Tax breaks for the wealthy. Good or bad idea?

[Harold Mansfield]

I am of the opinion that a general tax break for the top 2 percent of the country is a bad idea that has never worked to stimulate the economy in the history of the country. Not since Hoover, Regan, or Bush. Never. It just continues to keep wealth at the top, while the peons support it.

I don't see the need to just give people tax breaks in hopes that they will use them to grow and hire more people.
From what I have seen in my lifetime, tax breaks to the wealthy and large corporations just gives them more to pocket and still they rape and pillage the economy.

The basis for my opinion is the Great Depression, the Savings and Loan collapse of the 80's and the recent financial, mortgage and banking debacle.

I think that you should have to qualify for a tax break by doing what it is meant for first, and then you get the tax break.

I also don't believe that you should get a tax break if you still owe us money, either from back taxes or unpaid TARP loans.

I despise the proponents and lobbyist that claim that if tax breaks for the wealthy aren't continued it will further disrupt the economy because I haven't seen where it works yet...and they just had 10 years of tax breaks and they ran a muck with unscrupulous business practices from MCI, continuing through Enron, Tyco, Health South, and a ton of other companies that screwed people over anyway and still laid people off and pocketed the money and ran..all during running tax breaks.

Basically saying "If I don't get a tax break, then I will have to lay off a bunch of people." It's extortion and I don't believe in negotiating with anyone that claims that they can't function like everyone else, unless they get to pay less taxes. They are going to do it anyway.

I also know that many major corporations hide money abroad to avoid paying taxes on it and I think that it should be a crime. Tax evasion.

My opinion is definitely one sides because I am not in the top 2 percent...I'm in the rest of the 98 percent that could care less about million and billionaires financial woes because they have to pay taxes like the rest of us.

Besides, we can't afford a $2trillion dollar hit to the economy that is only going supplement 2 percent of the population.

What do you guys think?

[ParaTed2k]

I don't think much of any argument based on class warfare. It requires stereotyping people based on preconceived notions.

The fact is, it's more cost effective to run a business in some states than others. It is also the right of any owners or those who run businesses to set up shop (or relocate) where ever they feel is best for their company. If (say) the State of Wisconsin makes it harder and more costly to run a business in this state, then why wouldn't those running it opt to relocate to a state more appreciative of the jobs they create.

Supply and demand says that the more a state charges a business to ru

As for "extortion", what's the difference between unions threatening a strike or management threatening to relocate? Both are doing the same thing for their own purposes.

Taxes are nothing more than the price of living and running a business in a state. If the price goes to high, people will choose to go somewhere else.

[Harold Mansfield]

I was speaking more about Federal Tax cuts and the proposed extension of the Bush tax cuts from 2001 that are set to expire on Jan 1. It's not really a tax increase, it's just going back to normal. The Bush tax cuts were supposed to be a temporary fix to stimulate economic growth. Obviously the economy is going to go where it goes and 9 years of those cuts haven't served to stop anything from going south.
Here is a CNN/Money article explaining them a little more:
FAQ on Bush tax cuts: What you need to know - Sep. 15, 2010 (http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/15/news/economy/bush_tax_cuts_faqs/index.htm)

[Spider]

I am generally ambivalent to who gets taxed what. There are several principles that I try to keep in mind.

1. It costs money to run anything - including a country. Taxes are the way the country pays for running itself, no matter who is in power.

2. Governments do not tax businesses - only people can be taxed. Tax to a business is just another operating expense which is added to prices, so the purchaser pays the tax, anyway.

3. Money is only a means to an end. The more you have, the more you spend. If you don't spend it, it is stored somewhere and lent or used by others. Money only has value when it circulates.

4. Most money doesn't exist. It is only numbers in a column on some ledger somewhere. (For you, Harold, little electrical impulses that show up on a video screen somewhere!)

5. If you earn $200 a week and spend it all to live, you are no worse off than the billionaire who only spends $200 a week to live. The only real difference the huge bank account gives the billionaire over the pauper is peace of mind. If you can find a way to have peace of mind on $200 a week, you are as rich as the billionaire.

6. Money is a resource, no different from another resource like wood, for example. I don't keep a huge store of wood - when I want some wood, I go to the lumber yard and acquire some. I don't have to keep a huge store of money. I live in a 14 trillion dollar economy. When I need some money, I go to the economy and acquire some. I might work for it, borrow it, or invite others who own some to invest it with me.

And my favorite - notwithstanding the above - (stolen from Silver Spoons...)

7. The world isn't fair, but the more of it you own, the fairer it becomes.

[Harold Mansfield]

7. The world isn't fair, but the more of it you own, the fairer it becomes.

Amen to that.

[Spider]

Yes, but we mustn't use that as a complaint. The idea is to go out and acquire as much of it as you can!

[Harold Mansfield]

I agree.
And don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that anyone be penalized for being in the top 2 percent or even that they should pay any more than anyone else. (I actually would like to see everyone pay the same amount)... Just that if they are to get a break and pay less, they should have to qualify for it. There should be a reason that the government holds them in preferred status, not just merely because of what income they make.

Like I'd be cool if you got a break in your taxes if you employ over a certain amount of full time workers, or if you provide a decent health plan for at least 80 percent of your workers, or if you are a major manufacturer with more than 70 percent of your operations in the U.S.....things like that. But not just an across the board break just because you make 2 million a year.

To me a tax break in their current state say's , "If we let you pay less taxes, then you will spread more money around", and that may be true for some, but history has taught me that too many will just pocket the difference and use it for personal gain.

