How likely are you to watch the CNN/You Tube debates tonight?

[Grubendol]

Not to mention that the national debt is owned by our “enemies” in the war on terror and our largest economic rival in the world

[1968]

Except in the case of the Bush Administration where tax cuts lead to increased government spending.

How did the tax cuts lead to increased government spending?

[For-Life]

How did the tax cuts lead to increased government spending?

The War

[Grubendol]

The War and also the expansion of Homeland Security. By federalizing the security screeners at all the airports, they become governmental employees (with no union protection I might add).

From Fox News:

Federal Budget Grows Massively Under Bush

Monday , January 12, 2004
By Peter Brownfeld


WASHINGTON —
Conservative observers and budget watchdogs are hoping that President Bush breaks a three-year trend of massive spending increases when he sends Congress his 2005 proposed budget for the federal government on Feb. 2. But budget experts say while the new Bush budget is likely to be somewhat more austere than previous ones, it will not be radically different.
"There are people in the Republican Party who are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the high level of spending. The difficulty is going to be controlling spending in an election year," said Maya MacGuineas, executive director of the Committee for a Responsible Budget (search).
In the three years since Bush took office, discretionary spending — money that is not tied to long-term entitlements, including defense, domestic security, education and transportation — has grown by 31.5 percent. Non-discretionary spending — mandatory programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — has reached record highs.
Overall, federal spending grew on average by 7.6 percent in each of the last two years, more than double the 3.4 percent average annual growth under the Clinton administration.
Current government spending is comparable to the guns and butter growth of the 1960s with the Great Society welfare programs and the Vietnam War, said Brian Riedl, a federal budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation (search). But while national security costs today have swelled the price of government, those costs cannot be entirely blamed for the huge additional spending.
"Vietnam and World War II were times when national security costs were much higher. Since 9/11, less than half of all new spending has had anything to do with 9/11 or the threat of new attacks," Riedl said.
Total federal spending in 2003 topped $20,000 per household for the first time since World War II, Riedl said, and is set to grow another $1,000 per household in 2004.
New spending has gone up by $296 billion from 2001 through the 2003 budget year. Of that, 34 percent, or $100 billion, has gone to defense. The cost of homeland security, clearing the wreckage of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and money for victims and international assistance and security, has totaled 11 percent of new spending, or about $32 billion. Fifty-five percent, or $164 billion in new spending, is unrelated to national security, going to such programs as unemployment benefits, education, and healthcare, Riedl said.
Combined with tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 and the downturn in the economy, new spending pushed the federal budget into a $374 billion deficit in 2003, the largest dollar amount on record. The Congressional Budget Office and the White House have projected a $450 billion deficit for 2004.

I'd like to emphasize those last couple of lines:

Combined with tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 and the downturn in the economy, new spending pushed the federal budget into a $374 billion deficit in 2003, the largest dollar amount on record. The Congressional Budget Office and the White House have projected a $450 billion deficit for 2004.

And that was before the war even got rolling.

[Pete Hanlin]

So the obvious solution is to raise the tax rate on the rich, which will raise everyone's wages, pay off the national debt, and ensure everyone has health insurance (and a good retirement)...

Just to put the real tax burden of the "rich" after the latest tax cuts into perspective (bold emphasis added by me)...
In 2000, the top 60 percent of taxpayers paid 100 percent of all income taxes. The bottom 40 percent collectively paid no income taxes. Lawmakers writing the 2001 tax cuts faced quite a challenge in giving the bulk of the income tax savings to a population that was already paying no income taxes.
Rather than exclude these Americans, lawmak­ers used the tax code to subsidize them. (Some economists would say this made that group's col­lective tax burden negative.) First, lawmakers low­ered the initial tax brackets from 15 percent to 10 percent and then expanded the refundable child tax credit, which, along with the refundable earned income tax credit (EITC), reduced the typical low-income tax burden to well below zero. As a result, the U.S. Treasury now mails tax "refunds" to a large proportion of these Americans that exceed the amounts of tax that they actually paid. All in all, the number of tax filers with zero or negative income tax liability rose from 30 million to 40 million, or about 30 percent of all tax filers. The remaining 70 percent of tax filers received lower income tax rates, lower investment taxes, and lower estate taxes from the 2001 legislation.
Consequently, from 2000 to 2004, the share of all individual income taxes paid by the bottom 40 per­cent dropped from zero percent to –4 percent, mean­ing that the average family in those quintiles received a subsidy from the IRS. By contrast, the share paid by the top 40% of households (by income) increased from 81 percent to 85 percent.
Expanding the data to include all federal taxes, the share paid by the top quintile edged up from 66.6 percent in 2000 to 67.1 percent in 2004, while the bottom 40 percent's share dipped from 5.9 per­cent to 5.4 percent. Clearly, the tax cuts have led to the rich shouldering more of the income tax burden and the poor shouldering less.
Congressional Budget Office, "Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates: 1979 to 2004," December 2006, at www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?

