Taxes on the affluent should be increased.

I will limit my response to only address your last post out of respect to you. I acknowledge that we all have circumstances in our lives that take a toll on our time. Even though there are plenty of things I want to address, I"ll save them for later. It is true that the Tea Party and the Libertarian Party are more likely (than establishment Republicans) to condemn corporate welfare, and to accept that Washington D.C. is beholden to special interests. That"s why many billionaires and defense contractors have been turned off by them. However, their ideology is largely predicated on corporate welfare. Consider Ron Paul, whom I can glean from your profile that you support. He voted for every tax cut put before him, including oil subsidies. In a interview with Cenk Uygur (video displayed) he was questioned about oil subsidies, and why he casted a vote in favor of them. His response was: "Well, how do you define a subsidy? See, I don"t consider any tax break as a subsidy. That was not a spending bill, that was not a grant. So if they get benefits, I cut..I never vote to increase any taxes, I vote to always give tax credits, and I always cut spending." He then endorsed an income tax rate of 0%. Obviously, income tax rates are progressive, designed so that the affluent pay more " though today the tax is fairly flat. Under this measure (provided that his position on the corporate tax is identical), he is supporting massive tax cuts for corporations as well as affluent individuals. Then, he justifies his support for corporate welfare by attempt to redefine the word "subsidy." Is your case that oil subsidies " to the most profitable companies in the world " do not qualify as corporate welfare? If oil subsidies don"t qualify as corporate welfare, then what is corporate welfare? There are also a lot of problems with his consistency, though. First, the definition of "subsidy" from Investopedia is: "A benefit given by the government to groups of individuals in the form of a cash payment or tax reduction." Here"s the problem though: not only is his position inconsistent with what he said back in 1988 when he spoke out against farm subsidies (video displayed), but there seems to be a double standard in the way he votes. He sponsored a bill that was introduced on April 12, 1984 " H.R.5484 (below) " calling for a ten percent flat income tax. The problems with the bill are as follows: "Disallows income tax credits for any taxpayer who is not a corporation" -- I don"t think it could be more explicit than this. It goes on: "Repeals the income tax credits for: (1) the elderly; (2) contributions to candidates for public office; (3) earned income; (4) the purchase of a new principal residence; (5) dependent care services expenses; and (6) residential energy conservation expenditures." He said in his interview with Cenk Uygur that he always votes for tax credits " so why did he support eliminating several? The answer is simple: these tax credits benefit the poor and the middle class, rather than the wealthy or large corporations. He wanted to eliminate with the Earned Income Tax Credit, the child care credit, elderly credit, etc " while, at the same time, repealing estate taxes and gift taxes and slashing income tax rates to 10%. This plan raised taxes on poor and working class Americans, while cutting taxes for the very rich. So, he at least lied in saying that he also votes to give tax credits. Is it peculiar that the Earned Income Tax credit is considered welfare, but oil subsidies are not? I think it is. But it"s quite similar to Mitt Romney"s "47 percent" comment, and to Paul Ryan"s "takers and makers" comment, and to Rubio"s, Bachman"s, and Perry"s support of tax hikes on the poor. Oddly enough, the Ryan Budget included huge tax cuts for the rich, too, and maintained oil subsidies, whilst gutting social programs. I"m mentioning Ryan, of course, because many people consider him a Libertarian " and because, as an article I linked below delineates, he and his family actually would benefit from the $45 billion in oil subsidies in his budget. Coincidence? I think not. But why is Ron Paul doing these things? After all, when Michelle Bachmann " who founded the Tea Party caucus in the House of Representatives -- argued in 2012 that "half the country who pays no taxes" needs to pay "at least a dollar" (and, by the way, I linked to an article below showing that Bachmann received $250,000 in federal farm subsidies " so she and Paul Ryan have both benefitted from "corporate welfare" that they should oppose), Ron Paul argued that this was a step in the right direction. But when he was questioned about how he would fund the government without an