Why is the government making my own money out to be a loan that I have to pay interest on? I did my taxes and apparently I dont pay enough into the system. I can either tighten up my budget MORE or I can pay the government a large chunk of my money later. This tax system is really unfair to single people without dependents.

Prisoner's dilemma. People are often willing to give if everyone else does, but not if they are the only one.

What world does this guy eric schoenberg reside in?

"Are you going to let people volunteer to build the road system" - people pay tolls on roads which they think are necessary

"Are you going to let them volunteer to pay for education" - people pay private schools and colleges if they really value education. And those who perform well and cannot afford private education are given scholarships by well meaning individuals and the schools and colleges themselves.

helloooo...have you had a mental check up eric schoenberg? you seem to be completely out of touch with reality(you are a college prof though...what else can be expected from you?)

The members of Responsible Wealth could take their earnings as income if they really want to pay more taxes. That's the hypocrisy at the heart of these appeals. Because individuals in the top income percentiles tend to receive a disproportionate portion of their earnings through non-income sources. They're also much better able to implement tax management strategies that preserve their wealth. They're really advocating for higher taxes on the affluent middle class. Buffet is famous for this. He advocates for high income taxes, but then pays himself literally $1 a year.

Also keep an eye out for a new astro-turf campaign praising the Obama's for 'charitably' paying higher taxes than they need to. The other day, my local paper printed three separate letters promoting this claim, and all using the same talking points.

* what our paper will do when they're hit with these sorts of robo letter writing campaigns is to print them all on the same day. So the group gets its message out, but the readers are able to see that it's a coordinated effort.

Well, of course some people want higher taxes. Higher taxes on other people, not on themselves.

Seriously, giving the government extra money is like giving a druggie money for one last hit. Enabling, when what the government really needs is to go cold turkey. No increase in the debt ceiling, no more borrowing, period. Painful in the short-term, but the best solution for the long-term.

Of course, it won't happen. Instead, the fed prints money. This devalues the dollar - it has lost half its value in just the last couple of years. This is the financial politics of every third-world banana republic, and leads to long-term impoverishment of the population.

I do think taxes should be higher. The rates enacted by President Clinton were not oppressive and sufficient to fund necessary government expenditures.

Many Republicans are excited about the "Ryan" plan which lowers the top tax rate from 35% to 25%, and makes substantial future cuts in Medicare. If they buy in to the above post, then they should consider declining Medicare reimbursements.

California has started charging an annual "use tax" for equipment you've already paid for, for businesses. My accountant told me they had to pay $150 for their computers, copier, etc.

By the way, if you're in Southern California and need an accountant, mine is wonderful. In Burbank. I actually enjoy going to see him every March or April, although I don't enjoy why.

I was intrigued by the flat tax for a while. I don't feel that people should have to pay a greater percentage merely because they earn more. If we could do away with tax shelters and other means that the affluent use to hide their money, I'd support the flat tax.

Then someone introduced me to the fair tax...which (if I remember correctly) is a sales tax on everything that would make the IRS obsolete. Who wouldn't love to see IRS employees unemployed?

Sorry, I need to look this up to make sure I have this right...I'm stuck at home right now with a scorching case of shingles...a condition I knew nothing about until I woke up with it on Tuesday. Feels like someone touched a flat iron to my belly and my back. I'm almost laughing at how much this hurts. A friend of my mothers commented that my rash looks less angry today. I replied that I must have a passive-agressive rash then, because it's never hurt more.

One of the intellectual heavyweights, like Cousin Dave or Conan can correct any misconceptions I have. I just took a hydrocordone and I think it's about to put me down for the count. I know we antagonize each other a lot, but I really love and respect you guys. Later. I need to find something to lay down on or I'm going to hit the floor.

Wow, Patrick, so sorry to hear about that. Try oatmeal baths. Seriously. Aveeno makes an oatmeal bath that is very soothing.

(Sorry for the off-topic post, btw.)