[huggytree]

didnt Bush give tax cuts to everyone? didnt the highest income get a lower percentage already when he reduced them?

why shouldnt everyone get a tax break when your lowering taxes?

that $250,000 Obama keeps bring up really isnt very much....are you in the top 2 percent if your over $250,000 a year?

im going to make alot more $$ this year and am not looking forward to the tax bill at the end of the year...im preparing for an extra $10-15k in taxes because i did well

ive remodeled my house this year, built a garage last year, did a new drive way this year, and have a new car on order for 2011......if i get more $$ i spend it.....im planning on windows for next year.....that $10-15k will go to government to waste instead of going to a window installer in the spring....every penny you give to government takes away from the economy...

rich people need to pay their fair share, but i think its too much already......while 45 percent pay no fed taxes....why dont they pay 5 percent?.....all we focus on is the rich... in my opinion everyone should pay something in taxes no matter how little you make....you should lose your right to vote if you dont pay taxes....your deciding where the tax money will go when you dont pay any of it...why would you ever want to cut spending when its not your money????

i think anyone who thinks paying 45-50 percent of your income as being 'not enough' has class envy...i like rich people....i dont think anyone should pay more than 33 percent of their income in taxes.....

[ParaTed2k]

Prs. Obama contradicts himself and the Democrat position. Out of one side of his mouth he says that the Bush tax cuts only helped "the rich". Out of the other side of his mouth he says he wants to keep the parts that help the middle class.

Of course, all he knows is what his teleprompter tells him to say. :~D

[Spider]

...(I actually would like to see everyone pay the same amount)... Just that if they are to get a break and pay less, they should have to qualify for it...Everyone paying the same amount has a certain logic to it, but it won't work. Divide the total income tax revenue by the total working population and everyone would have to pay $6,600 a year or $130 week or $550 a month federal income tax plus local tax. For someone on minimum wage or working part-time, that would be a horrendous burden, compared to the burden this would impose on a corporate CEO earning millions a year. If you exclude the working poor from having to pay, you are left with the system we have at present, more or less.

I do like the idea of the wealthy 'earning' a reduced tax, though. If it was a tax credit for previous years' good works (hiring x new workers, donating to charity, whatever) that would be better.

In defence of those "major corporations [that] hide money abroad to avoid paying taxes on it" -- all taxable US entities (people and businesses) are taxed by the US government on their worldwide income, no matter where it is earned and where it is kept and no matter where they reside. "... and I think that it should be a crime." It is a crime. Not to mention that other countries have income taxes, too, which their people and companies have to pay. Rest assured, assuming proper and legal transactions, tax is paid on those earnings.

[billbenson]

The point is to reduce their taxes so they put money back into the economy. And I bet most wealthy people do. Whether its giving money to charities, investing in stocks, reinvesting in their business it goes back into the economy. Its only if they stick the money in the bank, invest overseas, etc that its not going to help the economy.

Having said that, it doesn't really matter that much as far as generating tax revenue. The government generates far more revenue from the non wealthy than it does from the wealthy. Its more of an emotional issue than a real one. People feel the rich aren't paying their fair share. But the government needs money and that has to come from the masses, not the select few.

[AmyAllen]

I think that you should have to qualify for a tax break by doing what it is meant for first


I completely agree! I don't see why they aren't doing this already. It's win/win from a government stand-point. Either the money is used as intended, or the government collects more money.

What do you guys think about the idea of a flat tax - Not everyone paying the same amount, but everyone paying the same percentage of their income? I always thought it was a little weird (mathematically speaking) that higher tax brackets pay a higher percentage, since a percentage is already an equalizer. (A billionaire paying 30% would pay much more than my 30%).

[Blessed]

I think the concept of a "flat tax" is a great one - but the details are what would kill it - so everyone pays 30% each year. How do you figure what is taxed? - is it what was earned by working? How about the income on your investments - are they taxed at the same amount? What about money you received as an inheritance? or a gift? Are there deductions? Are your charitable contributions tax exempt? what about deductions for how many kids you have? What about money you earned from foreign sources? What if you simply set up bank accounts overseas for your foreign income - then is that money tax-free?

I'm not saying it couldn't work - I think it could. But the re-writing of the tax laws and the re-training of the American people of how we understand taxes, would be monumental and I doubt that any politician is going to be willing to actually tackle that project and see it through to completion. The reason taxes are so complicated is because of all the things that have been done over the years to "stimulate the economy" or make taxes more "fair" for blue-collar workers or create a "favorable" environment for businesses. Does anyone really pay 45-50% of their income on taxes? I'd be pretty surprised. I take every deduction I can to reduce my income in order to make my tax burden lighter and I'm sure most Americans do the same thing.

[Spider]

The point is to reduce their taxes so they put money back into the economy. And I bet most wealthy people do. Whether its giving money to charities, investing in stocks, reinvesting in their business it goes back into the economy. Its only if they stick the money in the bank, invest overseas, etc that its not going to help the economy...I'm sure you're right on the first part, Bill - on the second part, even sticking it in the bank and investing overseas helps the American economy indirectly.

For every dollar deposited in a bank, the bank can lend $3 (more or less, not sure of the exact leverage.) So a $10,000 tax reduction to a wealthy person, which he "does nothing with," becomes an additional $30,000 in loans to a small business to make more stuff, hire more people, etc. I bet that's more beneficial to the economy than the government having $10,000 more taxes to spend, eh?

Even investing the tax reduction money overseas gives a little boost to that economy and the money generated from that boost comes back in more American goods sold overseas. Despite all the rantings from certain political persons and talk show hosts, America still makes 40 percent or more of the world's goods. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the American population would benefit more by eliminating income taxes entirely on people earning over $5 million a year, than they would by raising their taxes.


