Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on December 26, 2009 at 11:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here we go again. More communist thinking. Sad state of affairs here in the United States of Socialist Republics. If you aren't suggesting a socialist or communist taxing system why did you feel the need to specifically say that you weren't?

Posted by Philo_Publius (anonymous) on December 26, 2009 at 11:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That was a very good explanation, and exctly what needs to be done......YOu can not argue with results.......79, you seem to get confued, first you say communist and then you use socialist..yo do know they are different, right?........and again I ask, what is wrong with this gentlemans thinking?...............philo publius

Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on December 27, 2009 at 12:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Socialism is but one step toward Communism. And if this gentleman is thinking, as are you, I do not want to even venture as to why you believe the way you do. How does one even begin to think like Karl Marx, Lenin, Stalin et al? That is a dark place I do not even want to even think about let alone wonder about.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on December 27, 2009 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It's funny how liberals like Tony continue to put out easily verifiable lies:

"while throwing the tax burden on the average Americans"
-------------
Lets look at who already pays the vast majority of taxes:

Top 1% pays 40.4% of all federal income taxes

Top 5% pays 60.6% of all federal income taxes

Top 10% pays 71.2% of all federal income taxes

Top 25% pays 86.6% of all federal income taxes

The bottom 40% pays 0.0% of all federal income taxes

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on December 27, 2009 at 9:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey Philo, what's wrong with his thinking? Why stop at an income tax? How about going to a grocery store? How about you have to pay your bill based on a progressive scale? Say you make <$100,000 you only have to pay 10 cents on the dollar! Just think, you can buy Porterhouse steak for $0.50/lb! You can have your favorite steak every nite of the week! It's so cheap, you can grill some up for your dogs! Of course... since everybody is now buying porterhouse steaks, there is a shortage and the price is now $50/lb back to where you started ($5/lb)...

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on December 27, 2009 at 9:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I believe that we should have a flat tax. Everybody uses the United States infrastructure pretty much equally. The rich should not be penalized because they are successful.

The constitution originally only allowed landowners to vote. Why? Because they were the one's who had a vested long term interest.

I think taxpaying and voting should go hand in hand. If you don't pay taxes, you shouldn't be able to vote.

Who is actually going to care more how our government spends money? Somebody who actually earned money and had to give up a portion to the government or... somebody that didn't have to put a dime in.

Posted by cashmere (anonymous) on December 27, 2009 at 11:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The progressive tax system would work, if it worked. But do the rich actually pay their taxes? I know I'm in the middle, and by the time I deduct tuition, interest, etc., I get thousands back. So if I, a little piddling middle class taxpayer, can get thousands back, what about a rich guy with a fleet of tax accountants? Do you really think that he is patriotically, as Joe Biden would say, ponying up his 'fair' share?

In the 'perfect' communists societies we have observed in the 20th century, the rulers and upper class never seemed to miss a meal, unlike the proletariat that was supposed to be in control, in their workers' paradise.

I suppose if there was a tax system in which there were no loopholes and all tax due was paid, that would be interesting and profitable to the government, who wouldn't have to borrow money from communist China to bribe our congressmen into voting for various bills. Or have more billion dollar wars.

On second thought, I'll keep my tax refund.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on December 27, 2009 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Cashmere: " But do the rich actually pay their taxes?"
------

The top 10% pays 71.2% of all federal income taxes... and that's AFTER the deductions...

Posted by Philo_Publius (anonymous) on December 27, 2009 at 3:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I never have said libs ,or I, think like lenin and stalin.........That one step between socialism and communism is a huge step....Read about what socialism is and what communism is.........Karl Marx had some good ideas, about what the problems were in society between the newly formed classes........We were becoming more and more an industrial society ruled by robber barons taking advantage of the working class.....He said that those problems would cause trouble between the classes.......And he was right.........we now live with socialist programs and have for many years now......And noesis, thats the ploy of cons is to exhaggerate the issues......your analogy was just overly elementary.......the article did a great job of explaing why flat taxes are bad...............Now I know you don't agree, but thats O.K...philo publius

Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on December 27, 2009 at 4:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So I guess by your reasoning Hitler was right, he just went too far. You go ahead and praise your hero Marx and we in the United States will do what we do best. Live free or die does have meaning. Yes we do have socialist programs but they all combined have got this country into massive debt. Bush didn't help with his prescription drug plan, but otherwise a conservative is for giving opportunity to the people to be what they can be, not be a hindrance to their ambitions like the great society has done to untold millions of people since its' inception.

Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on December 27, 2009 at 9:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tony M. Burge, Jr.; Excellent article, well thought out and expertly presented. My compliments, especially for it's logic and fairness to all. We, United States Citizens, are privileged and should be proud to pay our fair share of taxes for the betterment of all the people of this country. There is no question about it. a Progressive Income Tax is the route to go.

Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on December 27, 2009 at 9:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Pom Pom girl.

We the people of this country have been proud to pay our fair share of the taxes. We are promised that it will be done for the good and betterment of all. It never is, it never has and never will. The federal government is nothing but a bloated bureaucratic drain on our republic and the biggest obstacle on achievement for all.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on December 27, 2009 at 9:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Our founding fathers were totally against tax rates that weren't equal to all. “[A]ll duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States,”: The U.S. Constitution.

James Madison even states: “The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice.”

The first "progressive" tax was instituted for the Civil war but once it was over, it was quickly repealed. Congress tried again and was thwarted:

When Congress passed another income tax in 1894—one that only hit the top 2 percent of wealth holders—the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. Stephen Field, a veteran of 30 years on the Court, was outraged that Congress would pass a bill to tax a small voting bloc and exempt the larger group of voters. At age 77, Field not only repudiated Congress’s actions, he also penned a prophecy. A small progressive tax, he predicted, “will be but the stepping stone to others, larger and more sweeping, till our political contests will become a war of the poor against the rich.”
---------------

Guess he knew what he was talking about.

Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on December 27, 2009 at 11:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Noesis,

The first thing your detractors will see is "1894." I mean that is like 50 years ago or something to them. They're thinking ancient. Let us take them back to the revolution and see which side the liberal would have been on. Conservative, against taxation without representation. Libertarian, against taxation period. Independent, maybe 50/50 depending on their devotion to the mother land. Moderates, who the heck cares. Liberals, would have had the revolutionaries arrested for polluting Boston Harbor with all that tea. Then they would have had them prosecuted for hate crimes for dressing as native americans while doing so. I will see if they are smart enought to determine which side they would have been on.

Posted by keta (anonymous) on December 27, 2009 at 11:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The fact that the top 5% income earners pay 60% of all income taxes mostly just serves to illustrate how obscene the gap between the very rich and the rest of us has become. When CEOs earn in an hour what average workers earn in a year, well, duh. And hedge funds and private equity firms keep the pressure on to keep that capital gains rate at 15%, while the rest of us cough up a third of our salaries year after year. Warren Buffett created a big stir when he pointed out that he paid 17% on the millions he earned, while his secretary paid 30% of her $60, 000 salary. Warren is a big old communist, I guess, for pointing out how ridiculous that is. In reality, our tax system protects wealth, and an army of bean counters work tirelessly to keep it that way - to keep capital gains and inheritance taxes low, to work those loopholes for all they're worth and create new and better ones. Weirdly, there are always worker bees like Noesis and 79 Tiger who think it's their patriotic duty defend the right of these old pirates to earn 700 times more than either of them, and keep every cent, if they can. 'Cause there ain't no doubt they love this laaaaand....

Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on December 27, 2009 at 11:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

keta

I think you should pay as much as can to your government. Your money, your tax. Remember, there is nothing at all, and I do mean nothing from stopping you from paying more than what you are required to do by law. As a matter of fact, if you do work, why not tell your employer to take out an extra $50 a week out of your pay and send it to Obama so he can help the others you care so much about. Nothing at all from stopping you, exept your hyporcracy.

Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on December 28, 2009 at 12:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

keta,

By the way, I do love this land. That is why I get concerned when an ever intrusive government wants to take it away from me, you and others. I guess you are okay with that as long as it is not your land. When they come for yours, there will be nobody else to stand up for you.

Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on December 28, 2009 at 12:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Noesis,

My hat is off to you. I don't know how you do it. How do you educate the uneducatable. You give facts, they give feelings. You give examples, they give but if's. You provide results, they glamorize the intent. You live in the real world, the live in Wonderland.

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on December 28, 2009 at 1:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The uneducated (uneducatable is not a word), Tiger, are those of you who think the rich should get to undermine the system. You're like the guy who hangs out with the bully. As long as he isn't picking on you, then you may get some scraps from him. Its pathetic to think that you guys think its ok that the wealthiest 2% of America should get to bypass the tax system.
Noesis, you are all about "percentages." So let Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, and Oprah all pay 30% tax like their secretaries. How exactly is that going to hurt you? And, isn't THAT equal? Are you honestly saying that Bill Gates should pay, say, $5000 in income tax because some guy in a warehouse pays that amount?
The uneducated Tiger, are people like you. Sad sheep, herded by the wealthy, thinking that you will get some "trickle down" effect. I don't think you will like what gets "trickled down" on you

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on December 28, 2009 at 5:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Tony likes to point out the fact that a progressive tax will put $1,000.00 in the hand of a worker giving him purchasing power.

Sorry but this worker never existed.

Steve owned an automotive repair shop. He had 17 workers. Steve's business was doing so good, he had almost a million dollars in the bank and was going to start a second shop. But then, democrats levied a progressive tax on him. His million dollars he was counting on to start a second shop.... gone... the 17 workers he was going to higher.... gone.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on December 28, 2009 at 5:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Its pathetic to think that you guys think its ok that the wealthiest 2% of America should get to bypass the tax system."
--------------

You know, you would think that the daily displays of the basic lack of knowledge exhibited by the liberals in here would stop surprising me.

It doesn't.

Jonferguson, have you not heard of the AMT? How exactly do they get out of paying the AMT? Jeez!!!

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on December 28, 2009 at 9:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sure Noesis, there are no loopholes, and they are going to make you wealthy beyond your wildest dreams some day. Keep defending, and while your at it, get a warm washcloth. You have a koolaid ring around your mouth.

...and its "hire"...not "higher" But maybe you are...what exactly ARE you smoking?

We aren't talking about Jim Bob's Auto Shop....we're talking about the Gates', the Winfrey's and the Trumps. Stop comparing apples to oranges.

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on December 28, 2009 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Those Regular-Guy Small-Business Owners

Another ad on RightChange.com's site, titled "Fair," features a couple that owns a kitchenware shop. The woman says, "We started off with a dream and lots of debt. We struggled, but we're making it." She contends that Obama would "punish small businesses" like hers with that 62 percent rate.

The implication that your average mom-and-pop entrepreneurs pay the top tax rate, let alone this bogus version, is absurd. If this woman is taxed at the top rate, she's "making it" better than 99 percent of what could be considered small-business owners.

As we've explained before, many business owners file taxes as individuals and, therefore, pay personal income taxes on their business income. But the overwhelming majority of business owners (and people in general) do not earn enough to be affected by any tax increase under Obama. They earn less than $200,000 as individuals or $250,000 as a couple, and Obama proposes not raising their taxes.

Would any small-business owners pay more? It's likely. Obama plans to return the top two income tax brackets to their rates before the Bush tax cuts. There's no clear agreed-upon definition of "small business." But the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center projects that 663,000 taxpayers who report business income, or business losses, in 2009 will fall into the top two brackets, including 457,000 who are projected to fall into the top bracket. That's 1.3 percent of all tax filers who are expected to report business income or losses, including lawyers and other professionals who get partnership distributions, those who are passive investors in deals such as real estate, farmers and others with freelance or outside consulting income. Those who could legitimately be called "small-business owners" would be even less than that.

How much would Obama raise taxes for the top earners? He says he'll increase their marginal tax rate of 35 percent to 39.6 percent, which would mean they'd pay 4.6 percent more on net income above $372,950 in 2009. They'd also pay 3 percent more on income from $200,000 (or $250,000 if filing as a married couple) up to $372,950, since the second-highest tax rate would also be raised for such earners.

Posted by alwaysquestion (anonymous) on December 28, 2009 at 2:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I find it interesting that when one shares his or her opinion in what appears to be an honest and non-inflamatory manner, there are those who immediately throw out labels (communist, socialist, Marxist, etc.). Seems rather defensive, when healthy, open discourse would serve us all better.

Posted by alwaysquestion (anonymous) on December 28, 2009 at 2:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Sad sheep, herded by the wealthy, thinking that you will get some 'trickle down' effect. I don't think you will like what gets 'trickled down' on you." Well stated, and humorous.

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on December 28, 2009 at 3:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

SO Noesis, you are saying the guy with the million dollars was taxed 100%? Obama took every dime he had saved? I bet he gave it to some dead beat, homeless guy. He probably lives a swanky life now....all the 2 dollar booze he can drink...the best refrigerator box to sleep in...

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on December 28, 2009 at 3:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"The rich should not be penalized because they are successful."

Is that grape or cherry?

Good grief...do you READ what you write? First, noone is saying they should be "punished." But if I am going to pay 30% of my 38,000 salary, its will hurt me a lot worse than W.B. paying 15% of his multi-million dollar salary. So, because they are rich, and because they're 15% equals more than my 30%, I should just be ok with that, right?

Good grief Noesis! Surely you jest.....

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on December 28, 2009 at 3:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I enjoyed this tidbit of info:

Under Bush, democracy in America came under threat not only from this growing concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands, but also from such draconian pieces of legislation as the Patriot Act of 2001 and the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which have eroded civil liberties and have turned America into a sort of Orwellian police state where “Big Brother” is always watching you.

“Middle class spending is the growth engine in a free market economy, and when taxes rob the middle class in favour of the rich, the economy shuts down,” says the AsQuestions.org report. “Huge fortunes also produce political power that is hard to control. That’s why all modern democracies use their tax laws to prevent excessive concentration of wealth. And that’s why we need a fair taxes campaign in America,” the report adds.

Pretty much exactly what conservatives are saying about democrats, yet THEY were perpetrating the BIG GOVERMENT, and taking money out of MY pocket and giving it to the rich. Its about time we take our money back, and quit living like mushrooms, while the fat man's busy dancing....

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on December 28, 2009 at 3:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by jonferguson

Sure Noesis, there are no loopholes
---------------
Nope, not on the AMT there isn't. But of course, you already knew that didn't you?

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on December 28, 2009 at 3:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

But the overwhelming majority of business owners (and people in general) do not earn enough to be affected by any tax increase under Obama. They earn less than $200,000 as individuals or $250,000 as a couple, and Obama proposes not raising their taxes.
---------------
Is this the same Obama who said that he would not raise taxes on anything if you made <$200,000 and then raised taxes on cigarettes? Who's going to tax you if you don't buy health insurance? Who wants you to pay more energy costs through the cap and trade tax?

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on December 28, 2009 at 4:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How much would Obama raise taxes for the top earners? He says he'll increase their marginal tax rate of 35 percent to 39.6 percent.....
----------

Who turned your "campaign mode" switch back on? We were talking about a progressive income tax, not promises that Obambi made earlier.

"But the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center projects that 663,000 taxpayers who report business income, or business losses, in 2009 will fall into the top two brackets, including 457,000 who are projected to fall into the top bracket."

and these are the people who a progressive tax would hurt and limit any future job growth...

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on December 28, 2009 at 4:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Good grief...do you READ what you write? First, noone is saying they should be "punished." But if I am going to pay 30% of my 38,000 salary, its will hurt me a lot worse than W.B. paying 15% of his multi-million dollar salary. So, because they are rich, and because they're 15% equals more than my 30%, I should just be ok with that, right?

Good grief Noesis! Surely you jest.....
-------------------------------------------

Why would I jest?

Say I own a 2005 Dodge Ram. Say you own a 2005 Dodge Ram. Say we both got on the Ohio Turnpike at the same entrance and got off the same exit. You are saying my "tax/toll" should be twice as high as yours because I make more money than you? Didn't we put the same amount of "wear and tear" on the road?

Posted by mikehaney (anonymous) on December 28, 2009 at 4:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Cut our goverment bureacracy in half and fire all the lawyers.
Straight tax for all would save all of us oodles of money.
Also a sales tax on everything would more than make up the difference.
If a rich man/woman makes money he/she can bury it in the ground,invest it in business,invest in money making accounts,stocks,etc.or buy something. No matter what he/she does wih his/her profits it would require a tax to be collected again. Greed would force him/her to dig up his can of money and buy something with it.
A new boat, a fancy car, or a mansion. Just think of the jobs created from his/her mad spending thru sales taxes. Every dime he/she spends would support national defense,roads,schools,law enforcement.
Invest overseas,taxed when the profits come across the border. A new BMW,taxed when it gets over here.
And forget credit for business exspenses.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on December 28, 2009 at 4:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I know that you liberals hate to admit this but... the money we earn is OURS not the governments, OURS!

That is where we are having our basic disconnect. Conservatives believe that we earn our money and a government should get a portion to run on.

Liberals believe that all money is the governments (that is why they are for an inheritance tax, they want their money back) and they should decide how it is spent.

If our founding fathers were alive today, they'd ship all you liberals back to Europe where you belong ;)

Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on December 28, 2009 at 6:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

alwaysquestion; I enjoyed your two posts. With your insight, you should post more often. It would benefit all of us. Thanks.

Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on December 28, 2009 at 7:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jonferguson; You have my utmost respect and admiration for your comments. Your care and concern for your fellow Americans is to be commended (also, your fellow Man). Your posts are very insightful and thoughtful. Thank you for your effort and concern.

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on December 29, 2009 at 8:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Liberals believe that all money is the governments"

Preach it Rush! Give me a break...

I won't speak for an entire group of people. As for me, I believe that if I should lose 30% of MY paycheck to the government, then so should Donald Trump. It has nothing to do with driving on a Freeway Noesis, again, comparing apples to oranges. More diversion from the facts.

What Republicans are saying is, since you make less money, your $10,500 of your $35,000 salary (30%) is what you owe us. But since Donald Trump made $65 million, we're only going to take 15% of HIS money, which comes to around $9 million instead of taking more than $18 million from him, which is the rate that YOU are taxed.

The use of roads is a weak argument about WHY the wealthy should get a lower tax rate than the working class. We ARE the buying power of the country. Start making the rich pony up their share, and start giving US the tax breaks that Bush enacted for the wealthy. Then maybe we can turn things around. See, that's what you conservatives are trying to wrongly do. It's the old bait and switch. Trying to talk about raising OUR taxes, when in truth, dems aren't raising the every day man's taxes. They are expecting more out of the wealthiest 2% of the nation.

Oh and Noesis, stop smoking. Cigarette tax solved. And you'll be around to annoy longer....

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on December 29, 2009 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh, and Noesis, yes, I do know what the AMT tax is. It was a very good plan to keep the wealthy from not paying taxes AT ALL! It still doesn't stop the tax breaks and loopholes though. It simply prevents them from claiming they owe no taxes, as was the case in 1969 when the outgoing Treasury Secretary Joseph Barr gave Congress proof that 155 people all with incomes over $200,000 paid no personal income tax.

There are indeed ways around the AMT. It doesn't necessarily get imposed EVERY year, and, its tax rate is significantly lower than the regular tax rate. Also, there are a slew of lawyers standing in line to help the wealthy hide their assets to keep them "less burdened."

By your calculations Noesis, if you and I are in third grade (me for the first time, you for your third try) and my dad makes $22,000 a year, and your dad makes $160,000 a year, we should both get reduced lunches because we put the same "wear and tear" on the forks.

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on December 29, 2009 at 3:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Slightly over half of all Americans – 52.6 percent – now receive significant income from government programs, according to an analysis by Gary Shilling, an economist in Springfield, N.J. That's up from 49.4 percent in 2000 and far above the 28.3 percent of Americans in 1950.
"New Deal programs persist," despite the Reagan revolution and its aftermath, says James Galbraith, an economist at the University of Texas in Austin. "They persist because they are largely successful and highly popular."

Mr. Shilling's analysis found that about 1 in 5 Americans hold a government job or a job reliant on federal spending. A similar number receive Social Security or a government pension. About 19 million others get food stamps, 2 million get subsidized housing, and 5 million get education grants. For all these categories, Mr. Shilling counted dependents as well as the direct recipients of government income.

Many Americans, in surveys, say they don't like the way their tax money is spent. And a majority now says, in a reversal from a year ago, that their federal income taxes are too high, according to an April Gallup poll.

Yet at the same time, much of US population is on the receiving end of that tax-revenue stream.

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on December 29, 2009 at 3:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

....but I'm sure all those who accept the assistance are moonbunny liberals, right?

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on December 29, 2009 at 3:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"The federal government is nothing but a bloated bureaucratic drain on our republic and the biggest obstacle on achievement for all."

1 in 5 people hold a government job, or a job reliant on Government spending. Hmm....

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on December 30, 2009 at 4:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

....but I'm sure all those who accept the assistance are moonbunny liberals, right?
---------------

Jeez, do you even read what you cut and paste?

Didn't the words "Social Security or a government pension" stick out?

And why should the rich have to give up their money? Again, it's not the governments to take. What makes it OK to steal money from one person to give to another?

I do NOT remember that being anywhere in our constitution.

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on December 30, 2009 at 9:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I sure would like to compare tax RETURNS with Donald Trump or Bill Gates. I would venture to say they get a little more back than I do, probably as a percentage too for you Noesis.

Apparently YOU didn't read it. It says a "similar number." That makes it 2 in 5.

The truth is, everybody pays, and in some way, everybody reaps the benefits. Paying your "fair" share is what keeps this the greatest nation on earth.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on December 30, 2009 at 4:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Since there are 300 million people in the United States, and the author says 50% receive significant government income. That would be 150 million. So, he's saying that 30 million get SS benefits, 30 million have government jobs and about 19 million others get food stamps, 2 million get subsidized housing, and 5 million get education grants.

86 million out of 300 million isn't 52%.

And... how can you say "everybody pays" when 40% of the tax filers don't pay ANY federal income tax? How are they paying their "fair share"?

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on December 31, 2009 at 1:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, when 40% of America doesn't make enough to pay taxes, and the top whatever % you made up can pay 70% of the tax burden, that should tell you something about the "distribution" of wealth in this country. Does that 70% keep any of them from buying new mansions? Take 2 month vacations to wherever they want? Have a BMW for every day of the week? Nope. Doesn't hurt them at all.

However, that same percentage of pay reduction for someone making 24,000 a year? Could be the difference between a house or a trailer. A car or the bus. Food or christmas gifts. But sure, it makes sense huh? Get a clue.

Posted by TheTinMan (anonymous) on January 2, 2010 at 8:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"I’m not suggesting a socialist or communist taxing system ..."

That's exactly what your proposing. Why should a person who sacrificed during their younger years, stayed in school and/or started a profitable business pay more taxes than a person who stopped at a high school education and works construction.

What makes the person who jumps from job to job, drinks and drugs up a substantial portion of their income DESERVE to pay less in taxes than someone who stays at one company, build a career and spends his money wisely.

These are simple ethical questions. Why?

Posted by TheTinMan (anonymous) on January 2, 2010 at 8:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

(wrong button)

I'll tell you why. Because you feel 'sorry' for them. Well, newsflash, they don't feel sorry for themselves. If they did they would march down to the Salvation Army, or the Red Cross, or the City Mission, or Goodwill, or another of the thousands of organizations for the less fortunate.

Your stupid government programs are specifically designed to reward laziness and theivery. The people that game your system laugh at you. There's nothing wrong with most people. Its human nature to take free stuff. It kills the spirit. Wake up.

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on January 4, 2010 at 2:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'll answer your question with a question there "tinman"

Why is it fair that the guy who stayed in a company for 30 years, only to have that company close its doors, and he have to back to work for a lower wage, why should HE have to pay 30% of his paycheck in taxes, while the greedy so and so who shut the company down that he worked for gets to keep all but 10 or 15 percent of his?

You see, in your ignorance, you think that you may be affected when we talk about the top 1 or 2 percent of earners. YOU ARE NOT IN THAT CATEGORY!

So, you are defending the very people who are shutting down our factories, ruining lives, and running America into the ground. THAT is what I call "stupid"

I would venture to guess most people aren't poor OR homeless by choice. I would assume that they would like to have plenty of money and a roof over their heads. go figure.

Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on January 4, 2010 at 7:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jonferguson; "So, you are defending the very people who are shutting down our factories, ruining lives, and running America into the ground". A very accurate and perceptive observation.