Quote :

"I'd like to see that cited, but if thats true than the top 8% have 85% of the taxable wealth? "

This is from the Tax Foundation, based on numbers from the Congressional Budget Office...

"The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5 percent of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86 percent).
The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4 percent of all federal income taxes.
That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns."

What percentage should the top 25% pay? At what point would you consider too high? Right now they're at 86%. How much more of the income tax burden should they pay with their uneeded money? 90%? 95%

Quote :

"i feel that the rich owe it to the country that helped them become rich. "

And what does the country owe to the rich? The rich who created the capital to start businesses that hired everyone else. The rich who invested in stocks of companies so that they could grow and provide a wealth of benefits to society. The rich who invented something that made everyone's life easier, or safer, or longer. It's a two-way street.

2/1/2008 12:02:38 AM

the country has already given something to the rich: wealth and success.

2/1/2008 12:05:38 AM

mccain > romney

2/1/2008 12:12:46 AM

Quote :

"the country has already given something to the rich: wealth and success."

So successful people did nothing to earn it? Did the country have a "rich lottery" and randomly choose people to be rich and successful? The country ALLOWED for people to become rich and successful through capitalism.

2/1/2008 12:25:00 AM

they did earn it. and they will still have more money.

2/1/2008 12:41:40 AM

Quote :

"the country has already given something to the rich: wealth and success."

NO. If anything this country got out of the way of the successful working to become rich. If anything this country should be grateful for the new rich. The people who grow and nurture new business. The people who innovate and consequently create new meaningful never before even possible jobs. Jobs that actually accomplish something.

This country should be thankful for the rich. Not the other way around. Not in the sense you imply.

2/1/2008 12:48:48 AM

so the person who can't afford health insurance for their kids should be grateful to the rich now?

2/1/2008 12:49:56 AM

Quote :

"i have no illusion that i will ever be in the upper 1% of the country. and it won't be for lack effort."

top 1% might be a stretch (although possibly doable through disciplined yet reasonable saving and investing over a long enough period of time).

Top 5% is completely doable on a middle class income. You just have to be responsible and start saving at a fairly young age.

If you don't amass at least a couple million dollars by the time you are retirement age, and you have the income that goes with basically any college degree, you weren't doing something right.

Quote :

"With that being said, I understand how absolutely privileged I am, and I personally feel responsible to help those who were not given the same opportunities as me, even if it means I take home a few thousand less a year. "

Very well. Good for you.

Allow me to suggest donating to charity if you feel you need to do more--it isn't your place to require me to do the same. It will do more good there than having the government take more from you, fuck half of it away, and then give it to poor people (who will then fuck half of the rest of it away, but that's another subject).

I stopped my charitable contributions when it occured to me that I ALREADY take home a few thousand less per year due to entitlement programs and income redistribution that the federal government requires me to fund (sometimes unconstitutionally, but again, that's another subject).

If the government got out of the business of playing [similarly illegal] Robin Hood, which it has no business doing, I would get back into the business of giving back on my own accord.

Quote :

"but i do think that those who have more money have benefited from our society should carry a larger burden than the rest."

They will, regardless. 10% (for example) of $500,000 is a lot more than 10% of $25,000. Now, I'm aware of the argument that a person with lesser income needs a greater percentage of that income for subsistance--so I'm totally cool with having a cutoff where no income is taxed below that point (i.e., the first $20,000 of EVERYONE'S income could be untaxed. After that, it's X% for everyone).

The FairTax is basically just that, except that it's a consumption tax instead of an income tax (which I think I like better...the consumption tax, that is). I'd also like to explore the option of a European-style VAT, which I admittedly know only enough about to be dangerous.

Finally, it's not just society giving to rich people. I'd say it goes the other way around to at LEAST the same extent.

Quote :

"So successful people did nothing to earn it? Did the country have a "rich lottery" and randomly choose people to be rich and successful? The country ALLOWED for people to become rich and successful through capitalism. "

Exactly.

I worked hard in highschool to get into college. I worked my ass off in college for a mechanical engineering degree. I busted my ass in the gym, on the running trails, and doing training more severe than most of you have ever imagined, and earned my commission as an officer in the USMC, earning a respectable income (emphasis on the EARNING, believe me), and saving/investing in an aggressive and disciplined manner.

While I hope like everyone else to make tons of money, I could quite easily never earn more than the low six-figures (in today's dollars), which is still WELL within the realm of "middle class", yet I plan on retiring with around $4,000,000 (again, today's dollars). That's not "getting lucky", that's taking charge of your own future, something that is completely within the capabilities of most of us--although few people actually buckle down and do it.

