wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

I don't make enough to justify paying more, but I have a friend that's doing very well. He says that he doesn't mind incurring higher taxes.

I cannot believe that the governement (and even the new administration) still wants to bail out the Wall street thieves and now the Detroit thieves. Are they going to help me when I can't pay the rent? I simply do not beleive the argument that if we don't bail these clowns out Armageddon is then, by economic design, inevitable.

Sorry, voter, my point is that no, I don't think you will feel secure enough at that income to have kids. By your own logic, it would hardly be a "responsible" choice. (And for the record, I wrote "household income".) Unless you earn a lot more than that, you'll be one paycheck (one hospital visit, etc) away from bankruptcy for years at that income level. No one in the industrialized world has that dilemma at $150,000/year, except Americans.

And you obviously can't stop working to raise a kid, which goes back to the nanny comment. Which I still don't understand.

When Bloomberg is saying "increase taxes by 15%," is that increasing the percentage by 15 points (from 10 to 25% of your income) or by a factor of 15% (10 to 11.5%)? The first sounds like quite a lot of money to be losing.

I agree #51 (MC) and I am not asking for a tax cut. I pay considerably compared to people with the same income that benefit from target tax cut, but I still think what I currently pay is fair. Yes, I don’t have a mortgage to pay, nor do I have children take care of which would be huge expenses for me, but I also don’t get the benefits of home ownership nor am I experiencing the joy of parenthood. I currently cannot afford to have children (raising them in a manner I feel appropriate) nor can I afford to buy. I feel I am being responsible in living at or below my means. I live comfortably; I live in a tiny apartment, with a roommate, in a fringe neighborhood and can afford my taxes. I just feel what I pay now is fair and it is time to take a look at whether or not the target tax cuts were fair to begin with before my taxes are raised again.

And KC: I make less than half of $150,000. Making that would be nice, I’d actually feel like I could afford to buy an apartment and have kids. Your health care is another matter and that is why we need to get over the idea of a Socialist bogeyman and seriously look at single payer… that’s worth paying more in taxes for.

I’m out (I think)

mc: Well, at least $150,000. Eh, creative hyperbole?

The thing is, it really doesn't matter; even without children and with my expensive healthcare plan, if I had to spend a week in the hospital – with deductibles, co-pays, and lost work – that would be the end. I would be bankrupt.

Does it make sense to raise kids in that situation? No. And that, I think, is insane.

end of rant.

Voter,
Yes, I can see the inherent unfairness. I have always questioned targeted tax cuts. Problem is, I don't think we can afford any tax cuts right now.

KC,
I wish I knew what it is like to make $200,000. Not even close, here.

Signing off for real now :-)

KC,
We are on the same page on health care spending. As fo the pork, I think the real numbers are actually pretty small in proportion to the whole budget, but it remains important all the same because of the tone it sets.

Interesting about the Value Added Tax. I wonder if it falls disproportionately on low earners, as people here say it would.

I think I have to sign off. The site still seems very sluggish today and it's very frustrating.

You got me, Voter: I feel "entitled" to live in a place where I can find work.

I feel "entitled" because I think a household income approaching $200,000/year should be enough to raise children without thinking the rug could be pulled out from under me at any moment.

I feel "entitled" because I resent throwing my money at a gigantic federal government consciously dedicated to sowing that insecurity into the minds of its middle class, the better to keep them at their lousy jobs and keep that phony economy moving.

Your reasoning is flawless. I guess I should have moved to the suburbs and taken advantage of some of those sweet subprime mortgage deals. Silly me.

Establishment apologists rarely have anything interesting to say.

