Joe the Plumber REALLY doesn't want to pay taxes

[Keller]

So much that in years past he hasn't! A true American patriot.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/10/joe-the-plumber.html

[Warriorbird]

...and a registered Republican.

[GSIVPlayer]

Personally i love what Obama will be doing to small business owners.. Looking foward him being elected i'll get medical coverage, which would be huge..

[Revalos]

That is kind of redonkulous that someone in the republican party might have considered to pay off that tax lien before McCain might have made him the centerpiece of his campaign. And got the guy a plumbing license from Grenada or something. Holy shit.

[diethx]

Hehe, yeah I just heard on the news like 20 minutes ago that he's not licensed and he owes back taxes. Doesn't anyone on McCain's team know how to do research? First Palin, now Joe-everyoneonTVwon'tstfuabouthim-the plumber!

[Parkbandit]

Hehe, yeah I just heard on the news like 20 minutes ago that he's not licensed and he owes back taxes. Doesn't anyone on McCain's team know how to do research? First Palin, now Joe-everyoneonTVwon'tstfuabouthim-the plumber!


Are you fucking dillusional? You think Joe the Plumber is some republican plant and part of McCain's master plan?

Fucking time for a tin foil hat.

[Moist Happenings]

Are you fucking dillusional? You think Joe the Plumber is some republican plant and part of McCain's master plan?

Fucking time for a tin foil hat.

I think that if McCain really wanted to press the issue of Joe the Plumber so hard, which he did at the debate, he should have done his research first. This coming out is just another nail in his coffin. Whatever hope he had to rectify his situation is going to be gone now.

[diethx]

Are you fucking dillusional? You think Joe the Plumber is some republican plant and part of McCain's master plan?

Fucking time for a tin foil hat.

It's delusional. And chill the fuck out, gramps, you're gonna have another stroke. I never said that, however, I think before McCain brought him up 20 fucking times in the debate last night, his camp should've done a little research about the guy since McCain was gonna talk about how Obama was gonna make his taxes so tough to pay, when apparently his taxes are ALREADY SO TOUGH TO PAY. :)

[Gan]

Politico and Bloomberg report that the State of Ohio has a $1,182.92 tax lien against Joe the Plumber for back income taxes
What a criminal.


WASHINGTON — The head of the House tax-writing committee acknowledged today that he owes about $5,000 to the Internal Revenue Service for failing to report income on his returns.

http://www.nysun.com/pics/7958_large.jpg (http://www.nysun.com/pics/7958.jpg)

Rep. Charles Rangel speaks at a press conference in Washington today.

But Rep. Charles Rangel (http://www.nysun.com/related_results.php?term=Charles+Rangel), who is chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, said at a news conference that this should not mean he must cede his high position in Congress.
Welcome to politics.

Maybe Joe the Plumber should run for Congress.

[Gan]

John McCain may have found a blue-collar face to help him argue that no American -- not even the richest 5 percent -- should pay higher taxes.

Joe the Plumber has weighed in on Wednesday's presidential debate and says that Barack Obama's tax plan "infuriates me."

"To be honest with you, that infuriates me," plumber Joe Wurzelbacher told "Nightline's" Terry Moran. "It's not right for someone to decide you made too much -- that you've done too good and now we're going to take some of it back."

"That's just completely wrong," he added.

Wurzelbacher told "Nightline" he heard some "scuttlebutt" that he might be raised at Wednesday's debate. He added, however, that he was not formally told by the McCain campaign of the senator's plans.

The plumber's brush with fame began on Sunday when he confronted Barack Obama outside of Toledo, Ohio. Wurzelbacher challenged the Democratic candidate on his plan to raise taxes on the top 5 percent of earners -- a policy which would, by the Obama campaign's own estimation, mean higher taxes for 184,000 small businesses.

"I'm getting ready to buy a company that makes 250 to 280 thousand dollars a year," Wurzelbacher told Obama. "Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?"

Under Obama's plan, individuals making more than $200,000 per year, or couples making more than $250,000 per year, would pay higher taxes on income, capital gains, and dividends. Starting ten years from now, Obama supports an additional 2-4 percent tax on individual income above $250,000 per year to help shore up the Social Security system.

To evaluate how Wurzelbacher and his wife would fare under Obama, one would need to know his wife's income (if any) plus what the plumber meant when he told Obama that the company he is getting ready to buy "makes" $250,000 - $280,000 per year.

Was Wurzelbacher referring to gross revenue or net profits?
Obama's higher taxes on small businesses would be leveled against those whose net profits exceed $250,000 per year, according to Obama's campaign.

While at least 184,000 small businesses would face higher taxes under Obama, the Illinois Democrat is also proposing a series of tax credits that could aid small businesses.

Obama has proposed a $3,000 tax credit for every new job that companies create in the United States over the next two years, a small business health tax credit on up to 50 percent of employee premiums paid by employers, and elimination of capital gains taxes on investments in small and start-up businesses.

Regardless of how Wurzelbacher would personally fare under the candidates' plans, he suggested to ABC News' Nightline that he is against all forms of progressive taxation.

During his telephone interview with ABC News, the Ohio plumber argued that the government should not tax some Americans at a higher percentage than others and argued that this principle should extend not only to taxpayers at his income-level but also to the world's richest man.

"I don't like it," said Wurzelbacher. "You know, me or -- you know, Bill Gates, I don't care who you are. If you worked for it, if it was your idea, and you implemented it, it's not right for someone to decide you made too much."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/joe-the-plumber.html

[Solkern]

I agree, I don't like how someone thinks that since you make more then others, you should pay a higher %

[Gan]

I agree, I don't like how someone thinks that since you make more then others, you should pay a higher %

You should think better of your motherland and fellow comrades, comrade.

Thats very nekulturny of you.

[Solkern]

Pfft, I'm still paying taxes, I care!
My mother is in that higher bracket, that Obama is going to increase the taxes for, which is why I'm interested.

[Nieninque]

Pfft, I'm still paying taxes, I care!
My mother is in that higher bracket, that Obama is going to increase the taxes for, which is why I'm interested.

I hope that I will soon exceed the higher tax bracket regarding income.

I have no problem whatsoever paying the higher rater of tax.

I have benefitted throughout my life from free (at the point of access) healthcare, income support when I was out of work, housing benefit when I didnt earn enough to pay the rent on my accommodation.

It is only right that I contribute more when I am able.

[Valthissa]

I get lost when things like this happen.

Obama selected the guy to ask a question.

The guy asks Obama if his tax plan is going to raise taxes on Joe's new business venture.

