Are tax cuts moral?

"The difference being that he hasn't yet ask me to pay for the speakers."

Ha. No one here in Canada has ever asked me to pay for their child's health care. I just do it. I extend the offer long before they have unfortunate circumstance of having to ask. That's how we roll up here. No on had to ask me, and no government had to force me.

So again I ask, what is wrong with you people?

Yes, the government rules by force and collects taxes by force. The government establishes and enforces laws. So what else is new?

And no, you cannot vote the government out, if you do not like it. A single person in a democracy can cast a vote, which may or may not help his candidate win. But if you do not like they "system," you cannot easily get rid of it. But even if it is overturned by a revolution, a new government will rise up to replace it with new taxes.

It is childish for people to promote the idea that taxes are unfair in principle and should not be paid. Silly people like Sarah Palin promote this idea, and she from a state that is subsidized by Federal tax dollars, more than any other; what an ignorant hypocrite.

"It's 100% true, runnin. What's wrong with you people?"

I don't know about "you people," but evidently your friend considers the well being of his daughter about the same way he might consider new speakers for his sound system. The difference being that he hasn't yet ask me to pay for the speakers.

It's 100% true, runnin. What's wrong with you people?

Universal healthcare. A society without it is immoral.

"A friend of mine from the US was just up visiting and was telling me a story about how when his little girl fell and cut her head, he was examining the cut closely to decide whether or not to take her to the hospital. It was a borderline call. He had to consider the $500 it would cost him for the visit. What kind of barbaric world do you people live in down there? We don't force parents to make that decision up here. It would be unconscionable."

Bullcrap. You're making up stuff, or your friend is. You really "lose it," when you write stuff like that. I expect better from you.

Aren't folks supposed to give all they have away?

Anyhoot, the US has devised a system where we can have all we want and not a tax system to pay for it. I just hope government does not become privatized so we have to pay for all this stuff.

Tax cuts for the wealthy are not moral when they are unfunded and at the expense of the rest of us.

What does morality have to do with it?

I live in Canada. We have had free health care for some time now. (It's not completely free, I pay $50 a month for the government health insurance plan, as does my wife. Poor people get these fees subsidized or do not have to pay at all) When I get sick or injured, my fellow citizens pick up the bill and I in turn pick up the bill when they get sick. It's an awesome system. Very civilized. We don't want getting sick or injured to affect people's financial well being.

A friend of mine from the US was just up visiting and was telling me a story about how when his little girl fell and cut her head, he was examining the cut closely to decide whether or not to take her to the hospital. It was a borderline call. He had to consider the $500 it would cost him for the visit. What kind of barbaric world do you people live in down there? We don't force parents to make that decision up here. It would be unconscionable.

And the government does not steal our money to do this. We give it up freely. The day we decide to stop giving it up freely we can vote it out of policy.

Why are we raising the issue of morality now? We have had a progressive tax system for many generations. Nobody but the flat-taxers has complained about it, and their gripe isn't moral, it's (pseudo)economic.

The issue is very plainly political, not moral. Putting it on the On Faith page is merely pandering to the right.

After reading these comments I can understand why some people prefer to avoid the so called christians.

After reading these comments I can understand why some people prefer to avoid the so called christians.

After reading these comments I can understand why some people prefer to avoid the so called christians. They're not, generally, in favor of giving but want "The Rich", i.e. anyone with more wealth than them, to 'give'.
what nonsense

After reading these comments I can understand why some people prefer to avoid the so called christians. They're not, generally, in favor of giving but want "The Rich", i.e. anyone with more wealth than them, to 'give'.
what nonsense

SO Timmy, you disagree with estate taxes?

What do you think about taxing estates?

When tax cuts are designed to perpetuate inequalities in a society that subscribes to the notion all men are created equal, the objective of those tax cuts is to create a structure of exploitation - an immoral order.

What does morality have to do with it?

Is it moral for the majority to use its strength to forcibly deprive the minority of their property and the product of their work effort?

Does it make it moral if the majority does so convinced that by doing so they improve the general welfare of all – including the minority? Even if the minority vehemently disagrees?

Once upon a time, slavery was justified so.

The “Africans” could not survive in a modern society without the benevolent guidance of their masters. The economics of a slave based agriculture ensured an increasing wealth of the general society, a wealth that enabled the majority to provide the housing, clothes, food and “jobs” for the minority slaves… whose labor provided that wealth.

Forcibly taking the majority of the slaves labor product and utilizing it as the majority felt was best, insured the long-term wellbeing of all members, including the slaves of society.

Slaveholders universally defended their positions as morally correct and in the best interests of the slaves themselves.

Nobody in his or her right mind would consider that a moral position today, and yet, although a rude analogy, that is what is used to justify today’s assault by the majority on the minority of taxpayers who’s tax payments already constitute the majority of all federal income tax receipts.

The majority has the strength to enforce its will on the minority, but it certainly does not mean its moral to do so.

Not now, and certainly not then.

It’s ironic how the majority always defends their own greed and oppression by claiming the “moral” high ground.

The majority has the right; not one based on a stronger morality, but one based on a stronger sword (even if the sword is called a vote).

I pray and hope for the day in which our moral compass rather than our checkbooks lead our decisions regarding politics and money. The next generation should, spend more time worrying about the poor, the needy, the homeless, the unemployed, and the desperate, than they do the price tag that comes with it. Tax cuts for the rich only help the top 5% of the population. What happens to the bottom 20%? All of that money spent on giving the rich a break could be spent on relief programs for those families struggling to survive.

This past summer I spent three weeks in Ghana. There is where I saw the poorest of the poor, people beyond desperate. And even there, if a neighbor hit hard times or a child was left as an orphan, no matter how poor the people around them were, they were offered a helping hand, money, a place to live, something to eat. Its strange to think that in a third world country I was able to see more Christian values being expressed than the country of the supposed "moral majority." Those people are far more moral than the majority of Americans because those people who struggle with hunger and disease, are still more willing to give the clothes off their back and what little money in their pockets to help out those more needy than they, than you are. I challenge you to think of that the next time the taxes come around and you complain about paying that little extra.

The question shouldn't be is it moral to give the tax cuts to rich; it should be is it moral to leave people in poverty when we have the power to change it?

Ultimately the question does not make sense.

In the first place, there is no "tax cut for the rich". What we have is a tax cut for ALL which was implemented by Bush, and Obama wanted to continue most of the tax cut except for those making over $250,000. The Republicans blocked him and now we have the tax cut for all continued.

In the second place, don't we need to discuss what is the proper amount of tax that anyone should pay? Should the rich pay 35% (as under Bush) or 39.6% (as under Clinton) or 30% or 50%? Unless we discuss what the tax rate SHOULD be, it is futile to discuss morality.

I myself have no problem with even a 50% tax rate for the rich. I only have a problem with the "tax cut for the rich is immoral" argument since it is being offered without much thinking.

Moreover, our real problem is not the tax rates but our exploding mandatory costs. The difference between Obama's proposal and Boehner's proposal was a mere 70 billion a year. Why "mere"? Because our budget deficit is more than 1.4 TRILLION.

And that deficit is caused by our exploding mandatory costs.

People need to know facts before they emote and moralize.

As we enter kicking and screaming into the world economic system .Morality becomes less important.I believe the European Union is shaping up as a model not to follow.It becomes clear a culture clash is very possible as Germany once again is being put upon and may well become the hated rich uncle who saved his money invested wisely and is now expected to bail out the amoral spenders.Remember the formation of the E.U. was to stop conflict it is not greed to protect ones assets from the wolf..But the wolf now has many teeth and a large pack...

