These are not the class warfare droids that you are looking for.

[timcsaw]

Who is John Gault?

If you want to pick up some revenue for the bloated government, you have to sacrifice someone. If you take away tax incentives such as writing off interest on mortgage payments, you've lost the entire middle class vote, as well as possibly actually destroying the middle class.

Now, you raise taxes on the "super-wealthy", you only affect 1/10 of 1% of the (voting population). Assuming that you started off with half of that voting population in the first place, and you may lose half of that, you've lost 1/40th of 1% of the voting public. But you've reinforced your base, and easily at least made back that miniscule voting block that you lost.

Sounds great, especially if you ignore things such as the "super-wealthy" keeping their money tied up in investments instead of selling shares and using cash to buy stuff - those Gulfstreams, mansions, yachts, etc. Ain't going to sell themselves. And, if you're now going to get walloped with extra tax, why sell those stocks and put money into charitable organizations? Things like the Carnegie Foundation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, etc. become less and less and less common.

Unfortunately, that 1/10 of 1% (who pay the lion's share of all taxes) may say "heck with this" and move their operations to a more tax friendly location (taking their money and jobs with them) see India, Canada, China, Korea etc.). "Win" for them, lose for "us". Limit the feed (via taxation) to the golden goose and she may pucker up her butt and lay fewer eggs. Boy that'll teach her for being so stinkin' rich!

[jdm61]

Actually, in the past, Americans who chose to do that have tended to move to much more familiar surroundings like Norway and Switzerland, where rich foreigners were effectively able to negotiate their tax rate with the national government, or in the case of Switzerland, with the canton (state) that they chose to move to.

Unfortunately, that 1/10 of 1% (who pay the lion's share of all taxes) may say "heck with this" and move their operations to a more tax friendly location (taking their money and jobs with them) see India, Canada, China, Korea etc.). "Win" for them, lose for "us". Limit the feed (via taxation) to the golden goose and she may pucker up her butt and lay fewer eggs. Boy that'll teach her for being so stinkin' rich!

[jdm61]

Actually, I have heard some of the "tax me liberals" say that the mortgage interest deduction should be eliminated. But no politician is that dumb. For example, whenever you hear people talking about letting the Bush tax "cuts' expire, they typically always add the caveat that they want to keep SOME of them, like the ones that dropped the bottom marginal rate to 10% and the deductions that allow almost 1/2 of the American people to not pay any income tax. Letting the provisions of the Bush tax reforms sunset might not result in a lot of those people having to pay taxes, but some would and those would be folks who fall into the "middle class" as Obama defines it. Have you noticed that Obama and those of his ilk are careful to define the middle class so bradly that you almost NEVER hear them talking about a "lower" or working class?

[wintermute]

Unfortunately, that 1/10 of 1% (who pay the lion's share of all taxes) may say "heck with this" and move their operations to a more tax friendly location (taking their money and jobs with them) see India, Canada, China, Korea etc.). "Win" for them, lose for "us". Limit the feed (via taxation) to the golden goose and she may pucker up her butt and lay fewer eggs. Boy that'll teach her for being so stinkin' rich!

Absolutely. Hence my Atlas Shrugged comment. Staying in the U.S. for love of country can only go so far. At some point it does not make fiscal sense to stay here.

And regarding the disappearance of the middle class. As has been trumpeted over the last several months, home construction is up. At face value that sounds great, but if you drill deeper you learn that most of that home construction is due to apartments, condos, and co-ops. There is very little recovery in the single family home construction industry. This leads me to believe that the landed middle class is quickly going the way of the dodo.

[jdm61]

That is exactly what happened in the UK in the 60's and 70's when the government decided to tax artist's royalties at rates as high was 90-95% Remember George Harrison singing about "one for you, nineteen for me" in Taxman? He wasn't really exaggerating much. The title of the Rolling Stones record "Exile On Mail Street" was inspired in part by them having to live outside of the UK for 6 months plus one day every year to avoid that taxation. Of course, governments, especially the US government, got smart after that. Now you have to totally leave the country.

Absolutely. Hence my Atlas Shrugged comment. Staying in the U.S. for love of country can only go so far. At some point it does not make fiscal sense to stay here.

