Some Interesting Tidbits

[LiveLaughLove]

We've connected the dots. Now it is actually justified to stay home and earn money.


[I]t is now more lucrative – in the form of actual disposable income – to sit, do nothing, and collect various welfare entitlements, than to work. This is graphically, and very painfully confirmed, in the below chart from Gary Alexander, Secretary of Public Welfare, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (a state best known for its broke capital Harrisburg). As quantitied, and explained by Alexander, “the single mom is better off earning gross income of $29,000 with $57,327 in net income & benefits than to earn gross income of $69,000 with net income and benefits of $57,045.“

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/11/it-doesnt-pay-to-work.php

California sucks, and in other news, water is wet.

As their taxes increase to pay for the spending they will not cut (where have I heard this before), the rich are fleeing by the droves.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-best-and-worst-run-states-in-america-150415625.html

Speaking of the rich fleeing by the droves. How's 2/3rds of your millionaires leaving because of over taxation?


In the 2009-10 tax year, more than 16,000 people declared an annual income of more than £1 million to HM Revenue and Customs.
This number fell to just 6,000 after Gordon Brown introduced the new 50p top rate of income tax shortly before the last general election.
The figures have been seized upon by the Conservatives to claim that increasing the highest rate of tax actually led to a loss in revenues for the Government.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9707029/Two-thirds-of-millionaires-left-Britain-to-avoid-50p-tax-rate.html

But nah, that won't happen here. Nah.

[XingTheRubicon]

In the history of Earth, when has an economy and the middle class, prospered long term from gouging the rich.



I'll wait here.

[Curly Bill]

In the history of Earth, when has an economy and the middle class, prospered long term from gouging the rich.



I'll wait here.

It never has!

[KantoSooner]

So far, no one's taken me up on the option of discussing our budget from the opposite end. How much do we think government should cost? In percentages of the economy, just to make it simple. At that point, we've acheived the line at which our flat tax should be levied. Then the pols can argue over which projects get what percent of the tax income. I'm thinking we'll come out somewhere around 17-20%, but that's just guess.

Any takers?

[Curly Bill]

So far, no one's taken me up on the option of discussing our budget from the opposite end. How much do we think government should cost? In percentages of the economy, just to make it simple. At that point, we've acheived the line at which our flat tax should be levied. Then the pols can argue over which projects get what percent of the tax income. I'm thinking we'll come out somewhere around 17-20%, but that's just guess.

Any takers?


15%

[Midtowner]

In the history of Earth, when has an economy and the middle class, prospered long term from gouging the rich.

I'll wait here.

http://visualeconsite.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/Income_Corp_CapitalGains_Rates-650x603.png

Here's a chart for you.

Here's another chart:

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/assets_c/2012/08/Pew_History_Middle_Class_Families_Income_History-thumb-615x447-96949.png

This shows that during some of the periods of the highest marginal taxes on the rich, the middle class had the biggest income gains. With the post-2000 tax cuts, everyone's income, including the top quintile went down. Of course, the top 1% still continued to gain despite the downturn, but you knew that.

[pphilfran]

So far, no one's taken me up on the option of discussing our budget from the opposite end. How much do we think government should cost? In percentages of the economy, just to make it simple. At that point, we've acheived the line at which our flat tax should be levied. Then the pols can argue over which projects get what percent of the tax income. I'm thinking we'll come out somewhere around 17-20%, but that's just guess.

Any takers?

I will use 15 trillion as the GDP

Defense 500 billion (down from 715 billion this year)
International affairs 40 billion (down from 56 billion this year)
Science/Space 35 billion (up from 30 billion)
Energy 10 billion (down from 23 billion)
National resources and environment 43 billion (flat)
Agriculture 20 billion (flat)
Transportation 110 billion (up from 102 billion)
Community and regional dev 23 billion (down from 31 billion)
Education 120 billion (down from 140 billion)
Health 361 billion (flat)
Medicare 480 billion (flat)
Income security 580 billion (flat)
SS 638 billion (flat)
VA 130 billion (flat)
Justice 60 billion (flat)
Gen government 30 billion (flat)
Interest 225 billion (flat)

Total 3.6 trillion 24% of GDP

We need to get to 18% so take all of those numbers and cut them by 25% and watch the chit hit the fan... lol

[pphilfran]

http://visualeconsite.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/Income_Corp_CapitalGains_Rates-650x603.png

Here's a chart for you.