I am thankful for all that I've been blessed with, but the sentiment that "the country" or anyone else is giving it to me, as you say, is ridiculous--and frankly, offensive.

Somebody has to be at the top. I'd prefer for it to be me, and that's how I live my life. There's no shame in taking a different path, but don't act like anyone is entitled for a free lunch courtesy of those who "made it".

2/1/2008 12:57:30 AM

Quote :

"so the person who can't afford health insurance for their kids should be grateful to the rich now? "

Fuck yeah.

That person should be ESPECIALLY grateful to the rich.

2/1/2008 12:58:51 AM

Quote :

"Allow me to suggest donating to charity if you feel you need to do more--it isn't your place to require me to do the same. It will do more good there than having the government take more from you, fuck half of it away, and then give it to poor people (who will then fuck half of the rest of it away, but that's another subject). I stopped my charitable contributions when it occured to me that I ALREADY take home a few thousand less per year due to entitlement programs and income redistribution that the federal government requires me to fund (sometimes unconstitutionally, but again, that's another subject)."

couldn't say it better my self. Even so maybe a few people are stingy; so that is why they allow charitable donations to be tax deductions. However, when the gov't is already rapping you in a 33% tax bracket your generousness is about gone.

2/1/2008 1:58:58 AM

Im in your shoes duke. Im making in the low 6 figures. I was very lucky to have my mother pay my out of state tuition to ncstate. However, I had to take loans for the next four years. Those total over 100k. So, not only did I sacrifice 4 years of working, I invested 100k in my future with no guarantee of success. I busted my ass to stay in school pass national and state boards to acheive my salary. So I take alot of offense when someone with a parks and rec degree tells me how overpaid and how unfair my salary is.

Last week I diagnosed a tumor in a ladies orbit. Luckily it hadnt spread. That is the fourth tumor in 4 years I have caught. There are reasons you want certain jobs to be highly trained. yet, real estate agents, drug reps, etc make more than many doctors but somehow we are making too much?

I dont care if an actor makes 40 million in 4 months worth. I dont care if someone makes 20k flipping burgers. But the govt gets in trouble when it treats people differently. I would support a flat tax, then EVERYONE would take home the same percentage of thier income. The only difference is what are you willing to do to better yourself? You want to make more money? Change careers or go back to school. School too much of a burden on your life, then dont bitch about where you are in life and expect others to suffer for your decisions.

2/1/2008 8:23:45 AM

Helping the poor shouldn't automatically mean giving them money and services for free.

One of the best ways to help people move up the economic ladder is to set the right environment for them. We shouldn't make it more economically attractive for someone to stay at home and pop out illegitimate children, then to get a job.

People are going to do the least amount of work to get the most benefit. You can't blame them for that. If the gov't sets up a welfare state, why blame the people in it for gaming the system?

Compassion is over-rated in politics. It gets you more votes to alleviate today's pain than do the things that will alleviate tommorrow's

2/1/2008 10:29:55 AM

hannity yesterday was talking to newt...anyone watch hannity and combs yesterday? hannity kept calling mccain a "liberal moderate"...so now mccain isnt even a moderate conservative anymore

2/1/2008 10:32:15 AM

[Edited on February 1, 2008 at 10:34 AM. Reason : nevermind]

2/1/2008 10:34:03 AM

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Quote :

"Coulter wants Clinton over McCain Posted: 04:00 PM ET Ann Coulter said Thursday she'd back Hillary Clinton over John McCain. (CNN) — In the latest sign that a conservative backlash is starting to build against John McCain, conservative commentator Ann Coulter said Thursday she is prepared to vote for Hillary Clinton over the Arizona senator in a general election match up. Speaking on Fox's "Hannity and Colmes," Coulter took aim at the GOP frontrunner, and suggested he was little more than a Republican in name only. "If you are looking at substance rather than if there is an R or a D after his name, manifestly, if he's our candidate, than Hillary is going to be our girl, because she's more conservative than he is," Coulter said. "I think she would be stronger on the war on terrorism." Coulter took aim at McCain's positions — particularly his fervent anti-torture stance — and said he and Clinton differ little on the issues. Coulter also said she is prepared to campaign on Clinton's behalf should McCain win the party's nomination. "John McCain is not only bad for Republicanism, which he definitely is — he is bad for the country," she said. Coulter is the latest high profile conservative to express dismay with McCain's surging candidacy. Talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh said Wednesday McCain's rise was the product of a 'fractured' conservative base and an "uninspiring" GOP presidential field. "He is not the choice of conservatives, as opposed to the choice of the Republican establishment — and that distinction is key," Limbaugh continued. "The Republican establishment, which has long sought to rid the party of conservative influence since Reagan, is feeling a victory today as well as our friends in the media." McCain has long been at odds with conservative members of his party. — Exit polls from the early-primary states have shown the he has consistently lost among those primary voters who identify themselves as conservative. But he passed a key test Tuesday in winning Florida's primary, the first early contest that only allowed registered Republicans to participate. Reacting to criticisms from his party's most conservative quarters, McCain told the San Francisco Gate Thursday, "I'll continue to reach out to all in the party, try to unite the party, until everybody realizes that the only way we're going to defeat the Democratic candidate is through a united party.""

