[quote=meadandale][quote=CA renter]
With all due respect, the majority of people I’ve known who had to work 2-3 jobs were very, very poor. The wealthiest people I’ve known had to do the least amount of work, and what work they did do was much more pleasant than what most poor people do for a living.[/quote]
You need to get out more.
I do contract work. If I take on extra clients it means that instead of doing 40 hours a week of contract work I’m doing 50 or 60 or 70. Currently that’s profitable to me because the opportunity costs of having less time versus making more money (that isn’t just taxed away by the state/fed) is justified. When the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of this year it won’t make quite as much sense to work harder. When you are ‘poor’ and work overtime, you are compensated extra for it (time and a half, double-time). When I work overtime I get the same hourly rate but I get taxed more–the more I work, the less I make per hour.
At some point you just say “screw it”.[/quote]
Well, I think the fact that you have to work, to me tells me that you aren’t by definition “rich rich”, which supposedly we’re suppose to be exhorting money from to help pay for the poor, deficit,etc…..hich basically again suggests that increasing payroll taxes does nothing more than to help the upper middle class who are working their asses off to either (1) try to get slightly ahead or (2) prevent from being sucked down into the poorer or both.
It really doesn’t matter which administration is in office…Whenever folks say about “taxing the rich”, they really mean “taking more from the upper middle class giving it to the poor/middle class and leave the trully wealthy (who funds campaign contributions, lobbying groups, and/or derive their substantial money from assets/capital versus W-2’s folks) alone.”
