Taxes on rich may bring revenue, but it won’t fix deficit

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • ronnie sandy, utah
    April 24, 2011 2:17 p.m.

    To even quote Rush Limbaugh on anything loses my respect for the author. Furthermore there is absolutely no reason not to increase taxes given the current situation, and with such disposable wealth the rich can handle a higher tax rate. The last time the rich were taxed at a higher rate the job creation went through the roof. Can we get a clue.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    April 23, 2011 3:47 p.m.

    I have to love all these "rich supports" who themselves aren't rich, standing up for the rich and how abused they are. Unless you are hit with AMT, you are not rich. Unless you have deductions that are in the high 5 digits, you are not rich. Unless you have an accountant that makes six figures, you are likely not rich.

    So how in the heck do you know so well what the "rich" do and don't pay in taxes? You want to get upset, how about small business people who are able to hide income as business expenses and there for don't pay any federal income tax. I have a relative who owns his own business, lives in a very nice house, drives a Lexus and Lincoln, has a beach house, a golf house, and memberships to a couple of nationally known golf courses, plus trust funds for his grand kids to go to college, and doesn't pay any income tax because he doesn't make any money.

    I made well into six figures. My nominal tax rate... in the 8% range.

    Stop your crying for the rich, they pay less than you.

  • Hmmm... North Ogden, UT
    April 23, 2011 2:24 a.m.

    The rich keep the lions share of the profits for themselves; yet some claim its unfair to increase taxes on them. Huh? Their money comes not from their own labor but from the labor of others. After all, the whole purpose of getting rich off other peoples labors is to live well, avoiding all forms of thankless toil and drudgery, enjoying superior opportunities of lavish life styles, medical care, education, travel, recreation, security, leisure, and opportunities for power and prestige. These things are fervently clung to by those who possess them - and perhaps those who desire to be like them - as witnessed by the measures endorsed whenever they feel the threat of a leveling democratic force. Increasing taxes on the rich may or may be the answer but dont tell the working class its not fair. If you do not have the power to limit the abuses of wealth and position; you do not have much freedom.

  • Ex-Pat of Zion Lititz, PA
    April 22, 2011 1:54 p.m.

    Anybody remember who Luca Brasi was? What was his fate? Some here (no names as a courtesy) are in that role. Misplaced loyalty deserves its just reward. Just let the warning given here ... now flash before your eyes as the tension in the piano wire intensifies.

    The power brokers are playing for much higher stakes and while they need and appreciate good "soldiers" around them, they could care less about your fate. There are a hundred others waiting at the front door. "I will take the treasures of the earth and ... reign with blood and horror ...". Human existence has never been about balance. It has been about compromise. It has been about taking sides. Compromise is nothing more than a tactical maneuver.

    Why has entitlement spending gone up? Jobs moving offshore. Why did jobs move offshore? For corporate survival? (Uh!) It was about maximizing price per share. That is the big lie that b-schools have been selling for a generation. A few (i.e. Morgan, Rockefeller) were carriers of the disease, but it was the MBA...particularly the finance "speciality"... that fueled the pandemic. These are the "elite soldiers" of the new organized crime (Mormon King-men)

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 22, 2011 1:25 p.m.


    "Even if 1 person made 99% of the wealth in America, why should that 1 person pay 99% of taxes?

    He doesn't use 99% of the resources.

    Why should the rich be forced to pay for what they use"

    Okay you support regressive taxation. Apparently your mission is to destroy the middle class even worse than what's been happening the past three decades from Reaganomics.

  • nick Provo, UT
    April 22, 2011 11:47 a.m.

    Spending is the problem--not taxes. Federal spending has increased by about 30 percent since 2007. We need to raise taxes by about 30 percent to balance the budget or cut spending to match revenues. From 1776 until about 1910, local, state and federal taxes consumed a total of about 7% of GDP on average each year. During that period, more progress and economic growth occurred in relative terms than during any time in human history before or since. We went from riding horses as the fastest means of travel and communication, to transcontinental railroads and the telegraph.

    With current federal spending at a record peacetime level of 25% of GDP, combined with local and state spending of about 20% of GDP, we are near the magic tipping point of 50%. In addition, businesses and individuals spend about 10% percent of GDP to comply with government regulations. We have abandoned the limited government that the Founding Fathers gave us. We have sown the seeds of decline, and we will surely reap the whirlwind.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    April 22, 2011 9:51 a.m.

    Those making over $250,000 will pay more only on that income over $250,000. For example, a small business owner reporting $100 in profit is currently taxed at 35%, meaning he takes home $65. If his rate is raised to 39.6%, he only takes $60 home, a difference of $5.

    The higher tax rate would apply to net income, excluding business expenses. The Joint Committee on Taxation reported that 2/3 of those reporting business profits on individual tax returns have average net incomes of $700,000 and some more than $50 millionincluding law firms and investment firms, hardly the small mom-and-pop operations we envision.

    Who do Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Ted Turner and others envy?
    Not sure how your post made it through the DN censors with its personal attack on all liberals.
    BTW, LDS college grad here, paid my own tuition, paying, without grants or loans for 3 college educations for our children, and yes, most likely will pay the higher tax rate if Obama gets his way.

  • RoxyLynne Madison, IN
    April 22, 2011 8:03 a.m.

    First of all, if you are so envious of the rich, why don't you go out and get rich yourselves? Oh, much harder than it seems, isn't it. Most people are not smart enough, talented enough, wont' sacrifice enough, and after all it's so much easier just to sit back and be whiny about your own situation in life. Secondly, since it seems "fairness" is an issue with most liberals, and I agree, let's raise taxes on the almost 50% of people who DON'T pay any taxes! It's those lower income people who use most of our expensive services!!! I'm sorry you didn't pay attention in high school, and didn't go to college, or decided to become a textiles major, or had children out of wedlock, or divorced some spouse you couldn't get along with, or whatever other stupid choices you have made in your life! Other people should not be held responsible financially. Talk about greed, and envy and covetousness.

  • bluejean Farmington, UT
    April 22, 2011 2:01 a.m.

    Obama's new definition of millionaires and billionaires are the hard working people who make $250,000, like your doctor who just spent 16 years and a ton of money so she can learn enough to actually give you the care you need and pay back her loans. Or the small businessman who has 16 employees, works 60 hr. weeks and does his own taxes. Why work hard? Why go to school and become an expert? Just work less, get payed less and you'll come out even. Obama's policies encourage mediocrity and defeats the entrepreneurship that drives our economy. Taxing real millionares and billionares will get nowhere. They always find a loophole, get offshore accounts and defer income.[GE a perfect example]
    The only sensible thing to do is to greatly simplify the tax code and equilize the burden on everyone. The rich will pay more, a lot more but it will be the same percentage as the middle income guy next door. If everyone pays some tax, they have ownership and understand that the road to being a great nation requires the meaningful input of every citizen.