Obama gives a response that can reasonably be construed as 'yes, I plan to redistribute wealth'.

The story is about Joe the plumber, not the response? Isn't this what Democrats (correctly, in my opinion) claim Republicans do - go after the questioner to deflect criticism of their policies?

I guess I'm a little curious about Joe - he gets his 15 minutes now. But he won't be president so I would find it more interesting to follow up on Obama's answer. I think a lot of people (Dem's for the most part) actually agree that one purpose of government is to level individual economic outcomes by redistributing wealth (but I don't think it's a vote getting position).

I don't think I've been spun on this story yet since I've been really busy this week.

C/Valth

[TheWitch]

The reality of the "redistribution of wealth" IMO, is.......it already happens on a constant basis, what the hell difference does it make if they actually admit to it? Both parties are equally guilty, one just is less obtuse about it.

[Parkbandit]

There's a difference between suspecting "a conspiracy" and smelling a publicity stunt. In any case, the word is "delusional." Surprising you don't know that word, considering how well it suits you.

Wow.. Twinkles saw a typo and decided to jump on it. What a surprise.

[Keller]

The reality of the "redistribution of wealth" IMO, is.......it already happens on a constant basis, what the hell difference does it make if they actually admit to it? Both parties are equally guilty, one just is less obtuse about it.

There are reasonable articles by economists and tax policy scholars that argue the utility per tax dollar spent is much higher for millionaires than it is for Joe the Plumber (Keeping in mind Joe makes much less than 250k/yr at this time).

It therefore follows that it is incumbent on the beneficiaries of the revenue outlays to shoulder the burden of the revenue income.

Personally, I feel that these arguments need to be tempered by efficiency studies to find the most effective taxpayers to reach the revenue target; but let's not just believe everything Cato says about "fairness" out of our own ignorance.

[Parkbandit]

I get lost when things like this happen.

Obama selected the guy to ask a question.

The guy asks Obama if his tax plan is going to raise taxes on Joe's new business venture.

Obama gives a response that can reasonably be construed as 'yes, I plan to redistribute wealth'.

The story is about Joe the plumber, not the response? Isn't this what Democrats (correctly, in my opinion) claim Republicans do - go after the questioner to deflect criticism of their policies?

I guess I'm a little curious about Joe - he gets his 15 minutes now. But he won't be president so I would find it more interesting to follow up on Obama's answer. I think a lot of people (Dem's for the most part) actually agree that one purpose of government is to level individual economic outcomes by redistributing wealth (but I don't think it's a vote getting position).

I don't think I've been spun on this story yet since I've been really busy this week.

C/Valth

Someone gets it.

Instead of working on his really stupid (and painfully clear intentions) remark about "Spreading the wealth", the Obama camp and their media pals decide to go after Joe and 'investigate' him... as if he's somehow McCain's secret pal. The guy asked a question.. got a really honest answer that should scare the shit out of everyone.

[Keller]

Someone gets it.

Instead of working on his really stupid (and painfully clear intentions) remark about "Spreading the wealth", the Obama camp and their media pals decide to go after Joe and 'investigate' him... as if he's somehow McCain's secret pal. The guy asked a question.. got a really honest answer that should scare the shit out of everyone.

The answer was: I want to make sure people who make $60k/yr can save more money so they can buy their business earlier and then when they're making $250k, they can afford to pay more because they got to that point faster.

If that scares you, you should probably sleep with a night-light on because the boogie man under your bed is out to get you, too.

[TheWitch]

Thing is, is that what ultimately happens?

Or does it happen more often that the extra money taken out of Joe's pocket when he works hard and makes over $250k is instead funneled into nanny-state projects that are just money pits and ultimately don't do anything to better anyone's best interests at all in the long term, and only serve to grease the wheels of short-term entitlement?

Maybe that's what you were refering to when you mentioned "utility", and I really don't have a clue who Cato is?

My opinion on this redistribution stuff goes something like Narcissia's (I think it was) and I'm speaking sorta generically here:

I have benefited, albeit in a limited way relatively speaking, from some of the government programs. At a point when my income rises and doing so does not completely offset the gains I've made through hard work to get there, I am also willing to pay more. But to the extent that conceptually everyone is held to a limited level of earning, to give it to the lowest level of earning, I have to disagree.

If it goes too far, what happens to the drive to succeed, when ultimately you are not allowed to keep the fruits of your labor?

And before your collective heads explode, I"m not trying to be "gracelessly opinionated." I think these are legitimate questions and issues regarding the type of quasi-socialism we're headed towards.

[Solkern]

I just don't agree on how someone who's earned there way to becoming wealthy (let's say over the 250k mark) should be punished in paying more taxes then another person.

what did said person do to deserve to have this done to them?
I personally wouldn't want to lower my taxes to have someone else pay more, everyoen is supposely equal, so why make it so people who are successful have to suffer for it.

Granted not all people earned there way to the top of course, but for the people who did.

[Daniel]

Thing is, is that what ultimately happens?

Or does it happen more often that the extra money taken out of Joe's pocket when he works hard and makes over $250k is instead funneled into nanny-state projects that are just money pits and ultimately don't do anything to better anyone's best interests at all in the long term, and only serve to grease the wheels of short-term entitlement?

Maybe that's what you were refering to when you mentioned "utility", and I really don't have a clue who Cato is?

My opinion on this redistribution stuff goes something like Narcissia's (I think it was) and I'm speaking sorta generically here:

I have benefited, albeit in a limited way relatively speaking, from some of the government programs. At a point when my income rises and doing so does not completely offset the gains I've made through hard work to get there, I am also willing to pay more. But to the extent that conceptually everyone is held to a limited level of earning, to give it to the lowest level of earning, I have to disagree.

If it goes too far, what happens to the drive to succeed, when ultimately you are not allowed to keep the fruits of your labor?

And before your collective heads explode, I"m not trying to be "gracelessly opinionated." I think these are legitimate questions and issues regarding the type of quasi-socialism we're headed towards.

You do realize that taxes are spent on more things than "entitlement programs for poor lazy people", right?

This country is in a massive deficit and we're talking about funding essential things like say "National Defense", "Social security" and "Education".

[Daniel]

I just don't agree on how someone who's earned there way to becoming wealthy (let's say over the 250k mark) should be punished in paying more taxes then another person.

what did said person do to deserve to have this done to them?
I personally wouldn't want to lower my taxes to have someone else pay more, everyoen is supposely equal, so why make it so people who are successful have to suffer for it.

Granted not all people earned there way to the top of course, but for the people who did.