So, if the percentage of taxes paid by the top 40% of income earners went up- while the percentage paid by the bottom 40% of income earners dropped, how is it that the tax cuts benefitted only the rich? Even if the "rich" retained a greater number of dollars, they still pay a larger percentage of the taxes. If you want greater tax revenue, raise economic indicators- not the tax rate .

[Steve Machol]

So the obvious solution is to raise the tax rate on the rich, which will raise everyone's wages, pay off the national debt, and ensure everyone has health insurance (and a good retirement)...

I haven't read this thread but I'm curious. What is your solution for the totally immoral borrowing of money we are doing now (with the Iraq War 'off the books') which will have to be paid back by our children and grandchildren.

No one likes taxes but I have yet to see anyone who keeps insisting on lower taxes explain how it's moral and ethical to spend money now that future generations will have to pay back - and mostly to foreign countries that have increasing influence and stranglehold over us.

I believe in living within our means. And frankly you can completely cutoff all the alleged 'welfare queens' and not come anywhere close to balancing the budget or solving this problem. Same goes for virtually all the other cost-cutting proposals floating around.

[Pete Hanlin]

I haven't read this thread but I'm curious. What is your solution for the totally immoral borrowing of money we are doing now (with the Iraq War 'off the books') which will have to be paid back by our children and grandchildren.
The solution is to cut spending! I'm every bit as opposed to deficit spending as anyone else on this thread, but the the theory that "taxing the rich" is going to solve the federal budget deficit- or the national debt- is simply illogical. First, I think the federal government spends FAR more than it needs to. Second, you can raise taxes on the rich all you want but there isn't enough money there to solve the issue that we overspend. Additionally, if borrowing from our children is immoral it is also immoral to take a large chunk of a person's earnings just because they've been successful.

No one likes taxes but I have yet to see anyone who keeps insisting on lower taxes explain how it's moral and ethical to spend money now that future generations will have to pay back - and mostly to foreign countries that have increasing influence and stranglehold over us.
You're assuming we keep spending money without taking more in. I propose we GREATLY reduce spending. That includes cutting spending everywhere. We should pull out of Iraq for budgetary reasons- even though I don't think its the overall wisest choice. Federal spending on projects that benefit only local areas (i.e., pork) should be dramatically cut. Funding on the military in general- as well as social programs- should be cut. Basically, we need a Graham-Rudman kind of Act without the loopholes. Congress and the President should have to produce a balanced budget- even if it means the cutting of numerous projects.

I believe in living within our means. And frankly you can completely cutoff all the alleged 'welfare queens' and not come anywhere close to balancing the budget or solving this problem. Same goes for virtually all the other cost-cutting proposals floating around.
Absolutely! The problem we seem to have is we spend a bunch of money on "good things" without reflection on our income. My house may have a cracked foundation, a leaky roof, and peeling wallpaper that all could use some spending. However, if my funds are limited I have to pick and choose what I fix and when. Truth is, if we lived within our means, there might be some loose wallpaper, leaks in the roof, etc.- but we would have a balanced budget. As to paying down the debt, that causes less concern for me. If you can stabilize it inflation will eventually make it less significant compared to the overall budget.

One thing is for certain, however- raising taxes is a "bandaid" on the real problem (spending)- AND I do not believe raising taxes really increases the federal coffers (raising economic factors does). The federal government- with lower taxes- is taking in very close to the same amount of money as it did prior to the tax cuts.

So, while I agree that "getting rid of welfare queens won't solve the problem" its also true that "taxing the rich" isn't going to solve it either. Cut the freakin spending!

[1968]

Except in the case of the Bush Administration where tax cuts lead to increased government spending.
How did the tax cuts lead to increased government spending?
The War and also the expansion of Homeland Security.

Increased government spending is a result of the war which is a result of the tax cuts? Huh?

[Grubendol]

Increased government spending is a result of the war which is a result of the tax cuts? Huh?