CORRECTION: The US manufactures 20.3 percent of the world's manufactured goods with China a little less. Together they make 40 percent of the world's manufactured goods. At the peak of Britain's economic greatness, 1850, she was the world's largest manufacturer with about 30 percent of world production and in 1830 China was the world's largest manufacturer with 30 percent, also.

[Harold Mansfield]

I think recent news of possible misconduct by certain banks in regards to foreclosure procedures has really got me angry about the situation. It appears that proper legalities weren't taken and many people may have been thrown out of their homes unjustly. They actually outsourced the work and just rubber stamped everything.

These are the same institutions that have benefited from business tax cuts and also received federal bailout money.

At what point do we continue to fund companies with tax discounts, tax payer loans and grants do we start expecting some kind of accountability on how they treat American people?
Should these companies, if found to be in violation, continue to benefit from tax breaks? How have they earned it?

That should be a privilege!

You shouldn't just get it because of a certain income level and if you have been so grossly negligent, as in this case, as to actually make things worse economically, shouldn't you be made to pay back that tax break? And the TARP money. Now!
Not only didn't you do what you were supposed to, but you took your tax break and federal funds and used it to screw people over even more and further plummet the economic indicator numbers with thousands of foreclosures that we now find out may be illegal.

Part of the deal was supposed to be that if banks like B.O.A received the $71 billion that they asked for, is that they were supposed to make an effort to open a dialogue with consumers to help keep people in their homes...and they did just the opposite.

So as an American citizen, where is my incentive to continue to support giving these companies a tax break, let alone a loan?

[Spider]

Well, Harold, you obviously listen to a vastly different source for your information than I do. I gave up Rush Limbaugh and his like several years ago when I realized they were talking a whole load of rubbish. I have no idea what they say now-a-days because I don't listen to them anymore. I have decided not to research the facts for this post, because there are too many, let me give you my impression of the present situation, stepping my way through your post.

I have heard of several major banks (Wells Fargo, I remember, was one) suspending foreclosures until they could clarify their own procedures. They later reported that an internal investigation had found no misconduct and re-started the foreclosures.

I'm not sure there were any tax cuts for banks but there certainly were government bail-out funds. However, this money was not paid to the banks to be nice, it was paid to prevent them collapsing and bringing down the whole economy. In one notable case, it was felt that their collapse would not harm the country at large and they were allowed to fail - rather ignominiously! Others were saved to protect the country, not the banks themselves.

Look at the banks that received TARP funds. None of the previous CEOs remain. They have all been fired or resigned prematurely.

As for the TARP money being paid back, it is. And, in most cases, at a profit to the government. That is to say, the taxpayers are getting back more than they paid out. The banks, with the exception of Citi are prtetty well paid back, I believe. Citi is still struggling but it is expected to return a considerable profit to the government when the government's shareholding is sold. Ford never received any bail out. I believe GM has paid back all it received some time ago. I don't know about Chrysler. All that might not be entirely accurate - I'm going on memory, but the broad picture is that the bail out worked, it saved the country, it saved many thousands of jobs, and it will likely be a wash or a small profit overall to the taxpayer, at the end of the day.

While I confess to a certain libertarian inkling, I do not support libertarianism in politics. While I am a businessman, I have a certain affiliation with republican politics, but on both counts do not support the deregulation that led to the mess we have recently faced. Few of the banks, insurance companies and car companies that featured in our recent debacle actually broke the law, I believe. Simply, deregulation left certain industries without oversight. The fox was left to guard the hen-house.

I do not necessarily support democratic politics, either, but to blame any of these political concepts is to miss the point. It is just politicking. There were many faults in the system that came to a head. They came to a head because the regulators were either asleep at the wheel or had been removed from their posts. Deregulation had become a fad that served us poorly.

[Harold Mansfield]

From what I remember the Bank of America bailout was also in part to help stop potential losses with the Meryl Lynch merger, but that is really not the point.
Given the history, particularly with financial institutions, don't you think tax credits and breaks should be earned and not just a rubber stamp across the board based on income?

And..yes, Wells Fargo did a quick self audit and said that they didn't find any irregularities.
Of course they would, they did their own audit! I believe they somehow audited paperwork for foreclosures in 37 states in a matter of days..yet somehow when this paperwork was originally filed they needed to subcontract out the original handling because they said they couldn't keep up. Seems suspect to me.

The jury is still out on B of A and what ever their say about they own handling of documents, everyday another reporter or insider comes up with proof to the contrary or signatures that don't match across hundreds of supposedly official documents.

No one is going to admit that they prematurely foreclosed on a few hundred thousand families after the fact. I have personally known a few people that were in the middle of re-fi's or modifications and were foreclosed on by a third party on behalf of the bank even though all of the paper work was filed correctly. To make matters worse there was no one to talk to. Ever. They purposely would not talk to anyone. I've seen it with my own eyes and it didn't make sense then, but now it does.

They were supposed to help people that qualified for consideration or had a real chance to catch up or get back on track. That was the deal. And they didn't. Instead foreclosures escalated.

It just seems to me that something went terribly wrong that compounded the country's financial situation and until we know everything we shouldn't be rubber stamping tax breaks to anyone.
I expect to see a ton of litigation next year from people who were prematurely forced out of their homes.
Paper shredders in the Bahamas and India are no doubt running full speed, 24/7 these days.

[greenoak]

the middle class is evaporating and we are giving tax breaks that were supposed to be temporary back to the super rich.... i think they are in charge...

