Obama's position that he will give out money to 95% of us is more than misleading, its a lie, yes, he lies too. Obama will raise taxes on people/corporations making over $250,000. I, like many Americans own stocks, the value of my holdings will decline because investment in those companies will decline. That is a tax. I will also add that historically, companies that get over taxed simply pass that cost off to you and me in the way of higher prices for goods and services. That is a tax. It will also push more corporations overseas. Anybody who know anything about the basic functions of an economy will say that raising taxes in a down cycle will only make the situation worse.

As long as they aren't just given to the richest 1% the way Bush has always done.

This is the only reason our economy is in such good shape. Anyone noticed our stock market has hit record highs? For the record, I am no where near rich either and I have noticed a huge difference in my tax rates. This has been proven to work time and time again!

Lower taxes for small and large busines. the best idea of the presidency. Lower taxes means more jobs, less inflation, american products can be more competitive on the foreign market and in the long run the government does get more money as well. lowering taxes frees up money for you and I to spend. I don't care if the rich get richer, they pay my wage and give us long lasting jobs for the future. Unfortunat for the poor, ther will always be poor. The poor can live a little better with fewer taxes.

Taxes are too low for the richest. I totally oppose the republican plan to further extend tax cuts for these richest or to lower taxes any more for them. On the other hand, if the middle classes could just undderstand the math, I would be so thankful. There should be no taxes at all on the first fourty thousand earned annually by the wage earner. To make this ossible, taxes should be imposed at steeper rates on sums earned in excess of this amount. I support the "fair tax" with its government monthly stipend provisions.

It's an important issue, but we don't need any more of them right now.

This is an issue that directly affects ALL Americans, not just a few thousand here and there. Without the money that I earned from the labor I did, I have to eat crap from McDonalds and slowly kill myself while the government spends its blood money on a highway outside Wal-Mart.

NO! Americans already have one of the lowest tax rates in the world! Taxs need to be RAISED not lowered. I've heard of too many people who have been left to die on the streets as they cannot afford healthcar! Its Sick!

Tax cuts are fine if they are met with spending cuts. W's tax cuts are actually a tax INCREASE on future wage earners because not only do they have to be paid back, the interest on the borrowed money also has to be paid back. W=biggest tax increaser in history.

**Update** I was hoping that W. would come around to some semblance of fiscal responsibility for his second term. He hasn't. While he and the Republican congress have talked a big game about fiscal responsibility, what they've done since November is pile on more tax cuts to corporations and increase spending. The only discipline they've shown is to slightly reduce health care spending on the poor. It's looking more and more that the lasting legacy of the Bush Administration will be back breaking deficits and increased taxes - not his increased taxes, but those of whoever follows who will have to try and dig us all out of the mess that Bush's Socialist spending style has created for us. I miss the fiscal conservatism of Bill Clinton. *** Original Comment***Holy Crap. $140B more in tax cuts to businesses signed today by President Bush. John McCain calls the bill the worst example of the influence of special interests that I have ever seen and the Economist magazine calls it a 650-page horror that.... doles out favours to a cornucopia of special interests from tobacco farmers to bow-and-arrow makers. The man is shameless... doesn't anyone else get pissed about this stuff (besides me, John McCain, and The Economist)??????

Politicians who campaign on big tax cuts are usually just trying to buy people's votes, typically at the expense of fiscal responsibility. I am especially leery of this when a state is already saddled with a huge deficit. Like overspending on a credit card, tax breaks bring short term benefit, but eventually that debt must be paid off plus interest. The analysis of trained economists should probably dictate tax breaks more than politicians who are eager for easy votes (or donations from corporations that want special tax breaks).

The absolute concept that the presidents tax cuts are benefiting the rich is completely immature. Tax cuts help to stimulate the economy and in reality the only thing slowing down their positive effect is Congress's outrageous spending habits. Again, I seem to be seeing the same old tired rheoteric from the left while they still are not coming up with anything helpful.

Like Robin Hood in reverse: they Steal from the Poor and give to the Rich.

