So you believe that we can balance the budget by controling spending?  Where exactly are you going to cut spending?  The Republicans couldn't identify that in their Pledge to America.  Of the few areas they promised to cut, it amounted to a very small fraction of what it will cost to continue the Bush tax cuts.  It cannot be done.

Higher taxes will create more revenue unless you beleive that the rich will intentionally make less to avoid paying taxes.  You didn't answer my question, are you going to stop trying to earn more if those above $200,000 are taxed more?  I know I won't.

It is simple math.. 39.6% of X is more than 35% of X.  And, that is really all we are talking about - 4.6%, that is still less than the top marginal rate under most of Reagan's Administration.  We are just going back to the rate we had in the 90's when the economy was booming... it didn't keep the rich from getting richer then, and it won't now.  In fact, with those rates, the government actually collected more than it spent.  Perhaps, that rate represents the top of the Laffer Curve?

I don't think an extra 4.6% tax on the top braket is going to bring down our economy... but continued borrowing to finance tax cuts for the rich just might.  Even Greenspan is in favor of letting the Bush tax cuts expire.

"I am very much in favor of tax cuts, but not with borrowed money," Greenspan said in an interview last month.

And, the added 4.6% is only on income earned above $200,000 - on the first $200,000 they pay the same rate as everyone else.  Do you think those making more than that are going to ask for a pay cut once the Bush tax cuts expire?

The indisputable evidence shows that the country was better off with a top tax rate of 39.6% - we had less debt, and a surplus.  Businesses thrived!  But, as you asked me in a earlier post - who would want to go back to that? 

Best,
Robert A. Franco
SOURCE OF TITLE