Anyone who thinks this is a good idea please comment

[wauwinet]

Can anyone who thinks this is a good direction for our country please say why?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081106717.html

I am fortunate to be a guy who stands to make a lot of money if the GOP gets it way and even I think it's crazy.

How can 99.9999% of Americans who are going to be hurt by this think it is a good idea in a time when our deficit is going to kill us?

[scattered_grass]

Can anyone who thinks this is a good direction for our country please say why?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081106717.html

I am fortunate to be a guy who stands to make a lot of money if the GOP gets it way and even I think it's crazy.

How can 99.9999% of Americans who are going to be hurt by this think it is a good idea in a time when our deficit is going to kill us?

you consider 250k a year as being rich?

[Parsifal]

If we don't mind hurting 2% of the population so that 98% will benifit, then I can come up with all kinds of new policies which would improve all our lives.

For starters, lets take all the toll operators from toll boothes and turn them into slaves. It only hurts a very few and nobody really cares about them and we all benifit.

[scattered_grass]

You cannot keep squeezing the "wealthy", as they are the ones that will buy boats, build beach houses, and demand services which all provide jobs. If anything, the 250k mark needs to be raised significantly, at least in the millions, although out of principal, this still punishes those for success, which is not right at all. I think the same percentage should come out of everyone's check for taxes.

[Parsifal]

This issue is THE main differnce between liberals and conservatives. If we take money away from people with the idea of incearsing government revenue, then those people aren't going to spend the money they have left. They won't build homes, buy boats, take trips etc. That will end up costing the govnerment. Does anybody here remember the "luxury" tax on boats over $100,000 in the early 90's? The gov actually lost money by imposing that tax and almost killed the boating industry. A tax increase is just a bad idea. It will not increase federal savings. It will only increase federal spending.

[wauwinet]

I don't consider $250k per year to be rich although only 1.5% of americans gross that much. The thing that I'm disturbed by is the tax cut for those making $1,000,000 annually and over. I do consider them wealthy.

People making over $1,000,000 per year are not going to buy a boat if their tax rate goes down. They already have more than enough money to buy a boat and if they want one, they already have one.

The idea of higher earners paying a higher percentage does seem unfair and in a way it does punish hard work. Here's how I have always justified it, even though I can still argue that my share is too high.

I used to own a company that developed medical products. We employed as many as 100 employees and owned several large buildings. So, my company taxed the infrastructure far more than if I was simply a guy who worked for the same company and making a much smaller salary. My increased taxes pay for the fire and police at not only my home, but at our offices, warehouse and labs. We often recruited professionals to join us whose children then joined local public or private schools that my taxes helped support and when those kids broke their arm, they went to the hospital my taxes supported.

There are very few high grossing professions that do not put a disproportionate strain on the local economy and thereby justify (somewhat) their higher tax rate. Just a thought.

This deficit thing is going to be the 800 Lb gorilla for the next 10 years and Washington better do something about it.

If one of my kids came home from college and said "Dad, I maxed out my credit card, but don't worry, I bought a boat." I do not think I would be pleased.

[Parsifal]

If I thought increasing taxs on anybody would help, I'd be all for it. I think it's only going to make things worse. The Dems want it to pay for their increases, but sooner or later they're going to need even more money. It won't stop until the whole thing comes crashing down and that's not good for anyone.

We have to insist that the government control their spending. They've had a blank check for too long and we underwrite that check.

[longfisher]

You cannot keep squeezing the "wealthy", as they are the ones that will buy boats, build beach houses, and demand services which all provide jobs. If anything, the 250k mark needs to be raised significantly, at least in the millions, although out of principal, this still punishes those for success, which is not right at all. I think the same percentage should come out of everyone's check for taxes.

This is a fascinating topic for me as you know I often charge that there are two Americas, a refrain stolen openly from the now-discredited Sen. Edwards.

Here's the facts:

Most people who become millionaires have confidence in their own abilities. They do not spend time worrying about whether or not their parents were wealthy. They do not believe that one must be born wealthy. Conversely, people of modest backgrounds who believe that only the wealthy produce millionaires are predetermined to remain non-affluent. Have you always thought that most millionaires are born with silver spoons in their mouths? If so, consider the following facts that our research uncovered about American millionaires:

* Only 19 percent receive any income or wealth of any kind from a trust fund or an estate.

* Fewer than 20 percent inherited 10 percent or more of their wealth.

* More than half never received as much as $1 in inheritance.

* Fewer than 25 percent ever received "an act of kindness" of $10,000 or more from their parents, grandparents, or other relatives.

* Ninety-one percent never received, as a gift, as much as $1 of the ownership of a family business.

* Nearly half never received any college tuition from their parents or other relatives.

* Fewer than 10 percent believe they will ever receive an inheritance in the future.

So, it appears that the majority but by no mean all the wealthy are what should be called, "nuveaux riche", those who accumulated their wealth in one generation. So, there may be substance to the charge that taxes on the wealthy, IF PUNATIVE, are punishing success.

But there two things that also need to be considered. Firstly, there's also clear evidence that the wealthy's offspring are substantially more likely to be wealthy themselves. This suggests that not all things that facilitate the accumulation of wealth are the direct transferance of wealth itself. Education, home environment, connections, habits and drive, however admirable or decadent, must also play a factor in whether or not someone becomes wealthy.

Secondly, we must be careful to consider whether the realtively small amount that the wealthy pay on their investment income relative to what their secretaries pay on their salaries is punitive at all. From what I've seen the secretaries pay far more of their earnings in taxes on a percentage basis than the wealthy do, especially if their principle means of accumulating wealthy is through investments.

So, further taxing investment income and other forms of income the wealthy may have which is subject to taxes substantially less on a percentage basis than what the common man pays is hardly punitive. It's just good policy, IMHO.

I don't support taxing punitively. But I also like to see everyone pull their weight. I'm sure most of you agree with that.

LF

[longfisher]

This issue is THE main differnce between liberals and conservatives.

The main difference between liberals and conservatives is that the former tend to believe in communal remedies for societies ills and the latter tend to believe that they don't have a personal stake in making society better.

Sure, making society better costs money. So, that's where you might get the idea that the difference between the two is the way they treat money. But the differences are much more fundamental than that.

Liberals see society as a whole which includes everyone and conservatives seem to view society as something that they can take or leave at will.

When it suits and benefits them conservatives will take what society's safety nets give. When they don't need help but others do they'll decry having to be a part of society and contribute to the well being of others. Base hypocrasy, of course.

Liberals stay society-oriented all the time. The consider themselves part of a larger entity than conservatives to. They're less hypocritical as a result.

Remember, I'm libertarian....before you start bashing.

LF

[wauwinet]

Please keep in mind that a "millionaire" is someone who has $1,000,000 in equity-not someone who earns $1,000,000 per year.

I'd wager that most of the "millionaires" in this country make less than $250,000 per year. They are the hardworking people who deserve a tax break (and the ones who populate the "research" above). The top 100th of the top 1%guys at the top can afford it a lot more.