[Spider]

I don't look on "the banks" as being a single entity bent on destroying people's lives. I don't even think of each bank as a single entity when talking about them as we are. I see a collection of people trying to do their jobs as best they can. Bank employees, like employees everywhere, do their best every day. Some do better than others, some care more than others, and some couldn't care at all - but by and large, they don't turn into the office every morning thinking, "Who can I screw today?!"

of course the banks did their own audit. If you were the head of a department that was accused of wrongdoing, wouldn't you look into the workings of your own department to make sure your people weren't, and also to prepare yourself for when the regulators turned up to investigate? And, if you found some wrongdoing, would you cover it up and say all is well? Or, would you say, Ooops! We found something but we're fixing it?

I accept that this period has been hard on some homeowners. I also think the banks have been harsh, but I also believe that these foreclosures are not witout merit. I took out a new mortgage during the run-up to the near-collapse, and I also took advantage of a No-doc/Lo-doc loan application with stated-income. But I consider myself smart enough about money to not borrow more than I could pay back. I could have borrowed a whole lot more and I could have bought a much bigger house - as I'm sure many, many people did - thinking I could pay back the loan by refinancing when the property value had escalated even further.

People who fell into that trap are now paying the price for their folly. It's sad to see, I agree, and I'm not saying there weren't any unscrupulous real estate sellers misleading buyers or encouraging them down risky pathways. What I am saying is, that freedom got out of hand. Regulations were relaxed people tried to take advantage, a house of cards was constructed and, with first puff of wind, it fell down.

The banks are no more to blame than Congress for deregulating, sellers for selling too enthusiastically, buyers for buying carelessly, and mortgage brokers for making it too easy to do both. Nobody broke the law, but there's a lot of blame to go around and a lot of shoulders in which to place it.


Notwithstanding all that, Harold, I am puzzled by a couple of your phrases:

1. "...don't you think tax credits and breaks should be earned and not just a rubber stamp across the board based on income?" - As your post was about banks. I don't understand this question. If it relates to wealthy people in general, I said previously, "In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the American population would benefit more by eliminating income taxes entirely on people earning over $5 million a year, than they would by raising their taxes."
2. "rubber stamping tax breaks" - not sure what that means in practical terms. I don't know, nor have I heard of anything that would fall under that description.

[ParaTed2k]

Wouldn't it have been nice if the regulators in Congress would have done their jobs in the first place? They demand authority but (like the infants they are) refuse to accept any responsibility for their incompetence.

Responsibility with no authority is a figure head, authority with no responsibility is tyranny.

[Spider]

I would argue, Ted, that firstly, members of congress are not regulators, they are legislators. The regulators that failed to do their job are put into place by congress (by the making of laws and regulations.)

Secondly, the regulators weren't there because the members of congress HAD done their job - serving the will of the people - and the will of the people, as expressed in electing a Republican congress, wanted deregulation - smaller government, less government, a more frugal government, etc. All the same cries we are hearing right now.

So, I put it to you that the financial crisis occured because congress did its job. It was the country that couldn't handle the freedom it demanded of their government!

[Harold Mansfield]

I don't think most normal people wake up in the morning looking to screw somebody. I do think that people will take what ever liberties are afforded to them for personal gain and if happens to screw someone over, so be it...as long as it's technically legal.



The banks are no more to blame than Congress for deregulating, sellers for selling too enthusiastically, buyers for buying carelessly, and mortgage brokers for making it too easy to do both. Nobody broke the law, but there's a lot of blame to go around and a lot of shoulders in which to place it.

And there is the problem in a nutshell. Basically we should (and we really should) blame congress for not regulating these people because you can't give them the authority to control themselves. Because they won't. They will exploit every loop hole they can for profit as long as it's "legal".

If a 3 year old spills grape juice on a white carpet, you don't blame the 3 year old, you blame the parents for giving it to them.
Same difference.



Notwithstanding all that, Harold, I am puzzled by a couple of your phrases:

1. "...don't you think tax credits and breaks should be earned and not just a rubber stamp across the board based on income?" - As your post was about banks. I don't understand this question. If it relates to wealthy people in general, I said previously, "In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the American population would benefit more by eliminating income taxes entirely on people earning over $5 million a year, than they would by raising their taxes."



2. "rubber stamping tax breaks" - not sure what that means in practical terms. I don't know, nor have I heard of anything that would fall under that description.

I mean basing tax breaks on a certain income level. That's a rubber stamp that goes to anyone in that level no matter who they are.

[Harold Mansfield]

I would argue, Ted, that firstly, members of congress are not regulators, they are legislators. The regulators that failed to do their job are put into place by congress (by the making of laws and regulations.)

Secondly, the regulators weren't there because the members of congress HAD done their job - serving the will of the people - and the will of the people, as expressed in electing a Republican congress, wanted deregulation - smaller government, less government, a more frugal government, etc. All the same cries we are hearing right now.

So, I put it to you that the financial crisis occured because congress did its job. It was the country that couldn't handle the freedom it demanded of their government!

I don't think I have ever agreed with you more, than I do at this very moment.
It's amazing how soon people (voters) forget things that JUST happened. Even though many are still living with the consequences.

This is exactly why SOME want less government. Because they have a financial interest in it being so.

[greenoak]

that is so sad and true.....
and most of us work and cant pay attention to all the awful looopholes that the big companies get passed..while their pet congressman, at the same time they are voting a gainst us, are waving the flag and talking about gays or stem cells or guns......
how many big companies get out of taxes all together? with accounts in the bahamas..... or get help like gm and still send jobs to mexico...we are so against our own interests sometimes....

[huggytree]

term limits on Congress and Senators would go a long way to help the issue....they wont be anyone's pet

we also have to start electing Accountants instead of Lawyers

here in WI were about to lose our Senator 'russ Fielgold'.....were getting a Tea Party guy who is a business man.....thats exactly what we need...someone who lives under a budget and will bring that strange 'concept' to government.....he isnt a life time politician...he's a business man who's taking a break from business to work for his country...thats what its supposed to be....after 2 terms he should leave and let someone else take a turn

why are most politicians Lawyers? why do we vote for that?