Here's another chart:

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/assets_c/2012/08/Pew_History_Middle_Class_Families_Income_History-thumb-615x447-96949.png

This shows that during some of the periods of the highest marginal taxes on the rich, the middle class had the biggest income gains. With the post-2000 tax cuts, everyone's income, including the top quintile went down. Of course, the top 1% still continued to gain despite the downturn, but you knew that.

income went down because of 9/11 and the latest economic meltdown...tax rates had nothing to do with an increase or decrease in wealth...

If you want increased income and federal revenue...grow the economy...repeat after me....grow the economy...

[badger]

I know that people think that rich will leave if we tax them more, but rich taxes are going up everywhere except third world countries... and those places usually are unsafe, unhealthy or uninhabitable.

Taxes on the rich are kind of like gas prices... when they go up, people gripe. But, they hardly ever are pushed to change driving habits, even if they are double, triple what they were a decade or two ago.

[Midtowner]

And keep in mind that with Obama's plan, the rich will pay the exact same rate as everyone else on the first $250K they make. It's only money above $250K which would be taxed at a higher marginal rate.

[pphilfran]

Badger, increasing the tax revenue (notice I did not say tax rate) is a must to balance the budget...but there is no way in hell that we can increase all revenue by 33% to match spending...that is 33% to all taxpayers, poor, middle class, and wealthy....33% increase to all corporations...33% on payroll taxes....everything...every stinking thing...

That ain't gonna happen...

On the flip side we can't cut spending by 33% to achieve a balanced budget...ain't....gonna....happen...

One thing and one thing only is going to save up...and it ain't tax increases...it ain't spending cuts...it is called growing the economy...and anything we do to hamper our current slow growth will only add to our problems...

[pphilfran]

And keep in mind that with Obama's plan, the rich will pay the exact same rate as everyone else on the first $250K they make. It's only money above $250K which would be taxed at a higher marginal rate.

Whoopie chit....we might as well be pissing into the wind...the Clinton rates on only the wealthy won't get us a half percent of GDP...and one half a percent of GDP will get us to 16.3% of GDP in our current economy...while we continue to spend at 24% of GDP...and if the economy doesn't speed up will continue to spend at 24% of GDP while "raking" in 16 or 17% of GDP in revenue...

[rock on sooner]

Phil, I agree with what you are saying except "one thing only". Just
growing the economy will take forever to solve the problem of deficits.
Increased revenue (enhanced by a growing economy) should include
tax rate adjustments...(Clinton era tax rates)...and, real, measureable
spending cuts, initially, across the board non military cuts, from size
of gov't to serious elimination of earmarks. Those cuts should be pro-
gressive..a % the first year and increase a % each year following. SS
salary cap increase along with gradual age increases will help SS. The
other two..Medicare & Medicaid..should first be scrubbed of fraud, waste
and abuse, saving as much as 500 billion. After that, then tinker with
eligibilty.

Military bases overseas consolidated 3 and 2 into one single mission,
crosstrain redundancies (chances are the services will downsize them-
selves). Other ideas, 11 down to 9 carrier battlegroups, steamline and
consolidate weapons systems, etc.

My contention is that ALL these things need to happen together to impact
the deficit.

[pphilfran]

Rock on...if we don't get the economy at 4% growth we don't stand a chance...anything that we do to hamper the growth will only slow revenue coming in...

Whatever we do is going to take forever...we cannot afford to go and cut spending by any significant level or it will harm the economy...we can't raise taxes by any significant level or we will harm the economy...

