Tamar,

>>"...taxed at 1960s levels..." Probably true, but my understanding is that taxes had to be raised for the individual so that they could be eliminated (at least almost) for businesses. There simply has been a SHIFT of the tax burden from businesses to people. It follows that if my taxes are lowered, businesses taxes have to go up, leading to higher priced goods and services. We could well end up behind where we are now, I suppose.
>
>I'm not sure about that. I've seen statistics indicating that the ratio between what CEO's earn and what their employees earn has increased dramatically in the last 10-20 years. Maybe we could just cut the salaries and benefits of the people at the top.
>
>Tamar

Well, then, since the top 5% or so pay almost 55% of the taxes you'll have to increase the tax load on the lower classes - particularly those who don't pay any right now (~<=30K).

IMO what needs to happen is people need to be more self-contained and far less dependent upon others for their daily sustenance.

Either the $$ has to come somewhere or you provide less.

Where should that extra $$ come from if you force those at the 'top' (socialism BTW) to take less? Do you want to pay more taxes and work harder for less or do you just want to have everyone else pay? Take a peek at: http://www.cato.org/research/fiscal_policy/2002/factsfigs.html or many of the other sources.

Additionally.. Remember, if we lower taxes (have to also lower expectations too I'd think) that taxes the cumulative effect of taxes down as well. That auto would cost less because every single person who worked on it would each cost a little less in proportion to the overall cost of the auto.

However, again.. expectations would also have to go down as well. With socialism you just get the lower expectations and results without the lower taxes. <g>