[Harold Mansfield]

why are most politicians Lawyers? why do we vote for that?

Well, in the case of our current President and Vice President they both have degrees in Constitutional Law. I kind of want that in a high ranking official rather than someone who doesn't exactly know what's in an amendment and relies on advisers to tell them.

There are a lot of politicians that run on Constitutional platforms that really don't know how it works or the actual language in it. Just a bunch of buzz words and the hot button issue of the day. We really can't have that it's a waste of time. It's the same as religious groups taking certain passages out of the bible and ignoring the rest as a way of justifying their agenda.

I think lawmakers should have a degree in law or at least a very good understanding of it. Just like I think car mechanics should know how to fix cars or at least some extensive training on them.
We can't have a group of high school drop outs and Jr. College attendees proposing legislation based on personal feelings.

[Spider]

Interesting comments.

1. I don't understand why people generally are so against so-called "loopholes." If the law says no-one can ride a bicycle on the streets of Chicago after 7:00pm and you are walking your bicycle down the road, isn't that a loophole? If the law says people earning over $5 million a year must pay a special 10 percent tax, then someone earning $4,999,999 that year doesn't have to pay it, isn't that a loophole? The law has to draw a line somewhere to be an enforeceable law.

2. It seems to me the entire income tax code of every country in the world operates by taxing people, or not taxing them, based on their income level, no matter who they are. That only seems fair to me. I mean, that's what income tax is.

3. I don't think of politicians voting against the people. I try to believe they vote according to what they think is best for the country as a whole. Notwithstanding the politicians who vote for some military equipment that the armed forces don't want because it is manufactured in the politician's district. Is that voting against the people, to keep their jobs going?

4. When companies get out of paying taxes, that means lower prices for the end-user (the people.) If a company pays more tax, that is an additional cost of doing business and is added to the price of goods.

5. The idea of bank accounts in the Bahamas, or anywhere else overseas, is a red herring, I'm afraid. You can have bank accounts wherever you wish. As an American citizen you are subject to tax on your entire world income, no matter where you choose to keep it. You are breaking the law if you don't report it, just as much if the undeclared money is in the Bahamas or your local high street bank.

6. Ah! Term limits. So, do we want the country run by a whole new bunch of amatuer politicians every few years? Or, would seasoned experts be a better choice? Should the person representing you in Washington be adept at twiddling the knobs to get the very best for his district (where you live) or someone who will be term-limited out before he even finds out where half the knobs are!


Folks, I know it's fun to criticize what we have, but don't make yourselves glum over it. We've had actors make a better job of running the country than seasoned business people, and good and bad in every office.

[huggytree]

the constitution is written pretty simply...you dont need a law degree to understand it....for those like Obama who view it as living breathing document think it can mean anything...once again...dont need to be a lawyer to make it say what you want it to say...

when lawmakers have been in office for 30 years do they even know how to relate to people? (id say thats what the problem is now with both Dem and Repub.)

are you against term limits for the president? (i assume you like term limits for him)...whats the difference?...we could have Obama be president for 30 more years?

term limits keep politicians honest and close to the people....life long politicians are the problem...isnt that what the tea party movement is all about? thats why they are knocking long term repubs out of the primaries...

both parties are out of touch....im a conservative, but couldnt stand how they acted under Bush...the only thing Bush did good for me is Supreme court judges...everything else he gets a D rating from me...he wasnt really much of a conservative(just like his papa)

im looking forward to gridlock in a few more days....the less both parties do the better...i would prefer they only got in session for a week or 2 a year...we dont need any more rules or programs....do the budget and go home...wasnt that how the country was when it started?

doing good aint got no end.......thats how they all look at it...they all want to keep spending to do their version of 'good' (both parties)

(can you tell im frustrated)

the actor was a good president because he could explain conservative ideas to the people.....conservatives are HORRIBLE at explaining and fighting for their values/idea's....Regan gave us a liberal supreme court justice, made low income people pay no taxes and didnt he give amnesty to illegals? 3 very liberal idea's....i love the way he fought and spoke out against socialism....we need someone who could do that in 2012 to fight Obama

[ParaTed2k]

I would argue, Ted, that firstly, members of congress are not regulators, they are legislators. The regulators that failed to do their job are put into place by congress (by the making of laws and regulations.)

Secondly, the regulators weren't there because the members of congress HAD done their job - serving the will of the people - and the will of the people, as expressed in electing a Republican congress, wanted deregulation - smaller government, less government, a more frugal government, etc. All the same cries we are hearing right now.

So, I put it to you that the financial crisis occured because congress did its job. It was the country that couldn't handle the freedom it demanded of their government!

This may have been the original intent, but it is not the reality today. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae both have governmental ownership regulated directly by committees in Congress. The members blocked every attempt to clean up the problems and corruption they knew was going on (but lied through their teeth in denial). Congress and the Executive branches of both Obama and Bush failed in their self appointed responsibilities over the regulations governing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico... leading to the crises today.

Now, let me be clear, the first responsibility goes to the people who are actually running these organizations, however, if Congress and the Executive branch are going to claim authority over these enterprises, they have to accept the responsibility that comes with it. Something they don't seem mature or honest enough to do.

For far too long, We the People have also shirked our responsibility over our government. We let completely idiotic statements like, "there's no reason to read the bill, it's too long and takes a lawyer to understand it anyway" (for example) pass as actual logic. We support unethical or even down right criminal activity go unanswered because it's "party uber alles".