As I read through the comments, I was struck by how many respondents were ready to play the blame game or to engage in name calling. The basic question here is the morality of retaining the tax cuts to the rich. The larger question is whether or not morality should play a role in how decisions are made are made on any issue that comes before any of us. I believe there was a time in this country when one's morals informed one's decisions. I believe there was a time when the morals of those elected to public office informed the decisions they made. Obviosly there is an expection of moral behavior since an Ethics Committee exists in both Chambers of our government. I don't believe that our elected members of Congress consider the morality of any decision they make whether it be to continue to benefits to the unemployed or to maintain tax cuts for the wealthy. Every vote is a vote to preserve their seat in Congress, no more, no less. When it comes to my opinion about the morality of this particular decision, I consider it to be immoral to continue the tax cuts to the wealthiest 2% in this country. These individuals do not, in fact, contribute a larger part of their income to charity compared to the middle class; these individuals do not put a larger percentage of their income back into the economy; these individuals do put themselves and their needs above those who have far less than they do. I wonder if they are even aware of those needs. I must say, however, that there are marvelous exceptions among the very wealthy who do give large portions of their wealth to help those in need. Too bad others in their income bracket do not do the same.

ANYTHING THAT HELPS GET THE ECONOMY MOVING AGAIN IS GOOD! What's immoral is the thought that this government feels it has a duty to take someone elses money and give it to somebody else. We used to call that theft!

Matthew 25:29. "For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath." Thus, we should lower taxes on the Rich to zero and increase taxes on the middle class and poor to 80%. This needs to be in the Republican platform (if it is not already there). After all, we must adhere to the teaching of the Bible :-)

The question is- what will the backlash look like?

Very conservative citizens seem to have no problem with taxing the public, rich and poor, to make sure our country is defended militarily. Those who work in the defense industry feel quite moral as they accept tax money for their compensation. How is it that education does not contribute to the general welfare in just as critical way as weapons? Is our country not more vulnerable to outside dangers if our population is composed of large numbers of hungry, sick, homeless, and illiterate people? Is not caring "for the least of these" just as crucial to our defense as guns? It is quite clear that unrestrained capitalism results in some great advances for humanity. It is also clear that capitalism does not reward all very necessary and valuable work in a way that is just. Teachers, law enforcement, fire fighters, social workers do not produce a clear bottom line profit yet even the most giant prosperous corporation is dependent on some kind of order in the community. Those facts have nothing to do with morality or religion. My own opinion is that yes I want my taxes to go to projects that enhance my own well being. It just happens that those projects do include not allowing the "least of these" to live in poverty and ignorance, no matter how unwise their personal decisions might have played a part in their wretched condition. It may mean that a certain group of people may be reluctant to strive to pull themselves up but that does not compare to the enormous sums of money that we spend now to make the unbelievably rich even richer.

So let me get this straight, our democracy and the teachings of God are hard work, self reliance, helping those less fortunate; but if you work hard, make personal and family sacrifices, give back to the community, become successful, make a good living...that person is immoral because they do not want to fund a government out of control?

And so begins the decline of our society.

TAXES are IMMORALin general as they are EXTORTION an THEFT of ones property.

Those that want to 'tax the rich' are guilty of the sins of coventing and theft.

JESUS said GIVE to the 'poor' NOT 'GIVE TO CEASAR' (the GOVERNMENT)

Those who think taxing the rich is moral are confused and deluded .... what makes them think any of the extra money collected by the GOVERNMENT will ever make it to the 'poor' anyway ??? More likely it will wind up buying a bomb or a tank or pay the salary of an IRS agent !

TAXES are IMMORALin general as they are EXTORTION an THEFT of ones property.

Those that want to 'tax the rich' are guilty of the sins of coventing and theft.

JESUS said GIVE to the 'poor' NOT 'GIVE TO CEASAR' (the GOVERNMENT)

Those who think taxing the rich is moral are confused and deluded .... what makes them think any of the extra money collected by the GOVERNMENT will ever make it to the 'poor' anyway ??? More likely it will wind up buying a bomb or a tank or pay the salary of an IRS agent !

Politicians seizing private property and using it to buy votes. Now there is morality.

Morality should not be set into laws whether it be homosexuality, abortion, or wealth. Morality is established by each individual based on their experiences, teaching, and culture. Giving to charity should be encouraged, but not mandated.

Also, the federal government is not necessarily the best nor the most efficient charity that could be chosen to help those most in need. Personally, I could chose more efficient methods of distributing the money without deducting large percentages for other uses (military, debt interest, etc.).

That aside, taxes must be raised across the board to reduce the debts that the current administration has incurred.

give unto caesar what is caesar's...
Jesus Christ stayed clear of politics...
does what on faith does not do...
in faith uses religion to destroy faith...

Can we please stop calling these "tax cuts." These rates have been in place for almost 10 years. No marginal rates are changing for the wealthy, or anyone else. We have just forestalled tax increases. Except for the payroll tax cut, nobody's taxes are changing. Enough class warfare nonsense.

"Jesus said, "Whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me."

So, Sally Quinn, you know what Jesus said? Which language are you translating, Paul's Greek, John's Aramaic? Luke's? Any others?

Jesus was an economist?

Besides. when weren't there taxes? What era? What nation? Which government?

The happiest day of my life was when I paid $76ThousandDollars in taxes, for one year. What's your problem?

If I had earned income of $OneMillionDollars, for one year, I would be happy to pay $9HundredThousandDolllars of it in taxes. I have learned to live vey well on a $HundredThousandDollars a year.

When I made only $12ThousandDollars a year, I lived very well. The nice thing about USA taxes, they allow one to pay them in advance. I don't know about Canada.

What in the blue blazes does the imaginary sky giant have to do with tax policy? Did somebody put LSD in the water system? My bad, people would be more coherent.

Are tax cuts moral? Here's a better question--were taxes cut? Mine weren't. I believe that the "earned income credit" which gives tax refunds to those who pay no tax was increased, though. This is a bigger benefit, but not for the rich. Is this gift of other people's money moral? In terms of the federal government, taxes are only to fund specific expenses listed in our Constitution. However, Congress just ignores these limits and spends irresponsibly. Is that moral?

Are taxes moral? They are based on force.
I concede that those taxes which fund activities which benefit almost everyone, such as defending our country (not the whole world) and restraining criminals (on the local and state level) could be justified if they could be administered equitably.
However, the arguments of those who maintain that this has almost never happened in history are very compelling.

For life and liberty,
David Macko

COUNTERW

"this is also true in voting for people that have a Christian world view"

True

"which I am sure you disagree with, you tend to be not even handed when it comes to that"

False.

"I am not keen on the estate tax though"

Me neither.

New International Version (©1984)

They came to him and said, "Teacher, we know you are a man of integrity. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?

Should we pay or shouldn't we?" But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. "Why are you trying to trap me?" he asked. "Bring me a denarius and let me look at it."

They brought the coin, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?" "Caesar's," they replied
Then Jesus said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."

And they were amazed at him.

Hello Daniel in the Lion's Den,

Remember that story about Josephine, the wife of Napoleon, the short French general and self-appointed Emperor?

She was on her death bed. A priest on hand remarked, "Nothing is certain as death." She responded, "Except taxes."

Tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires are wrong because they implement the malignant instability caused by the positive feedback process: MONEY BUYS POWER, POWER GENERATES MONEY. The inevitable result is social and economic disaster, much of which, e.g. unemployment and the federal debt, is already upon us.

