Letter: Clearing up confusion on tax rate increases


Return To Article
  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    Dec. 14, 2012 9:32 a.m.

    RE: Half wit minion I will kind of give you the cut medicare claim, I think I have actually heard the anointed one propose that. However it is a very convoluted mess, and only you would believe any number the CBO puts out. It is also a mix of increases put into Obamacare. How much gets cut, is really anyones guess.
    700 million? are you serious? Why bother? ....and I thought the 70 billion class envy tax increase that the anointed one is proposing was fairly meaningless! Second thought however, I do agree with your notion that we should cut everywhere we can, and even little things add up. Even your government welfare should be cut a little, along with all your other comrades welfare. Every little bit makes a difference!

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Dec. 13, 2012 11:12 a.m.

    Why won't Republicans detail the cuts they want to make? Just saying "We want $X in cuts" isn't enough. How can Dems agree to these cuts if they are not specifically described? How can Dems agree to elimination of deductions if they are not specified? Republicans don't want to give specifics because they are afraid that what they want is unpopular. Spineless!

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Dec. 13, 2012 7:23 a.m.


    Ok, two.

    1) Obama plan to cut 320 Billion from medicare - google it - not too hard to find if you really care to. Republicans ran against these cuts.

    2) 2/3rds of government data centers consolidated - closing about 650 data centers by fiscal year 2015 and saving about $700 million in doing so.

    Your turn.

    Respectfully your,

    a half-wit minion

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    Dec. 12, 2012 6:27 p.m.

    On and on we go with this distraction and misleading narrative about increasing taxes. There is a good reason why the head fool (BHO) didn't raise income taxes in his first term - he knew it was an economy killer. Now that he doesn't need to get re-elected he seeks to install the next wave of socialism creep upon us. The full impact of Obamacare taxes hasn't even hit yet, and now this. So much for the lie about protecting the middle class. His half-wit minions, who defend him with every breath, deserve what they get, to bad the rest of us have to suffer also.
    They are so busy with this distraction campaign, they cant even give an answer about spending cuts. They admit that cuts are necessary, but they are so full of class envy, they cant remove their focus from tax increases. Their only answer is to cut defense spending. come on leftists, give us 2 precise, clear, areas of spending cuts. Don't lie like your president has so many times before!

  • Henderson Orem, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 10:47 a.m.

    Until folks like Mitt Romney pay the same rate as I do in taxes, no one rich can claim that they're "picked on." Sheessh! Make millions more than I do (and I'm actually working) and he pays a much lower tax rate. Unbelievable.

  • wrz Ogden, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 8:36 p.m.

    @The Real Maverick:
    "If raising billions in new revenue via letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire is so little why were you such a proponent of cutting the millions spent on Big Bird?"

    The point being made was, Big Bird is rich enough to support itself so why blow taxpayer money on him/ger?

    "Why did you waste time bringing this up in an important debate and wasting hours upon hours debating this on your Fair and Balanced media?"

    Liberals dragged the issue out ad infinitum. They were sore about one of their sacred icons being dissed.

    "Are you folks really willing to go off the fiscal cliff to fight for your tax cuts for the wealthy?"

    The cliff is the president's to go off of. The House is responsible for money laws according to the US Constitution. Obama thinks he's god and makes the laws, not Congress.

    "GOP, your time is up! You've had years to propose solutions."

    A solution has been proposed. What Dems want is for the GOP to cave, bow, and scrape.

    "The ball is in your court."

    The nut is in the White House.

  • red state pride Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 8:18 p.m.

    @maverick - the point about PBS funding is that Big Bird can fly on his own two wings. If he were real he'd have more money than Michael Jordan but his money is PBS's money. But somehow, with 500 plus channels available on cable the US Taxpayer/ Ben Bernanke is still supposed to support PBS. PBS has already "revenued" Sesame Street to the tune of millions upon millions but PBS is still being subsidized. Why?
    Can we have a little cost/benefit analysis here? I believe (rough numbers) 70% of the wealth in this country is controlled by people 65 or older but this age group's "entitlements" are untouchable according to Lynn Woolsey and the rest of the Democrat party.
    Of course defunding PBS or Planned Parenthood isn't going to solve our budget crisis- but if you can't have a simple cost vs benefit analysis and trim some small things then how do you handle the big ticket items that will ultimately consume us? And btw I have no problem with a big cut in the "Dept of Diversity" ...errrrrrr....Dept of Defense's budget.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 7:35 p.m.