Wow.

2/1/2008 4:45:35 PM

You post that as if anyone would believe a single word that comes out of that woman's mouth.




Also, McCain is more of a real republican than anyone else currently running for president.

Quote :

""John McCain is not only bad for Republicanism neoconservitism , which he definitely is — he is bad for the country,"

I agree



[Edited on February 1, 2008 at 5:21 PM. Reason : I also like how it's not in there that she supports Romney.]

2/1/2008 5:09:29 PM

I'd believe "I am Satan"

2/1/2008 5:10:50 PM

Yeah, Coulter has pretty much alienated herself completely from sensible political commentary.

2/1/2008 5:21:19 PM

Ann Coulter is either a closed minded arrogant moron or she's is just really fucking smart using her ultra-conservative rhetoric to tap a lot of $$$ out of a market towards republican readers. Since the media tends to be left leaning she faces a lot less competition.

2/1/2008 5:42:26 PM

I just heard Ann Coulter's endorsement of Clinton.



I don't know what to think.

2/1/2008 9:39:41 PM

She's nothing more than a publicity whore.

2/1/2008 9:48:55 PM

Perhaps it's a clever move to boost Obama.

2/1/2008 9:50:01 PM

Quote :

"Perhaps it's a clever move to boost Obama Romney."

[Edited on February 1, 2008 at 10:00 PM. Reason : ;]

2/1/2008 9:59:55 PM

bomb bomb bomb

bomb bomb Iran


that made me lol

2/2/2008 1:25:16 PM

Very shortsighted on her part. If Clinton or Obama were elected I'm sure that Stevens and possibly Ginsberg would retire shortly thereafter, allowing for some not so favorable appointments to the SCOTUS.

McCain did help get Alito on the bench, and I'd rather have McCain make such a decision for the next appointment.

2/2/2008 1:27:26 PM

as long as they aren't against roe v wade.
cause if my bitches get pregs they going to the clinic

2/2/2008 1:53:52 PM

I believe if roe v wade was overturned it wouldnt outlaw abortions. It would just gives states the right to decide for itself.

Anyway, repubs need to leave it alone and set restrictions. I think the partial birth ban was a great step. Now if they can set a limit before tying tubes, I think thats about all that can be done. And PLEASE make the moring after pill easy to get.

2/2/2008 10:25:13 PM

^ Right, Roe V Wade being overturned turns the rights over to the states as to whether or not they want it to be outlawed or not.

South of the Mason Dixon line, it'd be illegal, Northeast would still be legal (imo)

2/2/2008 10:31:05 PM

i dont get how a state would be able to decide what a woman could do with some itsy bitsy tiny weeny fetus thing in her stomach


its not like the baby will remember getting killed...and another thing...i heard if the dems gave the repubs abortion, like 80 percent of the country would be democrat

[Edited on February 3, 2008 at 12:09 AM. Reason : ^that sounds so dumb to me...i'd rather the US be a whole than a sum of all parts]

2/3/2008 12:08:22 AM

i've never heard that 80% thing...

If you don't think that a state should decide, do you think that the federal government should decide? Or should the fed should be out of it too?

2/3/2008 12:11:19 AM

personally i think if a bitch wants to have an abortion she should be able to...i dont know if that means i want the states to decide or the feds to decide...i just think women should be able to have abortions...to me abortions are a 1/10 on the "big deal"ometer

2/3/2008 12:14:17 AM

^^^^ same is true with the gay marriage thing (south/midwest no, north/west yes)

but, many legal types believe that the federal government has no right to legislate either under the commerce clause (where they apparently draw their "power"), and that both should be states rights issues under the 10th amendment

[Edited on February 3, 2008 at 12:43 AM. Reason : .]

2/3/2008 12:41:13 AM

where i think the problem comes in for abortion is the fact that some states have a law where if a woman is murdered and she's pregnant, the murderer can be charged with two murders. if abortions are legal in that state, then its conflicting law....

gay marriage shouldn't be a state or federal issue. marriage is for a church to decide.