According to Wikipedia, KC, Defense Department spending is projected to be $651 billion for next year. The debates taught us pork barrel spending is about $17 billion. This is not a 70/30 split. (yes, I saw your disclaimer)

I don’t have a dollar amount or percentage for a fair share MC. I feel it is fair to have progressive taxes and I feel it is fair for all citizens to support schools, healthcare, infrastructure, the military and our veterans, etc. What I feel is unfair are the various methods of “tax relief.” This “tax relief” comes in the way of child tax credits, deductions on federal income taxes for interest on mortgage payments, the various tax benefits that go to married couples, tax write-offs that go to investors… You could argue these things are fair, but they shift the true tax burden to people who can’t afford to buy a house and rent, cannot afford to or chose not to have children, cannot legally get married and get the goodie bag of government handouts. So, what I feel is fair is, instead of raising taxes on all people at this point (which will tax me double) cut back on the government giveaways and rescind the so called “tax relief” that unfairly shifted the tax burden to begin with. Do you not see the unfairness?

Well, there are red-staters of limited means, with whom I do not agree, who feel it is God’s will for women to do women’s work. That is, the work of the home. Again, I don’t agree, but they seem to work it out. The same way they make it work is probably the same way Governor Palin can call people of the northeast elitist, and Midwesterners eat it up. They don’t have, what I am assuming is, the same shallow materialistic wants you have. Let’s look at it this way… Why do you feel stay at home parenting is not possible? Is it because you feel entitled to live somewhere like NYC that has a high cost of living? Is it because you feel your children are entitled to separate bedrooms? Is it because you feel every adult deserves their own car? You’ve criticized me without actually addressing my comment that child birth is a responsibility, not a right, and should be done only by those whom can afford it. It sounds like you cannot. You’ve yet to say what’s so expensive about having children. People who truly love their children are willing to sacrifice their wants for the needs of their children. You don’t seem to feel this way; are children just accessories for your way of life?
I’ll be blunt, and I apologize if it sounds rude or cruel, but why are you entitled to have children you are either too poor to support or too selfish to sacrifice for?

When Bloomberg is saying "increase taxes by 15%," is that increasing the percentage by 15 points (from 10 to 25% of your income) or by a factor of 15% (10 to 11.5%)? The first sounds like quite a lot of money to be losing.

mc: Value Added Tax. Federal sales tax, basically. [Bearing in mind that individual states within these countries DON'T charge sales taxes of their own.]

I agree; 70% of the problem is military spending. The other 30% is senators bringing home the pork. And in-between, there's the spending that does both, like the way the useless F-22 fighter jet has components built in numerous states, so it fits both categories of corruption.

I'm with you on healthcare, too; in the European countries where I've lived, even the private medical insurance I had to buy was WAY lower than what I pay here. Less than half the cost. An organized system (where a hospital doesn't have to buy a new CAT scan machine to compete with the hospital down the street) lowers costs across the board for everyone.

[and a disclaimer: i have no idea whether 70% is accurate.]

Voter #35,
Fair enough. What do you think is a fair share?

KC,
What is VAT?

hjs and KC,
I think one reason that Europeans benefit in their lifestyle from tax policy than we do is 1. They don't feel they need as much military hardware and 2. They don't pay 16% fo their GNP in health care and it's not rising as exponentially as it is here. If we fix that problem a lot of other related problems will be solved. And it does not begin and end with single payer, although that may end up being an important ingredient.

Voter: Yeah, I got that it was your GRANDPARENTS. You might have noticed how I wrote "forty or fifty years ago". That was a reference. To you grandparents. And to an era when staying at home was an option for American parents. Got it.

Let me specify, because you seem to be talking about a much higher tax bracket than I am. I don't know any stay-at-home parents in the US because I don't know anyone here rich enough to not work. I do know people in Germany and France who make roughly the same amount of money that I do who can stay home with their kids, because their societies have set up safeguards to ensure that they can.

Probably, they were looking a decade down the road and thinking, "hey, we should make sure this generation of children can be raised by their parents."

We don't have that kind of forethought, but if you're really rich in America, hey, no problems. Let's see what this does to our population in twenty years. Should be interesting.