It’s because EVERY war has necessitated tax increases. This one has as well, but it’s being funded completely off the books to make it look like federal spending is down while it isn’t even remotely. The No-Bid contracts and privatization of the armed forces (Halliburton providing mess services for example) have actually increased the cost of these same services to the military, not to mention the BILLIONS which have been stolen by Halliburton & Co by skimming off the top of these overpaid no-bid contracts.


Even outside of the war, spending has increased for defense related contracts while reducing necessary services like health, FEMA, Education (where testing is mandated by no funding is produced for the testing).

[1968]

It’s because EVERY war has necessitated tax increases. This one has as well, but it’s being funded completely off the books to make it look like federal spending is down while it isn’t even remotely. The No-Bid contracts and privatization of the armed forces (Halliburton providing mess services for example) have actually increased the cost of these same services to the military, not to mention the BILLIONS which have been stolen by Halliburton & Co by skimming off the top of these overpaid no-bid contracts.


Even outside of the war, spending has increased for defense related contracts while reducing necessary services like health, FEMA, Education (where testing is mandated by no funding is produced for the testing).

To be clear on this:

In post #74, you asserted that the tax cuts lead to government spending.

In post #79, you asserted (or seem to be asserting) that increased government spending is a result of the war which is a result of the tax cuts.

In post #81, you asserted that increased government spending is a result of war which requires tax increases.

I do not dispute that increased government spending occurs when there is a war or that increased taxes may be necessary to fund, however, the claim that tax cuts CAUSE war make no sense to me.

X = tax cuts
Y = increased government spending
Z = war

I understand that Z causes Y, but I don't understand your original assertion that X causes Y. With the variables presented thus far, the only way for that to be true would be if Z causes X or X causes Z. X and Z do not appear to have a causal relationship in this context, therefore, I reject the assertion that X causes Y.

[Grubendol]

i honestly never intended to suggest that the tax cuts created a war...I would argue that that companies have been war profiteering which has created the deficit, but not that taxes had any role whatsoever in creating the war.

[shanbaum]

This is starting to remind me of the (now-old) joke about speaking English causing heart disease. I think the point that Grubendol may have been trying to make is that it's not possible to argue from experience that increasing or reducing taxes has any effect one way or the other on spending, which simply increases. It increases when taxes are cut, and it increases when taxes are increased.

As for you, Pete, I can't believe that you're still citing these statistics about the percentage of taxes paid by the wealthy - after all the times I've tried (and apparently failed) to explain the meaninglessness of these statistics. The particular statistics you cite are particularly misleading, because they consider only income taxes, and exclude FICA taxes - the latter being regressive, but serving to supplement general expenditures. Since the 1980's, FICA taxes have been, to a significant extent (around 30% last year), "income taxes for the rest of us". Indeed, the reason that the EITC was instituted was to reduce (but not eliminate) some of the regressiveness.

As I've tried to explain, saying that the top 2% paid 27% of taxes (as they did in 2003) is meaningless, unless you point out how much of income they earned, which, in 2003, before the cuts, was 25%. They made 25% of the income, and paid 27% of the tax. That's how progressive the system was overall. I suspect it is less so now - and when the people earning 25% of the income pay 25% of the tax, that's a flat tax.

If some group of people who were paying any particular percentage of taxes prior to a tax cut pay some other percentage of taxes after the cut, you really can't say what that means, until you state their concomitant change in income. So, if those folks in the top 40% paid a higher share of taxes after the cut, let's hear how much - and then, let's compare it to the change in their share of total income. If their share of total income went up more than their share of total tax, their burden was reduced.

Is that so difficult to understand?

[Steve Machol]

So, while I agree that "getting rid of welfare queens won't solve the problem" its also true that "taxing the rich" isn't going to solve it either. Cut the freakin spending!

That's easy enough to say. But what spending exactly? Corporate welfare? Massive tax credits for Hummers?

Why is it that the basic 'convervative' line is that spending on programs that help people is wrong (education, healthcare, etc) while giving massive tax credits and subsidies to Corporate Farms, Oil Companies and companies that send American jobs overseas is okay? Why aren't there massive outcries against that kind of spending by conservatives?

