09-06-2004, 12:20 PM
Sorry, I disagree. Some of us are taxed enough, I think my income taxes+FICA are now at 45% of my income. But, 40% of Americans pay no income tax, and in fact if you factor in the earned income tax credit, and the newer child tax credit, 1/5 of Americans get more money back on their tax return than they paid in. The top 1/5 of income earners in the US pay 82% of all income taxes.
Just for the sake of completeness though, everyone with an income pays FICA, which can't be wiped out by deductions, and is a lot more than the credits you mentioned. So even the poor folks give almost 10% of their paycheck to Uncle Sam (not counting any other "entitlement" money Uncle Sam may be giving them, of course).
I can't speak for all Americans, but I think it's safe to say that most of us generally don't like tax increases. An aweful lot of us would like the government to spend less, rather than more. So for Kerry to run on this is a bit of a gamble. He needs his social proposals to be very popular so that people will think it is worth the extra tax burden. Of course he will also try to play the role of Robin Hood, raising the tax only on the rich so that he can give his programs to the needy. It is worth noting that if Kerry does get elected, he isn't going to be able to pass much of anything through a conservative Congress. Maybe that wouldn't be so bad... when Clinton was President and the Congress shifted to the Republicans, they froze government spending for months (years?) fighting over the budgets and we had our best economy in recent memory :P
Of course, Eppie is right that under Bush we are spending an aweful lot on the military and homeland security. I don't think any of us our eager to pay more taxes for those things either. However, military and anti-terrorism don't seem to fall under the "optional" category in the wake of the attack on New York city. Kerry even criticizes Bush for not doing enough about terrorism. The financing for Iraq is going to have to be there for either candidate as well, because Kerry also acknowledges that since we are there, we can't pull out until some kind of stability is in place.
Just for the sake of completeness though, everyone with an income pays FICA, which can't be wiped out by deductions, and is a lot more than the credits you mentioned. So even the poor folks give almost 10% of their paycheck to Uncle Sam (not counting any other "entitlement" money Uncle Sam may be giving them, of course).
I can't speak for all Americans, but I think it's safe to say that most of us generally don't like tax increases. An aweful lot of us would like the government to spend less, rather than more. So for Kerry to run on this is a bit of a gamble. He needs his social proposals to be very popular so that people will think it is worth the extra tax burden. Of course he will also try to play the role of Robin Hood, raising the tax only on the rich so that he can give his programs to the needy. It is worth noting that if Kerry does get elected, he isn't going to be able to pass much of anything through a conservative Congress. Maybe that wouldn't be so bad... when Clinton was President and the Congress shifted to the Republicans, they froze government spending for months (years?) fighting over the budgets and we had our best economy in recent memory :P
Of course, Eppie is right that under Bush we are spending an aweful lot on the military and homeland security. I don't think any of us our eager to pay more taxes for those things either. However, military and anti-terrorism don't seem to fall under the "optional" category in the wake of the attack on New York city. Kerry even criticizes Bush for not doing enough about terrorism. The financing for Iraq is going to have to be there for either candidate as well, because Kerry also acknowledges that since we are there, we can't pull out until some kind of stability is in place.