Are you really suffering?

Does it make you cry? Is your life really worse off?

[Gan]

Bottom line, the Democrats think the rich will miss the money less than taking it from the average joe.

And while that might be true in a sense, it does not address the fairness of it - nor does it address the myriad other things that the rich do with their wealth. Nor does it address tax shelters and other loopholes that the rich benefit from.

Want to impress me? Close the loopholes first.

[Solkern]

Are you really suffering?

Does it make you cry? Is your life really worse off?



not suffer in that way, I should have worded it better, why should the rich have to pay more to make it so the people who make less, have to pay less.
What's the logic behind it? why if I make 250k a year, should I have to pay more?

granted sure, I make more money, but my cost of living because of said income, is also more expensive.

[Daniel]

Bottom line, the Democrats think the rich will miss the money less than taking it from the average joe.

And while that might be true in a sense, it does not address the fairness of it - nor does it address the myriad other things that the rich do with their wealth. Nor does it address tax shelters and other loopholes that the rich benefit from.

Want to impress me? Close the loopholes first.

The best part of this "Joe" not paying taxes thing is that it emphasizes the problems that Obama was talking about when he said he needs to close the loopholes. If "Joe the Plumber" can avoid his taxes, do you really think large corporations can't?

This is hilarity to me.

[Daniel]

not suffer in that way, I should have worded it better, why should the rich have to pay more to make it so the people who make less, have to pay less.
What's the logic behind it? why if I make 250k a year, should I have to pay more?

granted sure, I make more money, but my cost of living because of said income, is also more expensive.


The logic is you benefit from our society and our market system more than others, therefore you have a vested interest in ensuring that it is strong and able to function.

P.s. Your cost of living is not a function of your income. No one is telling you that you have to buy a Hummer if you make X amount of money. So, let's drop that BS line okay?

[TheWitch]

I just don't agree on how someone who's earned there way to becoming wealthy (let's say over the 250k mark) should be punished in paying more taxes then another person.

what did said person do to deserve to have this done to them?
I personally wouldn't want to lower my taxes to have someone else pay more, everyoen is supposely equal, so why make it so people who are successful have to suffer for it.

Granted not all people earned there way to the top of course, but for the people who did.

Because if everyone pays 15%, and Person A makes 50K, that is a much bigger hardship on them with 35K left, than it is on the person who makes 250k, pays 37.5k but still has over 200k to live on.

On the other hand, if 50k person pays 10%, that leaves them with 45k. 250K person pays 30%, and still has 175k.

I'm not implying agreement with this, necessarily, but that's the rationale to my understanding. What is the person left with? In all cases, the 50k person is still going to scrape by in this day and age, while the 250k person will live comfortably in most cases.

I think the point being, assuming someone has to foot the bill which someone does, who is in a position to better handle the tax burden?

[Gan]

The best part of this "Joe" not paying taxes thing is that it emphasizes the problems that Obama was talking about when he said he needs to close the loopholes. If "Joe the Plumber" can avoid his taxes, do you really think large corporations can't?

This is hilarity to me.

Joe the plumber has a tax lien on his property - meaning that once he sells that property or once Joe's will is probated in court - uncle sam gets the taxes plus penalties and interest. And since this is federal law, uncle sam always gets paid.

Large corporations can avoid taxes legally.

Joe can not.

[Daniel]

Joe the plumber has a tax lien on his property - meaning that once he sells that property or once Joe's will is probated in court - uncle sam gets the taxes plus penalties and interest. And since this is federal law, uncle sam always gets paid.

Large corporations can avoid taxes legally.

Joe can not.

Thanks?

Even more of a reason.

[Gan]

Thanks?

Even more of a reason.

Even more of a reason to increase taxes on businesses?

In addition to closing tax loopholes?

Extreme?

[Daniel]

No, even more of a reason to close corporate loopholes, which was what I was talking about.

[Gan]

What about the other part?

[TheWitch]

You do realize that taxes are spent on more things than "entitlement programs for poor lazy people", right?

This country is in a massive deficit and we're talking about funding essential things like say "National Defense", "Social security" and "Education".

Daniel, brush that chip off your shoulder, okay?

Nowhere in that post did I mention poor lazy people. "Nanny-state entitlements" in that context pretty much includes anything as patently stupid as 2B for wood arrow makers that got slid in under our noses - PORK. Which really has more to do with the idiots playing fast and loose with our money than it does anything else - and nothing at all to do with lazy poor people.

So if Joe 250k's extra tax money gets PORKED for SBA loans, sure. Or if at least in the mess that is our national ledger, funding for SBA loans rises, again, sure.

[nub]

P.s. Your cost of living is not a function of your income. No one is telling you that you have to buy a Hummer if you make X amount of money. So, let's drop that BS line okay?

That can be said on a lot of things we don't need, so we can drop the BS of saying what we can/can't don't have/have to live by.

You don't need internet/car/cellphone/tv/computer

There are places such as libraries, and public transportation.

Just because we don't need something doesn't mean we can't work our way to it to enjoy it, just to have someone say you're making too much and take that reward away.

[Gan]

That can be said on a lot of things we don't need, so we can drop the BS of saying what we can/can't don't have/have to live by.

You don't need internet/car/cellphone/tv/computer

There are places such as libraries, and public transportation.

Just because we don't need something doesn't mean we can't work our way to it to enjoy it, just to have someone say you're making too much and take that reward away.

The state will tell you what you need and dont need, comrade.

[TheEschaton]

I just don't agree on how someone who's earned there way to becoming wealthy (let's say over the 250k mark) should be punished in paying more taxes then another person.

what did said person do to deserve to have this done to them?
I personally wouldn't want to lower my taxes to have someone else pay more, everyoen is supposely equal, so why make it so people who are successful have to suffer for it.

Granted not all people earned there way to the top of course, but for the people who did.


While I'm quoting your post, Solkern, I am really responding to you, PB, and, to a lesser extent, Gan.

The fundamental difference here is a view on what taxes are. Taxes by the right are seen as a punishment for doing well. To everyone else, taxes are seen as an obligation, or a duty, for living in society, which permits you to do well. It's part of Rousseau's Social Contract, in order to reap the benefits of living in civilized society, one has to sacrifice something personal. It, in fact, implies a moral, patriotic duty to pay taxes. This philosophy is what our whole democracy is founded on. When the huge anti-tax people protest "our country was founded on a tax protest!" they misrepresent what that protest was about. It isn't that the Founding Fathers protested the idea of taxation, but that they were taxed without having representation in the taxing body.