And regarding the disappearance of the middle class. As has been trumpeted over the last several months, home construction is up. At face value that sounds great, but if you drill deeper you learn that most of that home construction is due to apartments, condos, and co-ops. There is very little recovery in the single family home construction industry. This leads me to believe that the landed middle class is quickly going the way of the dodo.

[jdm61]

But then again, the "landed middle class" had been artificially expanded to a degree never before seen by the government in the post WW2 era. I have said for a few years that the US avoided some of the pitfalls of the "social democratic" revolution for a long time by telling the proletariat that they were actually petite bourgeoisie AND providing them with the indicia of that class, namely ownership of real estate and a college education, through the auspices of programs like VA, FHA, etc.

Absolutely. Hence my Atlas Shrugged comment. Staying in the U.S. for love of country can only go so far. At some point it does not make fiscal sense to stay here.

And regarding the disappearance of the middle class. As has been trumpeted over the last several months, home construction is up. At face value that sounds great, but if you drill deeper you learn that most of that home construction is due to apartments, condos, and co-ops. There is very little recovery in the single family home construction industry. This leads me to believe that the landed middle class is quickly going the way of the dodo.

[quietmike]

The "middle class" is just the mid point of a bell curve. If, as liberals like to spout, the distance between the rich and poor are further apart than ever, then there are more people in the middle class than ever.

[OliverH]

The "middle class" is just the mid point of a bell curve. If, as liberals like to spout, the distance between the rich and poor are further apart than ever, then there are more people in the middle class than ever.

This is a statistical misunderstanding on your part.

[quietmike]

This is a statistical misunderstanding on your part.

Then enlighten me please.

[Triton]

For those of you worried about "paying their fair share" here are some actual statistics instead of the obama's silly anecdotes:

Federal income taxes:


and before you start yammering about the rich getting out of other taxes:


http://campaign2012.washingtonexamin...-charts/472806

So again, I ask who decides what's "fair" and why? To me it would appear that if you are paying a higher percentage of the tax burden then the percentage of the income you are in fact NOT paying your fair share... you are paying MORE than your fair share.

[hostileuniverse]

For those of you worried about "paying their fair share" here are some actual statistics instead of the obama's silly anecdotes:

Federal income taxes:


and before you start yammering about the rich getting out of other taxes:


http://campaign2012.washingtonexamin...-charts/472806

So again, I ask who decides what's "fair" and why? To me it would appear that if you are paying a higher percentage of the tax burden then the percentage of the income you are in fact NOT paying your fair share... you are paying MORE than your fair share.

obama, like most liberals, does not care about facts,

that is also why they rarely campaign on what they actually want to do, remember obamas '08 campaign slogans? and now he's comparing himself to Reagan, how convenient

[tyr_shadowblade]

Wow... Really? Surely you are not serious? And if you are, please cite examples, thanks.

Sorry about the delay in getting back to you. Been busy.

Examples? I'm not gonna cite specific cases, but I can give you a few valid examples.

First off, let's mention collection agencies, as they're probably the biggest offenders. Most collection firms are sleazy, and they use all sorts of underhanded tactics to get monies they may not even be entitled to. As a general rule they routinely engage in unethical behavior, and regularly break a number of laws from the Fair Credit Act restrictions to felony perjury. They are rarely prosecuted or sued, and when they are it is a slap on the wrist. Often defendants are sued for debts they never incurred (another person with a similar name), debts discharged in bankruptcy, debts which were paid in full, or debts past the expiry date per the statute of limitations. Many times the defendant never shows up in court because they were improperly served (left with an ex or with a stranger at a former address) or never served at all.

The next biggest offender is landlords, whether it be a private owner or a property management company. Poor people rarely get their security deposit back, are often sued for damages they are not responsible for, repairs that are the landlord's responsibility are never done, and evictions are often illegally done. If you are unfamiliar with your rights (which vary from state to state) and cannot afford a lawyer you are screwed. Again, judgements are granted after improper service and the former tenant sees their bank account seized and wages garnished with little recourse.

We will not get into governmental fines and penalties, many of which are arbitrary and punitive, as that enriches the community rather than a private firm (excepting contractors such as towing companies and such).

[hostileuniverse]

Sorry about the delay in getting back to you. Been busy.

Examples? I'm not gonna cite specific cases, but I can give you a few valid examples.