With the European economy crapping in it's pants and China slowing we are not going to get much help from those arenas...

I don't have a problem going to the Clinton rates but they won't do chit...those increases were put into place during a booming economy, far different than our current situation...

I agree on cutting overseas military bases and bringing those folks home and spend money here instead of abroad...

I have no problem increasing SS/Med age limits..won't harm the economy and will cut long term spending...

Freeze spending at current levels and let inflation bring us into line...we are not in such a state that draconian cuts are necessary...

[pphilfran]

It is the loopholes in the tax code that is the problem, not the tax rates themselves...

Go with Rom's plan to limit total deductions...25k a year, 50k a year...I don't give a damn but that would still allow the lower wage earners maximum deductions and limit deductions on the wealthy...and we would avoid all the hell raising about reducing home mortgage deductions or charitable giving or whatever pet deduction every tax payer or congressman believes in.

[badger]

Badger, increasing the tax revenue (notice I did not say tax rate) is a must to balance the budget...but there is no way in hell that we can increase all revenue by 33% to match spending...that is 33% to all taxpayers, poor, middle class, and wealthy....33% increase to all corporations...33% on payroll taxes....everything...every stinking thing...

That ain't gonna happen...

On the flip side we can't cut spending by 33% to achieve a balanced budget...ain't....gonna....happen...

One thing and one thing only is going to save up...and it ain't tax increases...it ain't spending cuts...it is called growing the economy...and anything we do to hamper our current slow growth will only add to our problems...

I think the only thing that fuels an economy that much is... a world war. It's what got us out of the great depression. Certainly the FDR policy changes helped prevent future economic issues, but the slumping economy was ultimately cured by the sudden need for production, defense, supplies, etc.

[XingTheRubicon]

http://visualeconsite.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/Income_Corp_CapitalGains_Rates-650x603.png




This shows that during some of the periods of the highest marginal taxes on the rich, the middle class had the biggest income gains. With the post-2000 tax cuts, everyone's income, including the top quintile went down. Of course, the top 1% still continued to gain despite the downturn, but you knew that.


I know you don't understand taxes on incomes of this level, so I'll dumb it down for you.

Because of the infinite loopholes in the 50's when the MTR was 90% on the super wealthy, it was not uncommon for a 10 million dollar earner to pay taxes on about 2 1/2 million. That's about 20% net.

[XingTheRubicon]

It is the loopholes in the tax code that is the problem, not the tax rates themselves...

Go with Rom's plan to limit total deductions...25k a year, 50k a year...I don't give a damn but that would still allow the lower wage earners maximum deductions and limit deductions on the wealthy...and we would avoid all the hell raising about reducing home mortgage deductions or charitable giving or whatever pet deduction every tax payer or congressman believes in.

Exactly.

[BermudaSooner]

I know you don't understand taxes on incomes of this level, so I'll dumb it down for you.

Because of the infinite loopholes in the 50's when the MTR was 90% on the super wealthy, it was not uncommon for a 10 million dollar earner to pay taxes on about 2 1/2 million. That's about 20% net.

Exactly...I have yet to see a lib pulling out a "net tax rate" chart to make this point. What the rates are and what was paid are much different. They only pull out anecdotes like Buffet...or Romney who gave 30% of his income to charity to say the rich don't pay enough...then point back to an era when marginal rates were high, but the wealthy's share of the tax burden was actually less!

[rock on sooner]

It is the loopholes in the tax code that is the problem, not the tax rates themselves...

Go with Rom's plan to limit total deductions...25k a year, 50k a year...I don't give a damn but that would still allow the lower wage earners maximum deductions and limit deductions on the wealthy...and we would avoid all the hell raising about reducing home mortgage deductions or charitable giving or whatever pet deduction every tax payer or congressman believes in.

Only problem here is the "bucket" size. Romney was quoted here in IA that
he suggested $17K, $25K, even $50K...then he said that high earners may
not even have a bucket!. Not my words, his.

