December 16, 2017
Contributors Latest News | Poll Questions | Net Neutrality | Robert Burton | Opioid Epidemic

Comments for: America needs an income tax increase, not a decrease

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News and the Bangor Publishing Co. encourage comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

  1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
  2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
  3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

  • Anonymous

    In this economy I’ve had to cut the amount of money I spend on things.  Doing so has not only allowed me to continue to pay my bills, but actually cut into them as well.  Not to mention how much my eyes have been opened to where I was wasting money for unnecessarily on items I didn’t really need.  I’m pretty sure many others have done the same thing from people I talk to. Perhaps it’s time the government looks at that route.  Instead of constantly taxing everyone, CUT THE SPENDING!  Might I recommend beginning with the salaries and perks of elected officials?!….yawm…..shoot, just awoke from that dream.

    • Anonymous

      That would make way too much sense! God forbid if the Federal Government could figure out how to balance the checkbook. I still can’t fathom we are borrowing from the Chinese.

    • Anonymous

      As many commenting here show, talk about taxes is really talk about the value of government.  This is only right.  Of course taxes are the market “price” of government.  So those wanting to pay less in taxes value government less, those who want to pay more, value government more.
       
      These two groups often seem to talk past each other when discussing tax rates – not the amount of taxes but who should pay what share, as this article does. 
       
      In Maine, the following seems true and is surprising to me:
       
      Southern Maine is wealthier and has higher incomes than northern and eastern Maine. 
       
      Southern Maine is more liberal and for progressive taxes while northern and eastern Maine is more conservative and opposed to taxes based on ability to pay.
       
      Being poorer, northern and eastern Maine relies on the government more than does southern Maine.
       
      Liberal southern Maine is fine with paying a bigger share of taxes.
       
      But conservative northern and eastern Maine, by opposing progressive taxes, want to pay a greater share of taxes than they currently do.

      Go figure.

      • Anonymous

         Maybe its your analysis. Go figure.

      • Anonymous

        Jason I agree with the majority of your statements.  Taxes are a hot button between the two groups and often times things become so heated that nothing is actually accomplished.  Southern Maine is indeed wealthier, more liberal, progressive and paying a larger portion of the taxes.  I do have to interject at that point however.  I’m not sure where the northern and eastern Maine relying more on government than the south is coming from?  I’ve traveled over a large portion of the state and one thing I’ve noticed is that is the southern part of the state people consider anything over 4 acres, a good sized piece of property to own.  In North and Eastern Maine there are many people who own large tracts of property and they have to pay their share of taxes on that acreage unless they put it into tree growth.

        Also, the media is putting a lot of emphasis on the amount of drug use that’s taking place here and welfare fraud.  While I agree I don’t believe that’s just this part of the state.  Not to mention virtually every town down state has local police and fire while many town in North and Eastern Maine don’t have any or have volunteer departments.  Many times if you need help it’s going to be a very long time before it arrives because it’s coming from miles away.  I and everyone who does live in the woods understands that that’s the way it is but it is still a service that we’re paying for while getting limited availability.  The roads are not that well taken care of because due to cost they’re not built correctly, shopping may need to be done on a limited basis due to the time it takes to get places and often the cost is more due to transportation costs.  

        While it may seem like Southern Maine is paying more than their fair share in taxes it doesn’t seem that way to folks in Eastern and Northern Maine.  They get more benefits of the services offered and that’s ok for most of us.  But a large population of people live away from the cities because they want to be left alone to live their lives.  I think that’s where the divide is.  It’s two different life styles, two different ways of looking at the world.

      • Anonymous

         Your statement about people relying on government for their income in rural Maine is true.
         But, send the welfare seeking rats BACK to their ratholes that they came from, and just the opposite would be true.
         Rural Maine has been inundated by the laborless rabble that has moved here because of YOUR so called “social justice” programs.
         If we take 1/3 of the money spent on these programs, give it to the local town government to distribute to the truly needy, POOF, just like magic, those numbers would be reversed.

    • Anonymous

      Start with the bloated defense budget.

  • Anonymous

    If we can count on government to spend more wisely than individuals can, then what makes sense is for it to tax everyone 100% and spend the money for the general good. On the other hand, if government tends to waste money (e.g., the staggeringly expensive and non-productive Stimulus program), then maybe it’s better to leave the money in private hands.

