President Barack Obama walks onto stage at a campaign event at West Palm Beach County Convention Center, Sunday, Sept. 9, 2012, in West Palm Beach, Fla.
Associated Press
I can summarize Obama's campaign in one sentence: "It's against the law for you to go to your (rich) neighbor's house and take his stuff, but if you vote for me, the government will do it for you." I put the word "rich" in parenthesis because the definition of rich will most assuredly creep downward when raising taxes on the "rich" fails to provide the desired windfall.
Kerry Thompson
North Salt Lake
What You May Have Missed
Most Popular
Across Site
In Opinion
- Facts about the Boy Scouts of America
- My view: MMR vaccine caused my son's autism
- White House press corps has been turned into...
- Michael Gerson: Common Core standards are not...
- Commentary claims liberals are shocked by...
- Dan Liljenquist: IRS scandal is an assault on...
- In our opinion: Utah's caucus system needs...
- George F. Will: Obama takes a page from...
Most Commented
Across Site
In Opinion
- Letters: No welfare, ever
78 - Letters: Move to the center
37 - My view: Why moderates lost the caucus...
33 - Tolerance and the same-sex marriage debate
33 - Dan Liljenquist: IRS scandal is an...
32 - Richard Davis: Abortion laws should...
29 - Letters: Dismantle IRS
25 - Robert J. Samuelson: Can Americans stem...
21



Federal taxes are at a sixty year low. Getting them back up to their historical norm hardly constitutes Armageddon. The effective income tax rate paid by the top one percent is 22%. If we doubled that to 44% we would raise 3% of GDP in additional More..
We're probably all going to have to accept a larger tax burden, including the rich. I'm good with that, because it's the price of a free, civil society.
Yes, jsf if everyone paid their fair share such as Romney, GE, Exxon, and others of the same ilk. I have no problem returning to the Clinton tax rates. The key to all of this is an increase in revenue. I don't think an extra 3% of your income More..