WEll...the Obama made it official today, if you make 250+ a year your taxes are going up and if you make over a million your taxes are astronomically going up. Why should the middle class worry about tax increases on millionaires?? Because they're the employers in this country. FYI big corporations are no longer the primary business owners in this nation it's small business owners.

Btw the estate tax will rise from 0 to 55% next year

For someone working in the White House, he sure should know better. It is local property and sales taxes that support fire departments. Unlike federal income taxes, they are not progressive. If his water was provided by local government, it is probably funded through an enterprise fund that derives its revenue from utility rates which are universally applied per gallon.

Thank you, Captain Literal. The point is that he was taxed at six times the average and he wasn't receiving six times the services. It was an example so portray how a small percentage of the population pays the vast majority of the federal income taxes.

And, by the way, chances are that the higher income earners within a municipality pay more property taxes, as they probably own a property assessed at a higher value. Still, the fire department arrives at the same speed to the $200,000 house as it does to the $800,000 house in the same municipality. Actually, it probably comes faster to the lower value house, as a higher priced home is probably located further from the noisy firehouse.

Edit: Here's the exact quote, by the way, if anyone's interested:

I left Gage Whitney making $400,000 a year, which means I paid 27 times the national average in income tax. I paid my fair share, and the fair share of 26 other people. And I’m happy to, ‘cause that’s the only way it’s gonna work. And it’s in my best interest that everybody be able to go to schools and drive on roads. But I don’t get 27 votes on Election Day. The fire department doesn’t come to my house 27 times faster and the water doesn’t come out of my faucet 27 times hotter. The top one percent of wage earners in this country pay for 22 percent of this country. Let’s not call them names while they’re doing it, is all I’m saying.

The problem with these discussions is that both sides tend to shade things to their POV. Not surprising, that's human nature.

It's true that the income tax system is progressive. There are some very good reasons for that. Primarily this is because of the declining marginal utility of income. It's also true however that the Social Security tax is regressive along with such excise taxes on gasoline, tobacco, and alcohol, as well as local (flat) state income taxes, property taxes.

When you add it all up and then add in the fact that the truly rich receive more of their "income" in different (and lower taxed ) forms that W-2 folks, it not clear that our complete tax system (state, local, federal) is as progressive as we might wish it were.

Why was there not an explosion of demand and hiring during the years that the Bush tax cuts were in force?

Why was there not an explosion of demand, investment and hiring this year when the estate tax is zero?

Less than 2% of tax returns reporting small business income are filed by individuals or couples in the top two income brackets. 98% of small business owners will be unaffected by the reversion back to Clinton era top personal income rates.

Debunking Tax Cut Myths

This war is absolutely draining the treasury. Every dime of the trillion dollars spent so far is borrowed. So it's not accurate to say we're spending money on the war, when really we're borrowing every second of the day to finance this war. REally it's the 'windfall' costs that haven't yet been accounted for that's caused so much hesitancy in all the markets and helping to freeze hiring.

In addition to the factors I mentioned above, all of the markets are quagmired right now because of the literally THOUSANDS of regulatory costs that are set to take place under the Obama administration. Hiring markets, financial markets, housing markets, all of them are stagnant right now in anticipation of these astronomical rises in regulatory costs i.e universal healthcare program to name one of hundreds.

The problem is that taxpayers who make say 6 figures a year already pay so much in taxes as is when compared to the rest of the population.

Everywhere you hear stories of people who make say 500 thousand a year talking about how it's not worth the time to try and make more because it will simply be seized in taxes, and this was in the supposedly conservative Bush adminstration I'm talking about, the problem is even more compounded now when you add to this all of the regulatory costs that are set to be inacted by the Obama administration.

Small businesses face an annual regulatory cost of $7647 per employee and you can bet this number is about to go through the roof. I can have my accountant at your bedside in 20 minutes to show you line-by-line the increased regulatory costs facing my business if you'd like. ;))

Uh, ok. Lemme get this straight. You're blaming the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for hurting the economy even though the people that lied us into war in Iraq and said Afghanistan would be a cakewalk are the EXACT SAME people who said that tax cuts for the rich would be the best way to stimulate the economy, the wars would pay for themselves without any tax increases, and tax cuts would not raise the deficit. Fool me once and all that. The people-i.e liberals- who were against the tax cuts and the wars and pointed out that the deficit would rise immensely were right; the neocons were wrong.



