And our system was set up with that intent under the guiding phrase "those that can afford to pay the most should". That is not an inheritantly fair phrase in my mind. Paying some more seems fair to me, but too much more destroys the capitalist incentive.

However in the current national debate context, the rich certainly did not need a big tax cut to weather a recession after a decade of putting greater distance between their networth and the average American. I think Bush's cuts to the wealthy just accelerated the trend of shipping jobs over seas and easily countered any trickle down effect to the middle class. I'm not even sure that his cuts to the middle class were enough to counter the movement of jobs over seas caused by his gift to his patrons. The lag between GDP recovery and jobs recovery was far greater this time than last time when we had 0 tax cuts, and far greater than the norm for recessions. I haven't seen a single Republican leader address that issue. If I recall correctly it has historically been something like a 6 month lag and under Bush it was more like 2 years. Not a difference you can hand waive away.

Remember Tom a basic scientific principle of testing a theory is making accurate predictions. I predicted that Bush's tax cuts would not be a strong stimulous before they were ever enacted because they didn't push the economy where a push was needed. This is an issue I agree strongly with Kerry on and why I keep trying to give him a chance. Too bad he muffs the security issue so badly. Economic sensitivity is good, terrorist sensitivity is not.

Regards,
Mark

PS I've paid a lot more taxes this year and still feel the same about Bush's cuts.