To go away from political philosophy and to personal philosophy for a moment - this country has for too long deviated from the idea that we are all bound together. The right would be the first to invoke unity and jingoism against security threats, but then advocate complete fiscal independence from each other. There is no way...none...that a person who makes 250K+ has made it independent of society in general; in fact, most businesses rely on the benefits of society to make their profit. To say they are then not obligated to support that society is ridiculous, and, IMO, amoral, at best. That's like saying businesses should be allowed to be like parasites, sucking up society's blood, while society eventually gets bled out. That leads to things like financial crises.

-TheE-

[Daniel]

What about the other part?

What about it?

We have a massive deficit. The money to pay for it has to come from somewhere. I believe that it should come from those who can afford to it and those who benefit the most from our country. That includes myself.

I'm not looking at some poor family that makes a fraction of what I do in some state of envy. I'm not gonna sit here and act like I'll be "suffering" if my effective tax rate goes up 5%. That's just silly and selfish.

[Daniel]

Daniel, brush that chip off your shoulder, okay?

Nowhere in that post did I mention poor lazy people. "Nanny-state entitlements" in that context pretty much includes anything as patently stupid as 2B for wood arrow makers that got slid in under our noses - PORK. Which really has more to do with the idiots playing fast and loose with our money than it does anything else - and nothing at all to do with lazy poor people.

So if Joe 250k's extra tax money gets PORKED for SBA loans, sure. Or if at least in the mess that is our national ledger, funding for SBA loans rises, again, sure.

Fair enough. It was an unfair example.

As long as we understand that all of this is a fraction and small portion of what we spend money on.

[Daniel]

That can be said on a lot of things we don't need, so we can drop the BS of saying what we can/can't don't have/have to live by.

You don't need internet/car/cellphone/tv/computer

There are places such as libraries, and public transportation.

Just because we don't need something doesn't mean we can't work our way to it to enjoy it, just to have someone say you're making too much and take that reward away.

I don't care what you enjoy or not. Your cost of living does not go up the more money you make.

If you can afford extras in life, that's great. However, we are not entitled to, nor do we inherently deserve luxury.

[Gan]

What about it?

We have a massive deficit. The money to pay for it has to come from somewhere. I believe that it should come from those who can afford to it and those who benefit the most from our country. That includes myself.

I'm not looking at some poor family that makes a fraction of what I do in some state of envy. I'm not gonna sit here and act like I'll be "suffering" if my effective tax rate goes up 5%. That's just silly and selfish.

This is where you and I disagree. I agree with *TheE's earlier post that taxes are a necessary part of our social contract of living in America. However, I believe that the contract need be applied in all fairness. So yes, I'm for cutting out the loopholes that were created in Washington. However, when you overburden the rainmakers who succeed and in turn help those underneath succeed then you turn social obligation into social regulation which stimeys (disincentivizes) those who seek to push their business to the next level. And you incentivize those who seek subsistence based on handouts (New Orleans example).

So yes, I support Obama's idea to close loopholes and shelters that originated in DC to begin with. I do not support adding the extra burden of pulling our country out of the hole its in on the backbone of the American marketplace without first cutting out the pork in DC.

The common denominator here is DC. Its unfair to ask small, medium, large business and 'wealthy' taxpayers to clean up the mess that started on the hill without requiring the politicians to do it first.

[Daniel]

This is where you and I disagree. I agree with your earlier post that taxes are a necessary part of our social contract of living in America. However, I believe that the contract need be applied in all fairness. So yes, I'm for cutting out the loopholes that were created in Washington. However, when you overburden the rainmakers who succeed and in turn help those underneath succeed then you turn social obligation into social regulation which stimeys (disincentivizes) those who seek to push their business to the next level. And you incentivize those who seek subsistence based on handouts (New Orleans example).

So yes, I support Obama's idea to close loopholes and shelters that originated in DC to begin with. I do not support adding the extra burden of pulling our country out of the hole its in on the backbone of the American marketplace without first cutting out the pork in DC.

The common denominator here is DC. Its unfair to ask small, medium, large business and 'wealthy' taxpayers to clean up the mess that started on the hill without requiring the politicians to do it first.



Let's be serious here. People aren't going to stop trying to make money if it suddenly becomes less easier. People aren't going to stop trying to push their business to the next level because it takes a little bit more time. There is still the same reason to push it that there was before: More money. Maybe less than before, but still more.

Nor does it neccessarily follow that when "The Rainmakers" make money that they make it rain. These rainmakers avoid taxes, they put the money offshore and they do everything within their power to avoid actually having to make it rain. In a perfect world where everyone has the best interests in society in mind they would do that. However, it's not a perfect world and that means that there has to be something that ensures that happens.

[TheWitch]

Fair enough. It was an unfair example.

As long as we understand that all of this is a fraction and small portion of what we spend money on.

I don't deny that.

What I object to on prinicple, and regardless of percentage of the whole, is spending on projects that benefit a handful of people. Or don't benefit anyone in a long-term, problem solving way.

I think we should get the hell out of Iraq. But at least the entire country is benefiting or paying the price, depending on your viewpoint, of us being there.

2B is chump change, in the arrow example. Maybe twelve cents of my tax obligation. But why am I giving that 12 cents to people that make wooden arrows? So their business doesn't go down the toilet? Maybe it should go down the toilet, then. And before you say it, I feel the same way about AIG where the price tag was much higher. And to take it one step further, I think the principals running AIG should be prosecuted. Tangent, reeling back in now. Heh.

[Gan]

Let's be serious here. People aren't going to stop trying to make money if it suddenly becomes less easier. People aren't going to stop trying to push their business to the next level because it takes a little bit more time. There is still the same reason to push it that there was before: More money. Maybe less than before, but still more.

Nor does it neccessarily follow that when "The Rainmakers" make money that they make it rain. These rainmakers avoid taxes, they put the money offshore and they do everything within their power to avoid actually having to make it rain. In a perfect world where everyone has the best interests in society in mind they would do that. However, it's not a perfect world and that means that there has to be something that ensures that happens.

Then we agree to disagree.

[Solkern]

I'm still waiting for a reason, on why a person who makes more money then the average american, should have to pay more taxes..
the bullshit of he can still l live an easy life making 25k less, won't cut it.
said person earned that lifestyle, said person shouldn't have to a higher rate of tax, all b/c he earns more money.
he worked hard to get where he's at, and to have someone come in and say, you make to much, we are going to tax you more, is utter bullshit.

people making 50k a year, can still put money in offshore accounts, sure not as much, but they can still do it.

[Daniel]

I don't deny that.