    What Mr. Wanning is proposing appears to be a tax increase to be spent on public works and education, two activities strongly associated with Democratic party fund raising. Cynic that I am, I suspect this may not be entirely accidental. Beyond that, his ideas are as stale as his rhetoric.

    Incidentally, after JFK cut taxes, and after Reagan did too, their economies boomed. Coincidence, I’m sure.

    • Anonymous

       Yes, an educated population and roads will be the death of this country.  What we really need is another $1.51 trillion fighter jet.

      • Anonymous

        I agree about the fighter. But more education dollars don’t result in more education, and  “rebuilding our infrastructure” is an open invitation to things like California’s high-speed rail boondoggle or Boston’s ‘Big Dig’, projects that enrich Democratic party contributors directly and the party indirectly without accomplishing much else.

        I’m not suggesting that the Republicans are any more virtuous than the Democrats, by the way. But Mr. Wanning’s suggestion seems specifically aimed at helping the Democratic party to raise money from taxes and that’s the focus of my criticism of it.

      • Anonymous

        You might need the jet, the Chicomms are catching up fast.

        • Anonymous

           We’ve shown ourselves to be much more aggressive than the Chinese ever have been.  I think maybe they should invest in catching up with us just to be ready whenever we elect our next Republican President.

          • Anonymous

            This is why people love liberals!  Hate on the USA and love the ChiCOMS.   Makes me want to run right down and vote Democrap.

          • Anonymous

            Yeah, I can see how telling the truth could be construed as hating on the US.  Actually I love this country dearly, which is why I hate to see the current crop of Republicans in office.  They seem intent on besmirching our reputation, oppressing our people, and bankrupting our coffers all for the benefit of the corporate elite.

          • …….besmirching our reputation, oppressing our people, and bankrupting our coffers all for the benefit of the corporate elite……. Congratulations. You just described President Obama perfectly.

          • Anonymous

            CHICOMS?? Kind of stuck in the 50’s aren’t you?

    • Anonymous

      What planet are you on? Reagan enacted the biggest tax INCREASE in the last fifty years. And Kennedy’s tax cut was coupled with a massive elimination of loopholes resulting in the richest Americans experiencing a pretty hefty TAX INCREASE while the working stiff got a break. Better read up on your history and stop taking in everything from Faux News without questioning. 

      • Anonymous

        BTW, just to set the record straight: Reagan cut taxes once and then passed taxes 13 times!  Some tax cutter?

      • Anonymous

        Well, the planet I’m on is the one where the things you claim didn’t happen. The sky here is blue, by the way.

        And a note to NE_Voter: Reagan eventually signed tax increases that rolled back about half his cuts.

    • Anonymous

      JFK, Reagan, whoever. Here’s my first-hand experience:

      With President Bush claiming that the solution to every problem was deregulation of ‘bidness’ and cutting taxes, I got out of the stock market. When the market crashed in 2008, I didn’t lose a penny.

      With President Obama, the Democrats and the Federal Reserve putting in place a well reasoned set of stimulus plans, I jumped back into the market. I’ve done quite handsomely, thank you very much. I have met and exceeded my retirement savings target, even though I am many years younger than retirement age.

      In the last ten years my taxes have done nothing but go down. In fact, under the retirement plan tax shelters, I’ve paid no tax on the hundreds of thousands of dollars in stock market profits. None. Zip. Nadda.

      Meanwhile, many of my fellow Mainers are struggling to take care of their families and put food on the table, thanks to deregulating ‘bidness’ and cutting taxes.

      Now the president and Democrats in congress want to undo some of the tax damage done by Republicans. This would increase my tax rates.

      I can afford it.

      • Anonymous

         The stock market isn’t the economy, sadly, and while it and you have been prospering, many Americans haven’t.  And while you can afford higher taxes (are you aware that you can volunteer to pay more even now, without waiting for taxes to go up?), a lot of people may not be in quite so comfortable a position.

        • Anonymous

          If your income is too low to afford a tax increase, I’m not proposing one for you.  It’s the wealthy who should be paying more.  That’s what ‘progressive’ taxes (instituted under the first Republican president, Lincoln) are about.

          • Anonymous

            By your methodology and attacking IRA’s you are attacking the middle class. You either don’t know what you are talking about and a fool or want to drive the retiring middle class into poverty. I think that you are a fool.