Why do we hold our waiters and waitresses to a higher standard than we hold the people who make our laws? Why do we let them get away with being criminals?

Contrary to their delusions of grandeur, they are NOT royalty.

[ParaTed2k]

[QUOTE=huggytree;38945]the constitution is written pretty simply...you dont need a law degree to understand it....for those like Obama who view it as living breathing document think it can mean anything...once again...dont need to be a lawyer to make it say what you want it to say...

when lawmakers have been in office for 30 years do they even know how to relate to people? (id say thats what the problem is now with both Dem and Repub.)

Agreed! Any elected official in an office for more than 10 years is a menace to society and a threat.

[nealrm]

WOW- where to start.

First let us start with the latest economic mess. The US went through a recession because the real estate market crashed. People want to blame the bank and the regulators for being greedy or not doing there job. Liberals are calling it a failure of capitalism. Yet finding media articles that truly state why everything happened is impossible. Part of the real reason was a non-free market mortgage system was created that was flawed by design. The second part was the greed and lack of personal accountablility of the US population The belief that "I" deserve to live in a huge house, "I" deserve a bunch of toys that I can't pay for and it's OK to walk away from my debts.

First - the non-free market mortgage system. The mortgage system in the US is about as far from a capitalism system as you can get. With the creation of the Mae's, the risk of giving out bad loans was removed. Banks simply sold their loans off and made money off writing up the paperwork. If the loan went bad, it would be someone else's problem. The Mae's then grouped all the loans together, and sold them off. This again passed the problem and risk on to someone else. The final buyer had no real way of knowing if the group of loans they bought were any good. The Mae's did not come about due to the demands of the market, they were government created. There was no competition that forced them to provide mortgage bundles that were based on better loans. Nor was there competition in purchasing loans from the banks to provide a true valuation on good versus bad loans. In short the US government setup a system that replaced the risk of a bank failing by writing bad loans with the remote risk of a regulator hitting the company with a fine. The bank reacted according and in the own best interest by writing as many loans as they could. The general population helped them by willing buy real estate at values way above reasonable costs and built up huge amounts of debt. All in the name of living the "Right" lifestyle. No longer did work to build wealth over a lifetime. Instead we use debt to live that lifestyle now and pay for it later. Well the later finally came and everything fell apart.

[Harold Mansfield]

No longer did (we) work to build wealth over a lifetime. Instead we use debt to live that lifestyle now and pay for it later. Well the later finally came and everything fell apart.

Almost prophetic. And you are absolutely correct. We have been doing this for along time.

[billbenson]

Since we slightly delved into politics here, I'll make an observation. I went to the candidates websites to see what people felt. I'm republican, but middle of the road and can be swayed to the other side so I wanted to take a look at everybody. I went to the Florida governor candidates site (Dem). She had something like "I'm for better education, improving the economy, lower crime..." Whopee. There was nothing on the site that I found that said how she would do that. She's not the only one with a site like that, but I went there because I wanted to know what she would do for me as opposed to the other candidate I was pretty much planning on voting for. What a lousy job of salesmanship.

[Harold Mansfield]

Since we slightly delved into politics here, I'll make an observation. I went to the candidates websites to see what people felt. I'm republican, but middle of the road and can be swayed to the other side so I wanted to take a look at everybody. I went to the Florida governor candidates site (Dem). She had something like "I'm for better education, improving the economy, lower crime..." Whopee. There was nothing on the site that I found that said how she would do that. She's not the only one with a site like that, but I went there because I wanted to know what she would do for me as opposed to the other candidate I was pretty much planning on voting for. What a lousy job of salesmanship.

They are all pretty much like that. I can't wait for this election cycle to be over. I am so tired of the commercials on both sides. It's all finger pointing and "he said, she said" on both sides.
What happened to the day when a candidate would just simply state their case, or if they are incumbent stated their performance record and they actually appeared on their own commercial and spoke to the people?

It's especially ridiculous here between Angle/Reid. All of his commercials are about her and all of her commercials are about him (and dangerous Mexicans..I think she really stepped in it on those).
Both calling each other dangerous.
Politicians really have no respect for each other at all. How can they possibly work together the way they disrespect each other?

[Spider]

Ah, well. Like so many political discussions, this one has ceased being a discussion and has dropped into name-calling. May I suggest the serenity prayer --

Give me the power to change what I can change,
The grace to accept what I cannot change,
And the wisdom to know the difference.

{Spider quietly slips out the door.}

[Harold Mansfield]

we need someone who could do that in 2012 to fight Obama

I don't think fighting is the answer to anything. We need people who will work WITH the sitting President and their Congressional colleagues, not waste years fighting against them. That's why we keep going in circles. I don't vote for anyone because I want them to go to Washington and fight against anyone. I want them to work together.There's good ideas on both sides but they spend so much time pointing blame and arguing that no ones ideas can be heard. And they spend so much time disrespecting each other that no one is open to listening or cooperation.

It's all or nothing and we the people end up with nothing. And then it starts all over again next election...meanwhile the only thing that was accomplished was 4 years of fighting.
It's getting old.
If Obama isn't re-elected, the next President will just spend 4 years undoing stuff, instead of making the good parts of what has been done better.
We are doomed to years of gridlock unless our elected officials wake up.

[Spider]

{Spider stops to comment before he crosses the threshold!}


Right on, Harold!



{Spider continues his exit (short legs, don't you know!)}

[billbenson]

Good post Harold.

[ParaTed2k]

Seriously, what I think is that profits should be simply taxed as income... wether it's the profits of an individual (sole proprietorship) or corporation. No special taxes for this kind of company or that one. After all, it is "income" tax, so it should cover "income".

