patrick.net

bob2356 says

Strategist says

The loser socialists on this board will not hesitate to lie, deceive, misinform, and defend socialism, even though it has repeatedly been proven a colossal failure.


They hate capitalism and love socialism, yet refuse to go live in a wonderful socialist paradise like Venezuela, Cuba, and Russia.


But that's OK, because these fools make this website fun.

What a load of crap even for you. So anyone who objects to people making millions a year and paying 15% taxes while people make 100k a year paying 30% taxes is a socialist by your definition?

You use plenty of government services every single day. Are you a socialist?

You tell me:
I believe in a minimum standard of living for all. Even the fucking useless able bodied bums who need their ass whipped.
Free education for all, all the way to PhD. This would create the maximum possible opportunities for all to help society.
True capitalism above what I mentioned to create wealth and progress.

Strategist says

I am an evil person, a capitalist, who took advantage of others like the billionaires do.

Strategist,
No, you are not en evil person but sound bitter. You worked hard and made the right choices. You have used our system, infrastructure, and education system with patience and perseverance to be successful. Why should you think there is something wrong with that? It is absolutely your right to enjoy the fruits of your hard work and your return from your investment. So let me ask you this, why can't the US enjoy the return on their investment (providing you of education that is established by the institution that is private or public supported by the tax money.) and return on our use of the infrastructure?

Why should some kids be denied of equal opportunity for education just because of location? Why should certain school have the access to music education and not other schools? Why should you blame 11% of the tax revenue to support the deadbeats to deny kids any equal opportunity? Why should the rich people blame the 11%, so they get the special treatment of lower tax? We have already established that trickle down economy does not work. .

Just for your info. I went to a private university, and the US government paid most of my education. I am thankful for that. Without it, I am not sure how successful I could have been. Now, I am in a position to provide all that and more for my kids.

Strategist says

You tell me:

I believe in a minimum standard of living for all. Even the fucking useless able bodied bums who need their ass whipped.

Free education for all, all the way to PhD. This would create the maximum possible opportunities for all to help society.

True capitalism above what I mentioned to create wealth and progress.

I have advocated for state provided room and board on this forum as well. Education would be a reasonable addition. It may be a form of socialism, but it is a better form of socialism where everyone qualifies for government housing and food as long as they agree to live in government provided housing and eat at the government cafeteria. If you want to choose your own place to live and food to eat, you ought to pay for it yourself.

Free everything never works out, seems to run out of money

Nobody says

Strategist says

I am an evil person, a capitalist, who took advantage of others like the billionaires do.

Strategist,

No, you are not en evil person but sound bitter. You worked hard and made the right choices. You have used our system, infrastructure, and education system with patience and perseverance to be successful. Why should you think there is something wrong with that? It is absolutely your right to enjoy the fruits of your hard work and your return from your investment.

Thank You, nobody. I'm just a middle class dude who did not care for immediate gratification, and lived for the future.

Nobody says

So let me ask you this, why can't the US enjoy the return on their investment (providing you of education that is established by the institution that is private or public supported by the tax money.) and return on our use of the infrastructure? Why should some kids be denied of equal opportunity for education just because of location? Why should certain school have the access to music education and not other schools? Why should you blame 11% of the tax revenue to support the deadbeats to deny kids any equal opportunity?

I believe in FREE education for all right up to PhD. In the long run it helps society and progress. Scientific progress is the key to a better world for all.

Nobody says

Why should the rich people blame the 11%, so they get the special treatment of lower tax? We have already established that trickle down economy does not work. Just one more thing. As the economy improve this 11% is going to come down even more. The choice you make would tell you what kind of person you are.

This is where I disagree. There will always be a certain number of people who will not be capable of much. I'm not criticizing them, i'm just being realistic. "No matter how much you swerve the water in a pail, some of it will always be in the bottom" These people and their supporters should not be blaming the rest of us for not rising from the bottom, when every available opportunity has been given to them to rise to the top.

PeopleUnited says

Free education for all, all the way to PhD. This would create the maximum possible opportunities for all to help society.

