this doesn't mean that we shouldn't consider some reform of the estate tax, and a raising of the tax-free limit. For more information check out Responsible Wealth.

Good move by Kerry. He's drawn them out, set the tone and the debate. Now change course.

I think Kerry is a chess player and as my wife explained to me today if you're a skilled player you're willing to give up a pawn because you know your opponent is walking right into the trap.

Kerry puts out 3 different statements about the 87 billion in a 24 hr period. Why? He's been running a stealth campaign so far and had plenty of time to prepare for this question yet he "walks" right into it. Bush snags it and of course won't let it go. He's laser focused remember and doesn't do nuances or course changes.

John Kerry says he knows Bush. Is Kerry playing chess?

Be careful of statistics. The chart shows what percentage of total taxes are paid by different income bracket groups. The total percentage paid by the top 20% dropped from 2001 to 2004 is that the TOTAL INCOME EARNED by the top 20% dropped during the same period. Did you look at marginal rates of those top 20% or the EFFECTIVE Tax rate for those top 20%? In 2001, the richest were making a killing in the stock market/dotcom bubble, and were taxed accordingly. That portion of taxes from "lost income" has shifted to the middle class.

You do make a good point, and that is that the total tax burden falls heaviest on the middle class. Poor people don't pay much in income taxes (after credits and deductions), and wealthy people have more money and structures to avoid taxes. It's the middle class that gets screwed. By both parties.

Horrible analysis. Blech. If I were a college economics professor, I'd be sending you back to the library to do more research.

We should tax earnings and investment income LESS. Innovation comes from risk taking. It'd be better to tax consumption.

Muckdog, risk-taking is already rewarded by higher return on investment. If that isn't enough reason to make the investment than maybe it shouldn't be made. Just as the current low cost of money encourages more speculation due to reduced downside risk, the increased profitabilty from the unlikely success of risky ventures will lead to more things getting funded that shouldn't be. Aren't the wounds of the tech wreck still fresh enough to help you remember that more investment is not necessarily a good thing?

Also, there is lots of investment-based income that does not actually benefit the economy as a whole (foreign exchange, for example).

If we don't tax investment income, and we don't tax consumption, what will the ultra-rich pay taxes on?

Yes Muck, but it is a credit to our economy and our universities that you are not a college economics professor..

Daniel, you nail it just fine.

There is no reason why the tax system should subsidize investment for personal enrichment that adds little to society at the expense of labor. And it should become clear by now that those of Muck's persuasion want as few constraints on wealth as possible. Their idea of a great system is one where the tax burden is shifted away from wealth and unearned income to consumption, which would shift the burden away from the well-off to the poor.

Ah, SC, but you know what they say: Those who cannot do, teach.

LOL

Daniel, I said we SHOULD tax consumption. Perhaps you need to work on your comprehension skills a bit.

Whenever we cut taxes on investments and at the margin, the economy BOOMS.

Whenever we cut taxes on investments and at the margin, the economy BOOMS.

Like the boom we're seeing now? Spare us.

This would be a good time to review the flat tax idea. A single digit income tax with a single digit consumption tax sounds like a good place to start.

Back when the flat tax proposals were bouncing around, I did some rough calculating. Regardless of which plan I looked at, my personal flat taxes, compared to what I was already paying, would have gone up! This tells me that all of those flat tax proposals were way too high.

muckdog, not a comprehension thing, just a multitasking and not totally concentrating thing. I stand corrected, you did say that we should tax consumption. The problem with that, however, is that the very wealthy can very easily offshore a lot of their consumption.