... more for Jihadist ...

... and when Jesus answered, " ... render unto Caesar ... " the people did not like his answer, anymore than the people of today would like it. BUT, that is what he said.

Jihadist

As you can see, people are a little irrational on this subject. People who think that taxation is the same as stealing are maladjusted misanthropes, who will never be happy, since there will always be the taxman stealing from them.

In the Bible, when Jesus said render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, there is a part of the story that is left out, which you might be interested in hearing, if you don't already know it.

Jesus was asked about taxation and the tax collectors, and he replied, "whose picture is on the coin?" and the reply was "Caesar's." THEN he said, "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's." I believe, he added, " ... and unto God, what is God's."

Is it not immoral to not take care of one's self?

The wealthy would prosper in any society.

Why is stealing their money with threat of jail moral?

*******************************************

Warren Buffet said, or words to that effect - better to raise taxes for him than for his secretary. That's a moral stance by an uber-rich.

Tax cuts for the weathy were bad economics; contrary to the information circulated by the right they affected almost no small businesses and when the President offered to raise the floor - none. But the tax package, taken in its entirety was good economics because the tax cuts for the wealthy did less harm to the economy than the other provisions had positive impact. Morality is not in the hands of Congress. Would you really want it to be?

Is it not immoral to not take care of one's self?
The wealthy would prosper in any society.
Why is stealing their money with threat of jail moral?

All of the scriptures quoted are given as individual directives...Jesus never preached to instruct government intervention but personal accountability. The Bible speaks about equality and fairness. Lets look at the Fair Tax, not giving preferential treatment. the Bible also speaks about being satisfied with what one has,living within our means and spending wisely. I don't believe that includes using taxpayer dollars to fund memorials to politicians...

What is really immoral is the graduated income tax andf the death tax. Thou shalt not steal!

It is true Jesus said "the poor you will always have with you" However, it is no mistake that God chose to side with the poor in Bethlehem, rather than those who are rich and through guile are now sleeping at the inn.

If we cannot have justice in America, burn it to the ground and build it again.

This was not a tax cut. Taxes in 2011 will be the same as they were in 2010. Taxes are remaining level for all.

Did the Washington Post ever think the proper framing of their question should be; is lavish over spending of the Budget immoral?

"NOPE"

"What's Morale about helping those who don't need help, what's Morale about the needs of the few outweighing the needs of the many?

.....As a registered Voter/Vet USAF, I am disgusted with the Tax Cut the President so foolishly signed into law and so are alot of Democrats, as well as Americans!

Helping the rich who don't need help, "Hmm, what's Morale about that?

A more telling question is: Is the religious right moral?

Timmy says:

I am debating the notion put forward here that taxation is akin to theft. It is not. If you don't like the amount of tax you are paying, it is because you are in the minority opinion on how much tax we should be paying. Because whatever tax rate you are paying, it was chosen by your fellow citizens. You will try to convince your fellow citizens next term to vote in lower taxes and some will try to convince you to vote for higher taxes. That's democracy.

Amazing, for the first time I agree with you. I get the assertion some talk about stealing. I don' t think taxing people who are alive is stealing. We make a collective decision through voting, and the government represents us and decides more or less tax. You vote in the party that represents your interests and your societal view and live with the results. (this is also true in voting for people that have a Christian world view, which I am sure you disagree with, you tend to be not even handed when it comes to that)

I am not keen on the estate tax though. Many middle class, upper middle class people save and invest their entire lives, the money is taxes already, and the state comes along and takes a portion of it. I just think that is wrong. However, the ultra rich probably can afford it.

No debt and no taxes? That's an exaggeration, but I wish I knew who came up, for the Tea Partyists, with priority on reducing debt, but no new/reduced taxes and no prime pumping/economic stimulus to save the American economy as echoed here by a number of posters.

Nothing much said about reducing allocation for defence but much said on reducing social security/safety nets/healtcare to reduce federal expenditure and debt.

Stupid, ignorant, selfish REPUBLICANS who think taxation is the same as stealing.

Taxation and stealing are not the same. They are two separate and different concepts; that is why we have two different words for them.

The government is the result of human organization into agricultural communities, freeing up some people to pursue activities and interests beyond simply surviving, including buying and selling stuff, including the congregation of people engaged in non-agricultural activities into cities, and the orgainzation of cities into larger states. The government is at the apex of the organizaitonal flowchart of civilizaition and taxation is the way that it is funded and paid for.

Libertarianism is a fine fantasy, where we just let everyone alone, and let everyone do as they please, and there will be prosperity for all.

"How ignorant of you to assume that the money you make is all yours because you got it all by yourself. How very naive and ignorant indeed."

Aye, Timmy, there it is, right there. As an example, Bill Gates, and his father, sort of "get it." Without the nation, the world -- especially the nation -- he found himself in, how many applications would he have sold? (Yes, one has to think about that, at least a little bit).

Gladerunner,

"When we buy a TV we can negotiate, shop around or just walk away. With taxation and the services they provide we have no such options"

Nonsense. You have the option to vote for a representative who feels as you do and to not vote for others. You also have the option to run for office yourself. The taxes that exist are not government imposed but chosen by the people. Believe it or not, we choose to tax ourselves. We would be stupid not to.

"The government allegedly works for us so we SHOULD get heavily and passionately involved in the determination of the level of service to be provided and the price we are willing to pay"

Of course. The tax debate is not between you and a government entity, it is between you and your fellow citizens. Some feel that we should tax ourselves more and some feel that we should tax ourselves less.

"We SHOULD remind congress and the president that we are not just giving them a blank check"

Of course. I am not debating your right to disagree with the tax system. I am debating the position that has been put forward here in a few posts that all of the money you earn is your money. It's not. A portion of it belongs to "the people" to pay for the society we live in that allowed you to conduct the commerce that made you that money.

I am debating the notion put forward here that taxation is akin to theft. It is not. If you don't like the amount of tax you are paying, it is because you are in the minority opinion on how much tax we should be paying. Because whatever tax rate you are paying, it was chosen by your fellow citizens. You will try to convince your fellow citizens next term to vote in lower taxes and some will try to convince you to vote for higher taxes. That's democracy.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.”
- Seneca

It never ceases to amaze me how easily religious believers twist their beliefs to justify anything. Like Jesus wanted to extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich. It's right there in the Bible, somewhere, I'm sure.

Seems like Jesus' words are only referred to by progressives as long as they can make use of them in their own way. Jesus did not say anywhere in the Gospels that government was to "steal from the rich to give to the poor". (This is from a misreading of a Robin Hood story in which the government stole from the people, rich & poor, and harbored for itself.) Jesus did state full agreement with "Thou shall not steal," the 7th Commandment which, in combination of commandments 4-10 summarizes; "Love your neighbor as yourself." This in turn falls under the summery of commandments 1-3 which Jesus explained simply meant; "Love God with all your heart, soul, and mind."

One has to wonder what lawmakers and those in the government thought of Jesus' words when He was asked about taxes specifically and He replied, "Give to Ceaser's what is Ceaser's and give to God what is God's." Especially when many of them in the current administration are on record for not paying their taxes.

Many assume Acts 5 supports communism and socialist. (Redistribution of wealth.) However, Peter made clear personal possessions were personal possessions. The sin occurred when the couple lied. Not about what they still possessed.

It would be laughable, if not quite sad, the major media and the progressives continue labeling an across the board tax cut for all income groups as "tax breaks for the wealthy". Especially when all it is fairness for all Americans.