      • Anonymous

        deleted in favor of other post

      • Anonymous

         You know something… Those tax breaks you take by investing for retirement are entirely voluntary. There is no law that says you are required to take them.

        I would suggest you immediately cash in your 401k and IRA’s and pay the TAX you owe. Do it NOW,  TODAY  before you file on the April 15th.  (send a revised tax return if you have) Otherwise your whole post is selfish self serving hypocritical HOGWASH.

        In the meantime allow the rest of us the right to save for retirement. Or do you want us all to live in poverty in our declining years?

      • Anonymous

        Well, if you wouldn’t mind paying more taxes, then why don’t you? As far as I know, you can always give more away to the state and federal government.

        • Anonymous

          Dear Mr. Pain (seems like a good name) ;

          I’m discussing tax policy.  That is, what should the level and nature of taxes be?  It’s what this newspaper article is about.  I think it’s better for the country if we actually pay for the government we have and that taxes should be based on ability to pay, in other words progressive.

          I appreciate your suggestion about where I direct my philanthropy.  But that’s really not the topic at hand.

          What solutions do you propose?

          • Anonymous

            Tell me, you have put away enough for retirement, why do you want to leave the rest of us in poverty because you have yours? Hypocrite.
            If you have a problem with us saving tax deferred why dont YOU send your money to the IRS?

            I know. Because you have yours. That’s why.

            You aren’t discussing policy… you are discussing what you have, want you want to keep, and want no one else to have!!

          • Anonymous

            Dear Cheese (seems like an appropriate name);

            Getting the wealthy to pay a bigger share of taxes won’t leave you in poverty. You may stay in poverty, but not because the rich get a tax increase.

            The moral of my story is, the Democrats’ policy is proven in the last few years by my own experience to be better for the country, better for the economy and the more fortunate (like me) can afford it.

          • Anonymous

             You are not talking about the wealthy you are talking about IRA’s which are geared to the middle class. You should know that the wealthy don’t get this tax benefit. You should know what the income restrictions are. Middle class only. You are nothing but a tax pimp. Are you going to give up your IRA deduction and send the money to internal revenue or remain a hypocrite or what?

          • Anonymous

            Actually, I think your philanthropy is the topic at hand. You think people who have more should have more taken from them. You claim to be able to afford it, and I think you would be setting a good example by living according to your own beliefs. If not, then why not? Surely you wouldn’t force people to do something that you yourself won’t do on your own would you? The solution I propose is for this country to get back to the roots of the purpose of government. If government went back to the sole mission of protecting individual rights, then the size, scope, and spending of government would be a fraction of what it is now. As far as a tax system, there are a few ideas out there worth looking into, but I’m sure most of them are better than the 60,000+ page IRS h3ll that we’re in today.

  • Anonymous

    Trickle down doesn’t work. We’ve tried it for 30 years already. When will the fools stop buying that garbage? All that cutting taxes on the rich has done is to divide America and ruined the middle class.

    • Anonymous

      “Trickle down” is really “gush up”. Since the time when a brain dead actor coined that term, the top 1% have seen their wealth explode by 300%. The other 99% have payed the price in a lower standard of living and a total lack of a savings account. 

      • Anonymous

        If liberals would spend half as much energy trying to improve their own economic situation as they do trying to get their fingers on money that they have no right to, they might find they could open a savings account.

        • Anonymous

          Yes, change the subject back to the old Democrat and Republican thing. Avoid discussing the fact that the wages in this country are stuck in the early 90’s. That should help solve our problems.

        • Anonymous

          They can open a savings account because they dont like the mean banks LOL

          • Anonymous

            You’re right, we open up savings accounts in credit unions that are owned and operated by the people, default at significantly lower rates, offer higher interest rates, and lower loan rates.  It’s kind of the difference between going to Potter or George Bailey.

        • Anonymous

          You cant open a savings account with EBT

  • The answer is not for the government to spend more. The government wastes to much already. NO way we should give them more. Less government=more freedom. More government=less freedom. 

    Communism/Marxism/Socialism is not the answer. Who here wants to pay 91% tax rate?

    Rufus Wanning  knows nothing about what he speaks. He needs to seek the advice of the economics department at Orono. 

    Less Government. Not more. 

