FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Democratic presidential contenders are calling for higher taxes on the richest Americans and on big corporations.
At yesterday's debate, Hillary Clinton said she wants to keep the "middle class tax cuts" that Congress passed under President Bush, but favors raising taxes for the wealthiest.
John Edwards agreed, saying that our tax policy "Has been established by the big corporations and the wealthiest Americans." He says the U.S. should get rid of those tax breaks.
And Barack Obama weighed in saying, "We need to put those tax breaks and tax loopholes back into the pockets of hardworking Americans."
The Democrats also agreed that the idea of balancing the federal budget would have to wait, with Obama saying we won't be able "to dig ourselves out" of the Bush era deficits in the next year or two. Only Bill Richardson said balancing the budget would be a high priority, noting that as New Mexico governor, that's what he's required to do.
All this, of course a far cry from what we heard from the Republican candidates the day before. They called repeatedly for the elimination of the estate tax and reduction in the income tax on corporations.
Here’s my question to you: Is calling for higher taxes on the rich a good strategy for the Democratic presidential candidates?
Frank writes:
I don’t know if raising the taxes for corporations and richer people will actually be good for lower class people. As we all know, if you fine a company or raise their taxes, they'll take it out on us workers with smaller incomes by bringing up prices to cover those raised expenses! Vicious circle, don’t you think?
Greg from Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania writes:
Only an idiot would call what they plan to do a tax increase. That plays right into the hands of the Republicans. What the Democrats really should call it is a "restructuring of the tax code to make it more fair for all Americans." Which is really what it is.
Rich from Texas writes:
No it isn't. There are two kinds of people who pay taxes in America, the middle class and the rich. The poor pay either nothing or next to nothing in taxes. If it were not for the rich, who own businesses and employ the middle class, who works in them, there would be no taxes to pay for either the government or income for the poor. Those are cold hard facts and the Democrats who pander for the votes of the poor do not seem to understand that concept.
Beth from Maine writes:
Yes! We have got to pay for what we need somehow. Who better to pay for it than those who can best/most afford it!? If I paid half my income in taxes, I'd feel fortunate to be so wealthy!
Tyler from North Carolina writes:
Personally, I think it's the right tactic as long as it does not affect my middle class wallet.
Corinne writes:
It's the only strategy to get us out of the situation that 8 years of Republican reign always puts us in, recession and putting it to the little guy in this country. Does no one have a memory?
Maybe Jack will read yours Monday.