OT – Joe the Plumber

[gandalf]

Interesting how ‘socialism’ has become the talking point of the day.

Are any of you defenders of the flag willing to discuss the impact of tax avoidance strategies on US tax policy? Because overall, tax policy in the last couple of decades has become substantially regressive for those with access.

I don’t support redistribution of wealth, but redistribution of wealth upwards is insidious. It’s ethically disgusting and it is screwing the majority of people in this country. It ought to be a crime punishable with dismemberment by an angry mob.

Many of you have been crying like babies over the bailout. You disagree with wealth redistribution, and object to “infusing” the banking system with taxpayer money to rescue Fat Cat bankers, flippers and cheats.

The bailout is the most regressive financial swindle in the history of this country. Current tax policy is regressive. You oppose the bailout, but you support a regressive tax policy. Do you see the contradition in your position? So you’re what … hypocrites?

Those of you out there complaining about tax policy as if it were socialism are either deceived or worse, “Deceivers”. It’s one of the two. Reminds me of that saying about card cheats, if you can’t figure out who’s cheating, you shouldn’t be at the table.

Finally, I’ll add that arguing with such vitriol about relatively minor changes in marginal tax rates and policy while we’re fighting two wars and battling a major economic crisis in our country is pretty shitty.

Obama / Biden in ’08

[Coronita]

[quote=gandalf]Interesting how ‘socialism’ has become the talking point of the day.

Are any of you defenders of the flag willing to discuss the impact of tax avoidance strategies on US tax policy? Because overall, tax policy in the last couple of decades has become substantially regressive for those with access.

I don’t support redistribution of wealth, but redistribution of wealth upwards is insidious. It’s ethically disgusting and it is screwing the majority of people in this country. It ought to be a crime punishable with dismemberment by an angry mob.

Many of you have been crying like babies over the bailout. You disagree with wealth redistribution, and object to “infusing” the banking system with taxpayer money to rescue Fat Cat bankers, flippers and cheats.

The bailout is the most regressive financial swindle in the history of this country. Current tax policy is regressive. You oppose the bailout, but you support a regressive tax policy. Do you see the contradition in your position? So you’re what … hypocrites?

Those of you out there complaining about tax policy as if it were socialism are either deceived or worse, “Deceivers”. It’s one of the two. Reminds me of that saying about card cheats, if you can’t figure out who’s cheating, you shouldn’t be at the table.

Finally, I’ll add that arguing with such vitriol about relatively minor changes in marginal tax rates and policy while we’re fighting two wars and battling a major economic crisis in our country is pretty shitty.

Obama / Biden in ’08[/quote]

Simple…Because the fact that Obama/Biden is drawing the definition of “wealthy” at $250k, to me means
1) This is arbitrary
2) This isn’t a tax on the ultra wealthy, but effectively a tax on upper middle class, which is now going to be dragged down into the rest of middle class. Feel better?

The arguments that so many people are saying, is this is wealth distribution on the ultra wealthy. Bullshit. Ultra wealthy, like so many folks have alluded here, have so much more firepower with accountants, lawyers,etc…They have, and always will find clever loopholes, exceptions,etc. Because they have money and resources to spend to do this.
Close one loophole, they figure out another.

The only people paying for these things are not by far “wealthy”.

And the reason why obama didn’t draw the limit explicitly at the wealthy??? Simple

(1)Who’s funding his campaigns? (2) Who’s he really going to expect cough up the extra taxes. Yup W2’s….Well, anyway, for all you folks thinking that you won’t escape a higher tax bill and that those 250k are going to get sticked, you’re sooooooo wrong…There’s no way with all these spending plans middle class isn’t going to get taxed a hell of a lot more. It will be fun watching folks 2 years from now complaining about how much more taxes they have to pay

[Coronita]

[quote=gandalf]Interesting how ‘socialism’ has become the talking point of the day.

Are any of you defenders of the flag willing to discuss the impact of tax avoidance strategies on US tax policy? Because overall, tax policy in the last couple of decades has become substantially regressive for those with access.

I don’t support redistribution of wealth, but redistribution of wealth upwards is insidious. It’s ethically disgusting and it is screwing the majority of people in this country. It ought to be a crime punishable with dismemberment by an angry mob.

Many of you have been crying like babies over the bailout. You disagree with wealth redistribution, and object to “infusing” the banking system with taxpayer money to rescue Fat Cat bankers, flippers and cheats.