  • panamadesnews Lindon, UT
    April 21, 2011 7:18 p.m.

    I propose a national sales tax to replace the tax code and the IRS. Everyone would pay a % of their purchases. The middle class and especially the poor would mitigate their tax payments by being more frugal than the rich, who tend to not watch their spending as do the other groups. Everyone wins. This is a win-win situation. No income taxes. No end of year hastles of trying to get your taxes done by Apr 15. No having to take out a loan to pay the tax man. Your taxes are already paid - they are paid as you buy, all year long. This appears to be a great idea and the time is right to implement it.

  • St Gorgeous Raynham Center, MA
    April 21, 2011 6:28 p.m.

    Smartest thing I have heard in a while! Makes logical sense.

  • the_beav SLC, UT
    April 21, 2011 3:44 p.m.

    Taxing the rich is much like taxing a corporation... we the people will still cover the cost.

    For example:
    It was reported that the Huntsmans donated 41 Million dollars to Huntsman Cancer Institute. If the government took another 10 million from them this year that number may have dropped to 31 million. The tax money comes from funds that would be used for charitable donations, business investments (read as "jobs"), discretionary spending (putting money back into the economy, and jobs). Therefore we as a society now need to come up with that 10 million. It is a loose loose situation.

  • jimhale Eugene, OR
    April 21, 2011 2:01 p.m.

    Lost in all the talk of taxes and general spending is any serious debate on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

    Change is required for all three.

    Social Security should be separated from the rest of the budget as it once was and made forever solvent. SS taxes must be increased and the retirement age increased slightly, slowly.

    Ditto for Medicare and Medicaid. But the cure to them has to have a believable plan to halt the out-sized inflation in the health care segment of the economy.....something nobody is really talking about....let alone doing something about.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    April 21, 2011 1:39 p.m.

    Cut the per child credits. Kids are expensive and take a lot of socialized resources. If you want 6 kids, pay for them yourself and start paying your share of taxes.

    If you won't tax the rich upper class you are going to end up taxing the middle more. That's where small businesses really are.

    So the conservatives say both that the Bush tax cuts are increadibly important - and that the don't amount to squat in the same breath. Decide would ya?

  • duck Saint George, UT
    April 21, 2011 1:22 p.m.

    I'm a conservative Republican, but I'm ashamed of our party's focus on cutting taxes further for the wealthy (e.g. extending the Bush Tax Cuts) when our nation is facing a financial crisis. Let's get our priorities straight! We first need to cut the Federal budget--across the board, even Defense--and also eliminate some unnecessary programs.

    However, IRS records for the 400 wealthiest families show they are only paying an average of 17%--that's less than many middle-class taxpayers. What's more, some large corporations like GE are not paying any corporate tax. So, let's fix our tax code before we talk of more tax cuts for the wealthy. It's time we simplify the tax code and eliminate most of the loopholes, make the rates fairer for the middle-class who have born most of the burden, and see that every American who can pay anything shoulders a fair share of the tax load.

  • goitalone w bountiful, ut
    April 21, 2011 12:42 p.m.

    I am not rich. I am not poor either, in that I seem to have sufficient to meet my needs. Some of you out there would call that rich, so to you I am a bad guy.

    The class envy and warfare that elected officials engender with their tax the rich attitude only keeps us sniping at each other while they continue to spend money we do not have and they don't want to account for.

    But what I find really annoying id=s the persistant attitude that the rich should be taxed simply because they are rich.

    I never thought I would agree so completely with Chris B, but his analogy is so simple, those who can't see it may want to do a double take and be sure they are wearing clothes.

    I especially like the idea of going to Hawaii and letting someone else pay my way because I think they are richer than me.

    Those of you pandering to the "let's get the rich", ought to be ashamed of yourselves for your outright greed, except that your shame is already a thing of the past.

  • common sense in Idaho Pocatello, id
    April 21, 2011 12:20 p.m.

    The pain will be felt far and near. There will be no sacred cows. None.

    So there you have it. Get ready for the future. But be careful for what you wish for. You just might get it.


  • common sense in Idaho Pocatello, id
    April 21, 2011 12:16 p.m.

    It will take a tremendous effort to actually reduce the deficit. Raising taxes is only part of the plan. Do you hard core right wingers get that??? Only part of the plan.

    In fact the bi-partisan commission co-chaired by Alan Simpson recommended a whole host of tax increases, including reducing many popular tax deductions. Example - Eliminating the deduction for Mortgage interest. Anybody here itemize and use their mortgage interest as a deduction. Gone.

    And then we get into cutting programs. Social security, Medicaid and Medicare. Across the board decreases. Even the sacred cow of the Republican party. The Military. Yep, that's right. Across the board cuts there too.

    Oh yes there will also be tax increases on the wealthy too. That means Warren Buffet, who has stated that he does not believe its right that he pay less taxes than his secretary, will pay more.

    Also, Barrack Obama will pay more also. He is also one of those dastardly millionaires. Gosh but Obama is in FAVOR of raising his taxes. You sure can't get one of those millionaire Republican legislators in Washington to say the same.


  • Independent Henderson, NV
    April 21, 2011 12:06 p.m.

    "Its about time we took it back, and made the rich pay."

    Since you are so concerned about the middle class, how do you think "making the rich pay" will work out for the middle class? Do you seriously think the rich won't simply pass the cost of tax increases on to the middle class? The middle class will pay one way or another, whether through direct taxation or an increase in the price of goods or loss of their jobs. The rich will find a way around it. They always do. That's why they're rich. It doesn't matter who you tax, the middle class will always be the ones ultimately paying. the only thing tax increases on the rich will accomplish is a temporary spike in revenue until the rich ship more jobs overseas and increase the price of their goods. Sounds like such a win for the middle class, doesn't it?

  • Independent Henderson, NV
    April 21, 2011 11:56 a.m.

    "In the 1990's it worked: tax the rich and pay off all debt----we had a surplus-----and the amazing thing was the rich still got richer."

    You missed the whole point of the article. We spent far less in the 1990s than we are spending now. Unless we address that issue, no amount of tax increases will solve the problem.

    Judging from a lot of the comments on here, it's not really about reducing the deficit at all. It's simply about taxing the rich, because they are rich, and they deserve to be taxed more. Do that all you want, but you still won't solve the deficit problem unless you make some drastic cuts in spending. Is this debate about reducing the deficit, or is it about closing the gap between the rich and the poor. They are two different things, and solving one does not necessarily mean you've solved the other.

  • UncleArtie Brigham City, UT
    April 21, 2011 11:17 a.m.

    Taxation with representation is not such a good idea either.

    Stop feeding the BEAST. If legislators think they can shirk fiscal responsibility by simply raising taxes, they will continue to raise taxes. Rich or poor, no one is safe.