I'm all for cutting spending, but I have a feeling that the things you would cut are different than the things I would cut. So who decides? I think the hundreds of billions of dollars (possibly trillions eventually) being spent on the Iraq War (aka the Halliburton Relief Fund)is not only a monumental waste of money (not to mention the most important factor - lives), but it is actually making our country less safe than more safe in the long run. So do you have any problem if I make the decision to stop that spending? :)

And note I never said anything about 'taxing the rich' as a way to eliminate the deficit, but the more I think about it, the fairer it seems to me that those that benefit the most from what this country offers should also be the ones that pay a higher share. After all, they are reaping most of the benefits. I see absolutely nothing wrong with expecting them to pay a higher share back to the country that gave them this opportunity.

And for those that think these people 'earned' it. There is no way that any corporate executive works 10000 times harder or smarter than their lowest paid worker. The luck of birth, social status and being in the right place at the right time have much more to do with this than pure skill and hard work. If it were the latter, than I suspect many of us on OptiBoard would be the ones with the multi-million dollar salaries and benefits now instead of the ones that do have it.

Having said all that, my first priority would be to reduce spending over increasing any taxes, although I would not completely rule out the latter if I felt it was fair and in the best interests of the country.

[Steve Machol]

As for you, Pete, I can't believe that you're still citing these statistics about the percentage of taxes paid by the wealthy - after all the times I've tried (and apparently failed) to explain the meaninglessness of these statistics. The particular statistics you cite are particularly misleading, because they consider only income taxes, and exclude FICA taxes - the latter being regressive, but serving to supplement general expenditures. Since the 1980's, FICA taxes have been, to a significant extent (around 30% last year), "income taxes for the rest of us". Indeed, the reason that the EITC was instituted was to reduce (but not eliminate) some of the regressiveness.

Exactly. This is an important point that deserves a second notice. :)

[1968]

This is starting to remind me of the (now-old) joke about speaking English causing heart disease. I think the point that Grubendol may have been trying to make is that it's not possible to argue from experience that increasing or reducing taxes has any effect one way or the other on spending, which simply increases. It increases when taxes are cut, and it increases when taxes are increased.

I would agree with that. I probably should not have interpreted post #74 (which was, in hindsight, an offhand reply to an offhand comment) literally.

As for you, Pete, I can't believe that you're still citing these statistics about the percentage of taxes paid by the wealthy - after all the times I've tried (and apparently failed) to explain the meaninglessness of these statistics. The particular statistics you cite are particularly misleading, because they consider only income taxes, and exclude FICA taxes - the latter being regressive, but serving to supplement general expenditures. Since the 1980's, FICA taxes have been, to a significant extent (around 30% last year), "income taxes for the rest of us". Indeed, the reason that the EITC was instituted was to reduce (but not eliminate) some of the regressiveness.

As I've tried to explain, saying that the top 2% paid 27% of taxes (as they did in 2003) is meaningless, unless you point out how much of income they earned, which, in 2003, before the cuts, was 25%. They made 25% of the income, and paid 27% of the tax. That's how progressive the system was overall. I suspect it is less so now - and when the people earning 25% of the income pay 25% of the tax, that's a flat tax.

As a minor note regarding the figures cited: I have not read Johnston’s book, but I’ve read elsewhere that he reported the top 1% earned 22% of all income and paid 25% of all federal taxes (while disregarding that they paid 37% of all income taxes). In my opinion, taking into account the payroll taxes paid by individuals but not taking into account the employer’s match skews the calculations. (I image the top 1% are responsible for employing a few people.) Nor does it take into account that the more you make, the less you are able to take from SS.

[1968]

That's easy enough to say. But what spending exactly? Corporate welfare? Massive tax credits for Hummers?

Why is it that the basic 'convervative' line is that spending on programs that help people is wrong (education, healthcare, etc) while giving massive tax credits and subsidies to Corporate Farms, Oil Companies and companies that send American jobs overseas is okay? Why aren't there massive outcries against that kind of spending by conservatives?

I wish I could answer that… but then again, I’m not a conservative.

And note I never said anything about 'taxing the rich' as a way to eliminate the deficit, but the more I think about it, the fairer it seems to me that those that benefit the most from what this country offers should also be the ones that pay a higher share. After all, they are reaping most of the benefits. I see absolutely nothing wrong with expecting them to pay a higher share back to the country that gave them this opportunity.

The opportunity to do well for yourself is something that is available for virtually all Americans. I’m not certain how you can quantify how much people benefit from what the United States has to offer versus how much they were able to make the most of the opportunities available here.

And for those that think these people 'earned' it. There is no way that any corporate executive works 10000 times harder or smarter than their lowest paid worker. The luck of birth, social status and being in the right place at the right time have much more to do with this than pure skill and hard work. If it were the latter, than I suspect many of us on OptiBoard would be the ones with the multi-million dollar salaries and benefits now instead of the ones that do have it.