The bailout is the most regressive financial swindle in the history of this country. Current tax policy is regressive. You oppose the bailout, but you support a regressive tax policy. Do you see the contradition in your position? So you’re what … hypocrites?

Those of you out there complaining about tax policy as if it were socialism are either deceived or worse, “Deceivers”. It’s one of the two. Reminds me of that saying about card cheats, if you can’t figure out who’s cheating, you shouldn’t be at the table.

Finally, I’ll add that arguing with such vitriol about relatively minor changes in marginal tax rates and policy while we’re fighting two wars and battling a major economic crisis in our country is pretty shitty.

Obama / Biden in ’08[/quote]

Simple…Because the fact that Obama/Biden is drawing the definition of “wealthy” at $250k, to me means
1) This is arbitrary
2) This isn’t a tax on the ultra wealthy, but effectively a tax on upper middle class, which is now going to be dragged down into the rest of middle class. Feel better?

The arguments that so many people are saying, is this is wealth distribution on the ultra wealthy. Bullshit. Ultra wealthy, like so many folks have alluded here, have so much more firepower with accountants, lawyers,etc…They have, and always will find clever loopholes, exceptions,etc. Because they have money and resources to spend to do this.
Close one loophole, they figure out another.

The only people paying for these things are not by far “wealthy”.

And the reason why obama didn’t draw the limit explicitly at the wealthy??? Simple

(1)Who’s funding his campaigns? (2) Who’s he really going to expect cough up the extra taxes. Yup W2’s….Well, anyway, for all you folks thinking that you won’t escape a higher tax bill and that those 250k are going to get sticked, you’re sooooooo wrong…There’s no way with all these spending plans middle class isn’t going to get taxed a hell of a lot more. It will be fun watching folks 2 years from now complaining about how much more taxes they have to pay

[Coronita]

[quote=gandalf]Interesting how ‘socialism’ has become the talking point of the day.

Are any of you defenders of the flag willing to discuss the impact of tax avoidance strategies on US tax policy? Because overall, tax policy in the last couple of decades has become substantially regressive for those with access.

I don’t support redistribution of wealth, but redistribution of wealth upwards is insidious. It’s ethically disgusting and it is screwing the majority of people in this country. It ought to be a crime punishable with dismemberment by an angry mob.

Many of you have been crying like babies over the bailout. You disagree with wealth redistribution, and object to “infusing” the banking system with taxpayer money to rescue Fat Cat bankers, flippers and cheats.

The bailout is the most regressive financial swindle in the history of this country. Current tax policy is regressive. You oppose the bailout, but you support a regressive tax policy. Do you see the contradition in your position? So you’re what … hypocrites?

Those of you out there complaining about tax policy as if it were socialism are either deceived or worse, “Deceivers”. It’s one of the two. Reminds me of that saying about card cheats, if you can’t figure out who’s cheating, you shouldn’t be at the table.

Finally, I’ll add that arguing with such vitriol about relatively minor changes in marginal tax rates and policy while we’re fighting two wars and battling a major economic crisis in our country is pretty shitty.

Obama / Biden in ’08[/quote]

Simple…Because the fact that Obama/Biden is drawing the definition of “wealthy” at $250k, to me means
1) This is arbitrary
2) This isn’t a tax on the ultra wealthy, but effectively a tax on upper middle class, which is now going to be dragged down into the rest of middle class. Feel better?

The arguments that so many people are saying, is this is wealth distribution on the ultra wealthy. Bullshit. Ultra wealthy, like so many folks have alluded here, have so much more firepower with accountants, lawyers,etc…They have, and always will find clever loopholes, exceptions,etc. Because they have money and resources to spend to do this.
Close one loophole, they figure out another.

The only people paying for these things are not by far “wealthy”.

And the reason why obama didn’t draw the limit explicitly at the wealthy??? Simple

(1)Who’s funding his campaigns? (2) Who’s he really going to expect cough up the extra taxes. Yup W2’s….Well, anyway, for all you folks thinking that you won’t escape a higher tax bill and that those 250k are going to get sticked, you’re sooooooo wrong…There’s no way with all these spending plans middle class isn’t going to get taxed a hell of a lot more. It will be fun watching folks 2 years from now complaining about how much more taxes they have to pay

[Coronita]

[quote=gandalf]Interesting how ‘socialism’ has become the talking point of the day.

Are any of you defenders of the flag willing to discuss the impact of tax avoidance strategies on US tax policy? Because overall, tax policy in the last couple of decades has become substantially regressive for those with access.

