People is IRA, 401(k), and stock investments are down over 20 percent, and home values are down about same amount, if you can even find a buyer today.
Why would capitalists and those who own the million dollar properties or small businesses, fear maybe 5-10% higher taxes (paid only on profits, or income)?
Is not a few points more in taxes worth it to decrease the national debt, raise the value of the American dollar, increase spending by the middle class, and again raise the values of stocks you own, and the other properties you own??

Like, what does paying lower taxes give you, what advantage, IF everything else fails, including your investments, and customers can no longer shop at your business or buy your home due to being unemployed, or bankrupted?

The problem is people do not look at the long term. All they see is that they have to pay higher taxes now. And they do not like that. They do not understand that it will benefit them otherwise we would not be in the mess we're in now. That is why the Clinton administration was so successful.

l can spend my money much more efficiently than the government.
l believe in taxes to support the military and roads security at airports etc.
l am 69 years old and l cannot remember when the national debt ever went down, even in the Clinton years. His surplus was compared against what was the norm of a deficit, but it was still a deficit.

This is my help from Washington, D.C. United States of America.

The problem is that higher taxes depress spending & lower the value of stocks & properties. This is because we can not spend what we do not have! Think about it.

So, to ur second question. You do not say why ur business failed but lower taxes will give u an incentive to get out there & start again. Of course, u will also need access to capital but this will be more readily available if taxes r lower as there will be more money in the system. Think about it.

After the 1929 crash, the US government raised interest rates & taxes. This caused the recession to turn into a depression.

Read a little history, it wo not hurt & it could even be fun!

You r correct, that the government often uses taxation to provide important goods & services, & investment in the infrastructure, that makes our country the best in the world.

Without government spending, it would be as bad, perhaps worse, than having banks & lenders dry up. Without government investments in community programs & support of the underclass, we'd likely have more crime, & home-grown terrorists, like third world countries.

Letting the wealthy keep more money sounds great, but it comes to a point where more money only encourages more extravegances, much like Sarah Palin is spending $150,000 on a new wardrobe, or some people owning a fleet of Hummers, when many cannot even make payments on their Ford.

If the rich took much of their ''surplus'' money & voluntarily invested it into schools, roads, national defense, helping people pay off their mortgage, feeding the hungry, & providing hospital care for those without health insurance, I'd support them keeping their money.

Even Adam Smith who wrote ''Wealth of Nations said that capitalist often lived/worked for their own self-interest, & government had to provide incentives for serving the greater community.

The ''larger community'' is where the wealthy have to live, hire, & trust to not rob or kill them.

Fairness & public safety often requires some redistribution of wealth. (because we really want the middle class to suceed & have extra spending money too, & not move to the unemployed, or bankrupted categories)

Common sense says that the poor need to be incouraged to better themselves with public education. The wealthy have a self-interest in keeping the population healthy, this is also cost-effective. When people use charity hospitals, those costs r just passed up the chain, debt is redistributed too.

You r right that low taxation fails, when it only causes deterioration of the larger community, (when there is a growng separation between rich & poor)) & worsening of USA credit, because even Uncle Sam cannot pay his bills.

A return to taxation rates of the Clinton years would not harm America, IMO, but would make America work the way it used to, & even cause the wealthy to spend their money a little more efficiently, because they have less of it.

Otherwise, like if McCain becomes president, & he FREEZES government spending, who will pay then for needed social services?

NO ONE.
And eventually suffering can trickle up to those who think they r safe & protected.
They r getting a taste of it now, even before the election, with the results of the lower taxation policy of G. W. Bush.

Edit: To Politically Correct. l am an historian, & both u & McCain has distorted history, by blaming HIGHER taxes as a cause of the Great Depression. l will quote a portion of the source l provide below.

Profits rose 62% in the 1920 is wages did not.
The main causes were raise in productivity, & federal taxation being LOWERED, thus allowing more business investments to increase supply, while demand decreased due to unemployment.

Read & learn, please, & stop the abuse of history:

>>A major reason for this large & growing gap between the rich & the working-class people was the increased manufacturing output throughout this period. From 1923-1929 the average output per worker increased 32% in manufacturing8. During that same period of time average wages for manufacturing jobs increased only 8%9. Thus wages increased at a rate one fourth as fast as productivity increased.

As production costs fell quickly, wages rose slowly, & prices remained constant, the bulk benefit of the increased productivity went into corporate profits. In fact, from 1923-1929 corporate profits rose 62% & dividends rose 65%10.

The federal government also contributed to the growing gap between the rich & middle-class. Calvin Coolidge is administration (and the conservative-controlled government) favored business, & as a result the wealthy who invested in these businesses.

An example of legislation to this purpose is the Revenue Act of 1926, signed by President Coolidge on February 26, 1926, which reduced federal income & inheritance taxes dramatically11.

Andrew Mellon, Coolidge is Secretary of the Treasury, was the main force behind these & other tax cuts throughout the 1920's. In effect, he was able to lower federal taxes such that a man with a million-dollar annual income had his federal taxes reduced from $600,000 to $200,00012. Even the Supreme Court played a role in expanding the gap between the socioeconomic classes.

In the 1923 case Adkins v. Children is Hospital, the Supreme Court ruled minimum-wage legislation unconstitutional13.<<

The working middle class in the 1920 is did not get their wages increased, & today it is the same middle class that has seen it is buying power reduced again.

You have high expectations of what a few % additional tax on ''the rich'' or on small businesses would provide. Do not count on that.

It is not an either-or situation. You cannot tax us into prosperity. Higher taxes would tend to cause less purchasing power and make the economy worse, not better. Lower taxes wo not help either if the government just increases the deficit.

What would help would be using the taxes to do things that stimulate the economy instead of building the infrastructure in Iraq. The phony war on terror is not helping our economy either.