I think the wealthy better start to think about what's going to happen to their wealth once the middle class gets taxed out of existence. The money to help the poor is going to have to come from somewhere and who will there be left for the government to taget? Oh yeah, the wealthy. As Margaret Thatcher once said, "The trouble with socialism is, eventually you run out of other peoples' money."

Damn, Patrick, I'm sorry to hear that. I just saw something the other day about some new treatment for shingles that's in the pipeline. I'm aware that existing shingles treatments aren't terribly effective. I've heard that steroids help, but you can only go to that well so many times due to the long-term damage.

As far as a flat tax or a national sales tax, I'm not hard over on one or the other. Either one would be a vast improvement over what we have now. I somewhat lean towards the sales tax idea because I think it would do a better job of stimulating investment, which in the long run would improve productivity and cause the price of goods and services to go down. But there would be a short-term decline in economic activity which we'd have to get past, and that would make it harder to sell.

One other point I wanted to make: Quoting from the WSJ article: "...Groups like Responsible Wealth, a network of more than 700 individuals in the top 5% of income in the U.S., have raised millions of dollars in contributions from their 'patriotic members,' arguing for the need for more income and estate taxes to balance the budget. But that money isn't used to help balance the budget. It's used in lobbying efforts to force higher taxes on millions of other, often less wealthy Americans--which is hardly a self-sacrifice." Yes, you have to realize what's really going on here. Responsible Wealth and similar groups are incorporated as 501(c)3 nonprofits. Which of course means that contributions to them are -- wait for it -- tax deductible. So the people contributing to these groups are lobbying for higher taxes on the middle class, while simultaneously reducing their own tax liability!

Yeah, singles sucks, at least yours sems to be staying at one pain sensation. My outbreak flowed back and forth along every painful sensation I'd ever experianced - not much you can do but ride it out

This point of this editorial – and the others like it (it's a theme recycled frequently) is so unfathomably stupid that I have to assume the writers must be intentionally misunderstanding what people mean when they say or write that their taxes should be higher.

While I suppose there is a non-zero probability that someone who says "my taxes should be higher" means that he, and he alone, should pay higher taxes, everyone else who says, "my taxes should be higher," is referring not just to himself but to himself and others in a similar financial situation. He's talking about a policy issue, not a personal preference to give the government more money.

I don't think I'm going out on a limb here, but I suspect the number of people who think tax rates should be higher than they are, just because, is vanishingly small. Instead, people who think tax rates should be higher see our massive deficits and the intractability of reducing our large spending commitments and think that raising revenues is necessary. And the only way to raise revenues is if a large number of people pay more money. Government revenue is a collective issue, not an individual one. The actions of one person are meaningless to address the issue, as anyone who looks at the numbers can easily understand. It's fair to debate the policy question of what taxation levels and what amount of government spending is best for our country. I think these are the most important issues we face as a country. This editorial is gotcha bullshit that does nothing to advance that discussion.

"While I suppose there is a non-zero probability that someone who says "my taxes should be higher" means that he, and he alone, should pay higher taxes, everyone else who says, "my taxes should be higher," is referring not just to himself but to himself and others in a similar financial situation."

No, there's a shell game going on here. You notice that none of these groups are advocating for higher capital gains taxes? That's because they can structure their income so that most or all of it is taxed as capital gains rather than ordinary income. They appear to be advocating for higher taxes for themselves. But what they're actually advocating is that other people, who don't have the ability to structure their income this way, should pay higher taxes. Not themselves.

"I don't think I'm going out on a limb here, but I suspect the number of people who think tax rates should be higher than they are, just because, is vanishingly small."

I challenge that statement. I think it's a very common belief among the Left that higher taxes are a moral imperative. Consider how much time they spend talking about people who, in their opinion, just have too much money, independent of any needs.

"Instead, people who think tax rates should be higher see our massive deficits and the intractability of reducing our large spending commitments and think that raising revenues is necessary."