I still think Clinton tax rates and measured, consistent spending cuts can
co exist with efforts to increase growth, which, by the way, is increasing,
albeit slowly. I don't see how you can all of a sudden jump to 4% growth,
otherwise it would have already happened.

[LiveLaughLove]

http://visualeconsite.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/Income_Corp_CapitalGains_Rates-650x603.png

Here's a chart for you.

Here's another chart:

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/assets_c/2012/08/Pew_History_Middle_Class_Families_Income_History-thumb-615x447-96949.png

This shows that during some of the periods of the highest marginal taxes on the rich, the middle class had the biggest income gains. With the post-2000 tax cuts, everyone's income, including the top quintile went down. Of course, the top 1% still continued to gain despite the downturn, but you knew that.

Do you seriously expect anyone to believe that the rich actually PAID 91% of their income and were just hunky dory with that? Your side has the gullible idiots on it, not ours.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/21/krugmans-twinkie-defense/


According to this CRS study, that 91% marginal rate produced an effective income tax rate on the top o.o1 percent of only about 45%. Krugman himself appears to be relying on Piketty and Saez–but they come in with an even lower figure, 31%.


For the bottom half of the One Percent–99 to 99.5th percentiles of the income distribution–the effective tax rate was 34 % in the high-marginal-rate 1960s and 31% in the low-marginal-rate 2004.

Truth is, I suspect you were aware of these effective rates, but chose to only show the marginal rates.

So the very tip top .01% paid 45%, while the rest of the top 1% paid 34% in actual payments to the treasury. Sounds kind of like, oh I don't know, TODAY. BEFORE Obama get's his way anyways.

But by all means, please continue trying to ruin our society through class warfare and pretend these aren't the people that create the jobs and fund the small business ideas. Please pretend they will be more than happy to keep giving money to the treasury to waste.

That's what California thought too. Hey, we're California. No one will want to move from our weather and our beaches. Yeah, that's working out well for them. Just like it will all of us.

[LiveLaughLove]

Only problem here is the "bucket" size. Romney was quoted here in IA that
he suggested $17K, $25K, even $50K...then he said that high earners may
not even have a bucket!. Not my words, his.

I still think Clinton tax rates and measured, consistent spending cuts can
co exist with efforts to increase growth, which, by the way, is increasing,
albeit slowly. I don't see how you can all of a sudden jump to 4% growth,
otherwise it would have already happened.

The Clinton tax rates, but the Obama spending rates can't coincide.

The only cuts Obama has proposed are defense spending cuts of half a trillion. There's a shocker. That won't get us anywhere close to serious-ville.

In fact, I believe he actually proposed another stimulus spending bill also. There's a true spend thrift if ever I've seen one.

All of this tax rate talk is a sideshow to the problem of the spending itself. None of it matters at all if they won't even talk about actual entitlement reform.

[badger]

anyone have any predictions how this will all turn out? Will the tax cuts just expire and everyone have to have higher rates?

i could see the dems threatening that, because they know they can just write up a "tax cut" bill after the fact for everyone they want to receive a tax cut, knowing that it's political suicide to vote down a tax cut.

really... I agree with Tom Cole that they just need to pass what they can at this point and worry about the rest later. doing that will give stocks and consumer confidence a nice boost during the holiday season. ho ho ho

[pphilfran]

They will have some last second, cobbled together piece of crap that won't go after any of the serious problems and then next year we will be facing the same problems, only bigger and harder to correct...

[LiveLaughLove]

anyone have any predictions how this will all turn out? Will the tax cuts just expire and everyone have to have higher rates?

i could see the dems threatening that, because they know they can just write up a "tax cut" bill after the fact for everyone they want to receive a tax cut, knowing that it's political suicide to vote down a tax cut.

really... I agree with Tom Cole that they just need to pass what they can at this point and worry about the rest later. doing that will give stocks and consumer confidence a nice boost during the holiday season. ho ho ho

I believe all of the tax cuts will expire, and then Obama will offer tax cuts to the middle class and lower (not sure how you pay less than zero, except just as a kickback for votes). That way he is the hero coming to the rescue, and also so they will be called the Obama tax cuts instead of the Bush tax cuts.