That is going too far. Why should anyone who doesn't deserve be a recipient of any investment (education)? Strategist hates the welfare deadbeats, but we need some losers and failures. It is a simple statistics. Not everyone can be a success or the 1%. We need the middle class to pay the return of our investment. If it is an income property, the tenants pay the rent to the owner. Just imagine everyone is a landlord or owner. So we need to create the middle class or uneducated bunch of people by denying the equal education and opportunity to the certain section of US. What better way to control this? By forcing the funding cut on the public school. The public school in the rich neighborhood will continue to do well, because people like us continues to donate.

FortWayne says

Free everything never works out, seems to run out of money

You have a good point, however, education is not an expense, it is an investment. It's the only path to progress.

Investment income should be taxed more highly, especially above a certain tax bracket. I think taxing investment income at 50% over $500,000 would produce a Renaissance in this country of wealthy people suddenly investing their massive hoards in business creation and research into product/science development. If they can no longer use passive investment income to rape the little guys, they have to #MAGA!!!!!!
MAGA BITCHES! MAGA!!!!

Liberals made it an expense with their unions, tenures, and funding of the border hordes...

Strategist says

You have a good point, however, education is not an expense, it is an investment. It's the only path to progress.

Strategist says

"No matter how much you swerve the water in a pail, some of it will always be in the bottom" These people and their supporters should not be blaming the rest of us for not rising from the bottom, when every available opportunity has been given to them to rise to the top.

Strategist, you are a very naive person. Do you honestly believe that everyone gets the equal chance? I grew up in the poverty stricken neighborhood, and the school district didn't offer any classes or opportunities that my kids are getting at their school. Not every public school is the same. Some school gets the state of art network server for them to work on. Some school gets nice music buildings.

Like I said, offering unequal opportunity for certain sector of people is not a bad thing, because we can't have everyone become the 1%. It is a simple statistics. But if you go too far, then it will also ruin the overall economy.

Nobody says

PeopleUnited says

Free education for all, all the way to PhD. This would create the maximum possible opportunities for all to help society.

That is going too far. Why should anyone who doesn't deserve be a recipient of any investment (education)?

You would need to be qualified for further education at public expense. Obviously, if you could not finish 9th grade, you will not be admitted to a University.

Nobody says

Strategist hates the welfare deadbeats, but we need some losers and failures. It is a simple statistics. Not everyone can be a success or the 1%.

I hate the able bodied welfare deadbeats. These are the true losers who undeservingly sponge off the hard work of others. I'm not asking them to be in the top 1%. I'm asking them to get a minimum paying job, and stop sponging off the rest of us. Why am I wrong?

Nobody says

Strategist says

"No matter how much you swerve the water in a pail, some of it will always be in the bottom" These people and their supporters should not be blaming the rest of us for not rising from the bottom, when every available opportunity has been given to them to rise to the top.

Strategist, you are being too naive and ignorant. I grew up in a poverty stricken neighborhood. Our school didn't offer the classes and opportunities that my kids are getting. The school gets so much donation, because the government has cut the school funding. So not all the public school are equal. So my wish is that the rich people stop seeing the taxation system as a socialist concept.

So lets offer all the classes needed to offer your children and all other children the classes needed, all the way to PhD. I don't see where we have the disagreement in this. But what do you do when some refuse to even finish 9th grade?

Nobody says

But then again, the rich needs the uneducated middle class, so we can squeeze more money from them. Despite your belief, you need the welfare deadbeats as much as middle class whom we can extract money from. You can't have everyone to become the 1%. It is simple statistics.

WTF. You are dead wrong here. The rich don't need the uneducated masses and the welfare deadbeats, because they have no money to squeeze out to begin with. In fact, they suck up the tax money that others pay.

Strategist says

I hate the able bodied welfare deadbeats. These are the true losers who undeservingly sponge off the hard work of others. I'm not asking them to be in the top 1%. I'm asking them to get a minimum paying job, and stop sponging off the rest of us. Why am I wrong?