    Our out-of-control federal budget with debt monetization by the FED creates a surging money supply which leads to currency depreciation - inflation. Inflation is a tax on everyone, but it most punishes the poor - those who are least capable of dealing with it.

  • homebrew South Jordan, UT
    April 21, 2011 11:04 a.m.

    For the last 30 years republicans have been attacking the middle class, and doing everything they can for the rich. They have been redistributing wealth. From the middle class to the wealthy. Now in 2011, 200 people have more money than 50% of the rest of the population. Its about time we took it back, and made the rich pay. They are the ones who have benefitted the most in the last 10 years from the tax breaks and the republicans catering to them. Now the republicans think the 2010 election, that put republicans in charge of statehouses and govenerships, give them a mandate to destroy workers rights, and whats left of the middle class. I say to Hades with them all. Democrats had this country in Fine shape, when they turned it over to George Bush inb 2000. He destroyed it. Thats a fact. Not fiction, or dribble like you read from some of these posts. Just a plain fact. Pure and simple.

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2011 11:02 a.m.

    Number of millionaires in America = 2,800,00 or less than 1% of the population. Number of millionaires in Congress = 237 or 43% of Senators and Representatives. Is there anyone who thinks that the millionaires do not have "adequate" representation in this debate?

  • christoph Brigham City, UT
    April 21, 2011 10:47 a.m.

    In the 1990's it worked: tax the rich and pay off all debt----we had a surplus-----and the amazing thing was the rich still got richer.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    April 21, 2011 10:19 a.m.

    Democrats reaction to when the IRS reports over and over again that the top 10% of income producers pay 80& of the taxes in America and that the bottom 50%pay no income taxes at all! They clap their hands over my ears and chant, "I can't hear you, I can't hear you"...naaaa naaaa naaa...

  • IDC Boise, ID
    April 21, 2011 10:12 a.m.

    Thank you goitalone. I do well in small business but I pay a ton of taxes every year and Obama wants me to pay more. I have created 10 jobs, pay part of health insurance, and contribute to my employees 401k. I have sacrificed for years and have put my neck on the line (ie. house and everything I own) to get where I am. Do I need to be punished more for my success?

  • goitalone w bountiful, ut
    April 21, 2011 10:07 a.m.

    Enough already:

    With the "I've waited 30 years for trickle down economics to work."

    If you think it failed, you're in a time warp. It never had a chance to succeed. Before its benefits could begin to get started, congress emasculated the idea with hundreds of tweaks and changes.

    Bush 1 broke his "no new taxes" pledge under the threat of a government shutdawn by a democratic congress. Clinton's 8 years with democratic support in congress veered far from the principles of trickle down with the aid of spend and hide republicans.

    Trickle down my red backside. You who have fixated on the mantra of failure of trickle down economics are stuck in a cliche' world. You expected it to work, complained when it didn't and never paid attention when our elected officials guaranteed by their graft that it would never get a chance to succeed.

    All business did was react to the scenario enacted for them by congress. Want to blame someone (of course you do, it's the new American Idol) then blame congress. But when you do, same some blame for yourself.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    April 21, 2011 10:03 a.m.

    Does anyone think, taking money from the wealthiest is even going to put a dent in the deficit? A thousand billion equals a trillion. A thousand million equals a billion. Sorry folks, but we haven't got enough rich people to pay it off. We need to get rid of Uncle Sams check book and credit cards. Start taxing imports. Flush out our entire government and replace them with common sense citizens before the financial hurricane hits.

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2011 9:57 a.m.

    Simple logic Chris, but unfortunately it has nothing to do with any tax system except the one in your head. It was long ago decided that in most democracies there be a progressive tax system, based on the simple principle that on the bottom of the scale people have a hard enough time paying for necessities. The higher you go, the more disposable income that is available. What is essential in it all is the principle that each is paying a "fair" share. What is "fair" is what we are debating.

  • goitalone w bountiful, ut
    April 21, 2011 9:56 a.m.

    A couple of things to think about.

    93% of all business in this country is SMALL business. The preponderance of those are sole proprietorships. (No, I am not going to do your research for you. Do it yourself) That means, mom and pop small shops.

    The average income in tose businesses come nowhere close to $500k as alt34 suggests without backup. When taxation and government regulation becomes a burden in any way, the first thing that happens is the cost is passed on to the consumer. This fosters inflation. The second thing is the lay off of any remotely expendable employee. Hence, unemployment. The third thing is the business closes the doors.

    It is a fallacy that BIG business bears the brunt of taxation or regulation, but it is just as false that SMALL business has little impact on the economy.
    SMALL business, which makes up the vast majority of business in this country and employees millions, is most hurt by tax increases and gvt. beaurocracy.

    All you poor people out there crying for brutality against big bad business and its excess havent got a clue where the real burden will fall.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2011 9:35 a.m.

    "In 2007, the top 20% of households owned 85% of America's wealth. When those households pay 85% of the taxes, I'll stop complaining."

    KJB, What does the perecentage of wealth have to do with anything?


    when you and I stand next to each other at the checkout line at the store should we total our purchases and then have you pay all your bill and part of mine if you make more money that me?

    That is the sound logic you are suggesting.

    When is our next shopping trip?

    How about we go on vacation to Hawaii, and again I'll pay for my hotel but you have to cover my plane trip as you make more money than me.

    Makes sense right?


    We should pay according to what we.....


    Even if 1 person made 99% of the wealth in America, why should that 1 person pay 99% of taxes?

    He doesn't use 99% of the resources.

    Why should the rich be forced to pay for what they use

    and for what you use KJB?

    Shouldn we each pay for what we use?

    Simple logic really.

    Fair logic.

  • rjpkp Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 21, 2011 9:12 a.m.

    KJB1: Your Post Office example is a joke. Yes, you can mail something for $0.44. At that price, the USPS deficit is only $8.5 billion. And in your mind that is a system that works? It seems to me, and correct me if I am wrong, but a system that works is one that is self sustaining. FDIC? Not self sustaining. FDIC is funded by the institutions that pay the FDIC premiums, not by tax payers. And the FDIC had to borrow money from the Treasury to make it through the most recent bank seizures. Again, to most people, that is not a "working" program. Few of the other departments/services you mentioned are self sustaining. They require tax payer funding, which isn't necessarily a negative, but at the same time can hardly be considered to "work."

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2011 9:10 a.m.

    Taxing the rich will NOT fix the deficit, but it will begin to destroy some of the sense of parity that has been lost in the "class warfare" smokescreen. If someone earns $1 million a year and are taxed at 90% (it has been that high historically), they still have $100K take home (a blue collar concept). How many people can say that in this country?

    Taxing the rich will not fix the deficit, but it will restore a sense that we are all in this together.

