[Madmartagen]

Originally Posted by Snuff

Taxes were cut across the board. It appears that the rich get more of a tax cut because they pay a vast majority of the taxes. IE tax cuts for all but if you are paying less your tax cut is not as great. Why should I have to pay more taxes than I already do to support many people who just don't give a shit. I already pay 40 - 45%. Would you feel it to be fair that I pay half of my income? That would just promote more apathy in an already unmotivated society. Why would someone strive to make a good living when they have to give so much of their earnings to the government?

9/11 sure didn't help things and and put a hurt on the economy which does have some correlation with the deficit.

Of course the wealthy pay more taxes because they have a higher income. 10% of $100 is $10, 10% of $100,00 is $1,000. Whats wrong with that? Under Bush's tax cut, the top 2% earners were taxed at a lower percentage than the poorest people, thats what I'm getting at. Should the poorest people in America pay more than the richest? Why do I think the poorer people need more of a tax break? Because generally they spend the rebate immediately, while the top earners in the country are able to save it for later, thats why its called a stimulus. It makes sense to give the spenders the money, rather than the wealthier people who save it. This is the trend used in the 50's and 60's I believe. It was also used by Bill Clinton. It was in these periods where our country had a nice budget surplus. When Reagan, Bush Sr and now Bush Jr used it with a combination of massive spending, we have a large defecit. Another point that I would like to make is how liberals are blamed for spending all the money away in useless programs. Clinton was able to spend money and produce this surplus at the same time, while his predeccesors spended and created a defecit. I dont like criticizing where I dont need to, but I think we should learn from examples that work.