You are right. You should not defraud the government and its welfare system. It is against the law. I thought I have been clear on this. I have also mentioned that 11% of the tax revenue is spent to support the welfare. Most of the 11% is spent legitimately. We are getting so caught up on the minor issue, because Republicans have inflated the number from 11% to 53%. And the number seemed scary. But the reality is that 11 of the tax revenue goes into the welfare. And, it is most likely that less than several % goes to the welfare deadbeats.

So you seem to be an advocator for the equal opportunity. Is it your choice to pay more tax to give equal opportunities to the kids at the cost of sacrificing several percent going to feed the able bodies welfare deadbeats. What is your choice? My choice is simple That several percent is a collateral damage for an overall good for our country and our economy. Yeah, it sucks. These fuckers don't deserve what they are getting. But kids and our economy need it. And in the end, cause i need better return on my investment. It is ok to be selfish and greedy. It is the capitalism.

Quigley says

Investment income should be taxed more highly, especially above a certain tax bracket.

Agreed. I disagree with Republicans on this one. Investment income should be taxed as ordinary income and not at a reduced rate. I don't mind simplifying the marginal tax rates as Trump is suggesting, but the loopholes have got to go.

Strategist says

You tell me:

I believe in a minimum standard of living for all. Even the fucking useless able bodied bums who need their ass whipped.

Free education for all, all the way to PhD. This would create the maximum possible opportunities for all to help society.

True capitalism above what I mentioned to create wealth and progress.

What exactly is true capitalism and where do we find it? The closest anyone has ever come is russia post fall of the berlin wall. The ongoing love fest between K street big business lobbyists and congress is a far cry from capitalism. You are paying far more to corporate welfare than what goes to mommies and kids. Yet not a peep out of you about it. Just blather about socialism.

bob2356 says

You are paying far more to corporate welfare than what goes to mommies and kids. Yet not a peep out of you about it. Just blather about socialism.

Myth. Bottom line........Corporations end up paying a lot of taxes.
Tax breaks are given at times to encourage what may be a necessity for society. e.g. Agriculture and alternative energy tax breaks.

Nobody says

So you seem to be an advocator for the equal opportunity. Is it your choice to pay more tax to give equal opportunities to the kids at the cost of sacrificing several percent going to feed the able bodies welfare deadbeats. What is your choice? My choice is simple That several percent is a collateral damage for an overall good for our country and our economy. Yeah, it sucks. These fuckers don't deserve what they are getting. But kids and our economy need it. And in the end, cause i need better return on my investment. It is ok to be selfish and greedy. It is the capitalism.

The able bodied collecting welfare is not collateral damage due to fraud. It's just stupidity on the part of the government. Just cut off their undeserved welfare and watch how quickly they find a job at Taco Bell.

Much agreed.

Strategist says

FortWayne says

Free everything never works out, seems to run out of money

You have a good point, however, education is not an expense, it is an investment. It's the only path to progress.

Nobody says

Goran,

No, the message is to tax the rich already. There is no reason for us to keep giving tax break. If I am paying 40% for the tax, so should the rich people like Romney.

That is not the message of the article you posted. Don't be deceitful. Reeves is not ONLY targeting the mega millionaires like Romney, or the mega billionaires like the Koch brothers, Bloomberg, or Soros. He's openly asking for the top 20% of wage/income earners to pay much more in taxes, the $150,000 type earners.

He makes this claim because like anyone who can do basic arithmetic, if you totally liquidated the assets of the 1%, you could never implement or pay for the type of socialist THEFT that idiots like Bernie Sanders continually shrieks about any time someone puts a microphone in front of him. Free college, healthcare, and housing is ridiculously expensive. Socialist Sanders loves to scream about his rainbow land, but he'll never discuss what it cost because the truth is too burdensome for someone who deals with fantasy.

The main meat of that article complains about the 1% AND top 20% pulling away from the bottom 80% because of supposed "unfair advantages" which the author does not honestly represent. Reeves is basically advocating for full on socialism because he believes the top 20% of wealthy in the country did not earn their wealth fairly, that's a very Marxist view of wealth.