What I object to on prinicple, and regardless of percentage of the whole, is spending on projects that benefit a handful of people. Or don't benefit anyone in a long-term, problem solving way.

I think we should get the hell out of Iraq. But at least the entire country is benefiting or paying the price, depending on your viewpoint, of us being there.

2B is chump change, in the arrow example. Maybe twelve cents of my tax obligation. But why am I giving that 12 cents to people that make wooden arrows? So their business doesn't go down the toilet? Maybe it should go down the toilet, then. And before you say it, I feel the same way about AIG where the price tag was much higher. And to take it one step further, I think the principals running AIG should be prosecuted. Tangent, reeling back in now. Heh.

No. I agree with you. I just don't follow that when some things are fucked up that you can disconnect it from the whole. You need to fix these things but that doesn't mean that there aren't things that need to be funded along the way.

[Daniel]

I'm still waiting for a reason, on why a person who makes more money then the average american, should have to pay more taxes..
the bullshit of he can still l live an easy life making 25k less, won't cut it.
said person earned that lifestyle, said person shouldn't have to a higher rate of tax, all b/c he earns more money.
he worked hard to get where he's at, and to have someone come in and say, you make to much, we are going to tax you more, is utter bullshit.

People have responded to you and told you why. No one is saying that you shouldn't enjoy your lifestyle. We're saying that you should be grateful to the society that allows you to live that lifestyle and should contribute your share to ensuring its prosperity. That share should be a function of the prosperity that you yourself enjoy.

*edit


people making 50k a year, can still put money in offshore accounts, sure not as much, but they can still do it.

Huh?

What is your point?

[TheEschaton]

This is where you and I disagree. I agree with your earlier post that taxes are a necessary part of our social contract of living in America. However, I believe that the contract need be applied in all fairness. So yes, I'm for cutting out the loopholes that were created in Washington. However, when you overburden the rainmakers who succeed and in turn help those underneath succeed then you turn social obligation into social regulation which stimeys (disincentivizes) those who seek to push their business to the next level. And you incentivize those who seek subsistence based on handouts (New Orleans example).

So yes, I support Obama's idea to close loopholes and shelters that originated in DC to begin with. I do not support adding the extra burden of pulling our country out of the hole its in on the backbone of the American marketplace without first cutting out the pork in DC.

The common denominator here is DC. Its unfair to ask small, medium, large business and 'wealthy' taxpayers to clean up the mess that started on the hill without requiring the politicians to do it first.

A) It was my post.

B) The top 5% has more than 50% of the wealth in this country, yet pays about 37% of the tax burden, and these are based on numbers from 1999, before Bush's massive tax cuts for the top brackets. Tax info (http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/#Head-4.htm)

C) Small businesses, under Obama's plan, would have all sorts of breaks and credits to make sure they didn't pay all that much. Again, his definition of a small business seems to fall in line with the normal definition of less than 500 employees on the payroll. He keeps saying this, but people hear what they want to hear.

-TheE-

[Solkern]

People have responded to you and told you why. No one is saying that you shouldn't enjoy your lifestyle. We're saying that you should be grateful to the society that allows you to live that lifestyle and should contribute your share to ensuring its prosperity. That share should be a function of the prosperity that you yourself enjoy.

I can agree with that.

[Gan]

Here's Obama's tax plan synopsis as stated on his site.
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/fiscal/ObamaPolicy_Fiscal.pdf

And here's John McCain's synopsis as stated on his site.
http://www.johnmccain.com/Images/Issues/JobsforAmerica/briefing.pdf

[Daniel]

Then we agree to disagree.

So, if you're effective tax rate goes up by a few points you're just gonna pack in that "trying to be successful" thing and become a loser?

Somehow I don't buy that.

[TheEschaton]

I'm still waiting for a reason, on why a person who makes more money then the average american, should have to pay more taxes..
the bullshit of he can still l live an easy life making 25k less, won't cut it.
said person earned that lifestyle, said person shouldn't have to a higher rate of tax, all b/c he earns more money.
he worked hard to get where he's at, and to have someone come in and say, you make to much, we are going to tax you more, is utter bullshit.

people making 50k a year, can still put money in offshore accounts, sure not as much, but they can still do it.

A) THat answer is not bullshit.
B) That person relies even more on society than the average American, to make his money. Do you think the CEO of GM makes all the cars?
C) If you think people who work line jobs at factories have somehow worked "less hard" than people who are CEOs, you're fucking insane. In almost every single case, it's merely a matter that the CEO had access to opportunities that Joe Six-Pack on the line could never have had access to.
D) Offshore accounts are useless for everyday living. You can't withdraw money from it from an ATM, for example, so it has no use for the everyday person who puts money in a bank and then, say, writes checks on those accounts, or uses a debit card. Offshore accounts of the kind we're talking are all about hiding income to avoid paying taxes, income that rich people don't really need to have every day access to.

You're in far over your head, Solkern, because you're a fucking moron. At least leave this convo to people like Gan, who can advocate your position much better.

-TheE-

[Gan]

So, if you're effective tax rate goes up by a few points you're just gonna pack in that "trying to be successful" thing and become a loser?

Somehow I don't buy that.

Who said anything about quitting?

Disincentivize does not mean quit.

It can mean that the owners of a business make a decision not to take further risk with less reward. Thats a form of disincentivization.
(I think I made a new word there)

It could mean not hiring that extra person because the ROI would not be sound due to the addition of robin hood taxes being levied against the already existent tax burden.

The examples are numerous. I wouldnt go as far as to say that businesses will just fold. Thats a rather extreme and inaccurate example.

[Daniel]

So, why under any scenario when the reward\adjusted for risk is greater than zero would you stop expanding?

The notion that a slight increase in the marginal tax rate is going to stop businesses from growing is ridiculous.

A better argument would be that business would not start in one place if the taxes were lower elsewhere, but it's much more compelx than that.

[Gan]

So, why under any scenario when the reward\adjusted for risk is greater than zero would you stop expanding?

The notion that a slight increase in the marginal tax rate is going to stop businesses from growing is ridiculous.

A better argument would be that business would not start in one place if the taxes were lower elsewhere, but it's much more compelx than that.

I disagree.

Small businesses make decisions all the time based on balance sheets. Expansion in Capital (land, labor, etc.) is a very important issue that is affected by the bottom line (which is affected by taxes). Especially so when you throw an additional federal tax burden in with local and federal taxes already being paid.

[Ignot]

However, I believe that the contract need be applied in all fairness. .