Sounds petty, but these politicians think in those terms.

There will be no significant cuts of any kind.

[rock on sooner]

The Clinton tax rates, but the Obama spending rates can't coincide.

The only cuts Obama has proposed are defense spending cuts of half a trillion. There's a shocker. That won't get us anywhere close to serious-ville.

In fact, I believe he actually proposed another stimulus spending bill also. There's a true spend thrift if ever I've seen one.

All of this tax rate talk is a sideshow to the problem of the spending itself. None of it matters at all if they won't even talk about actual entitlement reform.

LLL, I agree. That's why I contend that serious, measured non-
military otherwise across the board spending cuts and silly ear
mark elinination be coupled with Clinton tax rates.

I just watched Boehner pontificating for the camera about Obama's
proposal being not a serious one. Seems clear to me that Boehner
doesn't recognize an opening offer in a horse trading session. That,
and he has no offer of his own. Phil is probably right about some
cobbled together POS. Badger had the right idea with the election...
throw all the bums out. It is really frustration personified!

[rock on sooner]

On another point about the additional spending, IF that spending was
for infrastructure and real additional job creation ( a la WPA/CCC) I'd
be all for it. Otherwise, it's just pizzing in the wind.

[okie52]

LLL, I agree. That's why I contend that serious, measured non-
military otherwise across the board spending cuts and silly ear
mark elinination be coupled with Clinton tax rates.

I just watched Boehner pontificating for the camera about Obama's
proposal being not a serious one. Seems clear to me that Boehner
doesn't recognize an opening offer in a horse trading session. That,
and he has no offer of his own. Phil is probably right about some
cobbled together POS. Badger had the right idea with the election...
throw all the bums out. It is really frustration personified!

Rockon-are you for returning all rates to the Clinton tax rates?

[rock on sooner]

Rockon-are you for returning all rates to the Clinton tax rates?
Yeah, why not?

[okie52]

Yeah, why not?

Other than potentially hurting the economy, I have no problem with it. Theoretically you would get 4 times the tax revenues by raising rates for everyone vs just doing it vs the rich.

[rock on sooner]

Clinton's tax rates would bring in something like $2.35 trillion more
than Obama's plan over a ten year span. While the economy might
wobble for a couple of quarters, in the long run, we would be a stronger
country. The real rub would be to keep Congress..both parties..from
running out and spending the additional $$$.

[KantoSooner]

This is a straight question. No snark intended. If anyone knows:

During the Clinton years, how much did the rising market and thus capital gains taxation and taxation of insane bonuses gain for the government vs simple income tax?

I vaguely remember listening to some talking head explain that the rising stock market (which was driven by the rise of computer chips (silicon valley/internet startups, chip/computer companies, automation in factories, etc)) had more to do with the budget surplus than base tax policy. Can't remember the numbers cited, not even within orders of magnitude, though.

[soonercruiser]

http://visualeconsite.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/Income_Corp_CapitalGains_Rates-650x603.png

Here's a chart for you.

Here's another chart:

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/assets_c/2012/08/Pew_History_Middle_Class_Families_Income_History-thumb-615x447-96949.png

This shows that during some of the periods of the highest marginal taxes on the rich, the middle class had the biggest income gains. With the post-2000 tax cuts, everyone's income, including the top quintile went down. Of course, the top 1% still continued to gain despite the downturn, but you knew that.

Statics are now meaningless Mid!
The gobment says that it will now adjust the poverty income level along with inflation.
This means that the poor, and likely middle class of incomes will never, NEVER look like they are gaining!
Income never averages up with inflation in the long-term.
This is a classic socialist tactic!

[soonercruiser]

income went down because of 9/11 and the latest economic meltdown...tax rates had nothing to do with an increase or decrease in wealth...

