text: rangel promises to raise your taxes if democrats take control? just so you know...   last week, mr. rangel, the 36-year house veteran from new york city who will chair the ways and means committee if democrats win a majority, was asked by congress daily whether he'd consider tax increases across the income spectrum. ‘no question about it,’ he said. ‘everything has to be on the table.’ in another interview with the bloomberg news he said 'he couldn't think of a single first term bush tax cut worth saving.'  so by his words, 'everything has to be on the table', 'everything’ would mean repealing the 10% low-income tax bracket, the child tax credit and marriage penalty relief which were proposed by president bush and passed in 2001.  according to the treasury department, repealing those provisions would raise taxes on the average middle income family by about $2,000 a year.   if the economy is in such terrible shape as the democrats want you to believe, is raising the taxes of middle-class families $2,000 a year a good idea? per your additional comments, let me add an explanation. you're quite correct, there is no law compelling anyone to say something political -- that's why it's political. moreover, i agree with you; i too have no doubt that mr. rangel was serious in everything he said. what i meant was that members of congress often say things in a more overblown way to secure a more favourable bargaining position vis-a-vis the opposition.   if i know i'm in a strong position (and mr. rangel believes himself to be in the proverbial cat-bird seat) it's quite normal for me to ask for far more that i think i can get. and this is true for a variety of reasons:  1. it allows for greater flexibility in the negotiating process (more room to manoeuver).  2. it affords the person the luxury to make more trivial concessions and appear as one attempting to be statesmanlike and bi-partisan, (thus shifting the blame for failure onto the other side).  3. the possibility exists that the other side may just cave in and give me whatever i want. so i might as well ask for it.  bottom line, though, regardless of sincerity, take every statement every person in congress makes as the staking out of a provisional position always subject to renegotiation. and that's what i meant about his must in this situation. he must do it because he's a professional politician, and asking him not to think politically is like asking a fish not to swim.  ==============================================  please understand that what mr. rangel says, and what the congress will do are entirely different things. for political reasons he has to say what he said. however, if the democrats regain congress (or at least the house) they will attempt to undue provisions of the tax code such as the estate tax and other features deemed to be aimed the wealthy, which in purely economic terms, will have a dampening effect of the economy.  without a doubt, the single most difficult fact of public finance to get across to people is the understanding that the burden for the heavy taxation of the wealthy disproportionately falls on the middle class and working poor. people either cannot, or will not recognize it.  consider the new taxes imposed in the budget enforcement act of 1990. as part of the new taxes imposed by congress, the law imposed a 10% luxury tax on high ticket items such as private jets and yachts. while many in the working class and the poor cheered because they thought that finally the rich are going to have to pay, they were wrong. the rich did not pay -- everyone else did.  because the rich believed the tax was unfair they simply refused to pay it. they canceled contracts for new jets and yachts. the bottom line was that ship-builders throughout new england were forced to close down. a great many hard working men and women who worked in these yards were thrown out of work, and subsequently went on public assistance. so who was hurt? the rich? no. the working class got hurt.  in a post-expenditure analysis the gao reported that the tax generated about $75 million, but cost the government about $125 million from a combination of reduced revenues and increased outlays to take care of the newly unemployed.  there is a simple proposition in taxation policy that (if it were possible) i'd gladly tattoo on the forehead of every single man and woman in government (federal, state and local)  the effects of taxation always flow downhill.  if you overtax corporations -- consumers pay higher prices. if you overtax the wealthy -- the working class pays. if you overtax the middle class -- consumer buying dries up.  unfortunately, modern tax policy isn't about raising revenues anymore; it's about making sure one's constitutents feel good that "the other guy" is getting stuck with the bill. the answer, of course, is tax equity; but in these days of polarized politics, what should be a policy based on reason and sensib