But in the current economy, that's a chimera. If we had a stout economy, you could make an argument that we need to raise taxes to pay down the federal debt. But we're in a fragile economic state. Higher taxes, on top of all of the other economic disincentives that have been imposed recently, are likely to have a huge negative effect that will cause government revenue to go lower, not higher. There's also a trust issue. If high spending is really intractable, then how can we know that any new revenue raised will go toward debt reduction and not new spending? Obviously, we can't. So given that, what exactly would higher taxes accomplish?

Off topic: Patrick, sorry to hear about the shingles. Hope you feel better soon.

On topic:

The truly rich (and the smart high-income crowd) don't have an income (as the IRS defines it). As Cousin Dave pointed out, the rich structure their income to reduce their tax burden.

Remember in the '70s when high-level executives got lavish spending accounts and company cars? That was because those things weren't taxed then as income. In the '80s, when those things were taxed as income but stock options weren't, high-level executives got stock options.

Targeting the rich for tax hikes is like a circular firing squad. It always ends up hitting the middle class the hardest and reduces the overall amount of money the government collects in the long run.

Also, the cost of living is not the same across the country. A $100,000 income in San Francisco, CA is equivalent to a $65,000 income in Charlotte, NC. By "tax the rich" standards, the guy in San Francisco is rich and the guy in Charlotte is middle class.

He's talking about a policy issue, not a personal preference to give the government more money.

He's advocating government solutions to societal issues and using his own income and tax situation to give himself status as an expert on the situation. ["The government could tax people like me and solve all of society's problems. You who oppose me don't know what you're talking about because you don't make the kind of income I do...and if you do make my income and oppose my viewpoint, you're just being greedy."]

As in the Bastiat quote, he's confusing opposition to the government addressing an issue with opposition to the issue being addressed at all.

Let us return to a fundamental:

If you do not know what taxes are being collected from you and what they are for, you have no ability to determine if they are "too high" - or even adequate.

At the federal level, we could return following that long ignored document called the US Constitution. If that were done, there would be no need for a federal income tax (16th Amendment never legally passed anyway).

Thanks to Scottrade and other such businesses, there are plenty of middle class that own stocks, so I don't see the value in punishing them (again!).

Cousin Dave and Conan: Good responses. Now we're talking policy, not nonsense. You both made some good points, and I'll respond to some of them below (not all, because I've got to finish my lunch and get back to work).

First, I'll make clear my perspective. In terms of fiscal policy, I'm a moderate. Short term, I favor a return to the Clinton-era tax rates once we're beyond the worst of the recession. I hope this happens when the two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts expires in 2012. Long-term, I think that a plan for reducing the deficit similar to that proposed by the Simpson-Bowles commission that combines revenue increases, simplification of the tax code, and spending cuts makes the best sense.

I'm not wealthy (though I hope to be well off someday), and I realize that my policy preferences, if implemented would mean that I and pretty much everyone I know pays higher taxes. I don't think that "soak the rich" taxation policy is a good idea for many reasons, nor do I think it would accomplish what its proponents hope for reasons you mention. I still think that returning our tax rates from their current, very low levels (historically speaking) to those the mid-late 90s makes sense because short huge cuts in entitlements and defense, there is no way to significantly reduce the deficit other than increased revenue from taxes. Because these entitlements, especially Medicare, are very popular with people that vote in large numbers, I see little likelihood that dramatic changes in them are likely any time soon. Similarly, defense spending is nearly untouchable in Congress, and few outside of the isolationist left and right push for serious cuts to defense.

I think it's a very common belief among the Left that higher taxes are a moral imperative. Consider how much time they spend talking about people who, in their opinion, just have too much money, independent of any needs.

Hmmm. You may be right here. I do my best to disregard the far left, as they don't wield much power and annoy me.

There's also a trust issue. If high spending is really intractable, then how can we know that any new revenue raised will go toward debt reduction and not new spending? Obviously, we can't. So given that, what exactly would higher taxes accomplish?