If you want increased income and federal revenue...grow the economy...repeat after me....grow the economy...

Phil,
Do you happen to notice that all the Dems and Liberal media never include this in the discussions on balancing the budget?
Duh!

We need more jobs! That will considerably help tax revenues!
Welfare doesn't!

[soonercruiser]

THIS^^^^^

[FaninAma]

Exactly...I have yet to see a lib pulling out a "net tax rate" chart to make this point. What the rates are and what was paid are much different. They only pull out anecdotes like Buffet...or Romney who gave 30% of his income to charity to say the rich don't pay enough...then point back to an era when marginal rates were high, but the wealthy's share of the tax burden was actually less!

The historic tax revenue v. GDP has remained relatively stable. What has increased tremendously is government spending as a percentage of GDP.

Repeat after me.....borrowing and spending enriches no one but the money changers.

We currently have a fascist socialist government where the banking elite prospers through their control of the political class.

[pphilfran]

This is a straight question. No snark intended. If anyone knows:

During the Clinton years, how much did the rising market and thus capital gains taxation and taxation of insane bonuses gain for the government vs simple income tax?

I vaguely remember listening to some talking head explain that the rising stock market (which was driven by the rise of computer chips (silicon valley/internet startups, chip/computer companies, automation in factories, etc)) had more to do with the budget surplus than base tax policy. Can't remember the numbers cited, not even within orders of magnitude, though.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=161

[Midtowner]

Truth is, I suspect you were aware of these effective rates, but chose to only show the marginal rates.
So the very tip top .01% paid 45%, while the rest of the top 1% paid 34% in actual payments to the treasury. Sounds kind of like, oh I don't know, TODAY. BEFORE Obama get's his way anyways.

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. The top 1% pay a much lower effective tax rate than the top marginal rate. Much lower than regular middle class folk who don't rely on capital gains for their income.


But by all means, please continue trying to ruin our society through class warfare and pretend these aren't the people that create the jobs and fund the small business ideas. Please pretend they will be more than happy to keep giving money to the treasury to waste.

Oh there's been class warfare, that much is for certain. The top 1% is winning and it's not close.

[SoonerorLater]

Oh there's been class warfare, that much is for certain. The top 1% is winning and it's not close.[/QUOTE]

In a capitalistic society shouldn't we be happy and congratulate such people if they have earned it honestly? Shouldn't we as a people be free of envy?

[Midtowner]

In a capitalistic society shouldn't we be happy and congratulate such people if they have earned it honestly? Shouldn't we as a people be free of envy?

In a truly capitalistic society, no. We're all out to get ours and hopefully not break the system (which works if we all seek our self interests). If I can knock them down a couple of pegs and that helps me out, that's capitalism for you. They make a lot of money, but they aren't nobility. They've helped preside over a system which has created huge wealth and income disparities and a lot more have-nots than haves. The have-nots are fighting back for the first time in a long time. What did they expect? We'd all just sit here and be happy with that and congratulate them for screwing the rest of us over?

[pphilfran]

Clinton's tax rates would bring in something like $2.35 trillion more
than Obama's plan over a ten year span. While the economy might
wobble for a couple of quarters, in the long run, we would be a stronger
country. The real rub would be to keep Congress..both parties..from
running out and spending the additional $$$.

From 1988 -1992 (5 years) the highest tax rate was from 28% to 31%...the avg revenue as a percent of GDP - 18.0%

From 1993 - 1997 (5 years) the highest tax rate was 39.6%...the avg revenue as a percent of GDP - 18.4%

From 1998 - 2002 (5 years) the highest tax rate was still above 39%...the avg revenue as a percent of GDP - 19.5%

Now lets look at cap gains during those same time periods....keep in mind we have a great economy that was generating a lot of wealth...also, the LTCG rate was at, or above 29% and only dropped to 21% in 1998 until 2003

1988 - 1992 - .57% of GDP (point 57%)
1993 - 1997 - .85% of GDP (point 85%)
1998 - 2002 - .99% of GDP (point 99%)

Now, let's pull out those cap gains increases from the income tax numbers and see what we get...

