If the goal is to increase revenue from the wealthy, I don't care how they do it, so long as it doesn't increase taxes on anyone except the wealthy.

For example (using completely made up numbers for the sake of example), if the goal is to increase annual revenue from the wealthy by $100 billion, it makes no difference to me whether they do it by raising the top marginal rate or by eliminating deductions and loopholes just for the target group to meet the goal.

So, if they use Social Security you won't feel it in your taxes (probably), you'll feel it in the erosion of the benefits. But it is still a tax even if a bit trickier.

I don't know what will happen but I figure that if they agree to put something on the table they intend to end up bargaining some of it away. If they need to generate a lot of revenue, they may need to dig down further into the middle class than people expect. That is why new revenues has to be on the table to meet the goals.

I'm not talking about the spending cut part, I'm talking solely about the revenue enhancement part.

The spending cut part is a whole other animal, and I'm not in favor of SS and Medicare being touched at all.

But one person's spending cut is another person's increased tax.

Social Security has nothing to do with government spending.

But when the discussion is solely about raising marginal tax rates, then spending isn't part of the equation.

Social Security is not part of the deficit.

The reason it is on the table is that the Republicans need to be able to destroy the safety-nets in such a way that any changes can be blamed on the Democratic party. So they tie it to their willingness to come to the table. Well, it seems that some in the Democratic party are willing to provide that cover for them. Don't know why but there is probably a reason that won't make a bit of sense in the long run.

the rich to pay only 15% TAX rate on their capitol gains. im all for cutting those

Hha hahhh!!

I think you're forgetting principle went out the window a few years ago-- when the powers that be said TORTURE is OK.

The President should push for more progressive tax brackets as part of a deal.

If Obama really wants to leave a major legacy, that would be it. A complete rewrite of the US tax code from the ground up. It is in dire need of it.

I have no doubt that Romney paid what was legally required since the people he hires to do his tax planning are more knowledgeable than the IRS and much more knowledgeable than Congress.

Everything that someone calls a loophole was once someone's good idea for the country. That is the classic result of using taxes as an instrument to enforce social policy. That is why we are where we are today. Remove the failed attempts at social incentives and return to taxes as a pure source of revenue. Then we can clean things up, stay progressive on the rates, and be fair.

There is no way to structure taxes so they do not affect social outcomes. I'd even say it's dangerous to pretend otherwise. That's not an argument against your suggestion of thorough revision. But whatever changes we make, we will be steering things in some direction.

Most of the loop holes were designed to encourage certain behaviors such as owning a home or certain kind of investments on the part of business or individuals. That over time has lead us to where we are today. A straight forward progressive system with minimal deductions and most importantly focused on generating revenue fairly is what is needed.

Yes the government tax laws will always have social impact. However, the goal is to get the government to stop using taxes to as incentives and use it for primarily, if not exclusively for revenue generation.

Taxes are a perfectly appropriate policy tool as far as I'm concerned. I'm troubled by your position because I think the neutrality you're reaching for is illusory, and if you carry that kind of thinking too far you find yourself in the company of people like Ron Paul. Any kind of government at all - even the most bare bones libertarian variety - is social engineering, there's simply no way around it. Failing to recognize that interferes with a self-determined people's ability to create the kind of country they want.

Very ungrateful I'd say. Ya know, the rich people earned every penny and they have a very expensive lifestyle to maintain - vacation homes, private jets, huge mansions with a large staff, etc. Where the hell are they going to get the money to have this lifestyle if they have to pay more in taxes??

steps are taken to close the wealth-gap between the obscenely rich and the ordinary wage earner.

paid no paid no corporate income tax, it received a $3.2 Billion tax rebate.
This information is from Jim Hightower citing, I think, Citizens for Tax Justice.

There's a tax deduction for wages paid out.

High tax rates provide an incentive for employers to pay their employees higher salaries, high enough for workers to pay income taxes, lowers the effective tax rate on the rich. Millionaires also benefit from higher working-class salaries and wages because workers tend to spend their money, causing the wealth to percolate back up to them.

Low tax rates on rich individuals and corporations removes the incentive to compensate their workers generously because they hoard their cash and wealth, even stashing a large portion, or even most of it, in foreign tax shelters. Put another way, the wealth from low taxes on high incomes and assets does not trickle down to the masses, but is sucked up in a giant black hole.

Because even if they avoid taxes by paying their employees more, they still end up with less money than if they just paid the higher tax.

Not saying it isn't true, just that it doesn't make sense if the idea is for the employer to keep as much money as possible in his own pocket.

post about it here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251243047#post17
Why should the rich pay more taxes?

Check it out, folks, and let me know what you think.