I’m not certain how sure you can be that some factors have more to do than other factors in how others have acquired their wealth. Someone’s wealth is not necessarily a gauge of how virtuous that person is in the workplace, but perhaps you underestimate the skill and work it takes to produce wealth. Since when is it our place to judge who deserves their money and who doesn’t? I am not a religious man, but I believe it to be the Tenth Commandment that teaches we should not covet what is not ours.

[Steve Machol]

I’m not certain how sure you can be that some factors have more to do than other factors in how others have acquired their wealth. Someone’s wealth is not necessarily a gauge of how virtuous that person is in the workplace, but perhaps you underestimate the skill and work it takes to produce wealth.

Maybe I didn't explain this very well. As an example, the child of Bill Gates vs. the child of a single mom in East LA. They can have equal intelligence and work equally hard. But who truly believes that the latter has just as much opportunity to do well in life as the former?

[chip anderson]

Did Bill Gates have a rich Bill Gates for a father.

Look at how rotten the Kennedy children and the Hilton children turned out. In fact I think all the Vanderbuilt children turned out lousy. Being rich does not guarantee success, responsiblity or even intelligence.

Just as education does not guarantee success or integrity, or much of anything by itself alone.

Wealthy people can still be alcoholic, lazy, plain stupid, spoiled, irresponsible, or even sociopathic.

Poor children can achive, become wealthy, be hard working an responsible.

Chip

Now would I recommend the getto for a childhood environment, no.
Would I have liked to have multimillions in my trust, yes.

Chip

[Steve Machol]

Did Bill Gates have a rich Bill Gates for a father.

No but his father was wealthy and gave him 1 million (or maybe it was 10 million) to get started.

Howwver this again misses the point. I do not deny that people can rise above their circumstances to become wealthy and successful, nor did I make any such claim.

The point is that extreme wealth and success is not all due to hard work, intellegence and perserverance as some people would like us to believe. In fact I would place accident of birth and the other circumnstances I mentioned higher on the list.

In fact if someone did a correlation of factors contributing to the wealth of an individidual, I am absolutely certain they would find that the wealth and circumstances of the parents would be a much more significant predictor of the wealth of the children than their IQ or 'hard work' (as much as that can be measured.)

And yep, rich people can have stupid, selfish and spoiled children too. I can think of another more current political family outside of the Kennedy's that fits that definition very well. ;)

Also most of the Kennedy children have turned out pretty good and have an extraordinary devotion to public service in many capacities. There's just so darn many of them that there are bound to be some bad ones.

[For-Life]

. Being rich does not guarantee (word removed), responsiblity or even intelligence.

Chip

[1968]

Maybe I didn't explain this very well. As an example, the child of Bill Gates vs. the child of a single mom in East LA. They can have equal intelligence and work equally hard. But who truly believes that the latter has just as much opportunity to do well in life as the former?

You were earlier referring to opportunity given to them by the United States, not their parents. On one hand, we all seem to agree that it is virtuous to care for our family. On the other, there seems to be a suggestion that everyone should start life with the same amount of dollars in their pockets. It should be irrelevant... the fortunes of one person are not the misfortunes for another. I would also draw attention to the fact that Gates took advantage of the opportunities he was given by his parents and those that he is entitled to by being a citizen of the United States. I cannot really comment on a hypothetical single mother but it could be asserted that having children at a young age or out of wedlock or before you can afford them is not making the most of your opportunities. We can look at extreme ends of the spectrum, but we should also look at those like Jobs and Wozniak... I don't believe either of them had an enormous head start on the road to collecting wealth.

[Steve Machol]

For the most part their parents live in the U.S. took advantage of the opportunities available to them here as well. Nonetheless again I'm afraid you've missed my point. But that's okay. Maybe it's intentional but either way there's no sense wasting any more time on this. I tried. Short of 'what used to be called torture but is now just a little pressure' I really can't force people to read what I wrote. ;)

I still haven't heard of anyone defending placing the Iraq War costs 'off the books' as a deceptive accounting trick to make the deficit look better than it really is. Nor have I heard of a defensible reason why we sould be spending all this money and force this massive debt on our children and granchildren who will have to pay it back and/or suffer the consequences. The future is definitely not looking bright for them. :(

IMO the first fiscal priority of this government should be to pay for what it spends. If this means cutting costs - great. If it means that in some instances we would also need to raise revenue or taxes - so be it. Either way we should pay our own way. We owe that much to future generations.

