Originally Posted by patteeu
No, you're right to question that. Both are moves toward socialism, IMO, and are a testament to the success of the left's class warfare of the past few years. One is better for everyone economically, though. The other one gives a greater impression of sticking it to the man.
Here are two of my thoughts:
1. I don't like that we're only targeting higher income groups for increased revenue. I think the pain/sacrifice should be across the board, just like Bush's tax cuts were across the board. (There's far more revenue available through modest tax changes from the bottom 95% than there is from dramatic tax changes applied to the top 5%).
2. I fear that if the approach recommended in this article is adopted, democrats will just come along in a few years trying to increase marginal rates on the higher income groups on top of this revenue increase just because they'll still be able to demagogue the highly-visible marginal rate issue.
Taxing the rich to pre Bush tax cut levels won't take hardly anything out of the GDP. If you let all the tax cuts expire on everybody (plus with some of the spending cuts they are talking about) the country would likely go into another recession. Getting back to a surplus is unfortunately going to take a long time. There was a reason Romney and to a lesser extent Obama were smart enough to not go into details about their deficit reduction plan while campaigning.