Here's another quote from the article which sets that point home:

In part because the 20 percent are so much bigger than the one percent. If you are going to raise a considerable amount of new income tax revenue to finance social programs, as many Democrats want to do, dinging the top one percent won’t cut it: They are a lot richer, but a lot fewer in number. And if you are going to provide more opportunities in good neighborhoods, public schools, colleges, internship programs, and labor markets to lower-income families, it is the 20 percent that are going to have to give something up.

Like I said, Reeves, in his lunacy, thinks being able to afford to live in a good zip code, a 529 plan, helping your child pay for a house, and using personal connections to get them jobs is now "keeping poor people down". He never addresses how a Top 20 percenter actually EARNED all those advantages, he just assumes it's ill-gotten, and therefore unfair. The truth is, the majority of poor people are poor because of poor decision making in their life, and they stay poor because of continued poor decisions.

The majority of wealthy are not poor because they made good life decisions.

Poor decisions lead to poor outcomes. It's really that simple.

The funny part is Annie Lowry (author) uses Brookings Institute research from Reeves (far left leaning research house) to back up her main points about "sizable" wage and investments advantages that the Top 20% have.

Do you know what the Brookings Institute released a large study 5 years ago which made the complete OPPOSITE claim about Capitalism and income mobility in the United States? According to their research involving multi-decade data, they found you only have to do 3 basic things to NOT remain poor in the United States:

1. Graduate from high school.
2. Don't have children before marriage.
3. Get a job.

If you do those 3 things, the income mobility shown by that segment of their data not only didn't "stay poor", the majority became middle and upper class. They BECAME part of the Top 20%, which Reeves is now shitting on, by simply making good decisions in their lives. Funny that huh?

Reeves is a huge Marxist asshole who probably hasn't accomplished much in his life, and wants him and other losers to have a scapegoat about why he never made it in life. It's classic Marxist "blame the capitalist" tired bull shit that's been around for over 200 years. There's nothing nuanced in this article, and the fact that you're trying to pass it off as some attack ONLY on the 1%'ers shows you either didn't read the article or you're purposefully misrepresenting what was written by Annie Lowry and Reeves. So at least be honest about what was written in the article. We can't have a debate if you're going to post something and then misrepresent what was actually written and concluded.

"The book traces the way that the upper-middle class has pulled away from the middle class and the poor on five dimensions: income and wealth, educational attainment, family structure, geography, and health and longevity."

It wasn't mentioned in the review, but of these five I think it has been proven time and again that family structure is the most important determinant of future success and also can heavily influence health and longevity. The married to each other mother and father and children they choose to have after marriage is the best predictor for future success. While it may appear simplistic, it reflects the presence of good judgment of character, the ability to defer gratification for future reward, honesty, which tend towards wealth accumulation--in short what used to be called the Protestant work ethic. And I might add religious observance in the Christian tradition. All these qualities were present in my parents and the 12 couples with whom they were friends from 1924 until the end of their lives. Blended step families are at a distinct disadvantage because they tend to dissipate wealth in the processes of child support for minor children living with the other spouse and the loss of equity when a home or property are divided up. Co-habiting and shacking up couples don't even come close as they reflect a cut-and-run mentality and the phenomenon of on-again off-again so common among co-dependent people.

Seriously, I challenge anyone to read this conclusion from Annie Lowrey, and not see how this author is just some loser who is jealous of people who actually accomplished something in life, unlike her, because they made good decisions and she didn't and now she can't make $150,000 a year because of "unfair advantages".

Members of the upper-middle class, as those viral stories show and Reeves writes, love to think of themselves as members of the middle class, not as the rich. They love to think of themselves as hard workers who played fair and won what they deserved, rather than as people who were born on third and think they hit a triple. They hate to hear that the government policies they support as sensible might be torching social mobility and entrenching an elite. That elite is them.

What a bitter Marxist bitch.

Strategist says

The able bodied collecting welfare is not collateral damage due to fraud. It's just stupidity on the part of the government. Just cut off their undeserved welfare and watch how quickly they find a job at Taco Bell.