I don’t support redistribution of wealth, but redistribution of wealth upwards is insidious. It’s ethically disgusting and it is screwing the majority of people in this country. It ought to be a crime punishable with dismemberment by an angry mob.

Many of you have been crying like babies over the bailout. You disagree with wealth redistribution, and object to “infusing” the banking system with taxpayer money to rescue Fat Cat bankers, flippers and cheats.

The bailout is the most regressive financial swindle in the history of this country. Current tax policy is regressive. You oppose the bailout, but you support a regressive tax policy. Do you see the contradition in your position? So you’re what … hypocrites?

Those of you out there complaining about tax policy as if it were socialism are either deceived or worse, “Deceivers”. It’s one of the two. Reminds me of that saying about card cheats, if you can’t figure out who’s cheating, you shouldn’t be at the table.

Finally, I’ll add that arguing with such vitriol about relatively minor changes in marginal tax rates and policy while we’re fighting two wars and battling a major economic crisis in our country is pretty shitty.

Obama / Biden in ’08[/quote]

Simple…Because the fact that Obama/Biden is drawing the definition of “wealthy” at $250k, to me means
1) This is arbitrary
2) This isn’t a tax on the ultra wealthy, but effectively a tax on upper middle class, which is now going to be dragged down into the rest of middle class. Feel better?

The arguments that so many people are saying, is this is wealth distribution on the ultra wealthy. Bullshit. Ultra wealthy, like so many folks have alluded here, have so much more firepower with accountants, lawyers,etc…They have, and always will find clever loopholes, exceptions,etc. Because they have money and resources to spend to do this.
Close one loophole, they figure out another.

The only people paying for these things are not by far “wealthy”.

And the reason why obama didn’t draw the limit explicitly at the wealthy??? Simple

(1)Who’s funding his campaigns? (2) Who’s he really going to expect cough up the extra taxes. Yup W2’s….Well, anyway, for all you folks thinking that you won’t escape a higher tax bill and that those 250k are going to get sticked, you’re sooooooo wrong…There’s no way with all these spending plans middle class isn’t going to get taxed a hell of a lot more. It will be fun watching folks 2 years from now complaining about how much more taxes they have to pay

[Coronita]

[quote=gandalf]Interesting how ‘socialism’ has become the talking point of the day.

Are any of you defenders of the flag willing to discuss the impact of tax avoidance strategies on US tax policy? Because overall, tax policy in the last couple of decades has become substantially regressive for those with access.

I don’t support redistribution of wealth, but redistribution of wealth upwards is insidious. It’s ethically disgusting and it is screwing the majority of people in this country. It ought to be a crime punishable with dismemberment by an angry mob.

Many of you have been crying like babies over the bailout. You disagree with wealth redistribution, and object to “infusing” the banking system with taxpayer money to rescue Fat Cat bankers, flippers and cheats.

The bailout is the most regressive financial swindle in the history of this country. Current tax policy is regressive. You oppose the bailout, but you support a regressive tax policy. Do you see the contradition in your position? So you’re what … hypocrites?

Those of you out there complaining about tax policy as if it were socialism are either deceived or worse, “Deceivers”. It’s one of the two. Reminds me of that saying about card cheats, if you can’t figure out who’s cheating, you shouldn’t be at the table.

Finally, I’ll add that arguing with such vitriol about relatively minor changes in marginal tax rates and policy while we’re fighting two wars and battling a major economic crisis in our country is pretty shitty.

Obama / Biden in ’08[/quote]

Simple…Because the fact that Obama/Biden is drawing the definition of “wealthy” at $250k, to me means
1) This is arbitrary
2) This isn’t a tax on the ultra wealthy, but effectively a tax on upper middle class, which is now going to be dragged down into the rest of middle class. Feel better?

The arguments that so many people are saying, is this is wealth distribution on the ultra wealthy. Bullshit. Ultra wealthy, like so many folks have alluded here, have so much more firepower with accountants, lawyers,etc…They have, and always will find clever loopholes, exceptions,etc. Because they have money and resources to spend to do this.
Close one loophole, they figure out another.

The only people paying for these things are not by far “wealthy”.

And the reason why obama didn’t draw the limit explicitly at the wealthy??? Simple

(1)Who’s funding his campaigns? (2) Who’s he really going to expect cough up the extra taxes. Yup W2’s….Well, anyway, for all you folks thinking that you won’t escape a higher tax bill and that those 250k are going to get sticked, you’re sooooooo wrong…There’s no way with all these spending plans middle class isn’t going to get taxed a hell of a lot more. It will be fun watching folks 2 years from now complaining about how much more taxes they have to pay

[Arraya]

GAO Study Also Finds 68% Of Foreign Companies In U.S. Avoid Corporate Taxes

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/12/national/main4342535.shtml?source=RSSattr=U.S._4342535

“Half of all business income in the United States now ends up going through the individual tax code,” Edwards said.

The GAO study did not investigate why corporations weren’t paying federal income taxes or corporate taxes and it did not identify any corporations by name. It said companies may escape paying such taxes due to operating losses or because of tax credits.

More than 38,000 foreign corporations had no tax liability in 2005 and 1.2 million U.S. companies paid no income tax, the GAO said. Combined, the companies had $2.5 trillion in sales. About 25 percent of the U.S. corporations not paying corporate taxes were considered large corporations, meaning they had at least $250 million in assets or $50 million in receipts.

[Arraya]

GAO Study Also Finds 68% Of Foreign Companies In U.S. Avoid Corporate Taxes

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/12/national/main4342535.shtml?source=RSSattr=U.S._4342535

“Half of all business income in the United States now ends up going through the individual tax code,” Edwards said.

The GAO study did not investigate why corporations weren’t paying federal income taxes or corporate taxes and it did not identify any corporations by name. It said companies may escape paying such taxes due to operating losses or because of tax credits.

More than 38,000 foreign corporations had no tax liability in 2005 and 1.2 million U.S. companies paid no income tax, the GAO said. Combined, the companies had $2.5 trillion in sales. About 25 percent of the U.S. corporations not paying corporate taxes were considered large corporations, meaning they had at least $250 million in assets or $50 million in receipts.

[Arraya]

GAO Study Also Finds 68% Of Foreign Companies In U.S. Avoid Corporate Taxes

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/12/national/main4342535.shtml?source=RSSattr=U.S._4342535

“Half of all business income in the United States now ends up going through the individual tax code,” Edwards said.

The GAO study did not investigate why corporations weren’t paying federal income taxes or corporate taxes and it did not identify any corporations by name. It said companies may escape paying such taxes due to operating losses or because of tax credits.

More than 38,000 foreign corporations had no tax liability in 2005 and 1.2 million U.S. companies paid no income tax, the GAO said. Combined, the companies had $2.5 trillion in sales. About 25 percent of the U.S. corporations not paying corporate taxes were considered large corporations, meaning they had at least $250 million in assets or $50 million in receipts.

[Arraya]

GAO Study Also Finds 68% Of Foreign Companies In U.S. Avoid Corporate Taxes

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/12/national/main4342535.shtml?source=RSSattr=U.S._4342535

“Half of all business income in the United States now ends up going through the individual tax code,” Edwards said.

The GAO study did not investigate why corporations weren’t paying federal income taxes or corporate taxes and it did not identify any corporations by name. It said companies may escape paying such taxes due to operating losses or because of tax credits.

More than 38,000 foreign corporations had no tax liability in 2005 and 1.2 million U.S. companies paid no income tax, the GAO said. Combined, the companies had $2.5 trillion in sales. About 25 percent of the U.S. corporations not paying corporate taxes were considered large corporations, meaning they had at least $250 million in assets or $50 million in receipts.

[Arraya]

GAO Study Also Finds 68% Of Foreign Companies In U.S. Avoid Corporate Taxes

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/12/national/main4342535.shtml?source=RSSattr=U.S._4342535

“Half of all business income in the United States now ends up going through the individual tax code,” Edwards said.

The GAO study did not investigate why corporations weren’t paying federal income taxes or corporate taxes and it did not identify any corporations by name. It said companies may escape paying such taxes due to operating losses or because of tax credits.

More than 38,000 foreign corporations had no tax liability in 2005 and 1.2 million U.S. companies paid no income tax, the GAO said. Combined, the companies had $2.5 trillion in sales. About 25 percent of the U.S. corporations not paying corporate taxes were considered large corporations, meaning they had at least $250 million in assets or $50 million in receipts.

[SD Realtor]

Gandalf it is not the topic of the day. When I have posted about my political feelings they have always been towards opposition of redistribution of wealth.

Once more, I am not saying the current tax code works well. I agree with all of your points. This is what frustrates me…. I pose a very simple logical question. Yet the postings that respond to mine are not adressing my questions. Let’s review… Breeze is angry at anyone who is wealthy and therefore has decided that they all must pay. Who “they” are and where the line is drawn is still not aswered. PW has stated that there is a obligation of some sorts that those with wealth should pay more… simply because they have wealth. Umm… okay since this was how it was done in fuedal days, I guess this is how it should be done today… Now you have come in with an argument saying that current tax policy is regressive. Which is true and I do not dispute. Agreed with you. So why not let everyone pay the same rate. Flat tax if you will… I am fine with that.

