OK. I like the analogy suggested in an earlier thread of Bush putting $300 in my front pocket while he slips $500 unnoticed out of my back. BUT, I'm sure gonna notice when someone else comes to take my last $300 too. So, this characterization of the tax issue doesn't really work.
What we have to do is change the topic from TAX to PAY. After all, what's the easiest way to get a tax cut? A cut in pay! So, the message to every high earner that's concerned about paying too much in taxes is to take a cut in pay. It doesn't have to be as drastic as those taken by Ken Lay and Koslowski's (who probably didn't pay a fair share of their take in taxes anyway), but anyone whose six figure income has gone up by , let's say, 25%, just ought to give some of it back. By increasing the pay of their hourly workers, for example, who can then pay the tax. And do so gladly.
Perhaps what we need is a 25 % solution. That seems like a good number. 25% is pretty close to the increase the Congress men and women have voted for themselves, not including whatever benefit they got from the tax cut they then agreed on.
Nevertheless, 25% is also by how much the value of the dollar has dropped since Bush came into office. Which, of course, means that everything we buy from overseas (because it used to be cheaper and why wage workers didn't need an increase in pay) is suddenly 25% more expensive.
That's why economists are worried that there's inflation up ahead--when all those bills have to be paid to Europe and Asia in worth-less dollars.
On the other hand, by manipulating the interest rate on the money banks lend to each other, the Federal Reserve has made borrowing money a lot cheaper and savings accounts that used to grow by 5% a year have shrunk down to 1%. And that, my friends, is a cut of 80%! (Percentages are funny things whose size varies, depending on whether they're going up or down). I guess 25% doesn't mean much when we're considering how much income traditional savers, the people who rely on banks to keep their money safe, have lost. Whatever the size of the tax cut, 25 percent or a 100, it's irrelevant if there's no income.
And that's also true for the three million people who have been put out of work. (To say they have ?lost their jobs? is really unfair since it implies that they are somehow at fault.)
They got a tax cut of a 100 percent. So, you see, it isn't just the people at the top of the income ladder who pay less. The number of people at the bottom who pay nothing is steadily increasing! Just think of that--a tax cut for everyone whose pay is cut. That must be why the Department of Labor is advising employers on how to avoid paying employees more. God forbid their taxes should increase!
Question of the day: Why do some people want something for nothing and resist paying (giving fair value) for the services they get? Because an exchange of value represents a transaction between equals and some people want nothing more than to be superior.