    Despite any tax you put on the rich, or small business owners, or whoever,

    the poor and the middle class are still NOT any richer.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 7:00 p.m.

    "If the Obama tax increase of the wealthy is so tiny why bother?"

    If raising billions in new revenue via letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire is so little why were you such a proponent of cutting the millions spent on Big Bird? Why did you waste time bringing this up in an important debate and wasting hours upon hours debating this on your Fair and Balanced media?

    Why does the GOP insist on wasting our time?

    Are you folks really willing to go off the fiscal cliff to fight for your tax cuts for the wealthy? I doubt it. But we shall surely see. Either way, taxes are (thankfully) going up and massive cuts to defense (thankfully) will take place due to the fiscal cliff bomb.

    GOP, your time is up! You've had years to propose solutions. The clock is nearing an end! And your party, is about to be destroyed in 2014 if you push us off this cliff. Already we're seeing the GOP split. Those who value their pledge to Nordquist are set at odds with those who are (thankfully) returning to their pledge to the Constitution.

    The ball is in your court.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Dec. 11, 2012 5:41 p.m.

    A day goes by and still no one has attempted to tell me why Reagans 50% tax rate was Great for the country, but Obama's 40% is a job and an economy killer.

    The silence is very telling.

    What say you Red, MM, Mike R?

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    Dec. 11, 2012 5:37 p.m.

    Mike, you keep harping on this over and over again, but there isn't a single Democrat in Congress (or in the White House, for that matter) who thinks that raising taxes on your "rich guy" is the only means of erasing the deficit. However, it has to be part of the solution, and anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.

    Also, as mentioned before, even after the Bush tax cuts expire, taxes will still be significantly lower than they were under Reagan. Based on your logic, I guess he hated the wealthy even more than Obama supposedly does...

  • Alfred Ogden, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 5:29 p.m.

    @Kent C. DeForrest:
    " The effect on individual taxpayers is negligible, while overall it will provide a great deal of revenue."

    If you add up alotta negligibles what do you get? Something that's practically negligible.

    "And Mike, nobody, even Obama, said raising the rates on the rich will pay for the whole debt we've accumulated. But it is a partial solution."

    Obama does not plan to use the taxes from the wealthy to pay down the debt. He plans, and has planed all along, to use the money to (1) expand government, and (2) fund family vacations to Europe, etc., for him, his wife and children.

    "So get off your high horse and offer some viable options rather than just bellyaching."

    Here's an idea... fire all his czars that he hired in his first term. He has a cabinet, why does he think he needs 20 to 25 czars setting around the White House. And here's another idea... stop sending your wife and kids on expensive vacations.

  • wrz Ogden, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 5:11 p.m.

    "Mitt Romney - business guru - couldn't name ONE loophole he'd close as President....
    ...and that's what's wrong with the GOP."

    Mitt coulda named several loopholes but, doing so would give the opposition ammunition for use in the campaign. For example James Carville (a staunch Democrat party leader) has already shown us what woulda happened... He suggests one of the Mitt loopholes would be the mortgage interest deduction. So, James starts harping that eliminating that 'loophole' would damage the real estate business.

    The truth is, Romney would have put a cap on the total of all itemized deduction on the IRS 1040 for the wealthy. Ordinary folks would still get their full itemized deductions.

    Does that help?

  • wrz Ogden, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 4:46 p.m.

    If the Obama tax increase of the wealthy is so tiny why bother?

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 4:23 p.m.

    The double standard that the right has set....

    I love it how raising taxes on the rich shouldn't be done because it won't come close to paying off our debt...


    Getting rid of Big Bird was seen as such a priority that Mitt Romney had to speak about it in his debate with President Obama.

    Apparently to the right, shutting down funding to PBS was going to solve our debt problem.


  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Dec. 11, 2012 2:52 p.m.


    :The CBO has NOT guaranteed that revenue will rise at all if the rich are taxed, because they know that they cannot force the "rich guy" to work if he's going to go home with less money WHILE everybody else attacks him for being foolish enough to work harder than they are willing to work. Yet Obama's followers think that the "rich guy" is some kind of moron who will continue to work regardless of how much they take from him.:

    Your statement makes absolutely no sense. Lets say you are a professional making and AGI of 300k a year. Under the propose new rates your taxes on income above 250 k would go up a grand total of $1,500. Are you seriously telling me a "rich" person is going to stop working because their take home on the AGI went up $1,500?