I think fairness is spreading the wealth around so that wealthier people who can handle more of a tax burden while maintaining a good quality of life can relieve the burden on low income families who struggle and have a poor quality of life. The economy is shit and while some rich people might be concerned that they may not be able to buy that third home as planned the guy that works two jobs to support his sick wife and 3 kids is worrying about paying rent. Sharing the burden is fair.

I think you look at fairness as everyone is taxed at the same rate. So everyone puts in the "fair" share of their income. I guess there is nothing wrong with that point of view except that it is very selfish.

I would prefer a country where everyone has the best quality of life possible, not just me. It sounds like you prefer a country where only some people have an amazing quality of life and most have a poor quality of life. And that's absolutely fine, that's why we have democrats and republicans.

My 2 cents.

[Daniel]

And who is talking about small businesses here?

[Gan]

I think fairness is spreading the wealth around so that wealthier people who can handle more of a tax burden while maintaining a good quality of life can relieve the burden on low income families who struggle and have a poor quality of life. The economy is shit and while some rich people might be concerned that they may not be able to buy that third home as planned the guy that works two jobs to support his sick wife and 3 kids is worrying about paying rent. Sharing the burden is fair.

I think you look at fairness as everyone is taxed at the same rate. So everyone puts in the "fair" share of their income. I guess there is nothing wrong with that point of view except that it is very selfish.

I would prefer a country where everyone has the best quality of life possible, not just me. It sounds like you prefer a country where only some people have an amazing quality of life and most have a poor quality of life. And that's absolutely fine, that's why we have democrats and republicans.

My 2 cents.

Have you read the communist manifesto lately?

Has a Bolshevik done you wrong lately?

Or are you a fan of Gene Roddenberry?

While I recognize your desire to see a 'fair' country - we first need to see everyone attempt to pull their 'share' and not be content with living off the efforts of others.

[Gan]

And who is talking about small businesses here?

Joe R Plumber

[Daniel]

Dramatic leaps for 500 please Alex?

[TheEschaton]

Another interesting thing I read the other day was that the tax only kicks in on net income after a certain level. So, for a couple, that level is 190k and some change. So, if they're making 250k, that 36% (up from 33%) would only apply on the last 60k.

So, if you're making a quarter million as a couple, you'd be paying an additional $1800 a year.

That doesn't sound unreasonable.

[Daniel]

Joe R Plumber

Well, it's already been pretty well established that "Joe" won't be effected by Obama's policies.

So...

[Daniel]

Another interesting thing I read the other day was that the tax only kicks in on net income after a certain level. So, for a couple, that level is 190k and some change. So, if they're making 250k, that 36% (up from 33%) would only apply on the last 60k.

So, if you're making a quarter million as a couple, you'd be paying an additional $1800 a year.

That doesn't sound unreasonable.

This is how our tax system works, yes.

[Gan]

Another interesting thing I read the other day was that the tax only kicks in on net income after a certain level. So, for a couple, that level is 190k and some change. So, if they're making 250k, that 36% (up from 33%) would only apply on the last 60k.

So, if you're making a quarter million as a couple, you'd be paying an additional $1800 a year.

That doesn't sound unreasonable.
It may not to you.

[TheWitch]

Read "We The Living", Ingot.

See how that worked out for post-Czarist Russians.

I feel like we're living "Atlas Shrugged".

Any other Ayn Rand fans out there? Gan?

[TheWitch]

It may not to you.

Honestly, Gan? It doesn't sound that bad to me either, when viewed in a vaccuum.

My issue is: This year is $1,800. Next year it's $1,000. The following year it's what, nothing? Okay, great. Then the next year, it's another $2,000, and etc. on down the slippery slope.

[Daniel]

Read "We The Living", Ingot.

See how that worked out for post-Czarist Russians.

I feel like we're living "Atlas Shrugged".

Any other Ayn Rand fans out there? Gan?

Yea....

I felt real bad for the rich people who had to go through the same shit that everyone else did..it was tragic really...

Nevermind that a slight increase in taxes on successful businesses is hardly a communist revolution.

[Keller]

Thing is, is that what ultimately happens?

Or does it happen more often that the extra money taken out of Joe's pocket when he works hard and makes over $250k is instead funneled into nanny-state projects that are just money pits and ultimately don't do anything to better anyone's best interests at all in the long term, and only serve to grease the wheels of short-term entitlement?

Maybe that's what you were refering to when you mentioned "utility", and I really don't have a clue who Cato is?

My opinion on this redistribution stuff goes something like Narcissia's (I think it was) and I'm speaking sorta generically here:

I have benefited, albeit in a limited way relatively speaking, from some of the government programs. At a point when my income rises and doing so does not completely offset the gains I've made through hard work to get there, I am also willing to pay more. But to the extent that conceptually everyone is held to a limited level of earning, to give it to the lowest level of earning, I have to disagree.

If it goes too far, what happens to the drive to succeed, when ultimately you are not allowed to keep the fruits of your labor?

And before your collective heads explode, I"m not trying to be "gracelessly opinionated." I think these are legitimate questions and issues regarding the type of quasi-socialism we're headed towards.

The argument they put forth is that the military/police/infrastructure spending allows for a "safe" market which allows capital investments to be secure and lucrative.

Therefore the utility they get is higher than the utility that you or I get just being able to drive our cars to work or have security in our homes.

Also, there are considerable disagreements about the effect of the "substitution" of leisure for labor as marginal income tax rates rise. A large number of wage earners earn a salary and there cannot be a substitution effect as they are paid the same amount regardless of the hours the work (excluding bonuses of course).

Further, the majority of hourly employees in America actually fall under what is called the "work effect" to income taxes. The argument is that they make so little per hour that they are forced to work more hours to even make their budget work.

[Gan]

Read "We The Living", Ingot.

See how that worked out for post-Czarist Russians.

I feel like we're living "Atlas Shrugged".

Any other Ayn Rand fans out there? Gan?


Honestly, Gan? It doesn't sound that bad to me either, when viewed in a vaccuum.

My issue is: This year is $1,800. Next year it's $1,000. The following year it's what, nothing? Okay, great. Then the next year, it's another $2,000, and etc. on down the slippery slope.

:)

Thats half of what is scary about the robin hood effect.

The other half is that there's so much waste already in how DC spends our current taxes and how society has a love for living off the backs of others that I dont feel it necessary to contribute to that corruption anymore than I have to. When DC can clean up its mess and then we as a society evaluate that more is needed from a baseline where everyone contributes then I might change my perception. Not until then. No thanks.