So your choice is not to pay the tax to give the equal opportunity to our kids, because you can't stand a few percent of your tax goes to the deadbeat welfare recipients.

My take is simple. The government has paid for my education through university. Yes, I went a private university. I am making a respectable salary, and I feel that the government has the right to the return on their investment. Call me liberal. But I am a capitalist. I understand it is important to pay the return to the investors, or there will be no more investment. The investors understand that their money could be lost on the fraud, as it happens often.

As for the statistics, I am going to say it again. Not everyone can be the 1%.

Goran_K says

Like I said, Reeves, in his lunacy, thinks being able to afford to live in a good zip code, a 529 plan, helping your child pay for a house, and using personal connections to get them jobs is now "keeping poor people down". He never addresses how a Top 20 percenter actually EARNED all those advantages, he just assumes it's ill-gotten, and therefore unfair. The truth is, the majority of poor people are poor because of poor decision making in their life, and they stay poor because of continued poor decisions.

Talking about poor decision making.....Most lottery winners end up frittering away their winning, and are back to square one in a couple of years. How is the top 20% responsible for their stupidity?

Strategist says

Talking about poor decision making.....Most lottery winners end up frittering away their winning, and are back to square one in a couple of years. How is the top 20% responsible for their stupidity?

It's crazy man. I feel like the babies have taken over the Democrat party.

None of these people understand the meaning of culpability. They want to blame everyone else for their failures in life.

These people should fix their own fucking life. Get a job, do something, stop bitching about other people. It makes them look like weak ass bitches when they spend all their time complaining about other people all the time.

"Oh boo hoo, you make a lot of money, you ruined my life. I can't succeed because Bill Gates is a billionaire. Your kids live in a nice house which oppresses me!"

I can't even take these people like Annie Lowrey seriously anymore. When Black men are committing 50% of the violent crime in the United States, and have a 35% high school graduation rate, how the fuck is my big house and 529 college plans causing that?

Goran_K says

When Black men are committing 50% of the violent crime in the United States, and have a 35% high school graduation rate, how the fuck is my big house and 529 college plans causing that?

Just 35% of Black men finish high school? I'm taken aback. I guess free college is of no use to the 65% who drop out.
The best way to help young Black men is to make them work for their welfare check. Be a janitor. Clean the freeways. Learn a trade. Every person has some skills, lets use it.

Nobody says

to give the equal opportunity to our kids

Equality in any realm has never nor will ever exist. There are too many variables for it to ever exist.

I wish the notion of "trickle down economics" would die already. As if benefits must all accrue at the top first, and THEN trickle down to the rest of society.

People love to jump to nonsense arguments like IF YOU CONFISCATE ALL THE WEALTH OF THE TOP 1% IT WOULDN'T FUND YOUR SOCIALIST PARADISE OF GIVING FREE SHIT TO EVERYONE SO JUST LEAVE THE FUCKED UP SYSTEM AS IS.

Nobody seriously engaging the topic of economic policy is recommending taking "all" or even "most" of the wealth of wealthy people. The main argument is, they should pay at minimum the same nominal tax rate as everyone else. This would bring down the tax obligation of everyone and improve the overall economy. It's irrational the way working people paying over 30% tax rate argue that those making more should pay 15% or less. So many people naively doing the bidding of oligarchs and arguing away their own self-interests.

I love when people cry about tax law and claim "Oh I'm paying 30%, and that guy is paying only 20%". Well, learn about the tax law and take advantage of it yourself. No one is banned from learning how tax law works, and seeing where you can reduce your tax exposure. I'm not a mega billionaire and I don't pay 30% in taxes (my 2016 return I paid an effective 20% rate).

But then again, it's MUCH easier to say "Oh that guy is paying less, he must be doing something unfair! Oligarchs, Koch Brothers, Blaarrrwaahahhh!"

Grow up people.

"These people should fix their own fucking life. Get a job, do something, stop bitching about other people. It makes them look like weak ass bitches when they spend all their time complaining about other people all the time. "

Give me an effing break. Exactly nobody is saying that.