Why don't the same progressives in government, particularly those who don't pay their own taxes, offer up their own wealth first? To begin to do so would at least be up front and honest.

It would also be up front and honest for progressives to stop misusing and abusing Christianity for their own ends...but any time the name of Jesus is uplifted in the public square the so-called "separation of church and state" clause, which simply does not exist in our government documents, progressives try to force it back behind closed doors.

Can't have it both ways.

Timmy2:
“TVs aren't free, and neither are roads, legal systems, police, and armies. Paying your taxes is not having someone take away your money from you but rather it is paying for the services that you have made good use of.”

No one denies that taxes provide services. We are only debating which services, and for how much. When we buy a TV we can negotiate, shop around or just walk away. With taxation and the services they provide we have no such options.
It is still our money, we own the government. The government allegedly works for us so we SHOULD get heavily and passionately involved in the determination of the level of service to be provided and the price we are willing to pay. It is our solemn right to present our criticisms, ideas, and grievances to all level of government. We SHOULD remind congress and the president that we are not just giving them a blank check.
Unlike the TV salesman, if the government overspends, or misuses the money we give them, we end up footing the bill, again.

Corporation is obsolete. GM is a dinosaur, turn dealers into museums. Leaks and peaks. They're all dead. Greeks and geeks are raising taxes to fund socialist riots. The world according to fraud IMF banker ponzi scheme. Family marriage and business are never obsolete. They're busy debating that. I have a dollar, you have a million. Your pile of crap is bigger than mine. Dig rat hole project and observe and serve rats dinner.

MLBDUFFY

"What is so moral about taking money from folks who have earned it"

When you buy a TV, is the guy at the store taking your money away that you rightfully earned? Yes he is, but he's giving you a tv for it in exchange.

And when you pay your taxes, you get in exchange, all of the infrastructure and legal systems and protections that allow you to engage in the commerce that eared you that money.

TVs aren't free, and neither are roads, legal systems, police, and armies. Paying your taxes is not having someone take away your money from you but rather it is paying for the services that you have made good use of.

How ignorant of you to assume that the money you make is all yours because you got it all by yourself. How very naive and ignorant indeed.

test

What is so moral about taking money from folks who have earned it to spend on politicians' favorite friends who helped put them in office? On the one hand Congress screams that we must take from the rich to give to the poor and yet "the poor" are not receiving help from this Congress which is with their favorite earmarks wastefully spending this country into oblivion. The rich must be ashamed to be rich but are not the congessmen who are setting this country on the road to destruction not ashamed? It seems the moral outrage of Congress and the President is so phony it doesn't stand the smell test.

What is so moral about taking money from folks who have earned it to spend on politicians' favorite friends who helped put them in office? On the one hand Congress screams that we must take from the rich to give to the poor and yet "the poor" are not receiving help from this Congress which is with their favorite earmarks wastefully spending this country into oblivion. The rich must be ashamed to be rich but are not the congessmen who are setting this country on the road to destruction not ashamed? It seems the moral outrage of Congress and the President is so phony it doesn't stand the smell test.

A rickety, wooden boat carrying up to 100 asylum seekers of Iraqi, Iranian and Kurdish origin smashed into the jagged, limestone cliffs of Christmas Island

Try to con people and claim Santa is bribing people. You ain't going to make it to the island. They're all socialists. I'd look for the exits guys. You are on USS WPO Titantic and she's leaking and listing. Wreck the place and smash stuff. Idiots!

SIA says liquidate Washington Post for defaming Santa. They can't bribe their way out of this. Dump stock and use money to buy children toys. Send girlfriends pink slips. Send SIA helper V Secret model and bottle of Old Granddad. You guys have another glass of Koolaids. When it's dead, say it with flowers, not words.

It seems that in just abour every society, now, and throughout history, there is an immensely wealthy elite, and then there is everybody else. And even when there are draconian measures, like in the Soviet Union, for example, to equalize things, a new wealthy elite emerges to take the place of the old.

Those who have access to power cannot resist, reaching out and taking, taking, taking, and those who do not have access to power, just live according to the normal rules of society, and mangage to get along.

STEVENTABELL

"Government does these other tasks badly, and it creates other problems while doing so."

What other tasks? You weren't specific about which tasks and what problems are created?

"The government is the people."

Jeez, Timmy, talk about deluded!

Timmy2,

Yes, we are the government. But you don't flip pancakes with a hammer. There are some few things to be done with the tool of government. For other tasks, you really need a different tool. Government does these other tasks badly, and it creates other problems while doing so.

Some "Christian Nation" where education and health care are "socialism" but tax cuts for the rich and unlimited spending for endless war are "moral"

I don't think poor old Jesus is going to have a happy birthday.

tax cuts?

in this time of war?

what of the entitlement programs for Halliburton and Lockheed Martin?

Steventabell,

if it is OUR job to make the country a better place, then it is also the government's job to make it a better place, because we ARE the government.

You can try to alter this basic fact to suit your rightist thinking for the next ten thousand years, and you will only be deluding yourself. The government is not a separate entity from the people. The government is the people.

Corporations who don't like the regulations and taxes that THE PEOPLE put upon them are the ones who try to convince us that the government and the people are two separate entities with opposing interests.

Is this Tea Partynomics I'm reading from many posts here?

If so, who is the guru?

The number of bogus assumptions in this question is huge. To see this question posted here, and then apparently taken seriously by some, illustrates only that shallow thinking runs very deep in some parts of our population. Those parts seem to include those who front supposedly-intellectual websites.

It is not the job of government to make our country a better place. It is the job of government to make our country a stable place. Then it is our job to make it a better place. When we get things sorted out properly, we have both the motivations and the money in the right places to do their work. You can try to alter this basic fact to suit your leftist thinking for the next ten thousand years, and you will only waste a whole lot of money, effort, time, and lives in the process.

Steven T Abell
Author of DAYS IN MIDGARD: A THOUSAND YEARS ON

Are tax cuts (for the wealthier people implied) in America today moral?

This is a difficult question to answer unless one puts it in post-WW2 perspective--asks the question in fact with respect toward America's performance--and more broadly Western Civilization performance--toward the rest of the world. Over the past sixty years the primary political/economic question was whether the world should be more of a free market phenomenon (promulgated by the U.S.) or should be more left wing (promulgated by the Soviet Union). The answer as to which possessed the greater morality theoretically seemed to be the Soviet Union in its commitment toward what in left wing theory is the Proletariat, the lower, indeed lowest class. But in actuality left wing theory failed to live up to its promises and by default free market policies won and became the moral economic method.

But still, even though the Soviet Union collapsed and free market policies have been vindicated, it seems a strong residue of left wing thinking remains, and this is quite understandable because people simply must think it the moral thing to have people as equal economically as possible--or at least have the lower classes as close to parity with the highest as possible and clearly in possession of the majority of political power. The big confusion, and big problem, which way too few people dare to articulate is why exactly "the moral thing economically" is so difficult to implement. We all have heard a thousand times about unemployment, the poverty level, people starving worldwide. What we have not heard is exactly why it is conditions have not improved as we like, indeed we have not heard a consistent theory as to why the Soviet Union fell and by default free market theories became the moral theory economically.