income tax, his answered "Non-punitive tariffs." Who pays those? Well, they"re regressive taxes, so of course the middle-class and the poor pay them. Why is he supporting the rich at the expense of the middle-class? And I haven"t even addressed the massive spending cuts he has proposed (e.g., eliminating the Department of Education). The case is not much different for 2012 Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson, who wants to abolish all income and corporate taxes and replace them with the Fair Tax " a consumption tax, purpoetedly 23%, which is supposed to be revenue neutral. But not only is the rate much higher than it is often promoted as (a panel under George W. Bush held that the rate must be 34 percent, rather than 23 percent, for the plan to be revenue-neutral), but it also poses a huge burden on middle- and lower- income individuals. The panel found that the plan raises taxes on people earning between $15,000 and $200,000; they even called the prebate "a new entitlement program " by far the largest in American history." Again, Mr. Johnson is protecting the wealthy at the expense of the middle class, which his huge, 43% across-the-board spending cuts also attest to. I want to step back, though, and explain why this type of thinking is so popular. Perhaps you"ve heard of Peter Schiff, C.E.O. of Euro Pacific Capital and former advisor to Ron Paul. Here"s a quote from him (video displayed) regarding his views on taxes: "If you raise taxes on the upper-income earners, all you do is you diminish their ability to invest and grow the economy. So if we"re going to raise taxes at all " if we really want to reduce the deficit with tax increases " we have to raise taxes on the middle class, because those are the people who are spending money, and we have to reduce consumption, not investment if we want economic growth." So Peter Schiff agrees that the middle class are the consumers in this economy, and that the wealthy are likely to spend some of their money, but invest the rest " without any genuine savings. Again, he"s falling victim to Say"s Law. I pointed out earlier that corporations are sitting on literally trillions in capital that they"re not investing, and taxes are at all-time lows. Not to mention, consumption is 70% of G.D.P. " to say that the investment component of G.D.P. is more important than the consumption function is simply wrong. And what"s his solution? Raise taxes on the middle class, who are struggling " not because they"re not working, but because many of them are earning low wages, declining incomes, or can"t find work (there are three unemployed people for each job vacancy, for instance) " and give more tax cuts to the rich, who are doing better than ever. I sense a case of social Darwinism, and not only do I find his ideas destructively economically, but also morally. His case is essentially that the wealthy will work harder if they have more money, but if you give poor and middle class people more money, they won"t work as hard. Do you see the fallacy in his logic? So, the Tea Party and the Libertarian Party support corporate welfare. Tax cuts " especially for the very rich " are part and parcel of their ideology: their claim that the rich are the "job creators." Obviously I completely disagree, as does the business community, who say that lack of sales is the reason they"re not investing; Bruce Bartlett, Ben Bernanke, the NBER, and small business surveys (link with quotes and data below) agree that the drop in aggregate demand is responsible for the current economic woes. Here"s my final point (video displayed) and I think it"s quite relevant given Schiff"s comments: in 2008, the federal government was funded by regressive payroll taxes (36% of total) and individual income taxes (45%), while corporate taxes only accounted for 12%. Compare that to 1950: the corporate income tax accounted for 26% of total revenue, the individual income tax accounted for 40%, and payroll taxes were only 11%. To say that the poor and the middle class are not paying enough in taxes is simply wrong " factually and morally " and I would submit that it"s bad economics. Videos: http://www.youtube.com... -- Ron Paul with Cenk Uygur http://www.youtube.com... -- Ron Paul on farm subsidies http://www.youtube.com... -- Peter Schiff http://www.youtube.com... -- sources of tax revenue Other Sources: http://www.slate.com... -- Perry, Bachmann, Rubio http://www.businessdictionary.com... -- what is a subsidy http://www.factcheck.org... -- fact checking Fair Tax http://thomas.loc.gov...; -- H.R.5484 http://thinkprogress.org... -- Paul Ryan and oil subsidies http://www.politico.com... -- Bachmann and farm subsidies http://mediamatters.org... -- aggregate demand