KC, I was talking about what my GRANDPARENTS did, and that was 40-60 years ago. Both of my parents worked. Both are relevant because 1. There are plenty of stay at home parents now days. These are people who decided to have children and then decided that this is what they feel is best for those whom they have created. Maybe having mommy or daddy stay home meant more to them than a third car, a 3000 square foot home with 2000 square feet they don’t need, clothing from mall stores, dinners out, a $500+ purse or golf club, cable, bottled water, vacations, or Christmases where the kids get more than one gift. And 2. Having children isn’t new or exclusively American, yet the rest of the world manages to do it successfully without the same hyperbolic expectations of help and materialistic lifestyle that people in the United States have. Why do you have a problem being told, if you cannot support having children, don’t have them? Is this because you don’t want to pay your fair share, or because you think I should pay more (by way of taxes) to support your decisions?

hjs: Well, on the old reliable internet, a married person in Germany, for example, earning 80,000 Euros a year pays around 24% in income taxes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ESt-Steuersatz-GB.gif

Of course, the VAT in many of these countries is higher than most US states' sales tax (Germany's, the highest, is 19%). So paying twice the NY State sales tax certainly is a bit more of a burden.

Still, I think my point stands.

Wow. You know a stay-at-home parent in the United States? I don't.

I do agree there were some forty or fifty years ago.

Why that's relevant, I really have no idea.

KC
"Middle class Europeans don't pay taxes that are much higher than ours" if that's true i'd like ur source so i can cite it myself
europeans also have a higher standard of living, their investments have paid off for them.

KC, my grandmother was a stay at home mom and did a fine job at raising four children while my grandfather worked hard to put food on the table and a roof over their heads. They were not wealthy. Both of my parents worked, and were far from affluent. They worked hard to raise two children and paid what they could for daytime babysitters. No one NEEDS a nanny.
It’s like the argument parents use when the kids want a puppy… Who will feed him? Who will walk him? Who will bathe him? Who will clean up his leavings? If the kid answers: You will. The dog walker. The groomer. Someone else… The kids aren’t getting a dog. So why is this considered an acceptable way to parent?

#35: And my point is, if even affluent people feel they cannot make the choice to raise children (and, I presume, hire a nanny so that said affluent people can continue to work and earn money for said child-raising), there is something deeply rotten going on in our tax structure.

Middle class Europeans don't pay taxes that are much higher than ours; the percentage difference between our income taxes and those in most EU member nations is in the single digits. Yet they don't have to make these choices. There is something fundamentally wrong with our system.

#31, In the country of “personal responsibility” we seem to expect everyone to take personal responsibility for every other aspect of their lives outside of the DECISION to have children; why is that? My response to Jason wasn’t about having children, per se, it was about given them a lifestyle of nannies, private schools, and the other things Americans feel they need to breed. Humans have been successfully breeding for at least decades without these things. However, if he cannot afford what he feels he needs, he does not need to have children.

#32, I never said I was unwilling to pay, I am saying, I am unwilling to pay more. I benefit from educated children and safe infrastructure. I am an advocate of single-payer healthcare. I believe we should do more to support those who defend us on these shores and on distant lands. However, when times are good, and the taxes of others are cut or benefits are given, they do not come to me. What I pay remains constant. My point is this: there needs to be an honest re-evaluation of what one’s fair share is, because typically that has meant that I pay more, while everyone else complains they’re being stretched to the limit of situations of their own making.

i spread the wealth already NY tax payers send dollars to red rural states, why isn't that kind of welfare attacked by the GOP?

#28 (Josh from Brooklyn) I think your comment may have been directed at me. Was it? No worries if it was, just asking. I’m not a Libertarian, but I already do pay a fee to watch clear TV (with additional channels); Time Warner cable. As for my other comments on things like roads and education… I feel it is my civic duty to pay taxes which go to these things, but do I wish to pay more to help out? I most certainly do not. I pay my fair share and when government issues tax cuts, they cut the taxes of the people who actually use these services or infrastructure. My taxes stay the same. So, since my taxes are not cut while parents’, couples’, homeowners’, drivers’, and investors’ are, I do not wish to pay any more than the more than fair share I already pay.