But let me describe what seems to have been occurring in the world over the past twenty years or so as free market theory has triumphed over Soviet methods. People of course have been arguing that free markets, free trade, deregulation, etc. is the way to go, and of course we have heard of the rise of China, Brazil, India, if not Russia as well as we would like Russia to perform. We have heard of "millions of boats lifted worldwide" in the famous phrase and the hope of democracy spread worldwide. But the reality seems to be this: The opening of markets within and between nations has led to the gradual rise within nations of the successful who profit mightily by going worldwide to find the cheapest workers possible which makes the average person in each nation compete with not only the average within his or her nation but compete with workers worldwide.This means people might begin to prosper in India and China and Brazil, but it also means that the average man in the advanced nation of America BEGINS TO FALL ECONOMICALLY TO PARITY WITH THE CITIZENS IN THOSE AFOREMENTIONED NATIONS.

So of course the average man or woman in America is questioning if tax cuts are moral--indeed wondering if anyone cares about his or her plight. But here is the tricky part: What exactly is supposed to be done for the average person? TO DO THE MORAL THING AND TRY TO GO MORE LEFTWING JUST RESULTS IN ECONOMIC INEFFICIENCY, SOMEHOW RESULTS IN THINGS BEING WORSE. We have a very real and terrible dilemma on our hands. People dream of being really moral--indeed dream of succeeding where the Soviet Union failed--but that morality just leads to things getting worse. On the other hand, to do what has worked although in frustratingly slow and questionable fashion, namely free markets, seems to lead to an overclass of the wealthy in each nation and the average person in each nation competing with the average person over the entire world--which means depressed wages at least for the average person.

So to ask if tax cuts are immoral is a not so easy question to answer. I personally call it a disaster, that no one is being honest about the realities of free markets or the movement to go more left wing economically. And I see all too often that people whether for free markets or left wing theory tend to think some sort of technical (read economic) solution is THE solution, that if the right equation and balancing can just be discovered…The best I have seen is people calling for better answers to energy problems; biotechnology; infrastructure; education and so on--optimizing resources whether of human capital or not. And the clue lies there I think. My personal belief is that the vast majority of people are just not such to deserve a high standard of living, that not even the greatest geniuses have managed to have everyone live sustainably and well in the world ecosystem let alone has the average person made this possible…My great hope is the biological sciences--that eventually no one will have an I.Q below 120. I believe a collective genetic raising of intelligence is the answer for propelling man and woman up to a high standard and sustainable economy.

But I suppose the easier answer is proceed economically as we understand today, which is to say arrange the pieces we have on the board, move this pawn (average man or woman) forward, move this rook (more valuable piece of human capital) backward or vice versa…as if the game can be won by human pieces as in chess…But the game is not chess, it is life. And the human race has not become what it is now by being the same pieces it was a 100,000 years ago. The pieces changed, and so must we relinquish ourselves to superior pieces of humanity.

Extending the tax cuts during this recession certainly has more "morality", or justification as being stimulative to the economy, now than they did when orignally enacted via the reconciliation procedure to get around cloture in the Senate. Then (1991 & 1993) stimulus was not needed and we could have paid off some debt!

Barack Obama is morally banckrupt for reaching this sordid deal with the hypocritical Republicans. He has shown that by this singular act he is deficit in morals, deficit in knowledge, deficit in ethics, deficit in gumption, deficit in leadership, deficit in intellectual curiosity, deficit in integrity, deficit in honesty and deficit in circumspection.

I did phone banking and voted for him last time and until last Monday 12/6/2010 (a second "day of infamy" in American history) strongly supported him. This time around, not only will I not vote for him; I will do my best to oppose him as best as I can. He has betrayed a trust that is very very personal to me. At least the Republicans do not hide their contempt for the people.

People with dignity do not need unemployment checks, they need jobs and jobs can only be gotten through good policy, not handouts that will only camoflague the stinking opulence of the rich!

This is a bizarre, ignorant and ultimately irrelevant question. First, it is based on a false premise that anyone's taxes are being cut. THEY ARE NOT!! The issue is whether to let tax RATES go up or leave them where they are today. Second, the question implies that it is moral to raise taxes. Is the government's taking of a portion of income from someone who has legally earned it a moral act? It may be necessary to finance the legitimate functions of government, but to attribute a degree of morality to it is to confuse the secular and the nonsecular. The issue is what level of taxation will produce the greatest economic growth while financing the legitiate functions of government. We are at the point, however, where the income of Americans is confiscated to pay for things that are not legitimate functions of the government, or at least of the federal government. Third, it's kind of strange for modern liberals to invoke religion as an underpinning for any societal endeavor when they use every means at their disposal to rid the culture of religion, or at least of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Fourth, if you are concerned about economic turmoil and poverty, how does taking money from producers and giving it to the recipient class reduce economic turmoil and poverty? The way to reduce both is to have relatively high rates of economic growth. That happens only when the private sector is healthy and is investing in expansion and hiring more employees. Poverty is the absence of wealth. If you want less poverty, do what is necessary to generate more wealth--do not do things that destroy wealth. The outcome will be by definition a moral one.

David Stockton, Reagan's budget director, says the math can only possibly add up if you start to tax the rich their fair share. When he was in the White House, the top 5 percent had $11 Trillion. That was bad enough, but today the same 5% are worth $45 Trillion. So much for the trickle down theory, AGAIN. It seems pretty evident there is a certain faction in the country that has been doing extremely well, while the rest fight over the crumbs. We can all have a reasonable debate over what the definition of "Rich" should be, but there can be no credible argument over the need to increase the tax rate on the very top income earners.
In the words of Warren Buffet, "we can either ask my secretary to pay off this debt, or you can ask me." Remember also what the top tax rate was when we believed in country before self and truly lived by the code of paying as we go during the 40's, 50's and 60's (the most productive times in our history) was 90%!!! No one is even thinking that way, but wouldn't it be nice to see patriotism like that once again.

Politicians and pundits frequently talk about closing budget deficits by raising marginal income tax rates. They assume that raising marginal income tax rates automatically results in increased tax receipts.

But is this really the case? Turns out, it’s not.

Since World War II, whether the marginal income tax rate was 28 percent or 95 percent or anything in between, the federal government has collected almost exactly 19.5 percent of GDP.

In other words, if you want to collect more revenue, you need to increase GDP. Simply increasing the marginal income tax rate will not do it. Accordingly, if your goal is to decrease a budget deficit, again, raising the marginal income tax rate will not do it.

This is not, as Clueless Comrade Barry puts it, “ideology”.

These are the observable facts for the past 60 years.

Please, before you allow political wishful thinking to harden your position on taxes, learn your basic economics.

And by all means, before you assume to speak for The Lord, have some idea what you are talking about.

For more, see Hauser's Law:

http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/5728

The idea of tax cuts for people making $1 million a year in a time of austerity, at a time of soaring unemployment, houses underwater, the middle class lining up for food even while American companies are poised to make record profits is nothing short of outrageous!

Here’s what you ought to do Mr. President if your goal is really to fix the economy and create jobs.

First, no tax cuts for any family making more than $250,000/year. If you’re making more than that, I think you can sacrifice like the rest of us if you have difficulty making ends meet. Take the reported $60 billion (a year) extending tax cuts for the wealthy would cost the American tax-payer (read: the middle class) and use it to:

• fund incentives (in the form of tax breaks) for companies that actually start hiring workers, and/or start bringing jobs back from overseas.
• extend the “discount” on COBRA rates. If you’re receiving unemployment, you probably can’t afford the full freight on your healthcare coverage which means yet more uninsured Americans. And extend the length of time the unemployed can be covered under COBRA. 18 months does no good if you’re unemployed for TWO years. Now that would be healthcare reform!
•Grant amnesty on the 10% penalty for withdrawing from your 401(k) Plan early if you’ve been laid off. Unemployment seldom covers all of an individual’s or family’s expenses requiring a dipping into savings. Quite often the only savings available are retirement savings.

