The Bush Tax cuts for the top 2% should be allowed to expire.

Thanks to pro for initiating this discussion. I accept the challenge to debate this topic. I agree with pro that, unfortunately, we will be dealing with this issue once again. I am in favor of making the cuts permanent, rather than having another temporary extension, or letting them expire.There is nothing in history to lead us to the conclusion that giving government more money to spend, makes us a better country, financially. For the most part, tax revenues, over the past 50 years, have remained relatively stable, yet debt has increased exponentially (1)(2). This can only mean that our government is not using fiscally sound principles, when it comes to managing those revenues. If the income that you bring in remains at a particular level, and you know, pretty much, how much you have to work with, yet you go out and spend more than you know you have coming in, that creates debt. We all know this. Furthermore, if you're already spending everything that you're bringing in, you have nothing left to work with, to pay down that debt. Our leaders know this, and have for some time. They know they're limited in their revenue, yet they continue to spend far above that revenue, knowing that we have no means to repay our debt. This is the very definition of fiscal irresponsibility. If they were to show some signs of fiscal responsibility, with something such as a balanced budget amendment, line item veto, or something of that nature, then a good argument could be made for higher tax rates. As it stands now, though, there are no signs of such responsibility, therefore, it's my contention that, when we know our leaders are going to act irresponsibly, with the money we give them, giving them even more of OUR money will not help the situation.Counter1. As our national debt continues to soar we will inevitably have to make sacrifices. Spending will have to be cut in some areas which will only hurt the lower classes. We need to share this burden as a nation.I agree that sacrifices have to be made, but they have to be made starting at the top, by those doing the spending. If the culture of overspending in Washington is not changed, all OUR sacrifices are for naught, and they'll just keep coming at us for more. Spending will have to be cut in MANY areas, but why does it necessarily have to be in an area that will hurt the lower classes. I agree that something will probably have to be done with entitlement programs, but more responsibility in other areas, can make the impact on entitlements more palatable. Some creativity with budget spending can go a long way. I'm not arguing for this, it's just a couple hypothetical examples. If we were to defund NASA for one year, we would have almost 20 billion to use for more high priority areas (3). Defunding public broadcasting (4), and planned parenthood (5), for one year, would net approximately a billion dollars that could be used elsewhere.Those amounts don't sound like alot, by themselves, but added to many other cuts that can be made, those amounts can add up to a lot.2. The Republican and conservative talking point of "taxing the job creators" is a mischaracterization of reality. Individuals do not create jobs, businesses create jobs. A business will hire employees if it is believed that doing so will help the businesses bottom line (profit). The taxes in question are applied the individual after that profit is made and thus has no relation to the number of employees the business employs.This isn't a mischaracterization. It is true that businesses create jobs, but someone has to own those businesses, or has to start them, in order to create jobs. Yes, the business owner is taxed as an individual, by the taxes in question, but a person's investment in their business isn't a one time thing, it's continual. The more money we take out of their personal profit, the less they have to re-invest in that business, or start new ones.We should leave the politics of Democrat vs. Republican out of this discussion. It's no longer a political issue, and BOTH parties are at fault, for the situation we're in. We need to roll up our sleeves, STOP looking for a way to blame the other party, and START looking for bipartisan solutions.Hey, with sentences like that last one, I wonder if I might have a future as a speech writer for the Palin campaign...lol3. As our capitalistic society continues to mature the rich continue to get richer while the poor continue to get poorer. This is harmful to us as a nation and needs to be balanced for the good of the country.There are reasons that the rich get rich, and we're not going to end poverty by taking more money from people who are successful. That's like stealing from your workplace, and justifying it by saying that they can afford to replace it, more than you can afford to buy it. It's their money, and they have a right to keep what they've earned.According to the Tax Foundation, in 2010, the top 5% of earners paid 58.7 % of all federal individual taxes (6). Meanwhile, though 2007 was the last year for which I could find complete data. 46.6 million tax returns were filed, that ended up with 0 taxes paid. That means that about a third of all returns filed, got back every penny that they paid, during the year. "In about half those cases, substantial additional money was "refunded" to the tax filer, although that portion is classified as a government expenditure since it is actually welfare spending, not a tax refund" (7).So you see, we're actually taxing successful people higher, so that we can pay people for not paying any taxes at all. That's income redistribution, no matter how one tries to spin it.If we let the Bush cuts expire, nothing will change regarding poverty. The only thing it will do is give the government more money, and take more money away from those who have earned it. What happens afterwards, when that doesn't fix the problem?? Only two things can happen, they'll come back to that same group for even more, or they'll start raising taxes on the next income group below them. Where does it end? 4. I understand the argument that this would hurt a fragile economy but that is irrelevant considering that the question we face is not a matter of if we will have to take a hit but how.Yes we're all going to have to take a hit, but as I explained earlier, it HAS to start with a change at the top, in how the government handles revenue. If there are some fundamental changes made, I wouldn't even argue against an, across the board, tax increase. As it stands, though, it's just a waste of money if we increase taxes, and since we know it's a waste, it's doubly wrong to volunteer someone else's money to be wasted.I look forward to round 2.(1) http://www.cbo.gov...(2) http://www.cbo.gov... (3) http://www.whitehouse.gov...(4) http://www.npr.org...(5) http://www.plannedparenthood.org...(6) http://www.taxfoundation.org...(7) http://www.taxfoundation.org...