[For anyone that cares, this was an issue for me back in the Carter Administration and one of the main reasons I voted for Reagan. Of course Reagan increased deficit spending even more than Carter had so that didn't quite work out as planned.]

On the other, there seems to be a suggestion that everyone should start life with the same amount of dollars in their pockets.

Who made that suggestion?

[1968]

For the most part their parents live in the U.S. took advantage of the opportunities available to them here as well. Nonetheless again I'm afraid you've missed my point. But that's okay. Maybe it's intentional but either way there's no sense wasting any more time on this. I tried. Short of 'what used to be called torture but is now just a little pressure' I really can't force people to read what I wrote. ;)

That's right. I'm intentionally missing your point so I can avoid agreeing with you. I'm happy to drop the issue, too.

I still haven't heard of anyone defending placing the Iraq War costs 'off the books' as a deceptive accounting trick to make the deficit look better than it really is. Nor have I heard of a defensible reason why we sould be spending all this money and force this massive debt on our children and granchildren who will have to pay it back and/or suffer the consequences. The future is definitely not looking bright for them. :(

You won't get any argument from me on any of that.

IMO the first fiscal priority of this government should be to pay for what it spends. If this means cutting costs - great. If it means that in some instances we would also need to raise revenue or taxes - so be it. Either way we should pay our own way. We owe that much to future generations.

You won't get any argument from me on any of that either.

[Steve Machol]

That's right. I'm intentionally missing your point so I can avoid agreeing with you. I'm happy to drop the issue, too.

Sorry. I obviously misunderstood what you were saying then,. :)

[Pete Hanlin]

That's easy enough to say. But what spending exactly? Corporate welfare? Massive tax credits for Hummers? Why is it that the basic 'convervative' line is that spending on programs that help people is wrong (education, healthcare, etc) while giving massive tax credits and subsidies to Corporate Farms, Oil Companies and companies that send American jobs overseas is okay? Why aren't there massive outcries against that kind of spending by conservatives? I'm all for cutting spending, but I have a feeling that the things you would cut are different than the things I would cut. So who decides? I think the hundreds of billions of dollars (possibly trillions eventually) being spent on the Iraq War (aka the Halliburton Relief Fund)is not only a monumental waste of money (not to mention the most important factor - lives), but it is actually making our country less safe than more safe in the long run. So do you have any problem if I make the decision to stop that spending?
Seems I've been painted by a pretty broad brush. I'm apparently a conservative, and therefore against all social spending and for anything that increases the wealth of the already wealthy. Thanks...
I've repeatedly said- gone out of my way to note- that spending needs to be cut EVERYWHERE (in areas that will cause discomfort to people of all political persuasions). Social spending, the military, subsidies- I don't really care what kind of spending- if it continues to result in deficit spending it should be cut to a level we can afford. If that sentiment makes me some sort of coldhearted conservative, then I guess its true that America has become truly politically polarized and all we're left with is extremes.

And note I never said anything about 'taxing the rich' as a way to eliminate the deficit, but the more I think about it, the fairer it seems to me that those that benefit the most from what this country offers should also be the ones that pay a higher share. After all, they are reaping most of the benefits. I see absolutely nothing wrong with expecting them to pay a higher share back to the country that gave them this opportunity.
I'm certainly not a member of the "super-rich," nor do I have any particular plans to ever become "super-rich." Pardon me, however, for not having the opinion that- just because someone manages to make a lot of money- they are somehow responsible for the rest of society. Shanbaum, if you want to insist that the "rich" take in 25% of the wealth and pay 25% of the government's income, that's fine by me (and no, I don't think they should be responsible for 27%, 30% or even 26%). The point being made was, the rich were not the sole beneficiaries of the recent (temporary) tax cuts.

Bill Gates has a lot of money- however, I don't think he bears any greater proportion of responsibility for the government than I do, and I certainly don't think I have any particular claim on his money just because he lives in the same society as I do (and I don't think the single mom in LA has any real claim on his money). As it is, Bill Gates has given away more money than I'll earn in my lifetime- but that's his perogative (not mine).

Not everyone in this country has the same opportunity to prosper. That doesn't mean people who do prosper don't "deserve" their wealth (unless we have a volunteer who will sit in judgement of each member of society... we can all submit our paychecks, and await judgement on how much we "really" deserve).