Myself and my family are to be taken care of first by the fruits of my labors, thats my responsibility to my family. If society is benefited off of that premise, then so much the better. Just do not ask me to carry another's burden who is unwilling to carry it themselves all in the name of society.

[TheWitch]

Yea....

I felt real bad for the rich people who had to go through the same shit that everyone else did..it was tragic really...

Nevermind that a slight increase in taxes on successful businesses is hardly a communist revolution.

Didn't say it was. What Ingot is wishing for, however, would be.

And have you read the book, Daniel? Because in summary, the people that were rich became poor, and a handful of the poor people became rich, but most of the poor people became poorer. Some of the rich people who bribed the right people stayed rich, and some of the poorest people were less poor because they sucked up to the right people and went to the right meetings.

Sounds utopian, doesn't it.

[Keller]

I just don't agree on how someone who's earned there way to becoming wealthy (let's say over the 250k mark) should be punished in paying more taxes then another person.

what did said person do to deserve to have this done to them?
I personally wouldn't want to lower my taxes to have someone else pay more, everyoen is supposely equal, so why make it so people who are successful have to suffer for it.

Granted not all people earned there way to the top of course, but for the people who did.

I wish no one paid taxes. But we have shared expenses and we get economies of scale by having a a federal government to provide specific functions.

So as it stands, we have a revenue target. The question then becomes: how do we meet this revenue target?

We can't continue to spend money we don't have. This used to be an idealistic call to fiscal reasponsibility. It is becoming a realistic statement.

So the question is: how do you want to meet the revenue target, Solkern?

[Gan]

I wish no one paid taxes. But we have shared expenses and we get economies of scale by having a a federal government to provide specific functions.

So as it stands, we have a revenue target. The question then becomes: how do we meet this revenue target?

We can't continue to spend money we don't have. This used to be an idealistic call to fiscal reasponsibility. It is becoming a realistic statement.

So the question is: how do you want to meet the revenue target, Solkern?

Perhaps its the revenue target that needs greater attention and evaluation than sucking more taxes from the people who already shoulder the burden of moving the country forward.

[Daniel]

Didn't say it was. What Ingot is wishing for, however, would be.

And have you read the book, Daniel? Because in summary, the people that were rich became poor, and a handful of the poor people became rich, but most of the poor people became poorer. Some of the rich people who bribed the right people stayed rich, and some of the poorest people were less poor because they sucked up to the right people and went to the right meetings.

Sounds utopian, doesn't it.

Yes I have read the book. That was my response to the book. I don't believe in communism, and I don't think the events portrayed for good, but I also didn't really feel a lot of sympathy for the rich people who were going through the same shit that everyone else was.

It also doesnt change the fact that a tax increase is not even close to a communist revolution.

[Solkern]

I wish no one paid taxes. But we have shared expenses and we get economies of scale by having a a federal government to provide specific functions.

So as it stands, we have a revenue target. The question then becomes: how do we meet this revenue target?

We can't continue to spend money we don't have. This used to be an idealistic call to fiscal reasponsibility. It is becoming a realistic statement.

So the question is: how do you want to meet the revenue target, Solkern?

I just don't believe that 5% of the country should take most of the burden for the debt that we are in.
it's not like that 5% caused all the problems we have
we are a country, we should all shoulder the responsiblity together, not force the rich to bring the country back
though I do agree it starts in DC, and we should clean that shithole up first.

[Keller]

Yes I have read the book. That was my response to the book. I don't believe in communism, and I don't think the events portrayed for good, but I also didn't really feel a lot of sympathy for the rich people who were going through the same shit that everyone else was.

It also doesnt change the fact that a tax increase is not even close to a communist revolution.

It's really only an expiration of the Bush tax cuts + an Obama tax cut.

It is a de facto tax increase because the GOP and Joe want to scare you.

[Keller]

I just don't believe that 5% of the country should take most of the burden for the debt that we are in.
it's not like that 5% caused all the problems we have
we are a country, we should all shoulder the responsiblity together, not force the rich to bring the country back
though I do agree it starts in DC, and we should clean that shithole up first.

I want to say this as tactfully as I can: you don't understand.

This is about the annual budget. Not about the deficit.

Who should pay for the working capital that it takes to fund the federal government?

[TheEschaton]

Didn't say it was. What Ingot is wishing for, however, would be.

And have you read the book, Daniel? Because in summary, the people that were rich became poor, and a handful of the poor people became rich, but most of the poor people became poorer. Some of the rich people who bribed the right people stayed rich, and some of the poorest people were less poor because they sucked up to the right people and went to the right meetings.

Sounds utopian, doesn't it.

I don't know if that particular book is also Ayn Rand, but Ayn Rand is fucking crazy, insane stupid. Like, stupid on a level that defies logic.

[TheWitch]

Yes I have read the book. That was my response to the book. I don't believe in communism, and I don't think the events portrayed for good, but I also didn't really feel a lot of sympathy for the rich people who were going through the same shit that everyone else was.

It also doesnt change the fact that a tax increase is not even close to a communist revolution.

......once again, I was responding to Ingot, not the entire thread.
I specifically said that. But okay.

So, let me understand this.

You felt no sympathy for the wealthy, who had to "go through the same shit".

They got wealthy by selling a quality product that other people wanted to buy (the main family in the story, specifically).

They had their property stripped from them, and lived in abject poverty. They were not taxed more heavily, they were stripped of their property and money.

So...they got what they deserved for being successful?

Or, did you not feel any more sympathy for them than you did for the average poor person who was no less or more poor than they were to start out with?

Or did you relate more to the poor people who overthrew the Czar, took the wealthy peoples money so they could be rich instead?

Please explain.

And "We The Living" is Ayn Rand. Whether she was insane or not, much of her writing is semi-autobiographical. If you don't believe what she wrote to be what actually happened, that's entirely different from her being insane, but whatever.

[Solkern]

I want to say this as tactfully as I can: you don't understand.

This is about the annual budget. Not about the deficit.

Who should pay for the working capital that it takes to fund the federal government?

I don't understand, it's why i''m asking questions, or giving the views I think, and hoping for a constructive response, trying to figure out the situation :)

[Keller]

......once again, I was responding to Ingot, not the entire thread.
I specifically said that. But okay.

So, let me understand this.

You felt no sympathy for the wealthy, who had to "go through the same shit".

They got wealthy by selling a quality product that other people wanted to buy (the main family in the story, specifically).

They had their property stripped from them, and lived in abject poverty. They were not taxed more heavily, they were stripped of their property and money.

So...they got what they deserved for being successful?

