What Would You Do?

It's not punishing people to force them to pay for the system that allowed them to make the money to begin with.

 

Hey TX-

No... I do not share OT's view on property owners and voting rights. That's a bit too 1957 in Mississippi for me. Please don't lump me in with that group...

So you don't feel ANY differently about your taxes if you are not paying "formal" property taxes? School districts loooove homeowners like that. Oh -- another $177 dollars per $100,000? No big deal.

My biggest issue with right now is the element of vilification of people who make good money. Our president was, essentially, out on the campaign trail (and still is in a way), talking about people making 250k paying their fair share.

Those people already pay it.

The taxes they pay at 28 or 31% (even after their deductions) federal keep the taxes lower for the rest of us. I think we paid 16% total federal, after deductions.

But when you've had a President who campaigned on a platform of pitchforks - that is, taxing the high-earners and hitting up businesses to pay for more benefits (especially health care premiums).. they will take preemptive action.

They'll stop spending their money.

Example -- let's say you make $150,000 a year and, last year, you went on the Obama 2008 site - did the tax calculation and saw you would not get a tax cut. You knew, from the rhetoric, your taxes would go up. So...you cut your spending. No vacation. No new car. Less money in the economy.

Now for businesses -- once Obama pulled ahead for good in August, businesses braced for what was to come. As the rich curbed their spending, less money came in. Companies reacted with cutbacks.

It's a vicious cycle -- all started from campaign rhetoric and hearing what an awful country we are. Cheap politics to get voted in? Oh sure -- although, Obama would have won in 2008, even without the pitchfork/populist element.

 

What you call pitchfork-populist rhetoric involved bringing the top rate back to what it was under Reagan -- which was then postponed when the economy tanked.

Perhaps a little less talk radio?

 

They already do, no?

 

Apparently not, because the system isn't paying for itself. We're in debt up to our eyeballs.

 

Trust me, it isn't because of the "rich."

 

I don't trust you.

 

You can't possibly be serious.

 

Yes. And it's a perfectly reasonable and common idea, so why not rebut it instead of acting incredulous?

 

There's your first mistake.

 

I would outlaw the term Global Warming.

 

I blame that on unsustainable cost of "the system." Not the people paying half their income to the government.