Voter/Brooklyn:
About a third of the federal budget goes to entitlements. Should we get rid of Social Security and Medicare as well as VA benefits?

You are healthy now -- do you expect to remain so forever? 49% of health care services are paid by tax dollars now -- should we go the rest of the way? You don't have kids -- do you benefit from an educated class in public service? You don't drive (I gather) do you buy all your food locally?

Voter: Your "criticism" is, paradoxically, an endorsement of the status quo. In a rich country, affluent people should feel comfortable having children, whether they need to hire nannies or not. If even the affluent can't afford to raise children, we're in a lot of trouble. No successful adult in Western Europe has to contemplate that either/or.

i think the argument that Europeans get more with their tax money is sound. they have tangible results from their tax dollars. When it comes down to it it's difficult to see where exactly our tax dollars go. How much goes into the war? How much to the deficit/fed? How much to the bailouts? We're already paying quite a bit and the return is muddled.

Things like roads and police, are those fed or state? is there an itinerary of where our taxes actually go?

Jason, thank you. I appreciate your willingness to pay more. You show sense that I wish everyone of your income would show.

Though you do pay for things that seem extravagant. Not everyone can afford a Nanny. Not many can afford private school, and some would argue that if you put that tuition toward public schools and took and interest and involvement in them, your children will get a great education. Other people are in their 70's well after retirement age, and are still working because they can't afford to retire, and will probably work until they die.

I am proud you are willing to sacrifice to improve the lives of all americans. Please do so, as I do, and I am lucky if I make $35,000 a year, which is 14% of your base $250k.

Michael, I agree with your comments wholeheartedly. I don't really like Obama much, but unfortunately I didn't see much of a choice. President Palin? I'd rather have a lobotomy. Just call it tactical voting.

As mentioned above, I can completely sympathise with the Libertarian view. I look at where some of our tax dollars go and I am horrified. However, we don't live on an island. First of all shared costs are always cheaper. If you only paid for the road you used, who would you pay? Is everyone supposed to pay an individual fee for each road they use? Is the government supposed to track down each user and bill everyone? In England, TV is not free. Everyone who wants to use a TV has to pay a fee. Do you want to pay $150 just to watch?

the 3rd world has low taxes, did u want to live there?

Things will be hard here! Everywhere! I told a McCain supporter yesterday that I would be “spreading my wealth” to him, so why would he complain? And he said, typically, “Not to me, maybe to all the people on welfare!” And I said, hey, buddy, the way things are going, you may well be on welfare soon. So don’t disdain my money or welfare recipients so quickly.”

As someone who lived in India for 7 years before the economic boom, the starkest contrast between India and the US to me is the value that the US places on the individual person. Its not as if this is always the case, but we have not given up hope that we can achieve the basic rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all people. The services this country provides its citizens are specifically aimed at fulfilling this right.

The idea that we are a group of independant states loosely united under a federal government has been meaningless since the civil war. Get over it!

Woah, woah, woah Jason from NYC (#18).
Mortgage? If you can’t afford where you are, rent, buy less, or buy elsewhere.
Car? If your car bill is stressing you, buy used or sell the car and use public transport.
Nanny? If you can’t raise your children, don’t have any.
Private School? That is a luxury, but see above.
I could comment on the last two, but my responses would be rather cruel. I know you’re not asking for sympathy and you are willing to pay your fair share, but I’ve been paying more than my fair share for years to support your lifestyle. You can see my frustration with your post, can you not?