Now my fellow Americans, listen up! We need to take back America. And we CAN do it. Mr. Obama gave us hope; we gave him the Presidency. Speak up with me and tell him and our elected politicians that we want our country back. We will take it back—from “Big Oil,” from corporate America and it’s endless dedication to “increasing shareholder value,” from the self-interests of career politicians who have forgotten they are there to represent us, to be our voice in government.

We have a voice. Let’s use that voice to say we will no longer stand for a government that caters to the interests of the 2% at the expense of the 98 We are taking back America. Forget the war on terrorism. We need to declare war on political self-interest. We need to take back America, the country that our forefathers fought, and died, for. The country our sons and daughters and mothers and fathers and sisters and brothers and husbands and wives and partners are still dying for.

It’s about us. It’s about time.

This discussion should be about why are the Feds borrowing Billions of Dollars from other countries to give Tax-Cuts away to people who don't need it.

It's the borrowing of Trillions of Dollars from a foreign country just so I can give Millionaire's and Billionaire's an additional 2 year extension in Tax Breaks on top of the 10 years in Tax-Cuts that they have already received with borrowed monies from foreign country.

This is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard of in my whole entire being. It's crazy.
****************************

That pretty well sums it up, but I think you're drawing the wrong conclusion.

When our government borrows money from another government, so our citizens can keep more of their own money, the problem isn't caused by those wanting to keep their money.
It's caused by the very redistribution of wealth, on credit, that some of you seem to want more of.,

So, I echo your final thoughts:

"This is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard of in my whole entire being. It's crazy."

Also, I am an Agnostic!

Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy . . .
ABSOLUTELY AMORAL !

The state of the country's finances (the deficit) really has nothing to do with the bank accounts of a vast minority of Americans. Sure, we can all be jealous. But a piece now lost in this debate is the "old" argument that in this country, everyone has the right to be successful. Many of the people who have a lot of money have worked very hard for it. Sure, there are crooks, but they are everywhere. Government policy failure is the reason for the deficit, and without addressing that, we will never tax our way out of it.

I think it would be prefferable for the wealthy to spend more of their wealth in hiring my services so I can afford to pay taxes, rather than paying more taxes, so our government can reinforce its gluttony, and then demand a bit more from both of us.

Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and leave in the pockets of those that which they have earned.

Wow, based on some of these posts it is truly sad to see the demise of compassion as a component of Christianity. Ghandi had it right, what did he say? "I love your Jesus, its your Christians I'm not so sure of?" or something to that effect?

This isn't about "morality" -- tax policy and religion don't mix.

Since when is it moral or right to take 35%, 40% or 50% of a persons income?

Since when is it moral to encourage sloth by giving unemployment checks to people for 1, 2 or even 3 years?

Since when did it become immoral to be rich?

Since when did we decide to abandon the princples of Free Enterprise, Freedom to fail and Freedom to succeed.

I am all for helping those who can't help themselves. But many in this country want to help those who do not want to help themselves. Who do not want to work or who believe the government is supposed to take care of us.

The government not only is not here to take of us, it does a poor job at most everything it attempts.

"Injustice at it's Worse"

We have 50 Million American's "LIVING IN POVERTY" 45 Million without Health Insurance" "We point our finger at China and other country's when we can't even take care of our own in the "RICHIEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD?

Now we want to give $700 BILLION in tax cuts to the "TOP TWO PERCENT" who don't need it, can't use it, and won't spend it!

...."This is Injustice at it's worse and Republicans at their best!

..."True Patriotism Hates Injustice in its' own land, "MORE THAN ANYWHERE ELSE."
---Clarence Darrow

..."Wow, no wonder American's don't vote!

..."As a Christian, Voter/Vet USAF, I didn't vote for this, and the Democrats better not either, "COMPROMISE MY FELLOW AMERICAN'S MAKES FOR A "LEAKY ROOF" unless of course you in the TOP TWO PERCENT!

The top 5% pay 50% of ALL Taxes. The top 50% pays 96% of all taxes.

You mean this isn't enough for the greedy Progressives/Liberals/Parasites/Thieves?

Read ALL of 1Samuel and see what God thought of man's government. We've been in bondage ever since. Where in the Bible is the commandment to steal from someone to give to another. The Liberals always confuse Jesus and Robin Hood...

If you believe that taxing the wealthy to help the poor isn't theft, then go into your neighbor's house, 'take ' (its not stealing, right?) one of his jackets, and bring it down to a homeless shelter and give it to them as a charitable donation.

Ravitchn - I missed that part in history class where progressive taxers committed genocide. Lucky for me, it wasn't on the test, either.

Just as there is no moral justification for confiscatory taxation, there is no justification for a death tax. The Nazis stole Jewish properrty on the grounds that their wealth was illegitimate. Progressive taxers are no better than NAZIS.

To be truly fair, in voting for public office,a voter should have one vote for each dollar of income tax paid.

Point One: Religion and government in Jesus day were one in the same.

Point two: Since when has the government of the United States worried about being moral?

monty keeling

Since the current marginal tax rates have been in effect for 7 years, I do not understand why we still use the term tax cut... Any change from current law is a tax increase.

It is a vulgar Marxist trick to make Jesus into a SOCIALIST. HE SPOKE ABOUT INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY, NOT SOCIAL POLICY.

Of course a regressive taxation policy is immoral. Moreover, the rich who are unwilling to be taxed progressively are immoral. The rich in this country are denying the social contract we have to succor the poor.

But even if you are amoral, you need to recognize that by turning this country into a Feudal state, you are not acting in your own best interests. The social democracies are more prosperous, more stable, and more pleasant than societies where there is a vast gulf between rich and poor. Sometimes, the rich lose sight of the fact that there is such a thing as "rich enough."

Even with all the grammatical errors, the comments on this one are more intelligent than the featured posters.
Case in point; the number of people who realize this is an inane question.

This discussion should be about why are the Feds borrowing Billions of Dollars from other countries to give Tax-Cuts away to people who don't need it.

It's the borrowing of Trillions of Dollars from a foreign country just so I can give Millionaire's and Billionaire's an additional 2 year extension in Tax Breaks on top of the 10 years in Tax-Cuts that they have already received with borrowed monies from foreign country.

This is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard of in my whole entire being. It's crazy.