[Harold Mansfield]

Seriously, what I think is that profits should be simply taxed as income... wether it's the profits of an individual (sole proprietorship) or corporation. No special taxes for this kind of company or that one. After all, it is "income" tax, so it should cover "income".

Interesting proposal.
So I guess you would file at the beginning of a fiscal year as to what your projected expenses are, and after you clear that, then you pay taxes on the "surplus". And then if your expenses should go over your projections, you just need to present the proper paperwork to prove it and adjust your tax payment.

Interesting.
That would put a big dent in the general fund though. May even cut tax revenue in half.
It would certainly benefit small and start up businesses.

[Harold Mansfield]

I just ran across this commercial that launched today by Citizens Against Gov Waste,

YouTube - Chinese Professor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTSQozWP-rM&NR=1)

And then this one that was from years ago that was banned from the networks. It was created to air after President Regan's State of the Union address in 1986 by W.R.Grace
YouTube - wr grace -deficit trials.mp4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiBCRQL58_k)

Both of them blew me away.
24 years later and the message is the same. Absolutely nothing has changed.

[Spider]

CAGW media published The Chinese Professor.
Who are CAG media?
Citizens Against Government Waste Homepage (http://www.cagw.org/) CITIZENS AGAINST GOVERNMENT WASTE founded in 1984 -- J. Peter Grace, CAGW Co-Founder.

Note the Highest Rated Comments:
TheJPKennard
You seem to be one of the very few who actually understand how ridiculous this campaign is. I'm not American, I'm English, but this advert is conveying the completely wrong message to the general public and it makes me sick. The political party that made this are irresponsible for conveying such a corrupt message!

mapnxyaha2k10
lol whoever believes this is retarded.



The W.R.Grace -deficit trials video was, it seems, produced in 1986 by this same CAGW formed only two years ealier. It was the outcome of the Grace Commission appointed by President Regan.

Of course the message is the same - it's produced by the same organization who have been telling the same story for 26 years. They even use the same words and terminology.

It's a classic example of a PAC misleading the public to push their own agenda.

[Harold Mansfield]

But I have to give it to them, the commercials are good. Great script. Nice Production. Kind of reminds me of the Apple 1984 commercial, but with more substance.
I didn't really want to discuss the politics of it, but I really liked the way they made the commercials.

[Spider]

Ah well, if it's the movie-making you are commenting about, I agree with you. Kinda Orsen Welles for me! But I like my advertiements to tell the truth - or at least some semblance of the truth.

[Harold Mansfield]

A But I like my advertiements to tell the truth - or at least some semblance of the truth.

That's a tall order during election season.
Maybe I'm dense on this one but I don't see the problem with them. They are obviously fictional suggestions (although exaggerated to prove a point) of the future. They don't really quote any facts or suggestion of any facts except one. Our debt is $13 trillion now and it was $2 trillion in 1986.

I can't see anyone actually believing that we will work for the Chinese, or that kids will hold trials against adults... anymore than they believe that a miniature stage coach will run through the house and disappear under the kitchen sink if they open a bag of Chuck Wagon dog food.

[Spider]

True! I like to think I am discerning (aka skeptical) but in so many conversations during these periods, it's clear that many other people are not so discerning or skeptical and actually believe some of the distortions (aka twaddle) such ads contain. Not to mention the lies put out by official talkshow hosts plus all the other disk jockies-turned-political commentators on so-called music stations (I call them lies because I cannnot believe they are all mistakes or misunderstandings.)

But it all makes for a uniquely American style of "demiocratically" selecting one's leaders.

It's fun to watch!

[Harold Mansfield]

I was watching a documentary of some channel that explained how attack ads actually do work and sway some peoples opinion. I never believed it. I always thought that the ads were so obviously slanted and cherry pick the information, that the only people that could actually believe them were under educated or only listen or read anything political once a year.

I mean they are actually produced as if they are talking to people with 5th grade educations. Insinuating images, Big letters. Simple words. Flashy buttons. Carefully edited audio. Horrible catch phrases. I mean who would take them seriously..but people do. Does that make us stupid or lazy?

And then one day during a political discussion a friend of mine, who I previously thought of as intelligent, quoted a line from Sharon Angle attack ad to make his point and I was stunned.
He had actually made up his mind from a bunch of 30 second, slanted, commercials full of half truths and carefully selected wording.

What happened to us?
Do you think one day we will look back at this moment in political history ( the last 30 years) and laugh at how ridiculous it was?

[Spider]

I think this is nothing unusual. People make up their minds first, based on long-term influences - like upbringing, like whether the local candy store owner was grumpy or nice, like the attitude of their favorite elementary school teacher and the attitude of their first few bosses. Having drifted into this camp or that, they tended to favor the things that supported that developing belief and move away from opposite things. They probably argued with a few close friends, testing ideas and concepts, in their youth.

By the time they reached voting age, their minds were made up, more or less, and they only listened to "their side" and ignored "the other side" and looked for "facts" that supported their already made up minds.

Sure, there's plenty of switching of sides and a whole lot of fence-sitting, but most people consider themselves basically "this" or basically "that." And when in doubt, they vote that way. The only people who make any difference in an election is the folk in the middle, so the ads are aimed at the 5 percent of voters who might be undecided - the swing-voter.

If you want to be courted during election time, free limo rides to the polling station, free cocktails during the run-up, and all, tell all parties you are a swing voter and are not sure where you stand on the issues!!!

[Harold Mansfield]

I just watched the Chinese Professor one again and the suggestions in the images were so subtle that I didn't even see them. You are right it is a one sided slant with some very strong opinions about the current administration.
It's almost subliminal.
Wow, even more respect for the production. I don't agree with the insinuation, but at least it was decent work.