I think they'd be used to reduce the deficit. I seriously doubt the House, with its strong Republican majority and many newly elected tea party freshmen is likely to approve any big increases in discretionary spending.

He's advocating government solutions to societal issues and using his own income and tax situation to give himself status as an expert on the situation... As in the Bastiat quote, he's confusing opposition to the government addressing an issue with opposition to the issue being addressed at all.

My take is that he's advocating government solutions (tax policy) to government issues (national debt). The government is literally the only entity that can address these issues.

I think they'd be used to reduce the deficit.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Congress (with whatever party in control) always promises to cut spending, but usually never does.

Give a drunken sailor more money and he'll spend it buying more liquor. Give a politician more money and he'll spend it buying more votes. And deficit reduction doesn't buy votes.

I seriously doubt the House, with its strong Republican majority and many newly elected tea party freshmen is likely to approve any big increases in discretionary spending.

A member of the House only lasts for 2 years before he has to run again. That's not long in fiscal policy terms.

And, in general, the powers that be in the Republican Party don't like the Tea Party. They are already trying to gerrymander new districts to eliminate as many Tea Party freshmen as possible in the next election.

Plus ca change....

My take is that he's advocating government solutions (tax policy) to government issues (national debt).

This group is "arguing for the need for more income and estate taxes to balance the budget." They're not arguing for a temporary tax to pay down the deficit. They want to force the "rich" to pay more money in order to keep up current levels of social programs and government largesse to the "poor."

Then you haven't been paying attention. Congress (with whatever party in control) always promises to cut spending, but usually never does.

I've been paying attention. While you are not wrong about the basic spending tendencies of Congress, in relatively recent history (Bush I and Clinton) we had deficit reduction measures involving increased taxes and reduced spending that actually worked as intended. The current pressures are even more severe than those faced back then. A similar deal could get done now, if Republicans would compromise on taxes.

It is also important to be clear in these sorts of discussions: (as long as the U.S. can monetize its debt) the only thing that determines the size of government is spending. (h/t Jon Chait) Low taxes do not at all equal small government when debt financing is cheap. By using deficit funding of our spending, we are making the long term problem worse for short term tax benefits.

They want to force the "rich" to pay more money in order to keep up current levels of social programs and government largesse to the "poor."

The poor? While the deep recession of recent years has increased the size of Medicaid expenditures, these aren't expected to persist for ever or expand at high rates. I'm pretty sure the big source of our long term debt problem is not the poor but the ballooning population of people drawing Social Security and especially, Medicare. The problem is much more about promises made to people about how they would be treated in old age, not aid to the poor.

We can and should reconsider how these kinds of programs are administered. And change the law as required. But expecting the U.S. to both carry through on the promises made by our duly elected representatives and pay for those things with current dollars instead of borrowed ones is not a crazy thought.

I heard a talk from Bowles recently. He was clear: there is no plausible solution to our debt crisis that doesn't involve both higher taxes and spending cuts. Some pain for all is required.

"there is no plausible solution to our debt crisis that doesn't involve both higher taxes and spending cuts"

There's always the option to default. Hand a big chunk of the bill back to the lenders, e.g. China. Just don't expect to be able to borrow money easily again next time you have something 'actually important' you need to borrow money for.

Incidentally, if you really analyze the ethics, a default would not really be unethical. Why? Because a party A can't legitimately lend money to party B (government) but A and B 'agree' to put party C, who has no say in the matter, on the hook to pay it back. That's exactly what's been done (party C = taxpayers). In any private arrangement, this would be totally laughed out of court. If I lent you money and you promised me that Bob Smith down the road would pay it back - nobody would take us seriously. But apparently it's "different" because, well, it's the government, and stealing money is OK when the government does it.

"Give a drunken sailor more money and he'll spend it buying more liquor."

I object to this!

I have never used someone else's money for alcohol, and I've never had the ability to force people to give me more of theirs!