Scarletfeather and I are in complete agreement on this topic. As a bonus, not that you're likely to read about it in the mainstream, liberal press, the deficit projection for fiscal '05 has been reduced by about 15%, so far, and as more jobs are created with the economy improving steadily for some time now, the deficit will continue to shrink, even for fiscal '05. The bad news is nobody is talking about solving the REAL problem with the US deficit: uncontrolled, runaway spending by Congress! Tax cuts stimulate economic growth and thcrowd that whines how are you gonna PAY FOR the tax cuts? can look up the answer in the deficit projections. They'll be more than paid for and more people wil be working.

Tax cuts marginally help in spurring economic growth, but there are other factors at play like monetary supply, interest rates, etc...We can argue all we want about what the appropriate level of taxation should be before inflation begins to rear its ugly head; the bottom line is that lowering taxes and keeping them that way lowers the cost of investing in the market, which in turn increases the tax base and employment--when utilized properly that is. Magellan is correct to point out that cutting taxes for targeted interests only doesn't usually reach the people. When taxes are high, businesses avoid paying taxes by taking advantage of loopholes in order to make a profit; during periods of high taxation this has always occured. High taxes don't re-distribute income because the services being rendered by the government are not at market value. It is much better to have capital invested in the market where it can produce a profit much more effectively than in the public sector, where inefficient bureaucracy and foolhardy spending policies are creating deficits. This is the main problem in Washington; it is farcical to say that tax cuts cost money. Government waste is a problem that we need to get a hold of. You don't realize how much money we spend subsidizing industries that are no longer profitable. Everything from small farms to the textile industry is being kept afloat by excessive government subsidies; why not let them compete with the rest of the world? After all, this is what capitalism is all about, competition breeds innovation and in the final analysis creates more taxable income for the government. But if the government is going to continue to subsidize and spend, tax cuts are not going to have the maximum effect that they can have potentially. Some of Bush's most recent tax cuts have indeed been mere payoffs to industry that have little to no stimulative effect in the long term, which is what we're looking for. The big issue is that Bush has not gotten a handle on government spending. Indeed, the Republican majority in Congress along with the current Republican President have grown government even more than Bill Clinton and Republican majority in Congress did--tells you that mixed government and gridlock is actually a good thing! Tax cuts aren't bad when utilized responsibly.

Edward Prescot the co-winner of the Nobel Prize in economics this year recently completed studies analyzing the effects marginal tax rates have on labor output. What he found was pretty astounding when applied across cultural lines but not so surprising in the context of the laffer curve. Higher tax rates effect output and productivity negatively. This should be a no-brainer: a 100% tax margin with no write offs for instance would make work useless. High taxes shrink the tax base and reduce tax receipts by slowing investment and reducing supply. Prescot actually found if you analyzed marginal tax rates aggregated over times of similar levels in different countries from Japan, France, the United States, Spain, Germany and Chile the labor output was very similar. This is astounding in the fact that these are such varying cultures. Prescot states that the notion is wrong...that participation would remain steady when tax rates are either raised or lowered... and [politicians can] blithely assume that this will have no effect on output Prescot shows in his studies that people will generally work at different behaviors for almost simultaneous amounts of time but the work within taxable market is greatly effected by the marginal tax rates. High taxes simultaneously reduce investment- and subsequently supply- and increases demands on existing inventories causing inflation. Liberals work on the notion of a zero sum market where they- the annointed- can implement controlled market schemes to succeed in meeting an ends they find social just. Beyond the fact that I find this philosophy fundamentally flawed it simply fails to attain the proposed ends primarily by leaving absent essential variables just as Prescot states.

Poison Tongue can keep giving there tax dollars and then find out what it's being spent on. I want my money now and then you can tell me what it's being spent on! The way our tax dollars are being squandered is an outrage! No private business would last if it were run the way the politicians in Washington are running this country. Why aren't they held accountable? Why do we bare the brunt of there pork barrel spending? These politicians should be hung from a tree and anyone else who thinks that raising taxes is a good idea. The last thing the government needs is more money. They consistantly spend more than they have and I'm supposed to give them more? Get lost.

Of course I'm for tax cuts. I pay enough taxes.