I know that's the strawman you enjoy knocking down, but it's complete BS and I'm pretty sure you know it as you've been corrected multiple times on it.

Nobody is complaining about Bill Gates, or Warren Buffett, or anybody that earns their millions through true innovation or hard work.

What people are trying to fix is the tax code number 1. You talk a lot about hard work. Shouldn't labor be valued more by a society than capital? Earned income should be taxed at a lower rate than unearned--don't you agree?? Tax code should be MUCH more progressive.

Let's start there and then we can talk about some of the other ways to improve the economy. I suspect we'll agree on some of them.

joeyjojojunior says

Nobody is complaining about Bill Gates, or Warren Buffett, or anybody that earns their millions through true innovation or hard work.

Uh, that's exactly who they are talking about in that article (as well as the Top 20%). Did you even read the article?

Also, why should labor be "more valued" than capital? Tell me the reasons why, and how it helps the economy. Tell me why the tax code should be "much more progessive" and what it would fix. Don't make claims without any rational. Put some practicality behind your theory. Don't be lazy.

"Uh, that's exactly who they are talking about in that article (as well as the Top 20%). Did you even read the article?"

Yep, and I understood it. Bemoaning the system is NOT complaining about Bill Gates. Can you really not understand this? It's not even that nuanced.

"Also, why should labor be "more valued" than capital?"

For the same reason you continually espouse the "hard work" it took for you to make so much money. As a society we should value hard work over laziness. As an economy, we should tax labor more than capital to avoid wealth inequality. When the rich can do better with passive investments, jobs aren't created, unemployment rises, inequality rises, and the economy goes to crap.

Tax code should be more progressive to fix inequality. Putting more $$ back in the hands of people who spend them will be a huge spur to economic activity. Money velocity will increase. Growth rates will increase. Jobs will increase. I didn't think explanation was needed as it's basic stuff.

joeyjojojunior says

"Also, why should labor be "more valued" than capital?"

For the same reason you continually espouse the "hard work" it took for you to make so much money. As a society we should value hard work over laziness. As an economy, we should tax labor more than capital to avoid wealth inequality.

Highly skilled labor can be valued more than capital. But what value can you expect from a 9th grade school dropout?

joeyjojojunior says

When the rich can do better with passive investments, jobs aren't created, unemployment rises, inequality rises, and the economy goes to crap.

Not true. Capital plays an important role in creating jobs. You need capital to build factories, homes, cars etc.

"Not true. Capital plays an important role in creating jobs. You need capital to build factories, homes, cars etc."

When did I say you didn't need capital? Read my statement again. It's absolutely true.

"Highly skilled labor can be valued more than capital. But what value can you expect from a 9th grade school dropout?"

Hopefully everyone can finish high school at least, but strength, stamina are obvious answers. And many, many jobs can be taught to anyone with our without higher education. But that's not my point--society should tax capital higher than labor. It should reward hard work over laziness.

joeyjojojunior says

"Highly skilled labor can be valued more than capital. But what value can you expect from a 9th grade school dropout?"

Hopefully everyone can finish high school at least, but strength, stamina are obvious answers. And many, many jobs can be taught to anyone with our without higher education. But that's not my point--society should tax capital higher than labor. It should reward hard work over laziness.

Why should capital be taxed higher? Let the free markets decide the worth of each.
So someone working hard to save money for a rainy day by buying CD's or stocks, is now lazy?

joeyjojojunior says

Yep, and I understood it. Bemoaning the system is NOT complaining about Bill Gates. Can you really not understand this? It's not even that nuanced.

I ask again, did you actually read the article? The article was not about "bemoaning" the system. It was complaining about Top 20% having unfair advantages like a house in a nice zip code.

You didn't read the article, that's okay. Let's move on.

joeyjojojunior says

For the same reason you continually espouse the "hard work" it took for you to make so much money. As a society we should value hard work over laziness. As an economy, we should tax labor more than capital to avoid wealth inequality. When the rich can do better with passive investments, jobs aren't created, unemployment rises, inequality rises, and the economy goes to crap.