To answer this question, to be able to agree, we are stuck defining the word/idea ‘moral’.
Charity, the voluntary giving of ones own to another is certainly laudable to most people/societies. Taxation, the use of government authority to collect private assets for the purpose of redistribution is not charity. Thus equating taxation with charity/morality is questionable.
Taxation is at best in modern society a necessary evil. We want the government to provide services, so we bargain away part of our personal assets to provide those services.
How much is moral/fair is almost laughable. Even though there are a few posts that claim they don’t mind higher taxes, didn’t want tax breaks, I see right through that facade. There is nothing whatsoever to stop these folks from sending in more than their calculated share. I’ve never met anyone that actually did that though. No, when talking about raising (or not lowering) taxes , as do politicians, we are simply being generous with other people’s money.
Most, if not all of those whining about the rich not paying their fair share are themselves not paying as high a rate as the ‘rich’, and certainly nowhere near as much, dollar-wise.
There is certainly some jealousy, that’s merely human. There are certainly some wealthy people who have lied, cheated and stolen to get to that level. But there’s also those who have the money handed to them, no questions asked, by us. Professional athletes, rock stars, celebrities, TV personalities, the billionaires at Apple, Dell, Microsoft, McDonalds, Starbucks, we can’t seem to hand these people our money fast enough. We stand In line to fork over $500 for a fancy cell phone with lousy audio quality, and $5 for an unhealthy grease-burger.
Who are they cheating? Who are they stealing from?
These people already pay more in taxes than you or I will ever make in a dozen lifetimes. They for the most part made their money the old fashioned way, they provided a product or service that people were willing to pay for.
Yes some of them are wealthy, ridiculously wealthy, but all their money put together could not buy us out of our national debt/deficit situation.
At some point we, the little guys will be stuck with the bill, there’s simply no way around that. We cannot just tax our way out of the spiraling debt as long as we keep spending, and increasing spending at the rates we have been. Our parents, and we ourselves demanded government services, now we’re stuck with the bill.
Unless we address this matter, the spending, and we’re not talking about petty little pork projects, we are not going to be able to tax anyone enough to make more than a temporary dent. Even if we ‘balance the budget’ (spend what we bring in) we’ve still got trillions of dollars in debt that is/will be coming due.
Sure, go ahead, reverse/raise the tax rates for those making over 250k or 500k, that will just slow the bleeding a little, it does not begin to address the gaping open wound.

It does no good to discuss tax cuts in religious terms, when most people's understanding of religion is founded on falsity, while religion itself, especially Christianity as practiced by the masses, is founded on a profound falsity. That aside, the problem is not whether there should be tax cuts for the wealthy, but rather that all systems in nature are based on the expressions of balance. Thus, if any system is to ultimately survive, its economic system must be as spherically balanced as its political system, and yet, allow people some latitude to operate, to some degree, in self interest. Unfortunately, our political system has been corrupted by our pyramidal economic system, by weighting favor via government policies, to its apex, putting ALL in peril. Thus, this is not a question of morality, per se, but a question of our misapplied actions upon the immutability of Cosmic Law, which arbitrates all outcomes!

To use an analogy, we are opearting as if we were a block of cheese having a great understanding of its relationship to milk, while having no (operative) understanding of its relationship to the cow.

Morality is for individuals, not for societies. What is moral about the progressive income tax? it taxes people differently and steals more from some than from others.

This has nothing to do with morality, and little to do with actual taxes. The Democrat's objection to tax cuts for people who make more than $250K is really about class warfare. The Democrats have to have a demon to bash when things are not to their liking. They have chosen the wealthy to be that demon, and will continue to harp about tax cuts for the wealthy in order to get the poor to think that they are really looking out for them.

I am still trying to figure out why this issue is even on the table for discussion.

If such a question has to posed to the general public, then you know these tax-cuts for the wealthiest of Americans is immoral. Especially, when the country is sitting on trillions of dollars worth of Federal debt that was partially created by giving away billions of dollars in "unfunded" tax cuts, and while millions of other people are "unemployed" and most likely permanently.

Has America lost it's moral compass, or is the magnet inside of her compass way off kilter and is being controlled by greed?

Does her citizen's not even have a conscience any more, or are they that selfish, and ignorant; and their judgment has been distorted by greed with a need to horde and control billions of dollars of wealth.

What happened to America and it's citizens.

Has she always been greedy and corrupt, or has she always been this way all along and the majority of the citizens had not been paying attention, or did they just believe at the time that they had some how obtained a wealthy status in an economy that was driven by fake mortgage loans, sub-prime lending, two overseas wars on borrowed debt?

Tax decisions should never be made on moral grounds. Eventhough our country is in bad economic shape, lower taxes on the wealthy did not get us here. SPENDING DID!

If politicians want anyone to blame for the rising deficits, all they have to do is look in the mirror.

Deciding to pass the burdon onto American's for their lack of fiscal responsibility shouldn't be made our fault.

I haven't seen, hear, read one serious consideration for slashing our federal budget. Neither Democrat nor Republican has made any serious attempt to bring something forward.

The moral question we should be asking is it ok to keep running a deficit given our current economic environment. Or why not increase taxes on ALL americans. Afterall, we all live in this society together. One shouldn't receive more services from the government than another. And one shouldn't have to pay more in taxes than the another.

Whoever makes the money should keep the money. If you want money, work for it.
We are all created equal. Don't make me pay for democrats who are nothing but dope smokers, alcoholics, nicotine addicts, fornicating disease ridden losers.

Taxes and religion...I haven't heard that one sense the Bible days. But then, I also read where Jesus took a coin and asked who's likeness was on it, and stated render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's and under God that which is God's.

I suggest the church stay out of this debate, lease Ceaser's people start looking at their resources and a taxable commodity.

DOCWHOCUTS :

Taking one's wages is hardly moral.

----------------------------
Then, by your way of thinking, any tax is immoral.

I suppose I qualify as "wealthy," the upper few percent of individuals in terms of total wealth/income. That said, I don't need/want any tax cut. Didn't want it when Bush gave it to me, would rather not have it now! Bottom line: at some point in time all this money will have to be paid back - with interest. Why get something you really don't need, just to be compelled to pay it back with interest later. And later is becoming a lot sooner!

The wealthy are not paying the bills of this country. The taxes of the people has allowed the wealthy to set up shop: hire, fire and steal. The lobbyist set in the midst of congress, advising and coming to terms in order to escort big business out of the country, increasing depression in foreign places causing this great collapse of poverty. This country could be in a better state if it ran itself, no we have the Rangels and whom ever else lying continously, robbing the people out of a decent existence. I as many others are fed up with what is going on, the deals made in this country has effected the entire world. There should be no words of arrogrance in times as these, it carries only the dignity of a flea on a dying hounds back and that may very well be the wealthy. I actually wonder is going on in hell.

why does wapo have obama's picture next to this loaded question? it should be mcconnell or boehner.

Right or wrong isn't the great concern, the thing is the wealthy are in a panic for money in order to maintain their lifestyle, even now they are still worried because inflation is still running like a wild dog. I see it this way the days of the wealthy are running out, simply because of the job market. The poor/middle class has made the wealthy rich and those days are gone and probably for a very long time. Their best bet is to get into a cheaper way of existing and just quit trying to cheat others out of their possessions because if right isn't done bad luck is a promise, misery can be added to their struggle, because we all are in the same boat, it is just a matter of what kind of sheets one is sleeping on. The wealthy need to get their heads out of the clouds because we all are just a few steps away from hard times, the wealthy can very easily end up sleeping in the streets, it is because of their wealth the condition of homelessness exists. The saying what goes around comes around, what goes up must come down. This is a spiritual battle and none is eliminated...not even the wealthy.

This question is a poor one, blurring issues. Tax rates are neither moral nor immoral. Helping the poor is clearly moral. The question is, "what is the best way to help the poor?" Small businesses and corporations hire workers, and reward hard work and achievement. Monopolies, like governments and very large companies, are filled with inefficiency and do not reward hard work efficiently.

The words "morality" and "Congress" in the same sentence cancel each other out.

Somewhere along the way the rich succeeded in convincing the lower and middle class that the upper class is the victim of horrible "class warfare." This war has been going on for decades. You don't have a job because taxes are too high and employers just can't affort to employ anyone anymore. The reality is, over the years, the top tax rate has dropped about 40%. Never hear them say that. No, no. Ask anyone. Taxes have done nothing but go up and up--ask anyone. Even when we've had 10 years of tax cuts, our taxes have risen--ask anyone. The propaganda has worked completely.