    Lets be clear hear, this simplistic view that a very marginal tax change is going to drive huge amounts of behavuor just isn't based on fact. The vast majority of US wealthy live in states with high taxes - an example - Romney himself choosing California. The rhetoric doesn't match up.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 2:38 p.m.

    @Mike Richards
    The CBO says that taxes on the rich bring in 80 billion a year over 10 years. With a deficit of roughly 1.2 trillion a year that would mean it's 1/15th of what we need to balance the budget. I'm not sure where you got 1/25th but... either way it's not even close to 1/2. Here's the thing though, most Democrats know that it can't close the deficit by itself. We want other stuff too, personally I want to slash military spending by a third. I want the bush tax cuts for everybody repealed. I want a public option (that reduces healthcare costs 15 billion a year according to the new york times). I want the cap on income subject to payroll taxes increased to keep social security solvent for a few more decades. I don't just want tax cuts repealed on the rich. Just the things I've listed would reduce the deficit by about 75%.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 2:24 p.m.


    Yes, fixing the tax code is multifaceted. But this letter was only about the actual effects of reinstating the pre-Bush tax rates on the top two brackets. The effect on individual taxpayers is negligible, while overall it will provide a great deal of revenue.

    And Mike, nobody, even Obama, said raising the rates on the rich will pay for the whole debt we've accumulated. But it is a partial solution. Many partial solutions will be needed to create a whole solution. Ignoring the revenue that can be raised by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire on the wealthiest income brackets is unwise. So get off your high horse and offer some viable options rather than just bellyaching.

  • WHAT NOW? Saint George, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 2:20 p.m.


    Thank you for your "...probably true and fairly accurate..." comments,


    I can't let go of all the boogey men rush, grover, karl, mitch, john, george, newt, et al. tell and write to us about everyday.


  • red state pride Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 2:07 p.m.

    @ LDS Liberal- actually I read an article about it. I haven't heard any talk radio hosts discuss it. If you had read the article you'd know that Federal Agencies used faulty studies that were repeatedly shown to be incorrect to try to show that the oyster farm was degrading the environment. I understand that it was a lease and the lease could expire but if Ken Salazar wasn't in the back pocket of the Sierra Club and this Administration actually cared about jobs and the thirty people who are going to be losing their jobs and the family that is going to lose millions of dollars then they may have different priorities. BTW- when someone doesn't have income you can't tax their income.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 1:35 p.m.

    red state pride
    Cottonwood Heights, UT
    12:40 p.m. Dec. 11, 2012

    Must have heard only sound bites from the Blaze or Rush Limbaugh.

    Let's see the facts:

    1. Drakes Bay Oyster Company doesn't OWN the sight - it has always been Leased, for the last 100 years. The Lease simply run out, and Salazar did not renew it.

    2. Why? one might ask...[was it some secret Obama adminstration diabolical evil plan to take over and Socialize Aemerica?] No, it was simply because U.S. Congress declared that area protected wilderness area back in 1976, and it has been part of the National Parks Department since 1962.

    Let's at least investigate ALL of the facts, instead of building a strawman arguement based on AM radio "sound bits" taken out of context to score petty political points, shall we?

  • red state pride Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 12:40 p.m.

    So the letter writer didn't explain how a tax increase helps the economy. Does it create any jobs? Go ask the people at Drake's Bay Oyster Company in California how much this administration cares about jobs.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Dec. 11, 2012 12:29 p.m.

    Do those who blindly accept Obama's promises close their minds off to facts, or are they incapable of thinking for themselves?

    The CBO told us that Obama needs 25 times more revenue than taxing the "rich guy" will provide, yet look at how many posters walk lock-step with Obama when he tells us that taxing the rich is the answer.

    The CBO has NOT guaranteed that revenue will rise at all if the rich are taxed, because they know that they cannot force the "rich guy" to work if he's going to go home with less money WHILE everybody else attacks him for being foolish enough to work harder than they are willing to work. Yet Obama's followers think that the "rich guy" is some kind of moron who will continue to work regardless of how much they take from him.

    If YOU were rich enough to not have to work and your boss told you that you would work more hours for less money, what would you do? Just what do you think the "rich guy" is going to do?