First off, let's mention collection agencies, as they're probably the biggest offenders. Most collection firms are sleazy, and they use all sorts of underhanded tactics to get monies they may not even be entitled to. As a general rule they routinely engage in unethical behavior, and regularly break a number of laws from the Fair Credit Act restrictions to felony perjury. They are rarely prosecuted or sued, and when they are it is a slap on the wrist. Often defendants are sued for debts they never incurred (another person with a similar name), debts discharged in bankruptcy, debts which were paid in full, or debts past the expiry date per the statute of limitations. Many times the defendant never shows up in court because they were improperly served (left with an ex or with a stranger at a former address) or never served at all.

The next biggest offender is landlords, whether it be a private owner or a property management company. Poor people rarely get their security deposit back, are often sued for damages they are not responsible for, repairs that are the landlord's responsibility are never done, and evictions are often illegally done. If you are unfamiliar with your rights (which vary from state to state) and cannot afford a lawyer you are screwed. Again, judgements are granted after improper service and the former tenant sees their bank account seized and wages garnished with little recourse.

We will not get into governmental fines and penalties, many of which are arbitrary and punitive, as that enriches the community rather than a private firm (excepting contractors such as towing companies and such).

Collection agencies? You cite them as stealing from the poor? That sir is laughable, pursuing someone for unpaid debt is hardly "stealing" and you don't need a lawyer to go into court with evidence that you paid a bill, any check or credit card transactions have documentation and if you pay with cash, get a receipt. And as far as identity theft goes, that is the criminals fault, not the agency merely trying to collect what they deem a legitimate debt.

Landlords, it's not hard to document damage that was done before a tenant moves in, is it? Or to document the condition it is left in after you move out.

These examples are, at best, laughable. Neither one of them require big time lawyers and massive wealth to defend. In most cases, merely showing up to court is enough.

Govt. fines and penalties are the worst, in most cases they do not enrich the community and merely serve to continue funding massive and overreaching beaurocracies.

[lepto]

For those of you worried about "paying their fair share" here are some actual statistics instead of the obama's silly anecdotes:

Federal income taxes:


and before you start yammering about the rich getting out of other taxes:


http://campaign2012.washingtonexamin...-charts/472806

So again, I ask who decides what's "fair" and why? To me it would appear that if you are paying a higher percentage of the tax burden then the percentage of the income you are in fact NOT paying your fair share... you are paying MORE than your fair share.

What's the answer to all of this terrible unfairness?

[quietmike]

What's the answer to all of this terrible unfairness?

A return to the constitution. Equal protection should also apply to taxation. Everyone has the opportunity to utilize government services, so everyone should pay.

[lepto]

A return to the constitution. Equal protection should also apply to taxation. Everyone has the opportunity to utilize government services, so everyone should pay.

That assumes we've left the constitution which, of course, we have not. As to equal protection, can't the equal protection clause be extended to taxation now? And, just how much should those who utilize government services pay?

[OliverH]

A return to the constitution. Equal protection should also apply to taxation. Everyone has the opportunity to utilize government services, so everyone should pay.

Reminds me of the quote by Anatole France: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and the poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

[OliverH]

Then enlighten me please.

Your invocation of the "bell curve" in this context is either entirely wrong, or meaningless, and your statement is simple nonsense. It doesn't matter how rich the richest one percent is, or how poor the poorest one percent is. If the richest 1% makes $100,000 a year and the poorest 1% $10,000 a year, or if the richest makes $1,000,000 a year and the poorest makes $100 a year, there is always EXACTLY the same number of people between them--namely 98%.

[OliverH]

obama, like most liberals, does not care about facts,

Unfortunately for you, what the chart proves is that conservatives don't care about facts. Anybody with the smallest bit of mathematical sophistication (or the ability to apply common sense) can see the fallacy/dishonesty in the chart: Namely that it lumps everybody above $75K into the same bucket. A few more divisions would paint a rather different picture.

A really good chart would also include an additional bar: Overall taxes as a percentage of income.

[Codger_64]

But anybody with the smallest bit of mathematical sophistication can see the fallacy/dishonesty in the chart: Namely that it lumps everybody above $75K into the same bucket. A few more divisions would paint a rather different picture.

I was taught how to do that back in the early '70's in a college statistics class. Manipulating statistics (or polls), you can "prove" some of the most insane propositions.