I think the question is slightly confused: there might be a moral imperitive to help the least among us, but what do taxes have to do with that? Government does need our support (i.e. taxes) to do what it does and provide us with certain services. For that we should all recognize our obligation and pay our share. But above and beyond that the Government should not be legislating our morals. Though one may argue if this is a seperation of Church and state or not, one cannot argue that once Government starts deciding morality, who's moral standards does it use? This is not a big government or tax issue, it is a personal question. And it is a little scary to me that people are so glib about offering other peoples money for what they consider 'the good.'

if my biggest concern is that I will be taxed more for making over 250K, that's a concern that I can live with....

Your Federal income tax goes almost entirely to paying the interest on the national debt. It does not go to things like government programs, infrastructure, etc. Additionally, there is no law requiring you to file a Federal Income tax return. The 16th Amendment was never properly ratified by the states, and the Supreme Court decided that it incurred "no new powers of taxation" to the Federal government. We need to stop borrowing from the Federal reserve, which is a private bank, because the interest is strangling our national wealth.

my thought, rich people are just smarter.
they see the country falling apart, they see our students not doing as well as other G7 students, they see the climate change, & and the GOP war without end.
they wanted better.

Brian's "progressive patriotism" is the standard preaching of most main-line denominations. Quit listening only to the far-right "fundies"

I would be happy to pay several thousand dollars more yearly for infastructure education, state universities, universal health care, and aid to the perpetually poor and homeless, as well as aid to those temporarily in financial trouble, and to raise drastically the minimum wage. (should be 20.00 an hour in New Jersey, minimum) We use services, we need to pay for them.

I agree with most of the comments. Our family is one of the $250+ families. I firmly believe that we should pay our fair share. The only issue I have is that $250,000 does not go very far in the tri state area. We live in Hoboken, after we pay the mortgage, car, nanny, food, private school, helping members family out, and saving for retirement. There is not a lot left over extravagant vacations, dining at Per Se or even dates nights.

I’m not asking for sympathy. We are willing to pay our fair share and make necessary sacrifices as long as it improves the lives of all Americans and immigrants alike.

Two thoughts:
1. the response of the first caller may seem to some to be "unusual" but it is in fact the standard, week after month after year preaching of the majority of main-line Christian denominations.
I hope it becomes a "new" political thing (though I doubt that) but those are the "economics" the Bible offers to everyone who reads it.
"Simon, do you love me?" (Yes) "Feed my sheep."
"All things come of thee, Oh Lord, and of thine
own have we given thee."

2.Courtesy of a downtown financial husband, we are in Obama's "taxable" bracket. I would be willing to pay thousands more each year, if the infastructure is restored, State or County College is guaranteed for ever able student,
If we can have universal health care (single payer - no corporations and no shareholders to take away the wealth - and if we can finally provide humane and honest services to those who will always be poor and ill, and those who are down on their luck.

No one who has decent food, clothing, heat, shelter, the occasional celebration and health care has, in my (and I think God's ) eyes, any right to anything else (no matter how hard they worked to "earn it") until they have taken care of the people to whom those things have not been given.

Hey Josh

Didn't see that ad but I'll take your word for it an it's disappointing.

He also said OBAMA's popularity was white guilt and that I agree with.

OBAMA is better than McCain however don't be fooled OBAMA is conservative. His advisors include hedge fund founders.

Look how he voted. He taught constitutional law and voted for the Patriot Act and FISA.

He also supports the death penalty even after acknowledging 10 men exonerated while on death row in Illinois.

But the topic is taxes and I still don't know why the Democrats are excited about cleaning up a Republican mess.

(PT 2)

I am not willing to pay more to support private industry. Private profit, private risk! No more bailouts.

I am not willing to pay more for other people’s entertainment. I neither shop at malls nor go to sporting events. End tax-relief and handouts to developers.

I am not willing to pay more to support investors. Let free-market capitalism work, since that’s what Americans seem to want.

There you go… these are the many ways the government can either save my tax money they already have and avoid raising my taxes further. Please note: I haven’t actually asked for a tax cut, taxes are the duty of responsible citizens.