  • WinSum Rexburg, ID
    April 21, 2011 9:01 a.m.

    I'm ashamed of Obama. All show, no substance. Embarassing. Loves to play "dress up" and ride on AF # 1 ....but he's no leader. Who cares about his color or birth certificate, even his "Harvard degree" can't hide his own declaration that "you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig." Real funny Mr. Pres., if it wasn't so true...........

  • gizmo33 St. George, Utah
    April 21, 2011 8:33 a.m.

    the politicians are the ones responsible for the deficit- make them pay for it

  • reader1234 South Jordan, UT
    April 21, 2011 8:28 a.m.

    I believe in the principles of redistribution. In fact I think the government should go a few steps further. I think they should redistribute grades from those who have 4.0s to those who are not doing too well. That way all our children can graduate from high school. I also think they should redistribute research performed at our universities. No longer will one professor get all the credit and possibly a Nobel Prize, but all American institutions will be given credit for the great things we discover. I advocate the government coming into every business and not allowing great employees to get credit for the hard work they perform but those great results should be redistributed to other employees that did not do the work. That way everyone can enjoy bonus and the satisfaction of knowing that their company is succeeding. If we did this how long do you think it would take for the USA to plummet into a great depression and return to the dark ages?

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    April 21, 2011 8:18 a.m.


    "Name one program the feds have created that works."

    The national interstate system.

    FDIC (Banking as we know it would cease to exist without this.)

    The Tennessee Valley Authority.

    Subsidized student loans.

    The GI Bill (and the military itself, for that matter.)

    The post office (Good luck mailing a letter through a private shipper for 44 cents.)

    Hoover Dam.

    The National Parks System.

    The National Endowment For The Arts.

    Trust me, there's more. I could literally go on all day.

  • IDC Boise, ID
    April 21, 2011 8:14 a.m.

    I think we should set the tax rate as low as possible for everyone. People within 20k of poverty level are not taxed. Then if the government needs more money, raise taxes on everyone above poverty level. If you make 50k a year, your taxes are raised $500. If you make 1000k a year, your taxes are raised $10,000. This way the rich pay more but everyone contributes and everyone feels the effect of government spending. If only the rich pay more, only the rich are being punished, entitlement grows, and everyone but the rich will vote for tax raises.

  • TOO Sanpete, UT
    April 21, 2011 8:09 a.m.

    Oh, here's the communist Obama raising taxes. We can't have people making money in this country and heaven forbid being successful. No sir. We must make them give their money to the little people. We must all be equal. If you don't give it, I'll take it, or you go to jail.
    It's a privilege to help the little people who aren't as successful as you. You shouldn't have worked so hard, or invested so well, or gone to school so long, or got a better degree. Nope. You are a bad person for making this country great. Shame on you rich people.
    Obama has no idea what he is doing. I challenge any person to show me a country that has this program and is successful and isn't in the dumb already.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    April 21, 2011 8:02 a.m.

    Chris B.

    In 2007, the top 20% of households owned 85% of America's wealth. When those households pay 85% of the taxes, I'll stop complaining.

  • Doug10 Roosevelt, UT
    April 21, 2011 8:00 a.m.

    High marginal tax rates correlate with economic growth.

    Examples include World War II and the Truman-Eisenhower years, when it was around 90 percent, and the Clinton years, when it was high relative to the preceding and following administrations.

    Tax rate increases are followed by real economic growth.
    Examples include Hoover in 1932, Roosevelt in 1936 and 1940, Bush the Elder in 1991 and Clinton in1993.

    Moderate tax cuts are followed by a flat economy.
    This is a generalization from one example: Johnson in 1964.

    Large tax cuts are followed by a boom, a bubble and a crash.
    1929, 1987 and 2008 are examples.

    High taxes create an incentive to reinvest profits into long-term growth.

    With high taxes, the only way to retain the bulk of the wealth created by a business is by reinvesting it in the business -- in plants, equipment, staff, research and development, new products and all the rest.

    Low taxes create an incentive for profit taking.

    It is easy to confuse profitability with wealth creation.

    They are not the same.

  • KM Cedar Hills, UT
    April 21, 2011 7:55 a.m.

    "The government is not the solution, its the problem!"

    Politicians in their lust for power have created this mess we are in. In socialism, redistribution of wealth is noble and right. It also leads to countries going bankrupt. Just like the people who propose the class warfare, redistribution, bailouts and vote purchasing - payback for support in elections.

    If someone proposes that we get one group or another, thus dividing 'we the people' run away from them!

  • DEW Sandy, UT
    April 21, 2011 7:55 a.m.

    Rich, middle class and the poor people should pay the same percentage in tax of what they earn. What is wrong with that or better make those rich pay a little more tax. It may not fix the deficit but it will slow down a little. Middle class people get hit harder which makes no sense.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    April 21, 2011 7:52 a.m.

    The tea-party crowd supported Bush was ready to suceed from the union from day 1 of Obama's presidency. Don't try to tell me now that you care about the country or the debt.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    April 21, 2011 7:48 a.m.

    Republican strawman argument: Democrats believe increased taxes will solve the deficit.
    Actual: Democrats believe increasing taxes is a necessary part of bringing down the deficit.

    Facts first:
    Historically, economists expect tax revenues to go up each year due to economic growth, population growth and inflation, even if tax rates stay the same.

    The 2006 Treasury report found that laws that lowered taxes produced declines in revenues, and that laws that increased taxes produced increases in tax revenues. Revenues did not go up in 2001, 2002 or 2003, after tax rates were lowered.

  • homebrew South Jordan, UT
    April 21, 2011 7:36 a.m.

    Mountainman:: Your suggesting that taxing the rich will not create jobs is a fairytale. FACT:: 23 million jobs were created under Bill Clinton, ZERO jobs created under George Bush. Please deal with facts, not dillusion, and turn the channel.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    April 21, 2011 7:17 a.m.

    Entitlement mentality; Others must give me their money so I can live beyond my means, receive what I didn't earn and don't deserve because if they don't THEY are greedy! After all, I am the victim here!

  • peter Alpine, UT
    April 21, 2011 7:13 a.m.

    "I...I...I...I...I" comes out of BO's mouth way too much. The only time "I" should come out of his hypocritical mouth is to say "I caused alot of this mess by allowing all this corrupt stimulus spending that didn't go to creating meaningful jobs." Politicians are the problem, not the solution to anything. Name one program the feds have created that works. You can't solve problems with the same minds that created them.

  • Gentile brookings, SD
    April 21, 2011 6:47 a.m.

    Tax the rich. They have it made in this country. They need to pay their fair share. THe rest of us do, it is ok for them to do so too.

    Remember: they enjoy incredible benefits. It is time to pay the piper.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    April 21, 2011 6:40 a.m.

    Spending by the federal government is out of control and letting them get their hands on more money is like giving more booze to an alcoholic in hopes it will help him curb his drinking.

