i disagree. Putting the Federal Reserve printing presses on hold, there IS only so much money to go around. There needs to be poor people and rich people. Business owners and employees. If there is equally money, equal wealth, and equal incentive, you have created a socialistic environment.

If as a business owner, I have $100, and pay you $10 to work for me for an then I now have $90. I have less and you have more than before our engagement. I now must bill/TAKE money from our customer to make up for my expense of you working.

I need you to work for me because I can only accomplish so much by myself. You need me to hire you so you can earn money to support your family. Its a vicious circle. Those on top win, those on the bottom dont necessarily lose but they dont and shouldnt make as much as those at the top taking all of the risk.

I like what someone else mentioned above about charity/social programs. Democrats tend to implement social programs to distribute money where they see fit. Why not take a portion of the money you would pay towards income tax and give it to a charity of YOUR choice to offset your tax bill a bit.

It is a shame that the welfare system is what it is. I feel a total revamp is needed. If you are physically able to work, you should be working. End of story. No more free money for people that grew up in the system. There needs to be weekly inspections of disability cases, etc. Many people on these programs should be publicly embarrassed (ie. list of names in newspaper, bright colored food stamps at the grocery store) and ashamed for putting a strain on society.

ok im done

Here in Romania it could be a problem…

That whole idea means there is an assumption that there is a limited amount of money/wealth to be had, and if the other guy has it, I don’t – and can’t.

I tend to believe more in the idea that wealth is created, and just because some other guy has done well, doesn’t mean I can’t be successful as well.

We live in the greatest nation on earth – and everyone and anyone CAN be successful regardless of where they start out. They just have to apply themselves and work hard.

I think we need to set it up so that people are encouraged to lift themselves up by the bootstraps, make themselves successful and reward hard work. Let’s not penalize people for being successful!

As far as the “improving our standing” in the world, I don’t think we can ever really expect to be loved and/or respected by everyone. All nations have their own self interests at heart, and sometimes doing the right thing isn’t popular. I’m not one of the people who tend to think that Iraq was a complete debacle, or that nothing good came out of it. This past weekend we heard an address from an Iraqi pastor who talked about how much more freedom they have in Iraq now, as opposed to under Saddam Hussein. Before 2003 there were 4 state controlled churches, and this pastor was tortuted for trying to practice his Christian faith. Now they are free to worship, plant churches, and speak their minds (even though there is still the danger of violence/etc). They have started 40+ churches there in the past 5 years. There are challenges, but millions of people are more free!

Fact: “The rich” pay a greater percentage of total income taxes collected _after_ the bush tax cuts than before. This applies to the top 50%, top 25%, top 10% or top 1% of wage earners, take your pick. The bush tax cuts made our tax system _more_ progressive, not less progressive.

Fact: “The rich” pay much more then their “fair share” of taxes. Look up the numbers directly from the IRS on what the top 50%, top 25%, top 10% and top 1% pay vs the bottom 50%. The disparity only grew larger after the bush tax cuts. This is the reason “the rich” saw the greatest reduction in income taxes is because “the rich” pay the vast majority of income taxes. Unbelieveably, liberals aren’t satisfied that most of the bottom 50% of wage earners pay 0 dollars in income taxes every year, they want to give them tax rebates. How exactly can you call it a tax rebate when you didn’t pay any income taxes? Welfare is the correct term.

Fact: After bush lowered the capital gains tax rate from 20% to 15%, the federal government collected more total revenue from capital gains taxes. The same thing happened when clinton lowered capital gains tax rates from 28% to 20%. If you don’t understand why this occurs, look up what the Laffer Curve is. Liberals and Obama want to increase the capital gains tax rate despite the fact it will decrease total tax collections from capital gains just so they can stick it to “the rich”. Who cares what happens to the economy, as long as we can hurt “the rich”. Wasn’t it JFK who said no American is ever made better by pulling down a fellow American? Wise words.

Fact: When you tax something, you discourage it. Why do so many people think it is a good idea to tax “the rich”. “The rich” generally are the most productive members of society. Do we really want to discourage productivity?

Fact: Taxes don’t redistribute money, they redistribute people. California has a top state income tax rate of 10%. If I earn 1 million dollars a year, the state wants 100k. If I move to Nevada or Texas, I get to keep the 100k and can use it to pay the mortgage on a vacation property back in California. So what would you rather have, a reasonable % of my million dollars, or 10% of nothing when I get fed up and move to another state? Unfortunately, liberals are bad at math and want to bump the 10% rate even higher to drive more of California’s biggest tax payers out of state.

Fact: The welfare state has created essentially a greater than 100% tax rate on lower income people. Lets say an unemployed person receives the equivalent of $1500 dollars a month in benefits and he goes out and finds a job paying $1200 dollars a month. He now makes too much money to qualify for the benefits and loses the benefits that are worth more than he earns at his job. For every dollar he earns on the job he loses more than a dollar in benefits. Why on earth would this person choose to work to lose money? He isn’t stupid, and he doesn’t take the job. Through good intentions, we have created a system that creates an economic incentive to not work.

Jim, taxes absolutely should be considered during any business/investment decision. If the government wants 50% of my gains, and I’m looking for a 10% return on my investment, I will only look at investments that will earn 20% or better before taxes. If the government weren’t taking such a large cut, I would have much more investment choices to reach my desired 10% return.

I urge everyone reading this to not accept what I have said at face value and to fact check for themselves. I would hope they continue to do the same for all information they read elsewhere as well.

Congrats Obama – you made history tonight and I applaud you. Now let’s get to work to fix this nightmarish mess of the last 8.

“the idea is not to pander to be popular, but rather to strive to be something to be admired.”

Amen.

Here’s an interesting statistic I read the other day. In 2005, total federal, state, and local government expenditures on 85 welfare programs were $620 billion and the poverty count was 37 million persons. That means welfare expenditures per poor person were $16,750, or $67,000 for a poor family of four.

It makes me wonder who’s getting all the tax dollars you’re so willing to give to the poor. The poor evidently aren’t. You both might both be better off directly donating your earnings to a charity.

Given that the top 1% now pay more in taxes than the bottom 95%, I’m not entirely sure the statement below isn’t already occurring.

“Those who have benefited most from our ridiculous wealth need to help support the system that they benefited most from.”

Arguing that higher taxes somehow pulled the US out of the Great Depression is intellectually dishonest at best. The US’s robust economic activity during that time period can be solely attributed to massive increases in the demand for US goods and services (both domestic and international) brought about by WWII. This demand began before the US even entered WWII in the form of military supplies, steel, etc and lasted well past its conclusion as the US helped Europe rebuild.

You’re delusional if you think that a tax rate of 94% somehow benefited the US economy. In that case, why not have a 100% tax rate on all incomes. Then we’d all be rich!

Jim – Stop scaring everyone with facts about historical marginal tax rates. I might vomit straight into the monitor.

> 1/3 of the world stays mad at us because of
> envy of our wealth and natural resources. The
> only way to make them happy is to expand the
> concept of “wealth redistribution” to include
> them. Another 1/3 of the world hates us because
> we are not Muslim.

And don’t forget the rest that hate us for our FREEDOM!

Or maybe they just hate us because we meddle in their business, humiliate them, and try to force changes upon them to benefit us (and not even us, but the rich folks up top).