    Obama has no solution. Think for yourself for a change.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Dec. 11, 2012 12:28 p.m.

    Stuff.... I appreciate your comments.... but taxation in book of Mormon times I am sure has little similarity to today. If you were a subsistence farmer/rancher back then, 20 or 50 percent of you "income" is far different that the same numbers applied agains a companies profits, or someones personal income. It is cool to explore those relationships, and how the tax burden might have been different or the same back then, but drawing a 1 to 1 comparison likely isn't accurate, as I assume you realize.

    Mike, Mike, MIke..... and why don't you mention other facts like this from 17 minutes ago...

    "The U.S. Treasury's sale of its remaining stake in American International Group Inc (AIG.N) will fetch $7.6 billion, bringing the government a total profit of $22.7 billion from its bailout of the insurer in the financial crisis four years ago"

    Lets repeat... total profit from the AIG bailout was $22.7 billion. The government can be a hassle to deal with, but on occasion they do a few things right. Letting AIG fail would have cost the US tax payer billions

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 11:45 a.m.

    Provo, UT
    Now, if I may, the Book of Mormon makes a few references to taxes. One-fifth (20%) was outrageous and 50% was imposed on people being held captive.
    10:55 a.m. Dec. 11, 2012


    Let's at least compare apples to apples.

    Show me in the Book of Mormon were taxes were ever used to pay for
    extensive roads, bridges, power, sewer, water, garbage, hydro electric and nuclear power, snow removal, Colleges and Univesities, Fire Departments, Public education K-12, Cancer research, Search and Rescue, Radar, Radio and Computer communications, ect., ect. ect.

    In additon --
    Those Book of Mormon taxes were never used to fund the needs of the Sick, Needy, or elderly like ours do.
    That was all taken care of by immediate family or charities.

    Taxes ALL went to the KING, who "might" pay for an Army.

    BTW - Captain Moroni wrote his Congressmen about the lack of funds to support the War THEY wanted. As I recall he actually threathened to turn his armies against his own Government if they didn't DO somehting about it pronto. As Veteran myself, I can't help but see the similarity with today's Republicans.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Dec. 11, 2012 11:19 a.m.

    Stuff - your comments are both illogical and irrelevant. First, the only way states will "have to make up that lost revenue" is if the federal government can't fund the programs that states rely on, like Medicaid. The federal government loses revenue when they cut taxes, not increase them. And for those of you still trying to peddle the follies of trickle down economics (cut taxes on the rich and it will somehow evolve into even more tax revenue for the federal government) just stop it right now. There is no evidence to support that concept.

    Secondly, I have to question your reference to taxes imposed by King Noah. We live in a republic/democracy and we are not ruled by a king. And the lifestyle described in the Book of Mosiah/Book of Mormon seems to be more of a reference to the lifestyles of the massively wealthy than middle class Americans. And finally, not everyone in the world, not even in the Provo world, accepts the teachings of the Book of Mormon. Maybe some will have trouble accepting the concepts presented there.

  • stuff Provo, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 10:55 a.m.

    That's all good and well, Roger, but there is so much more to the tax increases than just personal income tax. You're comments, while probably true and fairly accurate, do not take into account things such as cancellation of many deductions, impact on states, medicare, medicaid and many other programs that are tied into the tax code. Some articles I've read indicate that the affect on states is in the billions of dollars. So, even though the federal income tax is not that large, if the states have to make up that lost revenue, then taxes in other areas increase significantly. The overall tax burden will become more difficult to bear.

    Now, if I may, the Book of Mormon makes a few references to taxes. One-fifth (20%) was outrageous and 50% was imposed on people being held captive.

    I suppose that now, or soon, the "rich", and anyone else willing to work, will literally become working slaves to those who don't or won't work who expect a free, albeit poverty-level, distribution from the government.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 10:36 a.m.

    President Bush should have reversed the tax cuts, the second he declared the war in Iraq. American patriots will pay more taxes for a war in defense of national security.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 10:13 a.m.

    Outstanding letter. My gosh, it's great to see some common sense (and math!) on this issue.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Dec. 11, 2012 9:42 a.m.

    Great letter Roger Terry!

    Thank You for using facts, and data [the truth]
    to stifle the Chicken Little scare tactics used on FaoxNews and Talk Radio.