  • Ex-Pat of Zion Lititz, PA
    April 21, 2011 5:16 a.m.

    OK...I'll Stereotype for a moment here. In trans generational "wealth" the richest of the rich and the poorest of the poor have one thing in common: Neither can understand the concept of work beyond the reality that "somebody else does it". I seem to remember something about "they shall not wear the garment of the laborer" in modern scripture. Applies to both groups, I'd say.

    The pain is obvious and everyone seems to have a cure. It's not Obama or Congress thinking themselves... approaches to solve problems on their own. ALL of them employ advisers. ALL of them listen to lobbyists. Where is the wealth concentrated right now? Precisely where Eisenhower said it would be ... and we have Reagan to thank for that.

    Extremists around the world rail against US Imperialism ... not capitalism. The government in the mid 19th century embarked on this course as a result of (you guessed it) the business "lobby". The latent illness, however, is found in the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny.

  • My2Cents Kearns, UT
    April 21, 2011 5:08 a.m.

    This ploy by Obama which isn't even a law real yet is doing exactly what he wanted it to do, create discontent and divide the country even more. He knows as well as the rest of the nation that taxing prosperity is no fix for the deficit or his spending.

    This ruse is just a cover-up the poor who next year will be hit with one of the greatest tax increases without any changes in the law. They have just eliminated the $700/W-2 tax credits of the last few years many are not aware of. Every working soul will pay an additional $700 dollars taxes in 2012. So changing the tax laws to hurt the higher income american prosperity is a moot point. Obama didn't mention the additional $700 poor tax. So its the poor and working american citizens again who will bear the burden of paying more taxes.

    Obama is intentionally dividing the nation with omission, lies, and deception. What Obama doesn't say or omits from his teleprompter speeches that is dividing the soul of america.

  • Mike in Texas Allen, TX
    April 21, 2011 5:06 a.m.

    Taxing the rich won't fix the deficit. Nobody with any understanding could think that for a second. But increasing taxes on the rich will reduce the deficit and more importantly it speaks volumes about fairness to those that are going to have essential subsistance level benefits reduced.

  • Sore loser tampa, fl
    April 21, 2011 3:15 a.m.

    Until the CFTC stops speculators from trading 'paper barrels' of oil we will all be paying a 'gas tax' to the oil traders, hedge funds, pension funds.

  • Schwa South Jordan, UT
    April 21, 2011 3:14 a.m.

    10% of the population pay 65% of the taxes, but have more than 65% of the wealth.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 20, 2011 11:52 p.m.

    "- The rich are not richer today than in the past - quite the opposite. The railroad CEOs and Rocefellers in the 20s made way more as a percentage than the average person did, and it got worse in the 30s.

    Sorta... the top 10% in the late 20s had 50% of the wealth in the nation. After the depression and world war II it fell to about 30% where it remained there until about 1980. Then we got Reaganomics and by 2007 it went up to 50% again. Then the recession hit (why does the economy always go in the tank once the rich aquire a ton of wealth? who'd have thunk starving the middle class of spending power would be a bad thing...) so it's fallen to something like 47% currently.

  • The Sensible Middle Bountiful, UT
    April 20, 2011 11:26 p.m.

    The richest 400 Americans have more than the poorest 50% of all Americans. CEOs of companies used to get by taking 40 times the average pay of their workers. Since the late 1970's this has increased to over 600 times.

    Most of us don't play golf or have buddies on corporate boards to give us such ever increasing cushy deals. ... But we do have something very powerful that we can make use of to make things fair. That is the vote.

    How we spend our older years WILL depend on decisions which will soon be made.

  • PP Eagle Mountain, UT
    April 20, 2011 10:50 p.m.

    Again - the "Rich" are not getting "Richer". That is one of the biggest lies in the world, being foisted on you by those "oh so caring" democrats.

  • The Sensible Middle Bountiful, UT
    April 20, 2011 10:36 p.m.

    Decreasing social security medicade and medicare will hurt only the poor and middle class. The rich wouldn't be affected.

    Raising taxes on the rich and thereby having them a share of the burden would mean cuts in social programs don't have to be so deep.

    Given that the rich are getting an ever increasing share of the nations wealth at the expense of all other classes, it would be wrong not to have them share in the burdens that lie ahead.

    Its too hard for old people to find jobs. We will need these social safety nets when we get old.

    Obama's balanced approach is the right approach. Don't drink too much of the tea, you will regret it.

  • PP Eagle Mountain, UT
    April 20, 2011 10:24 p.m.

    "The reality is, we're none of us going to be rich some day." I know - I hate those rich people from other planets. Not one person from this one has ever been rich and never will be - This is a prime example of the liberal belief system. By the way - even George Soros was penniles at one point in his life.

    How is it that the debate centers around reducing the defecit - in other words they are trying to reduce the ammount that they overspend - but they still plan on overspending - even the Ryan bill. The overspending needs to stop - today.

  • FDRfan Sugar City, ID
    April 20, 2011 10:24 p.m.

    Yeah I ain't smart like you is. I don't know nothing about them there economics. But I did see one of them charts that showed that the wealth distribution shot up like a rocket to the top 2% startin in the 80"s. But them rich people believes that God has made them rich sos they can take care of the rest of us and the best thing we can do is give them all they want and don't regulate them none. They say that there lassey fare is the best way for them to make us better off. I'm so glad that they made this earth for us and put in all them resources. If we will jes leave them alone they will take care of us.

  • B Logan, UT
    April 20, 2011 10:23 p.m.

    @Mormon Dem

    If we just raise taxes, we can pay down the debt. We promise, this time we will be wise with our spending. Just give the Federal government more. We promise. I know we are $14 Trillion in debt, but please, just let us raise taxes on the rich and this time it will be different.

    Mormon Dem, this is America. People who work hard and smart make money. The poor aren't poor because there isn't enough government spending. You put your faith in a corrupt government that will never quit spending. Don't tell me the government can spend that money better. You cannot be serious.

  • PP Eagle Mountain, UT
    April 20, 2011 10:16 p.m.

    Did anyone actually read the article? Obama claimed that each millionaire is getting Trillions of tax breaks..... Last time I checked a trillion was 10,000 times more than a million. Maybe he needs to visit all 59 states to get that bit of information. One more thing - even Bill Gates is not a Trillionare so even he could not pay for Obamas tax hikes.

    A few points:
    - The rich are not richer today than in the past - quite the opposite. The railroad CEOs and Rocefellers in the 20s made way more as a percentage than the average person did, and it got worse in the 30s.
    - How has the debate changed from taxes should be lowered to "everyone" thinks taxes shold be raised? taxes should not be raised, the government already takes in far more than they need - Far More.
    - Blame Bush - except for the fact that Obama has spent 5 times more in 2 years than Bush spent in 8. Try looking at actual facts for a change.
    - The wars cost a fraction of GDP. They are not even close to the problem. If they both ended today it would not make one bit of difference.