Cut them all, income taxes anyway.

Studies seem to indicate that the sweet spot for maximizing income tax revenue is a marginal tax rate of ~20%. In other words, a marginal tax rate in excess of ~20% actually results in lower tax revenue due to several factors (eg capital flight, lower voluntary compliance, less efforts to create wealth, etc). As the current U.S. marginal tax rates are higher than this ~20% figure, a tax cut for those in these higher brackets should result in a long-term increase in tax revenues though in the short-term there will be a loss of revenue. Moreover, there is a compelling public policy interest in having a general revenue tax (such as the income tax) subject to the political process, and an extremely progressive tax structure works against this interest. (In other words, those who would rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul.) The bottom line is that with current rates, any argument against lower marginal rates cannot be based on helping the economy, but rather based on pursuing other public policy interests (eg reducing the gap between rich and poor even if all boats are lowered). As for the deficit, at current levels of taxation, any deficit is a result of excess spending and not as a result of too little revenue.

I have to rate this 1 star because there is no such thing as a tax cut anymore. It's like playing that game where you hit the mole on the head with a club and another one pops up; every tax cut is made up for somehow, whether it be fines, local taxes, payroll tax, property tax, increased costs of government services, etc. Tax cuts have become nothing more than window dressing to get elected.

Tax cuts for who, people who need it or giant mega-corps backing poltitians. If they cut taxes or create any more loop holes for big business the American people will be paying just for the existance of thes businesses and the government will be handing out more money than it recieves from these businesses to the businesses. Besides people have to understand that the government relies on tax dollars to fund public services. I think that what tax dollars are being spent on is a more important issue than cutting them.

In adidtion to federal taxes facter in local property taxes(car and home), state income taxes, state sales taxes, gasoline taxes(federal and state), and that is just some some of them, SCAREY THOUGHT! Yeah I think a tax cut would be warranted.

Tax cuts is the default term because the US Gov't has a spending problem on entitlements, social programs and business regulations. All of this unnecessary spending is done to pander to special interests and for votes. More importantly it is a huge drag on our economy reducing growth and denying jobs to many of the people with little education. The best way to control inefficient gov't spending is to give them less $. A dollar in the gov't hands returns 1.8%. A dollar in the private sector returns 7-8%. Then factor in 3% inflation, you do the math.

Would you rather have a tax increase? Listen its a gesture that does put money back into the economy. Not a lot of money, but some. Both Republicans and Democrats know that in order to keep the peace, sustain our standard of living, enjoy a sound educational system, maintain our roads and so on requires specific amounts of money. Republicans like to be sort of hands off when the distribution of wealth is calculated. They believe many of the spending decisions should be made at the state and local levels. I agree. That's the limited government argument. The Democrats feel the federal government knows best, so the issue of money is always kept close to their hearts / control. Having the money is power because there's always some voting block that has their hands out. As federal tax cuts kick in you'll generally see local taxes and levies increase. Its subtle, its effective, but it insures that the money is spent on issues close to your home and not mine. So is it really a tax cut.It is for adult kids living at home that could care less about new taxes and levies on their parents. It is for those without real estate taxes. This issue is now and will forever be a hotbed for disagreement. I don't care if the rich get richer ( a scenario that doesn't hold water) with a tax cut. In reality they just get to keep more of the money they earned, not stole. There won't always be tax cuts. In the future rest assured there will be a tax increase. It's a political cycle. Fun huh?

Tax cuts do not cure anything. They make us feel more financially secure, but it doesn't benefit the people in severe poverty. All I ask is we put those people in mind as well.