    You assumptions even left out ridiculous "tax deductions" even small companies take advantage of like that the rest of us can't like -

    No sales tax,
    Business lunches, dinners, vacations,
    Assest Depreciations,
    Property Lease,
    Motor Vehicle mileage at what?...42 cents per mile?,
    NONE of that and 1,000 items more are never shown as earnings because they are all deductible.

    I know for a fact, most business owners also do things like form Family Trusts, LLCs, and hide ALL their personal assests like house, personal vehicles, RVs, ect. so those never show up on that $250K IRS radar either.

    So the REAL number after everything else is said and done is the "Adjusted Income" of over $250K, after all deductions - the 100% pure Profit - cash in the pocket, after everything else.

    G.E. made $Billions and STILL never paid a nickel in taxes.
    The common household doesn't enjoy such tax privledges.

    Mitt Romney - business guru - couldn't name ONE loophole he'd close as President....
    ...and that's what's wrong with the GOP.
    Name ONE.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Dec. 11, 2012 9:41 a.m.

    I still have seen no answer on this simple question.

    We constantly hear how Reagan created millions of jobs and created a booming economy by lowering tax rates. The predominant top tax rate under Reagan was 50%. He briefly cut it to 28% but that rate kicked in at around $30,000 in today's dollars.

    Today's top tax rate is 35% beginning at an income of around $380,000. The proposal is to raise it to 39.6 ( the rate under Clinton who also had a very good economy)

    So, here is the million dollar question

    How could Reagan's 50% top tax rate be so good for jobs and the economy, but a 40% tax rate is a job killer.

    Can anyone explain the the logic?

  • Henderson Orem, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 9:18 a.m.

    "He had to have Obamacare passed immediately. No time to read the bill. No time to debate the bill. It had to be passed right then."


    Obamacare wasn't new. In the 90s it was created in part by the Heritage Foundation and sponsored by Orrin Hatch.

    This comment that Obamacare was just created out of thin air and passed is extremely incorrect.

    However, because the wacky right has become overly crazy and their #1 goal was to make Obama a one-term President they turned against their own reform and declared it Socialism. My how far the right has fallen!

  • conservative scientist Lindon, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 9:14 a.m.

    I hope your numbers are true Roger and if true will be less scary than much of what has been circulated for people in the range of income you are talking about. Your numbers are, however, different from what President Obama keeps drumming which is that anyone making over $200,000 ($250,000 filing jointly) will pay more taxes (and often the tax code is written so people in higher incomes lose exemptions and other deductions). How do I know what to believe? Please tell me what source gave you your numbers so they can be verified. I'm genuinely interested and hoping you are accurate.

  • Roger Terry Happy Valley, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 9:14 a.m.

    In the 200 words allotted, I didn't have space to mention that this little hypothetical situation is very simplified and, therefore, overestimates the taxes a small businessperson would pay. I assumed minimal credits and deductions. For example, I assumed a mortgage of $300,000 at 3 percent for 15 years, which yielded a mortgage interest deduction of $8,800. A family with this sort of income could afford a much larger house and mortgage.

    I also assumed that this family of four paid only 4 percent of their income to charity, which would result in higher taxable income than if they had donated a higher percentage. I assumed they were too busy to take advantage of all the tax credits and loopholes available to people of means. So, if anything, my numbers are grossly overstated in terms of the taxes this family would pay.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 8:38 a.m.

    A good letter.

    But those who oppose any increases are not interested in facts.

    Procura told us exactly that the other day when he wrote in a post here: "My opinions are not based on facts." That's not an exact quote, but I'm sure you'll all get the idea.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Dec. 11, 2012 8:27 a.m.

    To Mike R..of course he will raises taxes on all of us "at some time". At some time the payroll deduction tax rate has to go back to where it was and the Bush tax cuts have to expire for everyone.."at some time". You're not saying anything the President hasn't said himself.

    Just want to get it out in the open so when the economy fully recovers as a result of the Presidents brilliant handling..and "some time" arrives you don't run around saying I told you so..because the President has all ready told us so.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 8:23 a.m.

    Small business is a lie, just like the lie about small farmers the term is used to make us have sympathy for a non-existent disadvantaged group of businessmen.

    There are no disadvantaged businessmen. If a businessman feels he is disadvantaged all he has to do is move to a different business or even take a job like the rest of us.

    All personal income is the same, and as the best measure of American benefits, should be taxed the same no mater how, where or when it is obtained.