    • Anonymous

      More freedom means fewer people trying to legislate morality and deciding what others may and may not do.

    • Anonymous

      Do you understand what is happening though? Cutting spending is NOT enough. We’re running a deficit, and to continue the Bush tax cuts, we’re adding to the deficit to pay for them — it comes from the general fund.

    • Anonymous

      Orono.. thats good for a laugh. Thats probably where he picked up the tax and spend ideology.

    • Anonymous

      Gracious–I had never realized that Republican president Dwight D. Eisenhower, who instituted that 91% tax rate, was a “Communist/Marxist/Socialist”!

      Revisionism is fascinating.

      • Anonymous

        I’m always a little amused that people – Left and Right – assume that senior military people are naturally conservative. Why would they be, though? They’ve spent their entire lives, from late adolescence on, in a tax-funded command economy that provided them with food, clothing, shelter, education, medical care and a job – and discouraged questions. And for those at the top, it all worked splendidly. How could they not be socialists (in all but name) at the very least?

      • Anonymous

        Can you cite a reference to this statement?  The 91% was in effect before Eisenhower was President.  You might also want to check your history and you might find out that we had just finished fighting a war many times greater than anything fought since.  And we were engaged in another war much larger than what we have been fighting recently.

        • Anonymous
          • Anonymous

            You are not correct according to your own link.  The top rate when Ike took office was 92% and there was a 91% bracket at that time.  For some reason they eliminated the 92% rate.  Also they doubled the amount of income needed to pay the 91% rate under Eisenhower which almost no one did anyway.

            And yes lots of people did accuse him of being a socialist.  He ran against Taft who was the real conservative at the time.

  • Anonymous

    Want a tax increase? Get the wages up into this century and people will pay more in taxes on higher wages, not hide their money in the Cayman Islands to avoid paying any taxes at all. If your pay is not going up at least 3% a year to keep pace with inflation, it is the same as taking a pay cut.

  • Anonymous

    Once again a liberal misses the entire point of taxes.  This country was founded by FREE men and we ALL have an equal responsibility to pay for necessary government functions.  Deciding how much somebody makes for money or how they spend it is not a  function for the government.  All citizens should be taxed at the same rate in a free society, what your neighbor gets to keep for money is none of your business.  Just because a liberal wants access to a wealthy person’s money to try out their economic theories, does not automatically make them entitled to it.

    • Anonymous

      The ultra-rich have had plenty of access to OUR money for decades, since they get vast tax breaks and the rest of us have to either 1) let them keep slashing social services and letting the country’s infrastructure decay or 2) pay increased taxes to make up for what billioniares don’t pay.

      That was supposed to lead to at least a few of their millions “trickling down” on the rest of us in the form of jobs and prosperity. That didn’t work.

      Just because a conservative wants you and me to finance tax breaks for billionaires doesn’t mean they’re entitled to them.

      • Anonymous

        It is always fascinating to see the mental gymnastics a liberal will go through to try and justify the taking of other people’s property.  Didn’t your mother teach you that it’s wrong to steal other people’s stuff?  If we all paid 10% in taxes why wouldn’t that be fair?  Don’t liberals enjoy the benefits of this free republic as much as those evil, money-grubbing, running dog capitalists do?

        Your argument amounts to “Whaaaa, the bad man has more me. It’s not fair!”  (stomps little feet and throws self on the floor).

  • Anonymous

    “For instance, Eisenhower maintained the 91 percent tax rate to attack the deficit.”

    Those that use this statistic do not know the context in which it was applied, the deductions and shelters that were then available and exactly how few it was applied to. Using this statistic and apply the same logic to 2012 makes the author of this piece look stupid.

    • Anonymous

      You always cite these deductions and shelters, but never really get specific. That kind of makes you look stupid.

      • Anonymous

        Start with the fact the top tax rate of 92% began at a TAXABLE income over $400k annually.  This is of course at a marginal rate. One would have had to have earned over $2.4 million to pay anywhere near a rate of 91% on their total income.

        How many were there of those in 1952?  I’ll answer my self. Not very many.

        Do you know that folks could deduct their lunch every day they went to work as well as their business clothes and suits?

        Did you know you could deduct alcohol at this same lunch as long as you had a business associate present. An employee for instance.