Tax cuts are very important, both in relation to stimulating the economy and reforming the budgetary activities of the federal government. The Bush Administration and the Republican Congress have passed three tax cuts which have erased the incredibly high tax rates imposed not only on the wealthy but on the middle class in America by the previous Democratic Administration. Those that oppose the Bush tax cuts claim that they only benefit the wealthy, and an evaluation of the facts shows us that this just is not true. In 2000 (under President Clinton), an individual with an annual gross income of $50,000 (before deductions) fell under the bracket of 28%. Thus, that individual's total taxes (before credits and deductions) would equal $14,000. However, in 2003 (under President Bush), that same individual would devote only 25% of his or her income to taxes, paying only $12,500 (before credits and deductions). That individual would save $1,500 on income taxes today than in 2000. In addition, considering that the Bush Administration and the Congress have expanded the Child Tax Credit and many other deductions and tax credits, that individual would pay a substantially smaller amount of income taxes today than in 2000. Of course the tax cuts also benefit wealthy individuals (an individual with an annual income of $500,000 would save $23,000 in income taxes today than in 2000). The fact is, however, that most of the government's revenue come from wealthy individuals, so obviously, if a tax reduction plan is enacted, the wealthy will benefit as well, but the benefits are proportional to those of the middle class when you consider their income. Bush's tax plan for individuals and families is a sound one, and should be permanently enacted, as it is beneficial to all elements of society. However, Bush's corporate income tax plan is another kettle of fish. The argument that Bush's tax plan benefits only the rich DOES hold water with regards to corporate income taxes. Consider this: The tax rate for large corporations has went down to 35%. However, the tax rate for SMALL BUSINESSES has remained at 39%. Considering that small businesses are responsible for long-term job growth in this country, it is certainly foolhardy to provide a tax cut to large corporations while ignoring small businesses. As we've seen recently, jobless claims are reducing, but this only signifies that Bush's plan will only result in a short-term cure to this recession, not any long-term innovation in the job market that will increase productivity and investment in jobs. More and more corporations are setting up offices and bases offshore and investing in cheap labor and avoiding paying taxes. So, in truth, Bush's corporate tax cuts do benefit the rich while shifting the burden to the small businesses of America. Bush made the right decision in calling for the elimination of the estate tax as it unfairly taxed not only the wealthy, but small farmers and landowners in America. Furthermore, the Capital Gains tax is an unfair tax, as it taxes money gained from stock benefits that is ALREADY taxed via income taxes. Overall, Bush's tax cuts have been beneficial to families, but have harmed small businesses while expanding corporate tax loopholes and encouraging corruption. Furthermore, Bush has abandoned his pledge to end the era of big government (on the contrary, he has greatly expanded the size of the government). In abandoning this pledge to reduce government bureaucracy and streamline government spending, Bush has driven up the deficit, as substantial tax cuts must coincide with reduced government spending. It is also important to note that Bush's corporate tax cuts have resulted in a reduction of the distribution of government funds to state and local governments for such programs as those included in the No Child Left Behind Education mandate, and thus, the average American's state and property tax rate has gone up. For example, here in the Houston area, property taxes have increased nearly 25% over the past two years! This is a result of Bush's failure to work with Congress and the states to streamline government spending. However, rising property tax rates are largely a result of the corporate income tax rate cuts, NOT the cuts for the average American. Thus, the Bush Administration MUST work to close corporate tax loopholes and introduce a proportional business/corporate income tax rate in which everyone pays their fair share. On a side note, the deficit was largely caused by a substantial increase in the size of government and the massive increase in defense spending following September 11th, and had very little to do (directly) with Bush's tax cuts. Overall, Bush's tax plan has had very little positive effect on the average American family and has had very little direct effect on job market and has not benefited the small businesses of America.

Unimportant. All I ask is for the government to spend the money they have wisely and well.

More tax cuts, please.

For those carping against the tax cuts may I suggest they calculate their taxes using the Clinton income tax rates and then using the Bush income tax rates. Since the IRS is willing to accept donations to the Government, they can write a check for the difference.

Bottom line is you cut taxes, people make more, thus they are inclined to work more and they are able to spend more, indirectly helping the economy. This way of putting money back into the private sector, and out of the hands of a swollen federal government, is imperative.

Our present year 250 billion dollar deficit is all the proof I need that we need political reform to prevent politicians using taxcuts as carrots for votes with no budgetary accountability. Rebublicans-cut and steal Democrats-tax and spend. Vote for people for people, vote Green Party

I don't mind paying taxes as long as the money is spent wisely. And since that will never happen in a beaurocracy I'll take all the tax cuts I can get.