  • Dee J Portland, OR
    April 20, 2011 10:09 p.m.

    (cont.) Another problem with our revenue system is that it is out of step with the rest of the world. Every major trading partner has a revenue system which includes a VAT along with corporate and individual income taxes. This has permitted them to reduce corporate income taxes to well below the US corporate rate, which attracts foreign investment and spurs business growth. Not only do we currently have the second highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world, behind only Japan, our system does not provide participation exemptions for repatriated business profits earned through foreign subsidiaries - which most other industrialized countries allow, regardless of the foreign tax rate on those earnings. Until our corporate income tax system is revised to compare favorably to virtually all our major trading partners, ALL multinationals (not just those based in the US) will act in their interest to minimize profits subject to US taxation in favor of other countries.

    By phasing in a harmonized federal/state VAT system and phasing down corporate tax rates to 10%, foreign investment and related jobs will pour into this country.

  • MormonDem Provo, UT
    April 20, 2011 10:07 p.m.

    If we just slash taxes for the rich they will turn around and reinvest it all. It will trickle down. We promise.

    Any day now, we promise.

    I mean, I know the Bush tax cuts for the rich have been in place for 10 years, and they haven't trickled down yet.

    And I know that all the economic gains of the last fifty years have gone to benefit the wealthiest Americans while the average worker's income has remained virtually flat for decades.

    But who are you going to believe? The GOP, or your own lyin' eyes?

    Just trust us. Any day now, that trickle effect will kick in.

    And when it does, you can call in your thanks to my satellite phone. I'll be on my yacht.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    April 20, 2011 10:07 p.m.

    Whacking NPR and Planned parenthood didn't fix the deficit, either. But we are told it wasn't an ideological decision. Fine. It's a small step. Like taxing the rich a bit more, the middle class a bit more. Corporations a bit more. Well, any in their case. One of the big problems is that we all think we're going to be rich some day, so we want to go easy on them. The reality is, we're none of us going to be rich some day.

  • Dee J Portland, OR
    April 20, 2011 10:00 p.m.

    Of all the plans/proposals being floated out there, I'm perplexed that we are hearing nothing about a national consumption tax. This isn't simply one big problem:

    We have a revenue problem: we rely too much on an income tax system that has become a gargantuan political football.

    We have a spending problem: government spending is excessive and inefficient.

    We have an entitlement problem: given our nation's current and expected demographics, social security and medicare as currently constituted are simply unsustainable.

    Of the three, I see the entitlement problem as by far the largest - neither raising taxes nor decreasing non-entitlement spending is going to scratch the surface here.

    With respect to our revenue system, I can understand why a VAT system is politically unpopular: for the left it's seen as too regressive, for the right it's just another big tax. The great advantages of consumption taxes is that they provide a more stable base of funding than income taxes, they are simple to administer, and they are relatively immune from the gross politicization that has turned our income tax code into a mess of favors and preferences. (cont.)

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    April 20, 2011 9:57 p.m.


    "How much of the wealth in this country do whatever group you ascribe to be rich hold."

    ANSWER: It doesn't matter.

    Tell me this Fred, when you and I stand next to each other in the checkout line at the grocery store should we each pay for what we buy(use) or should we have the cashier total both your and my purchases and then you and I divide the total bill based on how much money you and I make?

    What sound logic the liberals have huh?

    To them if you make twice as much money as I do and we buy the same things at the grocery store you should pay for all of your groceries and part of mine.

    Again - brilliant.

  • attentive Salt Lake City, UT
    April 20, 2011 9:40 p.m.

    Ah, what a joke all this is. LOOP HOLES will always always show the rich to be less rich than they really are and therefore they will ALWAYS pay less in taxes. Good grief, look at General Electric. NOTHING in taxes. And lots of photos of the CEO shaking hands with Obama. Lovely.

  • Fred44 Salt Lake City, Utah
    April 20, 2011 9:39 p.m.

    Chris B,

    How much of the wealth in this country do whatever group you ascribe to be rich hold. I would bet it is over 65%. Who has prospered over the last 30 years, the rich, the average worker salary is up 40%, the average CEO salary up 400%. If you want a society with haves and have not's keep giving the rich tax cuts and tax loopholes. We are on our way to becoming a third world country were we have the rich ruling class, and the poor working class. It is funny that the rich always point to that small businessman making just over $250,000 but never talk about the rich person making millions. Using the logic that increasing taxes on the rich won't get us out of debt so we shouldn't do it, then we shouldn't cut spending on social programs because that alone will not get us out of debt either.

  • Ex-Pat of Zion Lititz, PA
    April 20, 2011 9:37 p.m.

    Per Capita GDP is roughly $45K. Per Capita share of the current budget is roughly $12K. Per Capita share of the National Debt is Roughly $39K. I could not find a convenient number for interest payment on the debt, but for the sake of argument, let's put it at roughly a third of the current federal budget at $4K per capita. A balanced budget flat tax rate at current spending levels would make the federal tax rate about 35% to cover costs and service the debt.

    So a 10% flat tax doesn't solve the problem. If all pay an equal amount with the government subsidizing the cost of living for the working poor, the federal rate probably escalates to about 50% to cover increased costs of a safety net for the poor and a debt pay down over a 50 year period. State tax rates at 7% leaves a effective tax rate of near 60% ... for EVERYONE. The threshold to earning disposable income (no deductions or loopholes) is about $150K per year for a family of four. The percent that earn that now? (~25%) America's rise to economic superpower status was (is) built on exploitation

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    April 20, 2011 9:36 p.m.

    A few comments:

    1. Obama stated he would bring the deficit down fifty percent.
    2. We will not see our taxes go up a dime in any form if we earn less than $250,000 a year.
    3. Our country just gave Brazil two billion to increase oil drilling.
    4. Change and hope has been re-defined.
    5. Taxing the rich will lead to more lay-offs.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    April 20, 2011 9:28 p.m.

    The dirty little secret the liberals are telling us is that the more revenue (taxes) they collect the more they will have to spend on new wasteful projects.

    They never ever intend to pay down our national debt and consequently our debt will continue to grow out of control until we go bankrupt. It is as inevitable as the sun coming up tomorrow morning.

    Solution: Cut spending and start living within our means.

  • B Logan, UT
    April 20, 2011 9:25 p.m.

    @ Thinkin'\ Man

    Dead right! When Obama talks about the 'rich' he apparently doesn't have a problem with GE making $14 Billion this year, $5 billion in this country alone, and not paying taxes. (And by the way people, this is taken from an article in the New York Times.) Obama has GE's CEO as one of his economic advisers. So there are the rich who contribute to campaigns who get a pass. (Funny, I thought that was just a Republican thing.)