I think michaelw (5) makes a really salient point. We have to maintain our crumbling infrastructure, and private industry is certainly not going to do it, BUT: where exactly will our higher taxes go? A few hundred more (hopelessly badly-engineered, useless in the "War on Terror") F-22 fighter jets ($361 million per)? No-questions-asked Wall Street bailouts? No thanks. We need accountability before anything else, and I'm not very optimistic on that count.

I will take a radical approached to this and say something that is actually antithetical to my view on government (that governments role is to protect the greater good) and say I am NOT willing to pay MORE.

I am not willing to pay more to educate children, I do not have any; reduce deductions for dependants.

I am not willing to pay more for roads I do not directly utilize. Yes, I get benefit from the interstate highway system; however, I am not willing to pay MORE than I already do. Raise tolls, meter fees, and fuel taxes on passenger car owners.

I am not willing to subsidize home owners or landlords. I do not get benefit from cuts in property taxes nor do I get any benefit from property tax rebates. My rent only goes up and do not wish to pay more.

I am not willing to pay more for healthcare. I am relatively healthy and do not wish to further pad the pockets of a broken privatized healthcare system. Go single payer or stay out of my pocket while you subsidize the sick and throw dollars at insurers and drug companies.

I am not willing to pay more to support an institution I am legislatively excluded from. End all state and federal marriage-based benefits.

(PT 1)

I have a quick response to #5 Michael if I may. While I wholeheartedly agree that we need more parties (more then three), to vote for someone just because he's a third party does not accomplish anything. For example, Nader ran ads in the south a few years ago that called Social Security reverse reparations. Racist comments like that have no place at all.

I agree with the caller that we should pay our fair share. Services cost money. Our infrastructure is crumbling, Social Security will run out of money in the bank in 2017, etc...But where does our tax money go? Certainly not these places. Europeans get free college tuition. I paid $30,000 a year. But everyone should pay their fair share. Warren Buffet went on the air saying the rich have never had it so good. The top tax bracket under Eisenhower was 91%. Corporations basically pay nothing. some multi-million cos, even get rebates. If we eliminate the tax breaks to those that pay employee health coverage, it would bring in $150 billion, plenty to go toward universal care. Stadiums get billions in tax breaks (Ratner is getting $2 Billion for the Nets). sports teams in Europe get nothing from government and actually turn profits (ours don't). I want to pay taxes actually, but only if they actually pay for something. they have to be fair and we have to spend what income we have wisely.

Having worked for government my entire adult life, it never ceases to amaze me the number of good people who cry out for lower taxes, yet expect greater amounts of service from government. I wholeheartedly agree with Chuck that what we need is better governance, a wiser use of our tax dollars. Regardless of what some may think, any civil society will always need some amount of government to operate successfully. It is my hope that going forward into 2009, we will begin to see a shift toward a wiser, more efficient government.

Because I, like almost everyone else, am a user of public services, I don't have much of a problem paying a little more for them. Isn't this an obligation that we should happily accept as a member of a democratic society? Aren't we all in this together? Well, maybe not during the last 8 years, but I think that in order for us to move forward, we all need to contribute, whether it be through paying higher taxes or becoming more involved in what happens in our own communities. We all have a part to play in choosing the direction in which this country is to head. On Tuesday, we took the first (huge) step; let us keep moving forward, one step at a time.

I agree with Sarah (#3). Really, at some level I don’t even see the value of tax cuts (except possibly to the very lowest income levels). Overall, the average taxpayer gets, what, $5-600, while the wealthy get millions? How much money does that pull out of the system? In return for a few hundred dollars the average tax payer gets no pension, no social security, potentially heavy tolls on the roads and bridges that would have to be privatized, poor(er) schools (or they could try to raise the fortune that a private school costs) So much more can be accomplished when we contribute, collectively, than when we try to go the “everyman for himself” route. If my taxes go up, BUT IF I FEEL THEY ARE BEING USED RESPONSIBLY, it would be difficult for me but I would pay without complaint

I definitely agree with posts 1-3, as they are the only seen as I write this. I think of it the same way. Republicans like to say americans shouldn't work for the government, the government should work for americans. I agree, but I as an american am willing to pay for that work.

