Higher Taxes or Tax Break

       In the New York Times "The Angry Rich" article in the opinion section was written by Paul Krugman. The article is about higher tax rates for the wealthy. Paul Krugman received his B.A. from Yale University, his PhD from MIT. Mr. Krugman has been with the New York Times for eleven years as a columnist in the Op-ED page, he is currently a professor of Economic and International Affairs at Princeton University. He is the author an editor of twenty books and more than two hundred   papers in professional journals and edited volumes. His professional image rests largely on work in international trade and finance; he is one of the "New Trade Theory," a major rethinking of the theory of international trade.
       Krugman's intended audience are the lower income people, he believes the wealthy should pay higher taxes. His argument is based on the wealthy complaining about the unfairness of higher taxes being placed on them. As Krugman said, "Politicians spend a lot of time hanging out with the wealthy. So when the rich face the prospect of paying an extra 3 or 4 percent of their income in taxes, politicians feel their pain, - feel it much more acutely, its clear, than they feel the pain of families who are losing their jobs, their houses, and their hopes." It is because they do not know or fail to realize what lower-income families face, and they choose to let them suffer more than the rich, but to make money you have to spend money so the wealthy should realize that equal taxes is not the best solution for the economy. In the end as Krugman said, "the people currently defending the incomes of the elite will go back to demanding cuts in Social Security and aid to the unemployed."
       I agree with Paul Krugman's argument because some wealthy people who has large companies have been bailed out by taxpayers funds, but they refuse to pay higher taxes. In the end when the economy is down again the money will be used to help them out. They also believe that their company should get be helped out, but are angry when the suggestion of those bailouts should include temporary limits on their bonuses. It is ridiculous, they should be grateful that they won't lose their jobs, or anything else, instead they are more worried about more money. I strongly believe that the wealthy should be taxed more, because it is not like they do not have the money. In the end as Krugman said, "America must make hard choices, they'll say; we all have to be willing to make choices, they'll say; we all have to be willing to make sacrifices. But when they say we, they mean you."
                                              

                                               Sacrifice Is For The Little People!!  

 

Some Democrats Break With Leaders On Tax Cuts!!

Should Bush-era tax cuts expire?

Yes, I think it should expire because President Obama’s proposal is reasonable enough for everyone. In this article from CNN , it states that you clearly see that the Democrats are leaning towards Obama’s proposal that involves maintaining the reduced tax rates for people who earns $250,000 a year, and allowing the Bush-era tax cuts to expire for everyone who earns more than $250,000 a year. Most of the Democrats facing re-election this year are pushing to get an extension on the expiring tax break for everyone, but mainly most if not all of the Republicans wants to keep what former President Bush put in action which was tax cuts for income levels and the wealthy.  
In the last month or so, the outcome of polls that were conducted indicates that a slight majority do not want tax breaks for the wealthiest earners to be extended.  While reading this article the percentage of people who does not want to extended tax cuts for wealthy income earners is a not shocking to me because I agree with Obama’s proposal and I think it is going to help everyone for every income level.