Should everyone working pay an extra $10,000 in taxes to balance the budget?

Ok - now that all of these ideas have been written out here: HOW DOES ONE GET OUR GOVERMENTAL HAUNCHOS TO DO SOMETHING OTHER THAN WHAT THEY'VE BEEN DOING ?

This kind of thing can be spun around a bit until it actually sounds good in theory. But then the reality of it hits like a brick. If the same government that now cannot manage money and stop spending actually grants itself license to take huge amounts of income from people who earn it, it doesn't get "redistributed" at all. It gets wasted like money they've been wasting. What do they do with all that money in such a scenario? Write and hand out checks to poorer people? Give more money to public school sinkholes in the hope that more money negates shoddy teachers? I understand a bit about where the redistrubtion pushers are coming from. I do. I just don't get what folks think will happen once the money is taken away from the rich. An influx of taxpayer money certainly doesn't open up lending of any sort, and it certainly never helped anywhere that government has incredibly thick books of regulations setting the pace. I just don't understand how that stops being FUBAR if we just simply take more from rich people. How is it economical to poor people to have government handle the money - how has it ever been?

Yes, if a billionaire is taxed more, he or she still has more money than most people. But that's not addressing the issues I addressed. How does more money in the federal coffers help "poor" people? The insane amount of stimulus spending, while it can be argued that it slightly helped to stave off further collapse, certainly didn't lift people out of poverty. And it's private corporations donating to political campaigns that's the problem? What about teachers' unions which donate more and give over 90% to Democrats who then turn around and leave public education the way it is? They're not on the hook to change as well? Lifting people out of poverty also involves fixing public education, and we all know that simply feeding more money into the system doesn't work. Better-educated children stand a much higher chance of landing a good career and rising out of poverty. How are billionaire corporations on the hook for that, I wonder? I don't agree with the way some large corporations operate, but at least they offer jobs to people. More government spending, if it does create more jobs, also creates more of a debt the way the system runs now. You assume that outright taking money from rich people will pay off our debt. Well, that's not mathematically possible. I think we all know. Outright stealing wealth from the top 5% in America might give us a deficit lift for a year or two, but it doesn't come close to touching the debt. My opinion only, of course, but a lot more needs to change than simply taking money from people. Logically, if more money fixed problems, America would be golden, as we've just got through inventing a bunch of money and supposedly pumping it into the system. We're not paying more per public school child than ever before. We need more money?

The government handles the money according to rules laid down by rich people and large corporations. How does that benefit anybody except rich people and large corporations? It doesn't. We have been redistributing wealth for many years. We need to move it the other way. Stop subsidizing oil companies. Remove the cap on income for payments into Social Security and Medicare. Enact a very large tax increase on very high incomes. If members of Congress decide to start a bunch of new programs, they can be replaced. Remove corporate funds totally from elections. Free speech only applies to people and corporations are not citizens. It can be done. Maybe it will, if folks stop screaming nonsense for a little while and look at what it will take to fix the mess we are in.This is not about philosophy. It is not a political issue. It is economic, and empty statements about the moral sanctity of money "earned" by somebody with inherited wealth are useless. There is no way that any single ever produced enough to "earn" $10 billion. That money was earned by a great number of people; one guy got to keep most of it. Does the owner of a steel plant produce most of the steel? Does he add the value to the scrap iron that makes it sell for a higher price as steel? Does he do that by himself? If billionaires get hit with a very heavy tax, they will still have more money than they can ever possibly spend, and maybe we can pay off this government debt. If we do not, our country will no longer belong to billionaires and corporations; it will be totally owned by China.

So how much would the sales tax increase have to be to cover the $1.5 trillion current deficit? Or the $9 trillion, 10 year deficit he's projected?

40% to cover 1.5 trillion with a surplus but I am for cutting a good portion of the budget when I took my time I have gotten it to go from some 600 Billion to 93 Billion in the positive by leaving taxes at the same rate they are now. But taxing different funds I made a post about it I named it can you do it or something like that. So if we didn't cut the spending then it would take a 40% rate to cover for the 9 Trillion over 10 years.

Hi guys, It looks like you have really spent some time doing the math on this topic. I however, think the whole budget problem is is not as difficult as what the government makes it. A long time ago I worked out that a simple 10% flat across the board regardless of income (ie. the rich vs the middle class and less fortunate). This would apply to all citizens in America regardless of their income level. I this system there would be no loopholes or tax breaks. If you live in the U.S. you would pay the tax. The states could individualy set their tax schedule for their particular state but the federal system would be the same for everyone. From my point of view this is the only fair way for the government can deal with the national debt. No one would be exempt if they are working and those on welfare would have to continue to look for a job and after for example six months of documented looking for work if they have not found gainful employment they would start to receive a monthly "maintainance" stipend for food, rent, and basic medical care. From an international standpoint I feel the U.S. needs to take a step back and take a serious look at when the country sends the military into harms way. I feel the country needs to revert to a policy of isolationism until it gets financially back on its feet. I feel the moneyspent and the American loves lost in both gulf wars was a waste of both lives and resources. What was accomplished? Osama Bin Laden is still out ther and we are still spending money and losing lives. For what? What do you think?

It's not realistic at all, that's why I put it out there. Some people feel that the deficit could be fixed through higher taxes and obviously there's just no way to collect that much without crippling working Americans.

Hi guys, I have to agree with both of you. In addition to that, the way the tax system is designed, with all of the loopholes available to the wealthy, the middle class would still be in the same boat and the disadvantaged would still not have to bear any national financial responsibility. I still think a flat ten per cent tax accross the board for everyone with no exemptions or exceptions is the way to go. Included in that proposal would be a clause allowing each state to still determine their own tax revenue system thus providing them with true "states' rights" as provided by both the national and individual state constitutions. What do you think?

Hi "danishcanadian"... Right on my friend. I completely agree with you. Governments all over the world seem to have that same holier than thou attitude when it comes to its populations. Once in office the power and greed factor rears its ugly head and the rest is truly "HISTORY"!