        Did you know you could deduct ALL interest paid not just mortgage interest? Interest on a Sears credit account for example. Or a loan on your second home new car or new yacht.

        Did you know that in some instances write -offs on your capital losses could be recorded at a 10-1 ratio? In other words you could have a capital loss of $10k and write-off $100k on your return? Reagan put an end to that, by the way, at the same time he lowered overall tax rates.

        There were any number of investments one could make and income was not taxed from the profits. Certain agricultural investments was one. There were others.

        This is just a short list… There were many others.

        • Anonymous

          Dont show him up with facts,  high taxes on someone else and wasteful spending is always good, you need to remember that ;)

          • Anonymous

            Who is advocating wasteful spending? It’s certainly not me. Read my comments and don’t put words in my mouth. 

          • Anonymous

            Your comments are big government is good and tax cuts are bad, go read your own words

            “We’ve cut incredibly amounts from our budget, we need to stop acting like budget cuts are a silver bullet”

            That sums it up, you dont want budget cuts and continuous govenment waste!

          • Anonymous

            The only thing it sums up is that you’re crazy. I said budget cuts alone aren’t enough.  Period.

        • Anonymous

          So what is your point then?  There are similarly immense deductions, loopholes, shelters, credits etc. available now and the highest bracket is a fraction of what it was. There is no way of truly comparing taxation rates of then and now at a very precise level, but it can be said that taxes are currently lower than they’ve been in awhile.

          The author isn’t wrong in saying that these massive tax cuts that Republican candidates are proposing would be harmful to our country. We’re already operating at a loss in order to continually fund the Bush tax cuts (also, I find it funny that the Bush cuts let people “keep” more of their money, but the payroll tax cut is a different story — they’re both pulling from the same spot, the general fund). So, what exactly would these tax cuts do for us and how long could we afford to keep them in place? Any honest person would admit that budget cuts alone would never be enough to get us back to a surplus.

          So again, what’s your point? Even factoring in the loopholes/deductions/etc. you cite, taxes aren’t higher now than they were then. So are you an advocate for additional tax cuts or what?

          • Anonymous

            The trade-off that we made was for ending loopholes in exchange for lower rates, which is where we find ourselves now. Loopholes exist, but there are far fewer for the individual taxpayer than there were in 1952.

            You are correct imo  in saying “There is no way of truly comparing taxation rates of then and now” after all that was my point in my initial post.

            The best way, instead of falsely comparing marginal rates, is to compare revenue collected as a  percentage of GDP. Since WW2  that number has averaged about 18%.

            In 1952 that was around14.4% which allowed for unprecedented economic growth. 
            I think it is interesting to note that in the year 2000 revenue as a % of GDP was about 20.6%. and then declined as did economic growth.

            I am not so sure that our tax policies could not be more pro-growth than they are.
            Favoritism in tax policies by deductions for certain business (green energy for example) should be ended in exchange for more reasonable rates for us all. That will make us more globally competitive as having the highest rates in the world is a losing proposition.

          • Anonymous

            We do have high corporate rates, but other countries don’t have those immense deductions we do.

            I’m honestly pretty baffled by how much flak the President gets over his tax proposals. One would lower the corporate rate from 35% to 28% in exchange for ending certain loopholes/deductions. Another would ensure the millionaires aren’t paying lower rates than the middle class. There is no part of me that can understand why these are supposedly such bad proposals.

            Income tax payments this year will be nearly 13 percent lower than they
            were in 2008.. Corporate taxes
            will be lower by a third, according to projections by the Congressional Budget Office. So this meme about being taxed to death is just so unfounded. We’ve cut incredibly amounts from our budget, we need to stop acting like budget cuts are a silver bullet.

          • Anonymous

             We do have high corporate rates, but other countries don’t have those immense deductions we do.

            Correct, that is why me must exchange special deductions and “loopholes” for lower tax rates. Every company pay the same tax on the profit they make but at a lower rate more equal to what other countries require. Right now we have a system of favorites that allows the federal government to pick winners and losers and btw ensure campaign donations.
             As far as I know though the Obama plan retains favored tax status for certain industries and companies GE for example. Make it the same for everyone then I’m on board.

            Going forward revenue projections are projected to be 19.4% of GDP in just a few years under current law. Business is already putting that data in their personal economic forecasts.

