The Diane Rehm Show

As a middle-class slug, trying to provide for his family, nothing gives me more confidence than a decent pay check. I'm not trying to get rich. I just want to be able to provide for my family and be independent when I retire in my late 60s. If I'm a greeter in a local big box store in my late 60s, I want it to be because I have nothing better to do and not because I need to do it. I don't play golf or play sports, but I am a workaholic and I will probably be doing some sort of work, health permitting, until I can't anymore.

Nothing proposed by either major party is satisfactory for me to feel confident in anything they say or anything they do. No matter what either presidential candidate says, it's a matter of politics and ideology and not likely to be genuinely thoughtful solutions to our problems. At the end of the day, the tax code needs to be redone, but we can't have a serious discussion on the topic because our political leaders don't have the political will to work out a solution.

I think it safe to say we've all heard the latest salvo in the war on higher income earners from the Obama campaign. Is it possible that we can discuss the actual tax rates that would be required on the middle class, where the money is, to support existing government spending and more over the increases required to pay for the "unaffordable care act". My sources tell me the presidents newest proposals on selective tax increases on the "rich" fund federal government spending a total of 8 1/2 days. Please comment on this disconnection from reality?

Before the Grover Norquist stand-in says it, let me go on record that if I were bringing in 99% of the available income in the US I would gladly, cheerfully, giddily be willing to pay 80% of the taxes instead of petulant boo hooing about how unfair the tax codes are. Life is mostly a strange lottery when it comes to money. What you get is more dependent on being lucky about where you are born than anything else. Fetuses don't get to choose which womb they are conceived in.....and they do not EARN a birthright. Thats the ultimate entitlement.

I and everyone else I know personally have spent their whole lives working hard and paying whatever the state, fed, county, town, and nearby intersection have laid on me. I have a nice family and home and some relatively fine possessions.

But as long as I know there are people like those in the Horn of Africa or even Appalachia who struggle for tiny bits of food, I know I have not done enough.

Frankly, I have never considered an elevator in my house for my car. (....and wouldn't my 13 year old minivan look funny riding on it?)

Neither candidate has much appeal.
But we buy a little time by voting for Barack Obedient.
I feel like toast after 100+ temps 3 days in a row twice.
Capitalism is burning us alive.
The first 100 days of Romney might resemble the last 100 days of Basher al Assad, but even Obama has his drone sights on enemies of his patrons, believe it or not, and I don't mean buzzard financiers. I mean dissidents.
Charlotte may fry on Labor Day.

LibVet wrote:
" Life is mostly a strange lottery when it comes to money. What you get is more dependent on being lucky about where you are born than anything else."
For some, perhaps, but not for most. For most it is a "strange lottery" where they get to pick the winning numbers by working hard and being smart. Waiting for the slot to hit is "luck". Busting your butt is called "work", not luck.
"Fetuses don't get to choose which womb they are conceived in.....and they do not EARN a birthright. Thats the ultimate entitlement."
"They do not earn a birthright". What an interesting comment. Says who ... you? So what, at death, all your assets revert to the state? LibVet, please explain to me the moral principle behind the idea that at death, the state has a right to take what I have gained through hard work and frugality.

This is only about politicis - pure and simple. All of these silly short-term extensions from the social security tax, student loan interest and now extended tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 reflect a lack of leadership.

Some people still argue that tax cuts will improve our economy and create jobs.

Since the Reagan tax cuts, the rich have gotten immensely richer the middle class has been stagnant, the working class is losing ground.

If tax cuts "worked" we would not have the increasing inequality in the distribution of the nations's wealth. It turns out that a triumph for capitalists is NOT a triumph for capitalism.

The father of capitalism, Adam Smith, told us: "Every tax, however, is, to the person who pays it, a badge, not of slavery, but of liberty."

And he also told us: "The rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith

The last 30 years have taught us that the rising tide of tax cuts lifts yachts. Most of us are drowning, deswparately clinging to our disintegrating 'swimmies.'

This is how disingenuous this proposal is.
The tax cuts expire on 12/31.
They propose doing the under 250K part now and then wait to let the election decide what should be done about the rest (over 250K).
Except, Mr Furman, the lame duck session that will take place after the election will have ALL THE SAME PLAYERS as today!!! So instead of kicking the can down the road once again, why not just do the hard work now?
His policies have failed to get the economy moving or solve the jobless problem, we MUST respect the President's OWN STATEMENT and make this a one-term proposition.

When the tax cuts were first passed people complained that it had little impact on the lower and middle classes. Now the same people are arguing that if the tax cuts aren't extended it will devastate the lower and middle classes. How about a discussion about paying for the extension of these cuts?

The tax cut discussion is a diversion from the real problem.

From what I can tell from watching C-Span our national congress is nothing more than  a monumental waste of time.  When they are in session the things they pontificate about droll on and on with "much ado about nothing".  

The number one priority for congress should be rewriting the tax code to be more equitable and less obfuscating while balancing the budget.  Everything else is way down the list of importance.

If they say they can't get the tax code changed and the budget balanced then they should get out of congress and let someone in who can.

Senators, representatives and their staff personnel are paid way too much to be motivated to do "the peoples" business.

I do believe that term limits would help but poverty level wages for representatives, senators and their staff personnel is the way I would get it started.

Also required is a law providing guaranteed prison time for any elected official or anyone on their staff taking so much as one cent or the equivalent gift from lobbyists.

Bob Walker wrote:"The father of capitalism, Adam Smith, told us: "Every tax, however, is, to the person who pays it, a badge, not of slavery, but of liberty."

How does this figure into the fact that 50% pay no federal income tax and have no incentive to control federal government spending?

I have to document reasons for deductions in my tax rate. If those making over $250k can provide social security numbers for the people in jobs they have created they should get a break - proportional to the number of jobs they created. They shouldn't get the break unless they actually create jobs and prove it.

When conservatives say "reform the tax code", and "broaden the base" , aren't they really saying that the bottom 50%, who pay no federal income tax, have to have their taxes increased?

Your guest from the Cato Institute is being disingenuous, at best, when he says that the upper income earners are "burdened" by high taxes. Does Mitt Romney have trouble feeding his family? Do ANY of these extremely wealthy people have trouble making ends meet? No. And would an extra 3%, 5% or even 10% cause them to have that type of trouble? I didn't think so. But an extra 2%, 3% etc. would cause middle class earners like me great difficulty.

It's time we stopped running the government as welfare for the rich.

When times are good, Conservatives want to cut taxes and reduce regulation. When times are bad, Conservatives want to cut taxes and reduce regulation. When times are bad as a result of Conservatives cutting taxes and reducing regulation, the Conservative solution is to cut taxes and reduce regulation...

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
--Albert Einstein