If raising taxes on the wealthy will only reduce the deficit by 5%, is it really worth it?

Yes.

Of course it's worth it. Lowering the deficit requires several steps--increasing revenue from a number of sources, reducing spending (the President has offered a $ 4 trillion cut in the debt). This year's budget was cut, and we can expect further cuts next year.

Closing tax loopholes, including subsidies for big business (not only Big Oil but others), ethanol, private jets, etc. will also bring in revenue. A 2% financial transaction tax will also help, and taxing hedge fund managers like everyone else will bring in another $ 4 billion.

No one step will balance the budget--which is not even desirable during a recession. The biggest problem facing the country today is a lack of jobs, and cutting back on spending just exacerbates the problem.

The DoD has a larger budget than ever; if we end the wars, stop spending on Republican-backed pork (also called earmarks), and close most of our foreign military bases, we can save a lot of money.

Despite the revenue losses caused by the Bush tax cuts and two wars, the real cause of the government debt is the poor economy. We need to create new jobs, and only that will increase revenue to any significant extent (while saving money on entitlements such as food stamps and unemployment benefits). Increased revenue due to a better economy is the only thing that will balance the budget; increased budget cuts will make things worse.

Basically youre arguing this from the wrong vantage point. The point here is that more tax increases, no matter how high, low, or on which class of people will not reduce the deficit. Because the deficit wasnt created due to too little taxes on the rich, but because of the irresponsible economic behavior of congress. Deficits can be reduced to to a shrinking of annual spending and/or spending cuts.

Tossing more money at a balooning deficit is rewarding congress for their bad behavior. We the taxpayers shouldnt have to pay for their bad business and economic ideas.

Troy writes: "The problem with the tax breaks is we essentially borrowed the money to give them the tax breaks now they want the middle class to pay it back.

You'd have to find a really ignorant person (republican) to support that."

Classic example of an economic illterate. We didnt borrow money to give people tax breaks. There's NO such thing as borrowing money for tax breaks, nor paying for them. Youre not spending when you give people tax breaks. A tax cut is not an expenditure. Its letting people keep more of what they earn. That doesnt cost the government, nor the taxpayers, one thin dime.

And he has the temerity to accuse others of being ignorant

Did you read your own source? They say that the wealthy will continue to pay lower tax rates than before Clinton took office, do you know of anything else that's gone down in that time frame?

Debt is what you've already spent, and we spent it on wars under Bush, now we have to pay for it.

While you might be able to think a couple of billion is chump change, we can't afford that kind of thinking.

BTW there are only twenty five people who will benefit from one of those loopholes, and if closed it would net four billion dollars every year. Is that also chump change to you?

isn't Obama's middle Ideology glaring by now? His imaginative and prescient of "Social Justice and fairness" can not exist in a loose industry Capitalistic u.s. using fact it creates winners and loser based on no longer ordinary paintings, willingness to speculate and take a danger besides as perseverance. considering the fact that we've an increasing type of human beings who do no longer want to do any of those issues, Obama believes we owe them some thing besides. consequently each coverage he has proposed considering the fact that taking workplace is opposite to a helpful u.s.. the outcomes are glaring. No jobs. No investment. No improve. And no risk of it getting from now on suited as long as Obama's interior the White homestead.

There will have to be both tax increases and spending cuts to balance the budget. Every little bit helps at this point.

With 2% owning most of the nation`s wealth, I would certainly think so. If the taxes are anywhere as high as they should be for these people.

The problem with the tax breaks is we essentially borrowed the money to give them the tax breaks now they want the middle class to pay it back.

You'd have to find a really ignorant person (republican) to support that.

All of the Bush tax cuts should have been allowed to expire. We have to cut spending and raise revenue.

If I believed that revenue generated by raising taxes would be used to pay down the national debt, I'd be for it in a New York minute. But we all know that Obama and Pelosi couldn't resist spending it on buying votes.

Spending cuts AND raising taxes will balance the budget