          • Anonymous

            There are loopholes that are probably justifieable. For instance the cost of advertising a product or service. That is a legitament tax break. For companies that manufacture  their products here in the USA.
            For companies that make everything overseas using cheap labor and noe environmental rules that US manufacturers can compete against, there should be no tax break for advertising or promotion of their products.

          • Anonymous

            Not what i mean… All companies share many of the same tax benefits…. depreciation expenses,  advertising and so on. That’s not what I mean… I don’t consider normal business expenses loopholes.

             Not all business can benefit by a congressional approved Green Energy credits and then extend them to overseas operations like GE in China which the stimulus package did. Then they pay Zero taxes. That’s what I mean.

             There are accelerated depreciation like the oil companies take on certain equipment. Make it the same as for everyone else.Make certain that Ag ethanol subsidies go away. Make everyone play on the same field. Don’t let the government choose winners and losers.

            Over seas is a bit more difficult… you can make companies bring their profits on shore by not making them pay tax on the same money twice. That is why most of the overseas profits don’t come back.

          • Anonymous

            It’s what I mean. I don’t think all companies should be able to reap the tax benefits on an equal basis. If Nike were to bring their shoe and clothing manufacturing here to the US, I would be glad to buy their product and give them tax breaks for their advertising costs.

            They should not get the same benefits as New Balance. They should not be allowed to sell their product to the US military. Get tax breaks while US manufacturers are abiding by all the rules that are imposed on them and employing US citizens.

            I do remember the great catch phrase, ‘We will become a service economy’. My question is who the hell are we going to be servicing?

          • Anonymous

             Your plan only would work if the market were the same as 20 years ago. I doubt its effectiveness now. The US is becoming a smaller part of the global pie. A company would have to make a determination if it was worth it to sell in the US market. You may be surprised  by the result.

          • Anonymous

             You say we have “cut incredible amounts from our budget,” however the facts disagree. In 2008 the federal budget called for 2,982,550,000,000 or almost 3 trillion in spending. By 2010 spending increased to 3.4 trillion. And the estimates from 2011 have federal spending at a whopping 3.8 trillion. So what exactly have we cut? I see government spending at an all time high, and deficits that make GWBush’s record deficits look like nothing.

            Whenever the government talks about budget cuts they are lying about the numbers. The “savings” and “cuts” are reductions in spending that have yet to occur, or projected departmental increases they scale back. Say a 10% increase at the DOJ turns into a 5% increase. The government calls that a “cut.” While it is a reduction in projected spending, a cut would be going from 100% to 95% or 90%, or 75% of the previous year’s budget. Until the federal government spends the same as the year before, or less there are no real cuts.

            http://federal-budget.findthedata.org/compare/111-114/2008-Federal-Budget-vs-2011-estimate-Federal-Budget

            ^ Source.

          • Anonymous

            So the cuts from the super committee are imaginary? 

          • Anonymous

            The rich people have all of these tax loopholes because they congress has amended the tax code so often to help them out.  Close all of the loopholes and start anew with a tax code that is less than 25 pages long.

            Also, the payroll tax cut does not come out of the general fund.  The payroll tax cut is a reduction in the amout you pay into social security.  The extra $20 per week is not enough to pay for the extra amount you spend filling up your vehicle.  If you want to help the low-income people, bring the price of gas down.  The President could do this by opening up more areas for drilling, stopping the export of fossil fuels and approving the entire Keystone pipeline.

          • Anonymous

            You’re wrong about the payroll tax. The payroll tax does fund social security, however, the current payroll tax cut takes money from the general fund and put it into SS so there is no loss there.

  • Anonymous

    Disagree. The rates could be lower if the extremely wealth actually paid anywhere near what the rates are. I liked Obama’s proposal about a base percentage that you couldn’t get around. Maybe these credits and loopholes are beneficial, but they shouldn’t be allowed to bring a person’s rates down to near 0 — that’s ridiculous. 

    • Anonymous

      You mean the “alternative minimum tax” we already have? It certainly doesn’t get you anywhere close to zero taxes.

  • Anonymous

    Thankfully the Libs have most of the guilt.
    Frees me up to actually make a difference.

  • Guest

    Mr. Wanning, the hammer and sickle you ordered have arrived.  You may pick them up at union headquarters during normal business hours.