Look I am by no means rich but in my trival example I am paying more money and it is not a trival amount of money. I didn’t even factor in cap gains yet as well.

Fine if you want to marginalize the argument and say that it is not important given larger issues then that is okay but it is important to me. So then I ask you Gandalf, where is the line drawn, who makes the arbitrary line, why is it only the rich should pay to help the poor?

Yes redistribution of wealth upwards is insidious. Yes the golden rule is that he who has the gold rules and no I don’t like that. However, do you think that corporate taxes will not be passed down to the consumer in the form of higher pricing? Do you think large government programs will be immune from cons, from people playing the system? Do you believe our government is a model for efficiency and utilizing increased tax revenues in an effective manner?

Look, I just as frustrated as everyone else but taxing more and then spending more… just doesn’t seem to be a logical solution to me for a country on the brink of bankruptcy. I cannot say I have a clear answer either other then to bail. We have started a passive search because in the long run, the country really doesn’t work anymore. However my solution is to be proactive on my own, with my money, my education, and my will to work. It is not to push my burden onto others because they have taken advantage of system where the cards are in thier favor. Believe it or not some of them made it on thier own fair and square and not all of them are crooks.

I guess you can deem this argument trivial. It is a matter of opinion and I respect that. However, I do not. I think Obama is a good man with a good heart and he truly believes what he is doing is right. Consequently I do cannot concur with you that since I oppose a redistribution of wealth that I am being hypocritical because todays tax laws are f’d up. Like I said, let it be flat, let everyone support the impoverished. Eliminate all loopholes.

[SD Realtor]

Gandalf it is not the topic of the day. When I have posted about my political feelings they have always been towards opposition of redistribution of wealth.

Once more, I am not saying the current tax code works well. I agree with all of your points. This is what frustrates me…. I pose a very simple logical question. Yet the postings that respond to mine are not adressing my questions. Let’s review… Breeze is angry at anyone who is wealthy and therefore has decided that they all must pay. Who “they” are and where the line is drawn is still not aswered. PW has stated that there is a obligation of some sorts that those with wealth should pay more… simply because they have wealth. Umm… okay since this was how it was done in fuedal days, I guess this is how it should be done today… Now you have come in with an argument saying that current tax policy is regressive. Which is true and I do not dispute. Agreed with you. So why not let everyone pay the same rate. Flat tax if you will… I am fine with that.

Look I am by no means rich but in my trival example I am paying more money and it is not a trival amount of money. I didn’t even factor in cap gains yet as well.

Fine if you want to marginalize the argument and say that it is not important given larger issues then that is okay but it is important to me. So then I ask you Gandalf, where is the line drawn, who makes the arbitrary line, why is it only the rich should pay to help the poor?

Yes redistribution of wealth upwards is insidious. Yes the golden rule is that he who has the gold rules and no I don’t like that. However, do you think that corporate taxes will not be passed down to the consumer in the form of higher pricing? Do you think large government programs will be immune from cons, from people playing the system? Do you believe our government is a model for efficiency and utilizing increased tax revenues in an effective manner?

Look, I just as frustrated as everyone else but taxing more and then spending more… just doesn’t seem to be a logical solution to me for a country on the brink of bankruptcy. I cannot say I have a clear answer either other then to bail. We have started a passive search because in the long run, the country really doesn’t work anymore. However my solution is to be proactive on my own, with my money, my education, and my will to work. It is not to push my burden onto others because they have taken advantage of system where the cards are in thier favor. Believe it or not some of them made it on thier own fair and square and not all of them are crooks.

I guess you can deem this argument trivial. It is a matter of opinion and I respect that. However, I do not. I think Obama is a good man with a good heart and he truly believes what he is doing is right. Consequently I do cannot concur with you that since I oppose a redistribution of wealth that I am being hypocritical because todays tax laws are f’d up. Like I said, let it be flat, let everyone support the impoverished. Eliminate all loopholes.

[SD Realtor]

Gandalf it is not the topic of the day. When I have posted about my political feelings they have always been towards opposition of redistribution of wealth.