Or, did you not feel any more sympathy for them than you did for the average poor person who was no less or more poor than they were to start out with?

Or did you relate more to the poor people who overthrew the Czar, took the wealthy peoples money so they could be rich instead?

Please explain.

His responses have been pretty clear: your analogy is irrelevant to the Obama tax cuts.

[Keller]

I don't understand, it's why i''m asking questions, or giving the views I think, and hoping for a constructive response, trying to figure out the situation :)

I appreciate that.

What I would say for now is that the tax revenues cover the annual budget. If possible, we'd like to pay down the debt -- but at the least we need to cover our outlays.

So then we need to ask: where are we going to get that money? Thus far we've been taxing income. So which incomes and at rate rate of tax? There is an entire library of literature on those questions, but they are still useful to think about.

[Solkern]

I appreciate that.

What I would say for now is that the tax revenues cover the annual budget. If possible, we'd like to pay down the debt -- but at the least we need to cover our outlays.

So then we need to ask: where are we going to get that money? Thus far we've been taxing income. So which incomes and at rate rate of tax? There is an entire library of literature on those questions, but they are still useful to think about.


I see, I think I'll go dig a few up, and read over some of it, to get a bit better understanding.

thanks for the insight.

[TheWitch]

His responses have been pretty clear: your analogy is irrelevant to the Obama tax cuts.


Good god. It wasn't an analogy to Obama's Tax plan in the first place.

Scroll back. Read Ingot's post, re: "fairness" where the everyone has roughly the same, good, standard of living. That's what brought it up, not Obama's Tax plan.

I KNOW it's not an analogy, it was never intended to be one.
Is that clear yet?

[Keller]

Good god. It wasn't an analogy to Obama's Tax plan in the first place.

Scroll back. Read Ingot's post, re: "fairness" where the everyone has roughly the same, good, standard of living. That's what brought it up, not Obama's Tax plan.

I KNOW it's not an analogy, it was never intended to be one.
Is that clear yet?

You were addressing Daniel in the post I responded to. Not Ignot.

[TheWitch]

Please, re-read the thread.
I'm not doing a play by play for you.

Daniel didn't understand I wasn't making an analogy to Obama's tax plan with this book reference. Now you don't get it either. So that's two.

Re-reading the thread will help, I promise.

[Daniel]

......once again, I was responding to Ingot, not the entire thread.
I specifically said that. But okay.

So, let me understand this.

You felt no sympathy for the wealthy, who had to "go through the same shit".

They got wealthy by selling a quality product that other people wanted to buy (the main family in the story, specifically).

They had their property stripped from them, and lived in abject poverty. They were not taxed more heavily, they were stripped of their property and money.

So...they got what they deserved for being successful?

Or, did you not feel any more sympathy for them than you did for the average poor person who was no less or more poor than they were to start out with?


Or did you relate more to the poor people who overthrew the Czar, took the wealthy peoples money so they could be rich instead?

Please explain.



I did not feel any more sympathy for them than I did for the average poor person. You act as if the "poor people" in the story did not work hard or somehow deserve something better either.

In fact, the main Character "Kira" did nothing more or less than anyone else to deserve anything. Her lover "Leo" did absolutely nothing and was a completely worthless human being. Why exactly should I have felt sorry for him not being rich?

If anything I'd identify more with Andrei, not because he was a communist but because he mad the most of his situation and tried to do what was right for the people around him.

[Daniel]

Please, re-read the thread.
I'm not doing a play by play for you.

Daniel didn't understand I wasn't making an analogy to Obama's tax plan with this book reference. Now you don't get it either. So that's two.

Re-reading the thread will help, I promise.

You obviously missed the fact that Ignot's post was about the rationale behind Obama's tax plan and not some swan song about communism. You might want to go back and re-read his post before you start being patronizing.

[Clove]

Wow.. Twinkles saw a typo and decided to jump on it. What a surprise.You fucking retard. I bet you don't even know who Jose Cuervo is.

[TheWitch]

I did not feel any more sympathy for them than I did for the average poor person. You act as if the "poor people" in the story did not work hard or somehow deserve something better either.

In fact, the main Character "Kira" did nothing more or less than anyone else to deserve anything. Her lover "Leo" did absolutely nothing and was a completely worthless human being. Why exactly should I have felt sorry for him not being rich?

If anything I'd identify more with Andrei, not because he was a communist but because he mad the most of his situation and tried to do what was right for the people around him.

They didn't get anything better, though, did they, whether they deserved it or not. No one got anything better except the handful of people who took the wealthy's money for themselves, and the handful of poor people who like Andrei were on the take.

Kira was a child when the communists took her family's money and possessions, of course she hadn't done anything yet. I did have more sympathy for the wealthy in this book for the fact they were punished for being successful. Which is not to say I didn't sympathize with the poor as well, but they weren't really rewarded for their work either.

~End of book discussion~

Who gets to decide who deserves what?
What does a person have to do to "deserve" to have more wealth than other people?
No one "needs" a hummer, you're right. But does everyone "deserve" a car?

I'm all for supporting the society that supports you, as far as the wealthy are concerned. And when I read statistics saying that the average CEO makes 275 times that of the rank and file employee, that's absurd.

Not necessarily because the rank and file should be payed more, just because they "deserve" it though. But because in these same companies, and I used to work at one, there's always the "no raises above 3%", "no raises at all" crap that goes around, meanwhile inflation is running at what this year? 8.5%, something like that? But the CEO makes $100M? THAT is not right.

So yea, close the loopholes and instead of paying these CEO's this ridiculous amount of money, PAY YOUR DAMN TAXES.

[Inspire]

The only fair way to do taxes is the "fair tax".

Which will never pass, because then congress couldn't manipulate the tax code to benefit their buddies who lobby them day in and day out so they can run for re-election.

My suggestion?

Implement term limits for congress. 2 4 year terms and then you're out. This life long job position as long as you're re-elected has to go.

Implement the fair tax.

[Keller]

The only fair way to do taxes is the "fair tax".

Which will never pass, because then congress couldn't manipulate the tax code to benefit their buddies who lobby them day in and day out so they can run for re-election.

My suggestion?

Implement term limits for congress. 2 4 year terms and then you're out. This life long job position as long as you're re-elected has to go.

Implement the fair tax.

:Facepalm:

[Gan]

I'm right there with you on term limits.

*I support a national sales tax (fair tax);however, a fundamental way that our Government operates would have to be altered for that to happen. And I dont see that happening.

Let it be known that I dont like how the Fair Tax legislation as its proposed currently is structured. This Wiki article brings up some very valid points in counter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax