If you were President, What would you do?

[Dr. Jet]

I'm not sure what your point is... We all know that 1/2 of them are up for re-election... Doesn't change the point from what I can tell...

My point is the manner in which the news is presented to the consumers. Many less sophisticated consumers don't see the errors of omission.

[Dr. Jet]

Regarding taxing "The Rich": If the government were to confiscate 100% of the income of "The Rich", it would only run this country for a few days. No folks, it is YOU, the average "Joe the Plumber" type wage earner that pays for the day-to-day operation of this country. That's where the majority of wealth in this country lies, and that's where the government goes to get it.

Second point: How many of you are employed by a "Poor" person?

[AndyKunz]

Class wars are a tool of the Communists to start revolution. Look ahead! Here's a great site if you're seriously into learning what seems to be behind American politics today.

http://economics.gmu.edu/bcaplan/museum/marx3.htm

Andy

[m4a1usr]

Some very good read Andy. I liked the link to Capitalism. Wow,....did that strike a nerve. Somethings are true no matter how they get painted. The man was insane but did he have Capitalism pegged or what!

John

http://economics.gmu.edu/bcaplan/museum/marx2.htm

[Bill-SOCAL]

Bill 2% of 117 Million people is alot of pissed off Americans.

Not really what I was asking. But your response does point to the special magic that is the GOP and that is how extraordinarily well they control the message to the point that the 98% will so fervently protect the interests of the 2%.

[Darin Jordan]

Not really what I was asking. But your response does point to the special magic that is the GOP and that is how extraordinarily well they control the message to the point that the 98% will so fervently protect the interests of the 2%.

Replace "GOP" with "DEMOCRATS"... I suppose you'll tell me it's different somehow??

BS, strawman arguement... everytime someone points out that it takes people making money to grow an economy and keep people working, some Lib tries to trash the system. BUT, then they try to come after all that money... WHY? Because it takes money to do all the crap they want to do too... Difference is... the stuff WE want to do actually produces weath... The things THEY want to do tears it down and divides it.

News flash... you don't build someone up by giving them a fish... You build them up by TEACHING them to fish, so they can sustain themselves on their own...

But it's all been said before... This is a no win, because there are NOT reasonable people on both sides of this discussion (generally speaking... not saying that Bill in particular is not reasonable, because I actually think he is... )... The numbers only work with one of the arguements.

Go ahead and take 100% of the money of that top 2% if you like... you still can't do 1/3rd of what you need to do, so where do you think the rest is coming from?

Taking 39% of ANYONE's income is BS.

[Steven Vaccaro]

Not really what I was asking. But your response does point to the special magic that is the GOP and that is how extraordinarily well they control the message to the point that the 98% will so fervently protect the interests of the 2%.

I know what you were asking. Its not magic, its the truth. Are you saying that just because its only 2%, they dont need to be represented?

The 2% already pay a major part of their wages towards taxes. I can give dozens of examples of normal people making 250k that are not the "Rich", talked about these days.

My buddy thats coming over for the Super Bowl makes that kind of money. He's in no way rich. Works his butt off to keep a house and school his children. Another friend of mine is a cop that makes $150k a year(working about 70 hours a week), combined with his wife he has to be making close to $250k. These people are not what I would classify as rich. ALL of them are hard working, everyday Americans. ALL of them can't just decide to stop working and retire. Or vacation for months on end. Obama's idea of rich just doest work these days.

A customer of mine just won the lottery. $250k. He took home 180K after TAXES. That means that the $70k (that came directly from other losing citizens) goes directly towards taxes. What a joke.

It amazes me how ANY tax paying American can believe in tax and spend policy's.

[AndyKunz]

You want to see growth again? What worked last time was REDUCING taxes. Tax me less, and I more incentive to make more, and I spend more, and invest in companies that innovate more.

Andy

[Steven Vaccaro]

You want to see growth again? What worked last time was REDUCING taxes. Tax me less, and I more incentive to make more, and I spend more, and invest in companies that innovate more.

Andy

It just can't be done with the spend, spend and spend more agenda.

When are they going to learn that we need manufacturing back? When will they learn that everyone can't become an executive or office worker. Bring back the garment districts, the factories and the shoe companies.

[Bill-SOCAL]

No folks, it is YOU, the average "Joe the Plumber" type wage earner that pays for the day-to-day operation of this country. That's where the majority of wealth in this country lies, and that's where the government goes to get it.

This is just flat wrong.

The top 5% of households in the US control 58.9% of the wealth.

The top 10% controls 71%.

The middle 50% control 28.5% of the wealth.

The bottom 40% controls 0.2% of the wealth.

So the idea that the "middle class" has most of the wealth is just flat wrong.

http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm

Second point: How many of you are employed by a "Poor" person?

So the thinking is that if a business owner has to pay more in taxes that he/she will fire employees and downsize their company in order to reduce their income and thereby lower their taxes??

Federal, state, county, and local governments employ just shy of 20 million people. The total current estimated workforce is about 138 million. So that is about 14% of the total US workforce. Most of these jobs actually rely on tax revenue.

Within the remaining 86%, or what is called the private sector workforce, nearly 50% work for companies with greater than 500 employees. This would make them more likely to be larger corporations whose decisions are made by the Board of Directors and not individuals. Meaning that incremental increases in personal income tax rates do not necessarily translate into reduction in employees due to the people on the Board having to pay higher taxes.

So that leaves about 50% who work for companies between 1 and 499 employees. But that is 50% of 86% who work in the private sector, or about 59 million people (43%). So it is these folks who you contend are employed by rich people who will fire some of them if the rich folks have to pay higher taxes.

http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=228

http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/small-businesses-are-employing-less-of-the-labor-force/

[Steven Vaccaro]

I'm one of those small companies that has 5 people working within it.
3 are family. 2 are not. I could easily lay off one of the girls, I would just have to get off my butt more . I'm not like the government Bill, if my core expenses increase I will have to cut something that's not needed. That's the problem with government(including our Chief), most of them and the people that want to increase taxes have never run anything, but they are very smart people with college degrees!

[Bill-SOCAL]

So if you had to pay another say $500 a year in personal income tax you would fire one of your workers? I am not talking about business costs, etc. Your personal income tax. As it increases you will fire employees, is that correct?

[Dr. Jet]

This is just flat wrong.

The top 5% of households in the US control 58.9% of the wealth.

The top 10% controls 71%.

The middle 50% control 28.5% of the wealth.

The bottom 40% controls 0.2% of the wealth.

So the idea that the "middle class" has most of the wealth is just flat wrong.

http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/fac...ome&wealth.htm

I knew you would fall for that. I said INCOME, not WEALTH. Ted Kennedy had wealth, but not a huge income. There's a difference there that you Lefties just don't seem to understand.

So the thinking is that if a business owner has to pay more in taxes that he/she will fire employees and downsize their company in order to reduce their income and thereby lower their taxes??

Federal, state, county, and local governments employ just shy of 20 million people. The total current estimated workforce is about 138 million. So that is about 14% of the total US workforce. Most of these jobs actually rely on tax revenue.

Within the remaining 86%, or what is called the private sector workforce, nearly 50% work for companies with greater than 500 employees. This would make them more likely to be larger corporations whose decisions are made by the Board of Directors and not individuals. Meaning that incremental increases in personal income tax rates do not necessarily translate into reduction in employees due to the people on the Board having to pay higher taxes.

So that leaves about 50% who work for companies between 1 and 499 employees. But that is 50% of 86% who work in the private sector, or about 59 million people (43%). So it is these folks who you contend are employed by rich people who will fire some of them if the rich folks have to pay higher taxes.

http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=228

http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/0...e-labor-force/

I owned my own business, and when hit with huge taxes, I couldn't afford to keep my two employees. It wasn't about reducing taxes. It was about being able to pay the employees you have.

[domwilson]

You want to see growth again? What worked last time was REDUCING taxes. Tax me less, and I more incentive to make more, and I spend more, and invest in companies that innovate more.

Andy

Historically speaking, wars have been good for the economy. It increase domestic manufacturing. If we really want growth, we need to build up the manufacturing sector and exit some of these trade agreements.

[Darin Jordan]

If we really want growth, we need to build up the manufacturing sector ....

How exactly do you do that, while at the same time, taxing them more and putting more costly regulations on them??

Hasn't ever been possible before, what makes this time around any different?

Hint: You ARE aware of what the definition of insanity is, right???