Society does value hard work over laziness, this is proven by the fact that there are lower middle class, and poor. If you are lazy in America, you will not succeed.

Now onto the rubbish point about "passive investments". Passive investments do not cause unemployment and inequality. Unemployment is caused by a lack of marketable skill. The unemployment rate for doctors, tech specialist, lawyers, pharmacist is in the low single digits. None of those people are being sent to the unemployment line because of 'passive investments'.

Tax code should be more progressive to fix inequality. Putting more $$ back in the hands of people

e.g - Let's redistribute earned wealth to people who did not earn it. Socialism. It's been tried before, it sucks. Even the biggest Scandinavian countries who have parts of socialism in their economy cannot touch the GDP growth of the United States. If you want socialism, why don't you move to a socialist country and try it out for a few years? Or put your money where your mouth is. Write a check to the US Treasury with 20% more of your income. Be the ideology you preach.

P N Dr Lo R says

Equality in any realm has never nor will ever exist. There are too many variables for it to ever exist.

Don't preach about the obvious. What are you going to do about it? Make it worse or better.
I am complaining the 1% is making it worse.

joeyjojojunior says

Nobody is complaining about Bill Gates, or Warren Buffett, or anybody that earns their millions through true innovation or hard work.

Did you read my post at all? We should be rewarded for our hard work and success by the use of our infrastructure and education system.
And what is wrong enjoying it? The reward is what motivates us. Don't talk about the obvious. It is a waste of time.

My point is that when these people get rich or become successful, they don't want to give return to the government. So why should Warren Buffet pay less than 15% tax while I have to pay more? It is not fair. or is it? Are you saying the hard work and success also equates to less tax you have pay? I don't get it. You are not Warren Buffet. Then why are you protecting his asset?

Nobody says

I am complaining the 1% is making it worse.

One of the most obvious culprits is the level of executive remuneration when CEOs and such get multiples of millions in stock options, then probably pensions when no other human being in private companies get a pension. When the ratio was about 40 to 1, a CEO could relate to what we used to call the rank and file, that usually referred to unions, but I mean just the regular employees. Once the difference becomes 400% there's no way a top level executive can relate to an office worker or even a relatively highly paid accountant. An article in the WSJ today said that more than government policies, just people being able to have good jobs where companies have a care about their employees makes more difference than anything. It was in the 90's that we began hearing at our company and I'm sure all others "we have to create value for the stockholder", as though we hadn't been creating value for them from time immemorial. What they really meant was that if they could give the stock a boost in price by laying off people they would bloody well do it whether the company was struggling or not.

Nobody says

Did you read my post at all? We should be rewarded for our hard work and success by the use of our infrastructure and education system.

And what is wrong enjoying it? The reward is what motivates us. Don't talk about the obvious. It is a waste of time.

My point is that when these people get rich or become successful, they don't want to give return to the government. So why should Warren Buffet pay less than 15% tax while I have to pay more? It is not fair. or is it? Are you saying the hard work and success also equates to less tax you have pay? I don't get it. You are not Warren Buffet. Then why are you protecting his asset?

Hey--you're singing to the choir man.

Strategist says

bob2356 says

You are paying far more to corporate welfare than what goes to mommies and kids. Yet not a peep out of you about it. Just blather about socialism.

Myth. Bottom line........Corporations end up paying a lot of taxes.

Tax breaks are given at times to encourage what may be a necessity for society. e.g. Agriculture and alternative energy tax breaks.

What happened to true capitalism? You just said government should pick winners and losers. Which is it that you believe in?

Lots of taxes? Lots? You are saying 5% of federal revenue down from 20% is lots of taxes? You are paying a lot more for corporate welfare than mommies and babies. http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/19844-food-stamps-are-affordable-corporate-welfare-is-not

Why do you think the tax code is 75,000 pages long? There are thousands and thousands of little goodies in there. Plus direct grants and subsidies. Plus federal funds used for supporting things like logging roads and oil drilling infrastructure. Plus plus plus.