Again, Obama has only been around for just under two years. You would have to show why lower estate and income taxes didn't produce the growth that the right-wingers said they would. What the change in tax policies did do very effectively was increase the income and wealth at the top end and increase the level of poverty in the country and increase what's euphemistically referred to as "job flexibility". Wages and growth remained stagnant even as corporate profits increased dramatically. Returning top marginal rates to Clinton era levels isn't going to kill the economy. This debate was already held in 1993. We have the evidence.



I do happen to make six figures a year and I am not concerned about a modest increase in taxes-primarily because I am not yet in that top 2%. But even if I were I wouldn't be concerned about going from 36% to 39%. The problem with this economy is simply not something which can be solved via supply side bromides. The problem is lack of demand. Per CBO, tax cuts for high earners are the least effective way to stimulate the economy. Just about every reputable economist also concedes that point. The middle class and working class are what drives the economy. If these people don't have secure jobs and good wages, things stagnate.

Nobody LIKES paying taxes. It has been my experience that the more some people make, the more they complain. But their complaints are not in and of themselves evidence that a progressive income tax system is a bad idea. But as shown, the overwhelming majority of small business owners will be unaffected by reversion to older tax rates.

Tax cuts for high earners are also one of the most effective ways to increase the deficit but usually all the deficit hawks grow rather silent about that. Supply side tax cuts and excessive deregulation of financial markets played a significant role in bringing us to the brink of disaster. Now is certainly not the time to repeat past mistakes. Even someone as right-wing as Greenspan says those tax cuts should expire.

So while the decision on whether to extend the tax cuts will have a lasting impact on the deficit and on how the nation’s tax burden is distributed, economists and tax experts say it is unlikely to offer much immediate relief for high unemployment and sluggish growth.

“It may have some small impact along the margins, but firms don’t hire based on tax breaks; they hire based on demand,” said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. “So a lot of the tax breaks are likely to be rewarding people and companies for what they were going to do anyway.”

Tax Cuts: Good Politics , Poor Stimulus

Well, you'll have to forgive me as I stopped reading your post at "the people that lied us into war in Iraq and said Afghanistan..." After a weekend of watching 9-11 documentaries and memorials I've little forbearance for such comments. We'll have to continue our chess match another time..

Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, FN.

Yeah, well, we hung the bastard anyway and I won't lose a wink of sleep over it. But I guess in your mind Saddam Hussein was correct when he said in 2002 that the tyrant of our era is Zionism and America; that he was perfectly justified to call for the destruction of America about 500 times throughout his 'presidency'; and that the 1,000 plus Al Queda members in Iraq were seperate from the ones who flew the planes into the towers??

Right. And those terrorists who seized the Moscow theatre resulting in the deaths of over 200 people one year after 911? They operated in a vacuum completely seperate from the Middle East and places like Iraq and received their financing from where, the Moon?? And the hundreds of other Islamic terrorist attacks carried out throughout the world over the past 30 years, not a dime came from Iraq, huh? And I guess there's not thousands of terrorist nut-jobs being given safe-haven in Iraq at this very moment. Mmm hmm, sure.

I realize you always have to get the last word in, so I'll eagerly await your response. And I don't expect you to lose that historical chip on your shoulder that resonates in almost every post you make but it might help if you did.

I agree that most of what you've written about Saddam Hussein is true. However, why did the first President Bush not finish the job back in 1991? General Schwarzkopf all but got down on his hands and knees and begged him to let him do so. So, why didn't he? Would the attacks on September 11th been derailed if he had??

I agree, Babe. But we, as Democrats, really can't go there, because the same can be said for Bill Clinton and bin Laden.

If Clinton took him out back in the '90s, when he was CLEARLY within our reach, would 9/11 have happened anyway?

Who knows?

Chances are, another hatemonger might have pulled it off anyway. Maybe. Maybe not.

I don't know, I got a little emotional there but my point about the economy stands.

I've said this before, yes, the attack on the Cole, etc. were all precursors of the horror to come. However, I believe there were two reasons:

1. We were too fat and happy to make waves. It was a time of unparalleled prosperity for many, and we honestly didn't care.