  • ljeppson Salt Lake City, UT
    April 20, 2011 9:25 p.m.

    The questions remains, why the quickly deteriorating debt situation when it was so favorable only a decade ago? The reason is the fighting of two major wars off budget and funded with borrowing. As is typical of the Deseret News you give a pass to the wealthy high end, but they are in large part responsible for this mess - they supported the Iraq invasion but didn't want to pay for it. Come to think of it, that was essentially the position of the Deseret News.

  • cynic Appleton, WI
    April 20, 2011 9:18 p.m.

    Am I missing something here? Was this labeled an opinion piece and I just didn't see that? OR is the Deseret News choosing to propound it's political philosophy by calling it NEWS? Are you becoming Fox?

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    April 20, 2011 9:14 p.m.


    Let me repeat:

    FACT: The richest 10% of Americans are paying 65% of all income tax. Yes, income tax is only part of all taxes. Agreed.

    You say the rich don't want to contibute to its upkeep? Please explain how that is happening.

    I repeat:

    The richest 10% are paying 65% of all income tax. They are contributing more than their share for upkeep.

    Are they using 65% of all govt resources? No.

    How much should the richest 10% be paying?




    You crazy liberals would cry even if the richest 10% were paying 100% of all income taxes paid in the US, saying their tax rates should be higher.

    Typical liberal response - everyone else is responsible but me.

    The richest 10% are only paying 2/3 of all income tax?

    Those selfish people thinking they can keep what they earn.

    They need to pay my portion too!

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    April 20, 2011 9:13 p.m.

    Why all the hatred for the "rich"? Is it jealousy,envy or lust? Should everyone be poor? Why are the poor, poor?
    Person A goofs off in school, is irresponsible or lazy and wastes their talents and abilities, parties and gets high during their youth. They never aquire any meaningful job skills and so they become poor! Person B does the opposite, is responsible, innovative, works hard and gets "rich" but the government comes along and forces person B to give his money to person A and calls it compassion. Result: every person A in Spain, England, Greece, France,California,Wisconsin et al wonders why there are fewer and fewer persons B left to take money from! Because there are fewer and fewer persons B left, the government borrows money from our grandchildren to give to persons A and eventually the socialistic system becomes unsustainable, unaffordable, insolvent and everyone is poor thereafter! Cuba anyone?

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 20, 2011 9:12 p.m.

    Confiscating every last single dollar of income from the "wealthy" would not make a dent in our deficit or our debt.

    The only solution is to cut spending and reform entitlement programs. Not tiny, painless cuts, but huge, massive elimination of departments and agencies and programs totally. Slashing social security, medicare and medicaid must be included.

    There is no more money and we are 14.2 trillion in debt. Anyone who objects to massive cuts needs to explain how they will pay for it.

    When you wallet is empty, your bank account is zero and your credit card is maxed out, that is not the time to keep on spending, but to take a sobering look at reality and immediately change your lifestyle.

    Our country is at that point!

  • No One Of Consequence West Jordan, UT
    April 20, 2011 9:12 p.m.

    Doctors used to bleed sick patients to get out the bad 'humors'. If the patient doesn't get better then it is time to bleed them again.

    When the economy is down it is not a good time to raise taxes. The people are doing more with less. The government needs to do the same.

    I love the rich. They hire people like me. I want to be rich someday.

    We've had the war on poverty, the war on drugs, the war on carbon dioxide and now the war on prosperity. All are doomed to fail.

    Don't spend so much time worrying about how much someone else is paying in taxes or how much they earn. Remember: "Thou shalt not covet"?

  • Northern Logan, UT
    April 20, 2011 9:10 p.m.

    You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of
    freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work
    for without receiving.
    The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

    When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

  • B Logan, UT
    April 20, 2011 9:07 p.m.


    I'm not really sure what your point is. I happen to agree with Chris B. on this one (although he is completely wrong on sports...) The "Rich" do pay for infrastructure. They pay the most for it.

  • Thinkin\' Man Rexburg, ID
    April 20, 2011 9:05 p.m.

    The "rich" Obama wants to penalize are the small business owners who create most of the jobs in this country. Most of them file taxes on their business as an individual, so taking more money from them directly takes money away from their ability to employ people. It's not only a bad idea, it's the worst possible time.

    Who voted for these amateurs?

  • ouisc Farmington, UT
    April 20, 2011 9:00 p.m.

    It seems the majority of the wealthy are okay with an increase in their taxes. In many circumstances, I'd support raising taxes on the wealthy. But not with this administration--I'd be very worried about where this additional money would go.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    April 20, 2011 8:59 p.m.

    Chris B:
































  • B Logan, UT
    April 20, 2011 8:49 p.m.

    You people have got to be kidding, right? You want to give more money to a corrupt government? Are you nuts? How does taxing your boss possibly make you better off? I saw one completely misguided person say that raising taxes on the rich (which is anyone making $250k per year) make the pill of shared sacrifice go down better. You people are economically illiterate! Go look at a life time chart of the Dow. You will notice that in the 1980s the chart sky-rockets. That is not just the rich on Wall Street, that is YOUR 401k, YOUR IRA! Use your heads! You raise taxes, you stifle economic investment. Yes, we should close the loopholes, but lower taxes. Please respond if you honestly believe the Federal government will spend more tax money correctly.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    April 20, 2011 8:41 p.m.

    FACT: 10% of Americans pay 65% of all income tax

    FACT: 45% of Americans paid $0 federal income tax.

    Fact: 10% of Americans do not use 65% of resources the govt provides, such as road, schools, govt subsidized programs.

    Just to point out the lame logic used by the liberals, let's imagine there was a guy who earned 100,000,000,000,000 every year and again let's say just for the sake of the argument that this was 99% of all income earned by US citizens, the lame liberals would want him to pay 99% of all taxes paid.


    Of all the gov't provided resources used, did he use 99% of them?

    Who cares how much money he EARNED?

    The question is how much resources did he USE?

    The richest 10% are paying 65% of all income tax.

































  • Deborah Huntington, WV
    April 20, 2011 8:28 p.m.

    The multi-national companies that have bought out our elected officials, have sold many voters on the rationale that if corporations get tax cuts, then jobs will grow -- when actually the opposite has happened.

    According to the US Commerce Dept these companies have cut their American workforce by 2.9 million during the last decade while at the same time increasing their overseas hiring.

    Some of these same companies (GE is one) were reciepents of the American taxpayer bailouts.

    These same corporations control congress and lobby for use of our military muscle to advance their overseas connections.

    Again the American taxpayer foots the bill.

    We are approaching a new corporate world order and the deck has been stacked decidely in their favor.

    I for one, am tired of being trickled on!

  • Vince the boonies, mexico
    April 20, 2011 8:18 p.m.