    The distinction between a businessman and a worker is that the businessman obtains his income from the labor of others. Success for a businessman is buying at low wages/cost and selling the product at a higher price.

    The only businessman who might deserve any sympathy is the one man business where the owner is also the worker.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Dec. 11, 2012 8:11 a.m.

    "This past election, Norquist's group, Americans for Tax Reform, spent nearly $16 million to support his favored candidates; that's according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Where did that money come from, and what did it buy? Back in the 1990's, it was the tobacco industry backing Norquist's fight against cigarette taxes; now it's pharmaceutical companies, among others. Not long ago, this same Grover Norquist was using his organization to launder money for the notorious lobbyist Jack Abramoff. How about that for tax reform!

    So, not only does the Norquist Pledge symbolize a "political system short on legitimacy," as Christopher Caldwell (a senior editor at The Weekly standard) wrote. It isn't even about principle or ideology. Conservatism, my foot. It's all about the money."
    (Bill Moyers, Capitol Crimes)

  • Henderson Orem, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 7:49 a.m.

    But but but...

    According to a letter writer yesterday... (ANY) tax increase on the rich is class warfare and they should sue the federal government for being picked on!

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Dec. 11, 2012 7:37 a.m.

    Obama's "plan" is no plan at all. It doesn't solve ANY problems. It is a power grab by the President to have an open-ended "credit card". For those whose memories are so short that they can't remember what he did the first time:

    - He had to have stimulus money and he had to have it immediately. No time to think. No time to debate.

    - He had to "save" GM and Chrysler immediately. No time to see who was receiving the money. No time to debate whether government had the right to seize a private company.

    - He had to have Obamacare passed immediately. No time to read the bill. No time to debate the bill. It had to be passed right then.

    He's trying to do it again. The CBO tells us that taxing the "rich guy" will bring is $60 billion a year - if the "rich guy" decides to be the government patsy and continues to work just as hard and just as many hours. That's only 1/25th of the money needed.

    Face it. He's going to raise taxes on YOU, but, he's going to do it piecemeal. Study history - his history.

  • Midvaliean MIDVALE, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 7:05 a.m.

    As i keep trying to tell Mike Richards, 100K isn't rich. Not even close.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Dec. 11, 2012 6:29 a.m.

    Thanks Roger for this clearly stated explanation of the proposed tax rate increase. There are those who want us to believe that the president is proposing tax increases on ALL income for those making over $250,000 per year. But as you so clearly state is only on the income in excess of $250,000. Otherwise, everyone pays the same tax, even after the tax increase, on the first $250,000 of income. Still there are those who think a tax increase of any kind is wrong and unfair. But it is only with a combination of some tax increase (getting us closer to the tax rates of the 90's when we experienced the greatest financial success in our history) and the careful and responsible decrease in spending that we can begin to solve our debt problem. I think it is worth repeating that the CBO estimated in the late 90's that if we continued the course we were on then, with less government and higher taxes, we would have paid off our national debt by 2010. But instead, we cut taxes and increased spending including two unfunded wars. That's no way to run a business or a country.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Dec. 11, 2012 5:53 a.m.

    Mr. Terry,

    Your clear bias toward reality and facts will makes your analysis unpersuasive.

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 5:32 a.m.

    For Republicans who have sold their soul to Grover Norquist, it's not about the numbers, it's all about the principle and the promise. But thank you, Roger, for shining the light of reason on this topic. It exposes how irrational they are in fighting this battle. Any "job creator" worth his or her entrepreneurial salt can absorb the slight increase in tax burden without missing a beat, without having to shut down or scale back operations in any significant way, and without having to give up his or her extravagant lifestyle.

  • embarrassed Utahn! Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 5:21 a.m.

    Blind-partisan Utahns, which are numerous, will ignore your facts and legitimate figures. They like Mitt's Mystery Math and won't stop believing they were in the minority of voters.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Dec. 11, 2012 4:55 a.m.

    Come On Roger.

    We have no desire to know all of those little details.

    Here is all we need to know.

    - Taxes will be raised to unconscionable levels in order to run the govt for 10 days.

    - All rich people are job creators. Raise their taxes AT ALL and they will no longer hire the rest of us.

    - Give rich people more money and it will filter down to everyone else.

    - Raising taxes on rich people is "redistribution of wealth" and will go to those unwilling to work