2/3/2008 12:44:45 AM

yeah man i dont get conservatives...they are ruining this country...they are so damn anal about things....no abortions...no gay marriage...they need to mind their fucking business if you ask me

2/3/2008 12:51:28 AM

^^ Correction, civil unions, not marriages.

the only time when Congress may have an argument under the commerce clause is when the "ceremony" takes place in a commercial wedding chapel or other privately owned business.

^ yes heaven forbid we not agree with you. like i'm saying, i don't think the federal government has a right to regulate either of those practices. limited government, thats conservative.

.

[Edited on February 3, 2008 at 12:57 AM. Reason : typing]

2/3/2008 12:52:30 AM

it's interesting how hypocritical a good number of the vocal conservatives want a smaller government and want government to butt out, but at the same time want everything they don't like banned...

can't have it both ways imo

2/3/2008 12:53:51 AM

LOL you act as if abortion is akin to throwing away a piece of paper...although some in the green movement would be more offended by that than ending the life of an unborn child.

2/3/2008 8:27:50 AM

Quote :

"yeah man i dont get conservatives...they are ruining this country...they are so damn anal about things....no abortions...no gay marriage...they need to mind their fucking business if you ask me"

really. Id like to know how you think they are ruining this country. I take it you lean democrat.

I consdier myself a conservative, im all for civil unions, and im for limited abortions. Late term abortions are nothing short of murder and cruel imo. When the baby can survive outside the mother and you cut it up or smash its head simply bc the mother doesnt want it..well fuck that irresponsible bitch. Now you make decision early, sure... people make mistakes. But woman that have several need to be forced to get thier tubes tied..imo. Anyone on welfare should be forced to take BC anyway. Cant feed yourself? You dont need anymore mouths to feed.

2/3/2008 9:16:17 AM

Quote :

"abortion is akin to throwing away a piece of paper"

agreed

2/3/2008 9:56:06 AM

Your futile attempts to impress some super easy liberal chick so you can get laid aren't working.



[Edited on February 3, 2008 at 10:02 AM. Reason : ]

2/3/2008 9:56:57 AM

Quote :

"Also, McCain is more of a real republican than anyone else currently running for president."

actually that would be ron paul

2/3/2008 10:46:07 AM

Quote :

"I consdier myself a conservative, im all for civil unions, and im for limited abortions."

I think you're probably along the lines of most conservatives, and probably most democrats too, who lean more towards being moderate than being too far to either side.

And I happen to agree completely with you, both on civil unions and abortion (and I consider myself to be a liberal )

2/3/2008 11:04:02 AM

Quote :

"But woman that have several need to be forced to get thier tubes tied..imo."

So you're against national heathcare, but you're for the government forcing medical procedures upon women?

2/3/2008 12:01:28 PM

Quote :

"yeah man i dont get conservatives...they are ruining this country...they are so damn anal about things....no abortions...no gay marriage...they need to mind their fucking business if you ask me "

HAHAHAHAHA. Conservatives need to mind their business? You are joking right? Democrats want to tax the shit out of everyone in the name of "equality and fairness". "Let's tax people more because they have been successful and distribute it equally so EVERYONE can live a decent life in this country!" That is called communism.

2/3/2008 1:12:29 PM

And that is not remotely the current democratic platform.

Its hard to fail at the internet but you just managed to do it. Congratulations.

2/3/2008 1:16:26 PM

Not completely yet....but they sure are heading in that direction.

2/3/2008 2:54:50 PM

Uh

No they actually aren't

2/3/2008 3:07:54 PM

^santa? Ive heard Obama talk about taxing the rich because "they dont need it" to fund some of his programs. He also talked about limiting profits for drug comanies that "earn thier profits off teh back of seniors who need thier medicine." Hillary wants to "take those profits" from oil companies to invest in alternative energy programs.

You dont call that communism? Taking something from someone in the name of the state? Not on the platform? It has been the platform for years, just now we have enough products of the system to take more.

Lunak, I think alot of people think alike. I think the majority of people are in the middle and lean one way over the other for an issue or two that is more important for you. For me its fairness and taxes and freedom FROM govt, not dependence on it.

spooky, Im more for forcing birthcontrol on welfare receips. But I would have no problem with doctors tying tubes after a couple of "mistakes". Im not sure how you could legislate it though.

2/3/2008 4:24:42 PM

^ for an esteemed doctor you sure have a lot of time to post on TWW

2/3/2008 5:23:37 PM

^
Maybe he's our next Ron Paul

2/3/2008 10:41:53 PM