    When did all of this disparity begin? Right 10 years ago and following the tax breaks for the rich, 2 lied about and unfunded wars and a party that only cared about the wealthy this country went straight in the toilet and remains there because the very party that caused this fiasco now wants nothing more than to argue against any attempts at corrections. Just tax the wealthy, withdraw from the 2 wars completely, clean up the graff and stealing in the medicare and medicad programs, reform wall street and the financial markets along with oil, insurance, pharms, and everything connected with medical and we will "ALL" be fine in the future. Vote out any abstainers to these fixes and lets pull ourselves out of the toilets.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    April 20, 2011 8:17 p.m.

    What we have here is a failure to understand who the rich are. Wanting to be rich is not the same as being rich. Taxing the wealthy will not increase your taxes because you covet being rich.

    If that one principal would be understood, we wouldn't see millions of people vorting against thier own interests.

    It's not about D or R anymore. It's corpratist vs the people. The People don't have 60 votes in the senate, the corpratists do. That fact explains much.

    People don't contribute lobby senators with $50,000 contributions, corporations do.

  • Rich C West Jordan, UT
    April 20, 2011 8:14 p.m.

    I'm disappointed that no one is talking about import tariffs on goods manufactured overseas by companies that have outsourced jobs previously held by American workers.

  • Sinder Stansbury Park, Ut
    April 20, 2011 8:14 p.m.

    "If you own a small business (or any business) and get hit with higher taxes, what do you think you will do about hiring, expanding or investing?"

    So pay yourself less so you don't pay as much in taxes and invest more in your business... Taxing the rich != taxing businesses.

    "A 10% rate for EVERYONE. You are "poor" - your problem."

    Make the poor poorer and the rich richer. Great philosophy. Not all situations are the same, why tax them as such? You'd rather the poor pay more even though they can sometimes not even pay for new clothes in the name of being 'fair'? Not to mention doing a flat 10% would severely lower revenue.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 20, 2011 8:11 p.m.

    "If you own a small business (or any business) and get hit with higher taxes, what do you think you will do about hiring, expanding or investing? "

    Certainly an important question. What does a small business owner make anyway? 500k a year? The repeal of teh bush tax cuts would increase their taxes by 7,500. Is someone making 500k a year really not going to expand because instead of 300k after taxes it's 292.5k? I don't think so. Businesses make jobs with corporate income, not personal income.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 20, 2011 8:06 p.m.

    We know, we know, we know... taxes on the rich will not close the deficit. Nobody is saying it will. We (liberals) just think that instead of reducing revenue by 4 trillion the next year (ryan tax cuts) we should instead raise taxes as part of a plan to reduce the deficits. The obama plan is only 1/4 tax increases after all...

  • Andy Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 20, 2011 8:04 p.m.

    Raise taxes and reduce spending. I think everyone agrees with that.

    You can't trust Obama to cut spending. He can't and he won't, so it will be raise taxes and spend more money by increasing entitlements.

    Take your money and stick it in your safe 'cause Uncle Sam is coming for it.

  • smithda Bountiful, UT
    April 20, 2011 8:02 p.m.

    This article is unfair in the fact that it suggests that Obama is only promoting a tax hike on the rich. He is promoting that a mix of hikes and reductions need to occur. I notice in the one paragraph it talks about Rep Paul Ryan that it points out he is looking at closing loop holes and reducing spending, but somehow it was left out in the rest of the 4 page article the fact that Obama is looking to decrease spending as well as increase taxes on wealthy.

    I do wish they would up the minimum to over $1,000,000 and not $250,000. I am not even close to earning $250,000, but I do think that when someone reaches that point, they are just getting the point that they could try start their own business or start hiring people.

    Too anyone else who says that reducing taxes = new jobs, then why during this time of some of the lowest taxes for the wealthy do we have some of the highest unemployment. So far lower taxes have just caused the rich to get richer and the poor to stay unemployed.

  • utecougar Salt Lake City, UT
    April 20, 2011 8:00 p.m.

    It won't fix the deficit when? Immediately? Nobody expects it to. But it's a start, it will help, and the rich have gotten away too long with their super privileges. We've been waiting for 30 years for the wealth to trickle down. How long does it take to prove that the theory is baloney? When Reagan lowered their taxes, mine went up.

  • Gruffi Gummi Lehi, UT
    April 20, 2011 7:33 p.m.

    1. No tax credits, no deductions.
    2. A 10% rate for EVERYONE. You are "poor" - your problem. You are "rich" and hope that your accountant will make you pay nothing - your problem. 10%, simple, flat, and strictly enforced.

  • Reasonable Person Layton, UT
    April 20, 2011 7:32 p.m.

    There is NO magic bullet to solve the debt crisis.

    However, Obama's "shared sacrifice" plan is much better than Ryan's Republican plan, which gives the wealthiest even more tax breaks while taking funds away from Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

    Having worked for the military, I saw the waste for 27 years -- YET, the Republican plan doesn't cut a dime from the military budget.

    Want a lesson in military waste and pork? Pull up a map that shows all of the US-based military bases. It's positively shocking how many there are, and in today's world, totally unnecessary.

  • berf Perry, UT
    April 20, 2011 7:32 p.m.

    If we have that many millionaires that want higher taxes, why don't they put their money where their mouth is and start paying more. Or are they so incompetent that they feel they have to be forced by the tax man(please make me pay more taxes). This really does not make any sense to me. If I think I should be paying more then I will make an executive decision and ... pay more. What is their real motivation? As you can see, I have a lot of faith in the intellectual prowess of these so called millionaires for a tax increase.

  • FDRfan Sugar City, ID
    April 20, 2011 7:26 p.m.

    No one claims that the Obama tax proposals will solve the deficit but it certainly is necessary to make the needed sacrifices more palatable. The flaunting of wealth and power is just about more than society can take especially when so many are hurting.

  • tawillin Mc Kinney, TX
    April 20, 2011 7:12 p.m.

    Tax the rich! I feel ashamed that I voted for Bush. I trusted the Republican Party and they destroyed this country. I've know learned that Republican and Democrats are worthless but I will definitely not vote for another man who believes in cutting the taxes for the rich and starting two wars we can't pay for. Bush destroyed this great nation and it is about time we as a people start recognizing it.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    April 20, 2011 7:06 p.m.

    Not only will taxing the rich more not fix the deficit, it will cause more unemployment! If you own a small business (or any business) and get hit with higher taxes, what do you think you will do about hiring, expanding or investing? Good bye jobs! Unemployed people can't pay taxes= decrease in tax revenue!

  • Cedarite Cedar City, UT
    April 20, 2011 6:50 p.m.

    Oh, the poor afflicted rich. Obama might even want them to pay the same percentage rate that an unworthy middle class business owner like myself shells out every year, oh the horror!