I've read a few threads in the past few days from people complaining about being taxed higher because they earn more. A common arguement is "I work so hard for it, why do I have to pay more because I earn more?" This is infuriating to me as it suggests that people that don't earn huge salaries don't work hard. This guy who complains is the same guy who drives a $60,000 car, Owns his own house, and has many LUXURIES he's used to. Where as someone in a lower tax bracket's form of luxury might be a steak once a month. Please, next year give up a little and buy the $50,000 car and pay a little more in taxes that could buy a few books for your local public schools.

It comes down to greed, where the rich get richer, and everyone else is stuck working just as hard to make ends meat.

I pay various taxes in 3 states; PA, NJ & NY. I'm priviledged to be able to work. I pay property taxes to a NJ town & state of NJ, have no children and have not been eligible for NJ state property tax rebates for five years since purchasing a home there.
I can 'afford' this at this point. To me this is patriotism, contributing a fair share to your country.

I have a real problem w/ Joe the Plumber, complaining about having to pay more taxes when he nets 250K! YES, You DO!!!
Last year, I think I netted 65K.

I pay over $5,000 a year for my family's health insurance. That is for a plan that is subsidized, if I had to pay the whole bill it would be more. While I disagree vigorously with the direction of the McCain plan, if we took that figure, $5,000 and made that new taxes that I would pay for a truly universal plan, it would be a wash for me and I would be willing to pay it. If we get a handle on controlling costs the amount would not increase exponentially as it is now.

It's astonishing to me ANYONE would be willing to give THIS government more money after what has happened in the last two months.

A TRILLION DOLLARS to banks for what?

Did you know the bailout paid for dividends and bonuses? YES IT DID.

OBAMA backed the bail out so NO NO NO I will not be willing to pay more taxes.

I will not support OBAMA give more of my money away to banks.

All of you OBAMA supports are going to wake up a year from now saying this wasn't the guy I voted for.

Who did I vote for NADER. No change will come to this country until a third party emerges.

Obama = Patriot Act + FISA + Bailout = Republican

Chuck: I know what you mean. Neither party is the party of small government, and I grind my teeth whenever I hear Republicans claiming that they are. If only.

As for higher taxes, I'm very reluctant to characterize them as "paying more for others." When infrastructure is maintained, that helps everyone, rich or poor. After the elections of 1980, everyone pretty much forgot about that. Frankly, it's shameful. More than that: it's suicide.

I've often compared paying taxes to paying my other bills. Sure, I don't love writing the check, but I like having the lights work and the heat come on. I can give donations to pet charities, but I can't allocate funds to pay for bridge repairs, or education reform. I will pay more under Obama but I've had grave concerns about the infrastructure of this country. The rich get a free ride in so many ways (and not just from the government)and we end up using more than our share of resources.

I have traditionally voted Republican, but despite the shibboleth of "smaller government," government has not gotten smaller under Democrats or Republicans. I have decided rather than SMALLER government, we need BETTER governance. Part of this is wise, faithful use of taxes. As Mark (above) says, taxes are how we pay for services we all expect from government. America's economic crises cannot be overcome while we foster a culture of debt, indulgence and entitlement. The need to add value and pay our share is common sense.

I've never been unhappy about paying more taxes. I sometimes gripe about paperwork, and I'm not thrilled when people earning much more than I do pay less, but I use government services every day; why shouldn't I pay for them?

FYI, this is not a new concept. Here's a blog I wrote on the first April 15 after 9/11:
http://symes.tv/Schubin/schubin_Apr15.htm

It astonishes me that politicians try to appeal to voters by saying they'll LOWER their taxes. And it warmed my heart to see that in both Massachusetts and North Dakota voters rejected lower state taxes by the same overwhelming margin.