  • Anonymous

    What we need is a frugal Mainer int he white house.  Someone who knows better then to live beyond there means. Someone who knows you can not put out more then comes in.

  • Anonymous

    How many people actually paid an effective rate of ANYTHING near 91%?

    Lower the rate some, flatten and broaden it!

  • Anonymous

    I consider myself fortunate, I have a good paying job.  I would absolutely happily pay higher taxes, except, the government wastes way too much.  There is not enough money to tax to make up for the deficit spending.  Show that you can reduce spending by 30% and then raise taxes to make up for the rest.  Unfortunately, the more they raise taxes, the more they spend.

    • Anonymous

      Start by reducing the bloated defense budget which includes one boondoggle after another.

      • Anonymous

        While there is plenty of wasteful spending in the DoD, there is also plenty of wasteful spending in entitlement programs.  There are hundreds of overlapping programs to help the less fortunate that could be pared down to where the money could be used more efficiently.  Whenever the government gets involved running a program it turns into a bloated bureaucratic mess.

  • Guest

    Wanning, Grow up!

  • Anonymous

    The tax burden on the wealthy in the United States is more disproportional than any other country in the world. Since 1980 the tax burden has shifted substantially towards the wealthy, despite the fact that their tax rates have dropped from such high rates. The problem with having the wealthy pay such a high disproportion of the taxes is that their income is extremely volatile. So when we enter a recession the number of wealthy people gets cut in half, that means the federal government will lose 30%+ of their total revenues. In case you haven’t noticed, this is the exact reason revenues are down so much right now.
    It has been clearly PROVEN that raising rates does not raise revenues. Since we have been taxing income we have averaged 18% of our GDP in tax revenues, with the highest about 21% and the lowest about 15%. The highs are during booms, and the lows are during recessions.

    We need to get our spending under control, and we need to worry about increasing revenues. This can be done by eliminating certain deductions and credits, NOT by increasing rates.

    I am not making any claims as to support “trickle down theory”, I am simply stating facts in regards to tax rates and revenues.
    Also, for anyone who wants to argue my facts, all of my statements are confirmed by the Congressional Budgets Office. http://cbo.gov/publication/21938

    • Anonymous

      More tea potty horse-twaddle

      • Anonymous

        While it is hard to argue with such sound and solid reasoning as your, I will give it a shot.

        Everything that was stated in my comment is stated and confirmed in the link provided by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. I’m sorry that you disagree with reality, but people will believe what they want to I suppose. I am not a “tea-partier”, and this information did not come from any sort of “tea party” outfit.

        I don’t even know what else to say to that comment other than really?

    • Anonymous

      Right on the money.  What’s worse is we’ve watched others take the “tax more” approach and wind up in dire straits.  Progressive liberalism, of course, knows better than anyone else and they are sure that they can tax more and not have a bad result.  It’s about the spendng, folks.

  • Anonymous

    April Fools.

  • Anonymous

    I agree.  Go ahead–raise the taxes on those with higher earnings and/or inherited wealth.  It will make you feel better.  You’ll stick it to that nasty 1% (actually, about 15-18%), who, ironically enough, already pay a higher proportion (roughly 78-85%) of taxes than those who do and certainly more than the 48% of citizens who pay none.  The money will cycle through the government for redistribution and then will be earned right back by those with higher earnings.  That’s a given.

    The real cold, hard, cruel salient fact (and 300 ton gorilla in the room) as pointed out by the GAO and all noted economists is that it won’t even begin to make a dent in the massive defecit run up by the denizens of the Marble Playpen, aka Congress and the White House.   Nope.  Not a dent.  Won’t even pay for a percent of the interest owed on the debt borrowed to keep The Land of Hope and Obama afloat.  Not going to happen. And you should also note that we have very little to show for our massive spending.

    The path to fiscal sanity begins with curbing spending.  Increasing taxes to try and fill the gap without curbing spending is simply chasing the tailights of Europe and is a guaranteed road to financial ruin, no matter how good it makes one feel. 

    It is also a mistake to generalize that those who want to pay less taxes want less government and vice versa.  Wrong.  We all want a better government for what we pay for it, period.  All of us are more than happy to pay our fair share–but there must be something to show for it other than the cycle of waste and nonsense that emits from DC and many of our State governments.  It’s simply unsustainable and the numbers don’t lie.

You may also like