State Wobegon

The billionaires get to pay more taxes and certain beneficial public programs are not cut as drastically.

But oh yeah I forgot, NO government programs, at all, are beneficial to anybody. Every nickel of money spent by the government is a complete waste of money.

[/teabag mantra]

 

Yeah, let's just get rid of government altogether and save a bundle. We can do like them dudes on Survivor. Anarchy rules!!

 

Greedy bastards.

I'm sorry, but I think the majority of Americans have trouble understanding how anyone with a $1 million income and up have trouble "surviving." Let's just ask all the millionaires/billionaires to give up ONE of their "second" homes. Quite the sacrifice, correct? This "whoever dies with the most toys wins" philosophy just pisses me off.

My wife and I have a combined income of about $160,000. We've got a son going into his senior year of high school, 3 cars, a mortgage on a 3-bedroom house. We work our butts off, pay our taxes, send the kid to private school (since 7th grade) and our heads are above water - as long as we keep dog paddling. All that means is that we're in a small percentage of the country's citizens.

Should we sacrifice more in taxes? Should a family making a $100,000 pay more taxes?

I don't want Mark Zuckerburg's or Mark Cuban's or Bill Gates' or Warren Buffet's money. The government/country needs that money. This isn't about socialism or spreading the wealth. It's about fairness. I imagine the guys mentioned here do a lot of charity work because they know where the money goes and they get some good pub for their good work. And it's tax deductible. I can't believe paying 5 percent more in taxes would send them to Sam's Club every week to buy in bulk.

 

You definitely need to pay more taxes, sock. No reason for someone rolling in the dough like you to have that much spare change. Hell, you only have three people to support. You don't need three cars, and send your kid to public school, you elitist bastard.

 

Speed:
Yep, that's me. (Hope you forgot the sarcasm font.)

 

Two stories from back to back days in the NY Post.

They pretty much summarize everything that is wrong with government:

But, somehow it's irresponsible to suggest that maybe government doesn't always spend our money as efficiently as it should. Maybe they don't treat it like it's their won.

Or, maybe some rules changes might be in order. Maybe they can make things work better and save some money.

Is it really too much to ask that we look at these things first before reflexively raising taxes?

 

What sarcasm font? You are much richer than me, thus I think you should pay a lot more and sink to my level. It's the new American way.

 

It's always easier to confiscate and spend money when it is earned by others.

The simple fact remains that the framers are rolling over in their graves today because the limited federal government they intended (for proof, consult the Constitution) has been corrupted and turned into a bloated clearinghouse for reckless deficit spending.

I didn't know him personally, but I'm pretty sure Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton and their cronies never intended the federal government to be obligated to provide health care for all of its citizens. Now you're a big meanie if you insist people actually work to pay for their own health care instead of relying on another government entitlement we have no hope of ever paying for.

 

We need both spending cuts AND revenue increases. Economic experts of both political persuasions have said this.

Tax rates are as low as they've ever been. They're much lower than they were during the 1950s boom. They're lower than they were during Reagan's 1980s economic boom. They're even lower than they were under Bill Clinton.

The Dow is back over 12,000. Corporations are flush with profits.

Yet businesses still aren't hiring, still aren't growing.

Tax increases alone won't do the trick. But neither will spending cuts alone.

 

I see the Stooges for Grover Norquist Committee remains alive and well.

 

Most of the proposals, including getting rid of the Bush tax cuts, are for people whose taxable income (not their overall income) is $250K or higher. Meaning, with deductions and such, a family would probably be making at least $300K.

 

So, they're rich, and deserve to be punished?

These are your doctors and lawyers. They did things the right way. Studied, got into good schools, took years to get their post graduate degrees. But, now, they're the bad guys. They should pay for everyone else.

Or, they're small business owners, who took a risk. Who employ people. Taxing them at a higher rate should really help.

Most people who make $300,000 a year didn't always make that much. many used to be "poor". And, many of today's "poor" will eventually earn over $300,000.

If you want to really "tax the rich", you have to tax wealth, not income.

Yet, I never hear any limousine liberal advocate that. The Kennedy, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, et et, they are rich. But they don't advocate for the government to come and take their money.

And, they've made plans to protect their money from the Government after death. it's all been put in trusts and given to charities that they trust to spend the money they've earned of their lifetime better than the government can spend it.

But, let's go ahead and continue to confiscate money from heart surgeons and restauranteurs.