1988 - 1992 - 17.41% of GDP
1993 - 1997 - 17.53% of GDP (it appears that the higher income tax rates did nothing to increase revenue outside of LTCG)
1998 - 2002 - 18.49% of GDP (in this time frame we see revenue increase...why in this 5 year period but no the prior 5 year period)

Here is what we have...
Cap gains revenue increased even though the rate was decreased
Total revenue (outside of LTCG) didn't grow the first 5 year period of the Clinton tax increase
Total revenue (outside of LTCG) grew by 1% of GDP during the last five year period - a period of unprecedented economic, productivity, and stock market growth

So let's take best case and say we will see a 1% gain in revenue as a percent of GDP (as my data shows, it ain't gonna happen)

15 trillion dollar economy...150 billion in revenue...max...while we deal with trillion dollar deficits...

All the above numbers are from...

Cap gains http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=161
Gen revenue - table 1.2 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

[Midtowner]

That'd be accurate if this one thing was all that was on the President's agenda. It also has a great symbolic value for the President's base in that he's actually willing to prioritize the finances of the 98% as opposed to the top 2%. You can't ever talk about tax without talking about politics.

[LiveLaughLove]

In a truly capitalistic society, no. We're all out to get ours and hopefully not break the system (which works if we all seek our self interests). If I can knock them down a couple of pegs and that helps me out, that's capitalism for you. They make a lot of money, but they aren't nobility. They've helped preside over a system which has created huge wealth and income disparities and a lot more have-nots than haves. The have-nots are fighting back for the first time in a long time. What did they expect? We'd all just sit here and be happy with that and congratulate them for screwing the rest of us over?

Geez, you sound like such a proletariat. Vive La Revolution!

Last I checked you're a lawyer not a ditch digger.

[LiveLaughLove]

That'd be accurate if this one thing was all that was on the President's agenda. It also has a great symbolic value for the President's base in that he's actually willing to prioritize the finances of the 98% as opposed to the top 2%. You can't ever talk about tax without talking about politics.

As long as we all know it's a political game and the best outcome for the country isn't really what matters.

What matters is keeping the rabble roused. That's the uniter as President we've come to know and love.

[SoonerorLater]

In a truly capitalistic society, no. We're all out to get ours and hopefully not break the system (which works if we all seek our self interests). If I can knock them down a couple of pegs and that helps me out, that's capitalism for you. They make a lot of money, but they aren't nobility. They've helped preside over a system which has created huge wealth and income disparities and a lot more have-nots than haves. The have-nots are fighting back for the first time in a long time. What did they expect? We'd all just sit here and be happy with that and congratulate them for screwing the rest of us over?

Then the more appropriate response would be to correct the problem at the root source and implement Laissez-Faire capitalism with a reformed monetary system.

[Midtowner]

Geez, you sound like such a proletariat. Vive La Revolution!

Last I checked you're a lawyer not a ditch digger.

I guess the difference is that I work with the poor quite a bit, whether it's in a volunteer capacity or whether they're a client. I actually have some clue as to what the real poor in this country are like. They're decent, hardworking folks for the most part and they pay more of a % of their income in tax than someone making millions in capital gains. I think that's wrong.

I'm not a communist, you don't have to make jackass comments like that to get your point across.

[Midtowner]

Then the more appropriate response would be to correct the problem at the root source and implement Laissez-Faire capitalism with a reformed monetary system.

So long as strong union laws are a part of the picture, that's fine with me. If employers can control the supply of work and pay, unions can control the availability of labor. The free market will work and efficiencies would be found. The trouble is, with our political system, each group, labor and employers are constantly looking to rewrite the rules to get a leg up. Laissez-faire capitalism really can't exist in a country with a government like ours. Money controls way too much.