2. Now, with 20/20 hindsight, we can say this. But could anyone really envision that madmen would fly commercial jets into buildings? I know that my first thought after hearing that a plane had flown into the World Trade Center was that it was a small plane that accidentally flew into the tower.

Keep in mind that the US led the invasion of Iraq in 1991 under at least two UN Resolutions and the limitations they placed on the extent of the invasion. You should also keep in mind that President Bush and the members of his administration stated that the toppling of the Hussein regime would have led to other problems in the regime not the least of which would have been with what to replace the Hussein regime.

[quote=olivantYou should also keep in mind that President Bush and the members of his administration stated that the toppling of the Hussein regime would have led to other problems in the regime not the least of which would have been with what to replace the Hussein regime. [/quote]

Which is something we've discovered, isn't it?

I can only take responsibility for or respond to what I wrote, not to hypothetical "bad thoughts" that you think I have. What you're doing here is constructing a straw man and responding to things I did not write. It's a logical fallacy.

I don't know why you seem to lose it anytime people disagree with you but it happens, deal with it. Not everyone sees the world as you do or as I do. I'm okay with that. People ought to be able to disagree honestly without being disagreeable. However as the saying goes, everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.

Neither Iraq nor Saddam Hussein had any ties to 9-11. None.
None of the hijackers were Iraqis. Not a single one. Most of them were Saudis. The actual attack was planned in Afghanistan and Germany. Hussein had no nuclear weapons, no biological weapons, no chemical weapons. Iraq was not attacking or threatening to attack the United States.

That the statement of these facts causes you to go off the deep end is unfortunate. Conflating the evil of the 9-11 attack with the evil of Saddam Hussein is a rhetorical trick used by the Bush Administration to gin up support for a war on Iraq.
Iraq had no ties to Al-Quaeda. Al-Quaeda was not in Iraq until after the US invasion. The Iraq war cost the US over 4000 dead, 31000 wounded, and at least $700 billion. At least 100,000 Iraqis were killed and over 2 million are refugees. I don't think those were positive outcomes.

Unsurprisingly when the same people who assured the American people of all the exact opposite of the facts on Iraq come back and tell the American people that certain economic policies are the only way to go, I think people should question their motives and demand proof. Silly me.



Hmm. I don't know about any "historical chip on my shoulder". I am inclined to think you are constructing another straw man. My posts today were about double entendre radio ads from the seventies, the futility of Lions football and old school soul. Perhaps you can explain the ominous undertones involved in those?
But in the meantime I'll post what and when I want to post and you can do the same.

I have no more desire to beat dead horses than anyone else here. But if someone says 2+2 =5 I might respond to that.

Okay, 2+2= 5 .

Heretic!!!!!!!

The putrid mendacity that manifests amongst today's bogus surrealist left is detrimental to the security of this nation.
I'm afraid some folks don't realize this at all, others are indifferent to it, while some serve to progagate it.

Just my two cents

You've been talking to olivant too long.

Mendacity? I don't even know what that means.

Okay, I do. But I wouldn't use that word in mixed company.

PErsonal attacks are a no-no, Sc, and I like and respect everyone in this thread and on these boards.\\

Olivant, you're on a roll lately!

Geez, now you sound more like Fredo.

Speaking of putrid mendacity.....One of NJ governor Chris Christie's biggest challenges is trying to reform the pension system for state employees (teacher's union included). The pension fund is $46 BILLION in the red. Yes, that number is BILLION. How do get in a hole that deep?

Just keep closing your eyes and letting things pass by.
Call Obama, he will fix it for them!

Getting dressed in the morning?? Man, oh man, is he big, like dangerously so. It reminds me of something John Goodman said once - "I don't know if you've looked at me recently, but I'm one prime rib away from a heart attack."

I heard him on Imus a couple of days ago. Imus commented on his apparent weight loss. Christie said he is working on it. He also said that he once hit 550 lbs. .....maybe a half a rib eye would do it.

Hee! At least he has a sense of humor about it! He was in a "Cake Boss" episode because the bakery was making the cake for his inauguration party, and I was shocked at how heavy he really was, and how heavy his little boy was, too. I hope he is losing it, for the kids at the very least.