Once more, I am not saying the current tax code works well. I agree with all of your points. This is what frustrates me…. I pose a very simple logical question. Yet the postings that respond to mine are not adressing my questions. Let’s review… Breeze is angry at anyone who is wealthy and therefore has decided that they all must pay. Who “they” are and where the line is drawn is still not aswered. PW has stated that there is a obligation of some sorts that those with wealth should pay more… simply because they have wealth. Umm… okay since this was how it was done in fuedal days, I guess this is how it should be done today… Now you have come in with an argument saying that current tax policy is regressive. Which is true and I do not dispute. Agreed with you. So why not let everyone pay the same rate. Flat tax if you will… I am fine with that.

Look I am by no means rich but in my trival example I am paying more money and it is not a trival amount of money. I didn’t even factor in cap gains yet as well.

Fine if you want to marginalize the argument and say that it is not important given larger issues then that is okay but it is important to me. So then I ask you Gandalf, where is the line drawn, who makes the arbitrary line, why is it only the rich should pay to help the poor?

Yes redistribution of wealth upwards is insidious. Yes the golden rule is that he who has the gold rules and no I don’t like that. However, do you think that corporate taxes will not be passed down to the consumer in the form of higher pricing? Do you think large government programs will be immune from cons, from people playing the system? Do you believe our government is a model for efficiency and utilizing increased tax revenues in an effective manner?

Look, I just as frustrated as everyone else but taxing more and then spending more… just doesn’t seem to be a logical solution to me for a country on the brink of bankruptcy. I cannot say I have a clear answer either other then to bail. We have started a passive search because in the long run, the country really doesn’t work anymore. However my solution is to be proactive on my own, with my money, my education, and my will to work. It is not to push my burden onto others because they have taken advantage of system where the cards are in thier favor. Believe it or not some of them made it on thier own fair and square and not all of them are crooks.

I guess you can deem this argument trivial. It is a matter of opinion and I respect that. However, I do not. I think Obama is a good man with a good heart and he truly believes what he is doing is right. Consequently I do cannot concur with you that since I oppose a redistribution of wealth that I am being hypocritical because todays tax laws are f’d up. Like I said, let it be flat, let everyone support the impoverished. Eliminate all loopholes.

[SD Realtor]

Gandalf it is not the topic of the day. When I have posted about my political feelings they have always been towards opposition of redistribution of wealth.

Once more, I am not saying the current tax code works well. I agree with all of your points. This is what frustrates me…. I pose a very simple logical question. Yet the postings that respond to mine are not adressing my questions. Let’s review… Breeze is angry at anyone who is wealthy and therefore has decided that they all must pay. Who “they” are and where the line is drawn is still not aswered. PW has stated that there is a obligation of some sorts that those with wealth should pay more… simply because they have wealth. Umm… okay since this was how it was done in fuedal days, I guess this is how it should be done today… Now you have come in with an argument saying that current tax policy is regressive. Which is true and I do not dispute. Agreed with you. So why not let everyone pay the same rate. Flat tax if you will… I am fine with that.

Look I am by no means rich but in my trival example I am paying more money and it is not a trival amount of money. I didn’t even factor in cap gains yet as well.

Fine if you want to marginalize the argument and say that it is not important given larger issues then that is okay but it is important to me. So then I ask you Gandalf, where is the line drawn, who makes the arbitrary line, why is it only the rich should pay to help the poor?

Yes redistribution of wealth upwards is insidious. Yes the golden rule is that he who has the gold rules and no I don’t like that. However, do you think that corporate taxes will not be passed down to the consumer in the form of higher pricing? Do you think large government programs will be immune from cons, from people playing the system? Do you believe our government is a model for efficiency and utilizing increased tax revenues in an effective manner?

Look, I just as frustrated as everyone else but taxing more and then spending more… just doesn’t seem to be a logical solution to me for a country on the brink of bankruptcy. I cannot say I have a clear answer either other then to bail. We have started a passive search because in the long run, the country really doesn’t work anymore. However my solution is to be proactive on my own, with my money, my education, and my will to work. It is not to push my burden onto others because they have taken advantage of system where the cards are in thier favor. Believe it or not some of them made it on thier own fair and square and not all of them are crooks.

I guess you can deem this argument trivial. It is a matter of opinion and I respect that. However, I do not. I think Obama is a good man with a good heart and he truly believes what he is doing is right. Consequently I do cannot concur with you that since I oppose a redistribution of wealth that I am being hypocritical because todays tax laws are f’d up. Like I said, let it be flat, let everyone support the impoverished. Eliminate all loopholes.

[Author]

Posts