Should we all pay more taxes?
Would it be wrong to expect the middle class to pay higher taxes to help reduce the federal debt?
If I had a dollar for each time I've heard someone say that we're burdening our kids and grandkids with a huge federal debt -- Rick Santelli's recent rant about "all kids left behind" should count for a lot -- I'd happily give that money to the U.S. Treasury.
I'd be in good company. Last year righteous Americans donated a record $7.7 million -- over and above their tax bills -- to cut the nation's debt, CNN says.
It could use some help. With the federal debt at $16.4 trillion, the Congress has racked up a big stack of IOUs, which means we all owe this. You may disagree about how essential it is to reduce this large amount immediately, but we can all agree that the interest on the debt -- $220 billion in 2012, says U.S. News & World Report -- could be better spent elsewhere.
For whatever reason -- lack of political will is at or near the top of the list -- the president and Congress decided as part of the so-called fiscal cliff pact to raise income and investment taxes only on those making more than $400,000. (I'm not counting the 2% increase for payroll taxes for Social Security, which nearly every worker will pay. It was generally understood that the payroll tax holiday was a temporary stimulus measure that would end.)
Now President Barack Obama is talking about closing tax loopholes that favor the wealthy, as the next phony crisis -- votes on raising the debt ceiling and automatic and drastic spending cuts put off by the fiscal cliff deal -- approaches. Others believe the solution should be drastically shrinking the size of government.
Now, if you read personal finance blogs, you know that reduced spending is only part of the solution for restoring fiscal sanity in a household overwhelmed by debt. The other half is raising revenue. And that's where all the rest of us come in. Wouldn't a modest tax increase on the middle class -- not just the wealthy -- help the country? Surely more households could be taxed a little more without triggering another recession.
The idea surfaces from time to time but is hardly heard above the din of so many complaining about their tax burden.
"But in fact, most Americans in 2010 paid far less in total taxes -- federal, state and local -- than they would have paid 30 years ago," reported The New York Times in late November. "According to an analysis by (the Times), the combination of all income taxes, sales taxes and property taxes took a smaller share of their income than it took from households with the same inflation-adjusted income in 1980."
Since 1980, state and local taxes increased while federal income tax rates declined. If it doesn't feel that way to some old-timers, there's a reason. Adds The Times, "The average American in 2010 paid 30% more of income in payroll taxes (for Social Security and Medicare) than in 1980, even while paying 27% less in federal income taxes."
The Times says that those making more than $200,000 a year were the biggest beneficiaries of federal tax cuts over the years. But others with lower incomes also gained, so isn't it fair that more of us should pony up now?
Among those who agree are:
- New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who suggested in 2011 that the Bush tax cuts be allowed to expire across the board.
- Former U.S. Senator (and NBA star) Bill Bradley, who said last summer on CNN, "The deficit is one problem (we face) -- and that requires taxes on a lot of people, not just the wealthy."
- Wrote David Callahan, a senior fellow at Demos, at the end of November:
"Only 13% of voters earlier this month agreed that income taxes should go up for everyone, according to exit polls. And only 33% agreed that taxes should be raised to help tackle the deficit.
"Now, it would be one thing if all these Americans against higher taxes also wanted to see spending cuts. But, of course, that is not the case."
He proposed that all the Bush tax cuts be allowed to lapse on Dec. 31. Then Congress could vote to extend them for other than the rich only long enough to get through the economic recovery.
If the Bush tax cuts had been allowed to expire for everyone, that would have raised federal revenue by $4 trillion over 10 years. The last federal budget was $3.7 trillion, with a deficit of $1.1 trillion. Letting the Bush tax cuts die would have helped fill the gap that's now being paid for with borrowed money.
What do you think? Should middle-class taxpayers share more of the tax burden -- now or in the future, once the economy is more robust? Why shouldn't they be asked to pay a little more? I'm reminded of a comment I once read about how paying taxes used to be considered a duty, a responsibility -- a privilege, in fact.
More on MSN Money:
Paying more in taxes only feeds the monster to become a bigger monster.
It used to be said that limited $$funds was the only thing that could keep government spending in check - but the last 8 years have proved that wrong - government spending just keeps going up whether they have they income or not.
And I don't believe for a second that overall taxes are less now than years ago. When you consider:
- state tax increases
- sales tax increases (CA just raised it to 9%. Used to be 2-3% in the1950 - 60's.)
- more states now charging state and sales taxes than ever before.
- new business taxes
- new business fees
- new personal fees charged by government agencies - such DMV vehicle registration fees, court costs added to traffic tickets to name just a few (fees are taxes)
- Costs of inflation that automatically increase taxes - such as Sales taxes, Property taxes and personal property taxes which same states charge on vehicles and boats.
Where will it all end? Seems like we could be paying 100% of our income in taxes and it still will not be enough. Government HAS to treat it's own operations like a business - where if you do not have the income to support your costs you go out of business. It is their spending which is out of control and we should not have to try to continue to fund their wastefulness.
Do any of these surveys take into consideration all of the hidden taxes that are paid by the middle class. I received an auto insurance bill today with a mandatory ten dollar surcharge from the state.
How much more does a person pay for cigarettes, gas, and other overly taxed items that weren't so heavily taxed twenty years ago. How about all of the added fees for licensing and permits that are passed along in higher retail costs. I can't even imagine how many taxes we pay and don't even realize we are paying them. Any one who believes we should give a little more to the government should take a look at the per diems and all the other perks they give themselves.
I own a business in the socialist state of New York and I am making less money. Am I supposed to feel sorry for the congress that just got a raise because they haven't had one since 2009.
Jackie Chan was right on the mark.
Why shouldn't we be asked to pay a litle more? Simple answer, the federal gov't isn't responsible witrh what we give them already why would they be with more money/ absolutely not! If congress wouldn't agree to funding wars and bailing out greedy bankers we wouldn't be in this mess. The gov't spending is the problem, let them pay more! This is BS, just a story to make us feel guilty so we'll agree to give you greedy s.o.b.s more money, shame on you!!
Our politicians never ever seem to get around to cutting the wasteful and unnecessary spending after taxes are increased. Its always been this way and will probably never change. Politicians, for the most part, are whores and liars. And, that's a compliment.
Tap the rich first, then, and only then, ask the rest of us to pay more taxes.
Copyright © 2014 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Morningstar Inc. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Morningstar Inc. Quotes delayed by up to 15 minutes, except where indicated otherwise. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by Morningstar Inc.
ABOUT SMART SPENDING
LATEST BLOG POSTS
New rules mean that longevity annuities -- insurance against outliving your money -- are more attractive for retirement savers.
VIDEO ON MSN MONEY
BLOGS WE LIKE
MUST-SEE ON MSN
- Video: Easy DIY smoked meats at home
A charcuterie master shares his process for cold-smoking meat at home.
- Jetpacks about to go mainstream
- Weird things covered by home insurance
- Bing: 70 percent of adults report 'digital eye strain'