We will never win this propaganda battle. No matter how poor people are, they want to be on the "winning" side, the "successful" side. So they are convinced to support tax cuts for the wealthy. Proves they aren't losers. They too aspire for wealth, never realizing that they will never achieve the level of wealth we are talking about. We need to move to a National Sales tax and stop taxing income completely. No more class warfare propaganda! At our heart of hearts we are not a compassionate people. We may show some compassion to people in our inner circle, but we are a judging people. We look, we judge, and we want to punish those we feel are "undeserving." This includes those on unemployement and those working (for the government anyway). Even in the midst of one of the worst recessions we have experienced in decades, the unemployed are still lazy. Insuring people with pre-existing conditions is "stealing" my money. We scream from the mountaintops how we are a "christian nation" but its all just a costume to make us feel superior to the "others".

Yes, religion is inter-twined with government policies,as it should be. You can see that unfairness,equality,treatment of lesser levels of income sector all prevail in laws. With the state of the economy today, it is immoral to give cuts to the rich with no rules or regulations on how they use the money. All cuts to the rich should be given standards in which they trickle down the economy to boost the economy, otherwise all it is is a cut. All the "brothers" should feel the result of cuts in society.

I'm not wealthy but if there were an 100% estate tax I'd spend every penny I have just so the government couldn't get their immoral, greedy paws on what I worked my entire life for and planned to hand the fruits of my labor to my children!

This debate is missing a major point.

The higher incomes under discussion are not just affluent wage earners and the recipients of passive income.

Most small businesses are sole proprietorships, partnerships, and sub-S corporations, all of which are taxed at personal tax rates. We count on these small businesses to generate jobs coming out of a recession. These small businesses will be heavily affected by a tax increase on higher incomes.

So let me re-phrase the question: Is it prudent -- or moral -- to hammer small businesses in a recession, in an attempt to 'catch' high-wage earners and recipients of passive income?

The wealthy are paying most of the bill as it is. The top 7 percent of earners pays over 60% of the tax bill as it is. The flat tax is the only "fair" solution with no exemptions or loopholes! That way everyone has some skin in the game and everyone pays their "fair share"! You don't pay taxes and live off of the public dole then you lose your right to vote. We don't let our children make critical financial decisions why? Because they are not the ones paying the bills!!!!!!!

I'd be for no taxes and a 100 percent estate tax.

It is very disingenuous of the Democrats to talk of tax cuts for the rich being immoral when at the same time they support the murder of an unborn child.

It is also interesting that they always talk about the tax cuts for the "millionaires and billionaires" when the cutoff is 200K for single filers and 250K for families.

Well, to the conservatives, who mostly claim to be devout Christians, tax cuts are not only moral, but taxing itself is a SIN. It says so in the Bible - in so many words, at least according to their own Biblical interpretation.

"...least of these BROTHERS OF MINE..."
Jesus said that His family were born-again believers in Christ, not all people. We are all created by God, but we are not all God's children or family (see John 1:12, Luke 8:21, 1 John 3:10). He adopts those who repent and forsake their sin and trust in Christ. So, unless our entire nation is born-again, this statement Jesus made doesn't apply.

Taking one's wages is hardly moral.

It gets worse depending on how those taxes are used. Thomas Jefferson would label obama's use of them much worse than "immoral".

"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

So, I think we can all agree that allowing people to keep more of what they earn is hardly immoral.... and may stave off some of the more severe actions our amoral govt is carrying out.

Giving to the poor is a virtue. Taking from someone else to give to the poor is not.

Yes... it's the new morality.

can you say "situation ethics"...

Yes... it's the new morality. Think it used to be called situation ethics.

It has nothing to do with moral or fair. It has to do with what is good for the country. That 700 billion dollars would do more good for the country going straight to the debt.

Unfortunately that doesn't mean that that is what WOULD be done with it...

Does God credit those who have had their money stolen, and given to others, for "doing unto one of the least of these"?
Or does God credit the government that stole it?
Are we laboring on Earth so our government can stand before God on judgment day, for reward?
Is that how it works?
That is going to be one oddly-shaped white robe.

Hmmm.
I wonder what lesson can be learned by studying the context of the cited verse?

Let's see
In Matthew Ch.25, Jesus likens the kingdom of heaven to a wealthy man who travels to a far country.
Before departing, he pays his servants, every man according to his ability.
One servant receives five talents of silver, one receives two, another receives one.
The servant with five talents, took them and did business with them, earning him another five talents profit.
The servant with two did the same, and earned two talents, 100% profit.
The servant with one talent made no effort, and buried his talent in a hole.
When the traveler returned, the servant who was given five talents reported that he had gained another five talents.
The traveler was pleased.
"Well done, thou good and faithful servant.... I will make thee ruler over many things".
Likewise the servant with two talents reported his profit, and was rewarded the same as the servant with five talents.
The servant with one talent, told the man that his fear caused him to hide his talent.
The man punished his servant.
"thou wicked and slothful servant...Thou oughtest to have put my money to the exchangers, and at my coming, I should have received mine own with usury. Take therefore the talent from him, and give it to him which hath ten talents.

This is the subject of the lesson from which you cited the moral, out of context.

The idea is that we should use what we've been blessed with, to increase abundance.
How else can you feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, etc, etc?
You sure can't do it if the government has already taken it, and used it to bless their special interest groups.

It's reading, people...not rocket surgery.

Some are materialists, others romantics. Depends on papers. Romantics have worthless papers. I've got materialist papers. Non-assessable, sensible though. Hopeless romantics, here we go again. Euro and dollar seem to be dropping fast. Stocks and bonds should follow. Have secret stock, can't leak. Can't assess, able to transfer not cable. It has eagles, must be moral. Has seals, can't be counterfeited or copied. High grade work pays fourfold or more. Limited issue, unlimited value.

I find in my own case pleasure comes following after the pain in my leg, which was caused by the chain...Now I am drinking poison. Now that I have drank it I shall go to the joys of the blessed. Should be dead soon. To live is Christ, to die is gain.

Economic turmoil? Who caused it? The poor?

Tax cuts for the rich is "moral" if they invest to boost the economy but not if they invest overseas to set up manufacturing plants with low pay workers and charge products for 20 times over the cost of production?

Tax cut for the rich is "immoral" if they use it to buy private jets, 100 feet yatch, castles and mansions and Rolls?

Tax exempt is "moral" if the rich donate billions to charities?

What is wrong with social safety net for those needing it and governments instituting it through taxes?

Revolutions have been known to be caused by those deprived of jobs or could not afford homes and other basics. Only in some countries is being poor the fault of the poor in being alledgedly "lazy", in not "trying", in abusing social security.

The Scandinavian states have high taxes, relatively comprehensive social security and services, and still among the highest standards of living in the world. But then, they have no Wall Street of the size and reach of THE Wall Street.

"Should this faith-based view of politics be applied to the economy?"

No.

"In a time of economic turmoil and record poverty levels, are tax cuts for the wealthy moral?"

They are neither moral nor immoral; morality and immorality are superstitions.

Can we get a question about wikileaks ( http://www.economist.com/node/17677820/comments#comments and such)? Taxes are boring.

http://www.slate.com/id/2277300/#add-comment
(comments as DFG)

Not in this case.

It's moral for the voters to decide what level of government services they want and how much they're willing to pay for it.

It's not moral to spend what you want, and make those too young to vote do the paying (i.e. run a deficit too large for your own generation to ever pay it off).

"are tax cuts for the wealthy moral?"
Are taxes moral?

"Thou shalt not steal."

Says it quite clearly.

Theft is not moral.