As opposed to these that Sharon Angle ran. The first time I saw them my mouth dropped open at the insinuating imagery. I thought it was a low road and she could have made the point a little more intelligently.
If you look at it, notice how menacing and scary the Latinos are (as if they actually come across the border with weapons wearing gang colors) and how "white" and worried the other people are. Nice touch using the images of little white, female children next to the menacing brown skinned illegals. It's almost funny how obvious the message is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTbHwCDFfWg
Not to mention one statement doesn't match it's following statement. Both sides have really sucked this season. I am very disappointed in the ads. They just seem to get worse. Tabloid style even.

Young Turks does a little commentary and shows the other one that I couldn't find.:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZn9ek95s-I&feature=fvwk

It's not funny, but it is comical.

[Harold Mansfield]

I just ran across this commercial that launched today by Citizens Against Gov Waste,

YouTube - Chinese Professor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTSQozWP-rM&NR=1)


Sorry for all of the video links but as you can see I find political ads disturbing, but at the same time fascinating:
Found a parody of the Chinese Professor ad from Citizens Against Snake Oil and Scapegoats:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycdiCL5ZOP8&feature=related

[Spider]

Good! I loved the URL - casos.duh

[Harold Mansfield]

I guess the Chinese Professor commercial is a hit. Parodies are popping up by the hour. This one takes a dig at the Tea Party Republicans:
YouTube - Chinese Professor Parody - China Thanks Tea Party and Republicans (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo6vWyxsSRM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3am6hnuFXnw&feature=related

[Harold Mansfield]

Well, I'm glad that's over. The newly elected public servants take office in January. We'll see if all that talk about cutting spending carries over to disallowing continuing tax breaks or if a spending exception is made to allow them again.
Can't wait.

[billbenson]

You know, earlier in this thread it was suggested that lawyers and accountants are best suited for public service. I'd add, why not an economist!

One of the things we see through all of us in this thread is guessing, personal opinion etc. One of the problems in identifing what should be done for the economy is the economists that generate the information we read give slanted viewpoints to further an agenda. However, if Obama had an economics degree he would be equipped with the tools understand what is happeningin the current economy. He doesn't and neither do any of us to my knowledge. That makes most of us and most of our government workers arm chair quarterbacks during the economic football game being played.

[billbenson]

Oh, and I'd really like to see political messages from machines added to the do not call list. I don't want to go running for my business line from the bathroom only to find out its a recorded or live political pitch!!!

[Harold Mansfield]

That's why the President has advisers and a cabinet. It is rare (it's actually never happened) that a President, or one man can be an experienced Military Leader, an Expert in the Constitution and Constitutional Law, An Economist, An Experienced International Diplomat, Head of State, Head of the Government and all of it's Federal Employees, and all of the other positions that a President has to take and be versed in all of them equally.

The President has a council of many of the best economic minds in the country. No one man can possibly grasp the enormity of the American economy on his own. However I do expect the President to be well versed in the Constitution.

The Council of Economic Advisers
Chairman Austan Goolsbee
Council of Economic Advisers | The White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cea/)

[cbscreative]

Well, I'm glad that's over.

My thoughts exactly! I'm pretty sure you're referring to the election anyway.

This thread proves once again that it's difficult, perhaps impossible, to discuss taxes and not get politics involved. I still welcome an occasional discussion of this type since taxes and small business are inseparably related. For that matter, politics have a huge influence on business too.

Like Ted stated very early in this conversation, I think the class warfare card has been played far too often in politics, and many comments I've seen here reinforce how damaging that is. Why should we punish someone for being "rich"? Has anyone here ever worked for a poor man? Some of the comments in this thread only reinforce stereotypes of the rich rather than the facts. I've known a few, and known about many more, and the people who resent the rich are really just envying the very ones who make their own enjoyment of life possible.

It has been said that if you took all the world's wealth and divided it equally amongst every person on the planet, in about two years (maybe longer) it would end up in the same hands again. I believe that outside of some very rare exceptions, that is an accurate prediction even if it takes longer than two years.

I can't remember who said this without going back through the thread, but the comment was made that gov't needs tax money to operate. That's very true. So the original question is, should the wealthy pay a disproportionate amount just because they have it? That question is how the income tax even got started in the first place. It was actually unconstitutional to collect income taxes before the 16th Amendment.

How did they get the public to go along with adding an Amendment so the gov't could impose an income tax? They used the class warfare card! They promised that "only the rich would have to pay income tax." To avoid a public outcry, it did start out that way—but my how things have changed. Congratulations, you must be rich! Most of us have not been taught that little bit of history since they still love to use class warfare.

We are now so accustomed to income tax because of a 97 year history of having one, few are asking the question that really should be asked. Why should we even have an income tax? If our Founding Fathers were so vehemently opposed to the idea that they prohibited it in the Constitution, maybe we should be examining their wisdom and wondering why.

We do know from history that our Founding Fathers opposed gov't intrusion into the private lives of citizens. In order to collect income tax, does that not require gov't intrusion? Have we not all heard horror stories about the IRS and the power they wield? Doesn't this whole idea seem to contradict the freedom we are supposed to have? Being willing to "stick it to the rich" is how this Pandora's Box got opened.

Going back to the point that taxes do need to be collected, that just leaves the question of how they should be collected. Are there any business owners here (or anyone else) that would shed a tear if the IRS and income tax were eliminated? What if there was a way to collect taxes that didn't violate the original US Constitution before the 16th Amendment was added? There is, but don't expect the powerful people who benefit from the current system to embrace it.

Maybe you think that the current system is so powerful that it can never be changed. As long as most people believe that, you're right. But what if the people still had the power? What if it were returned to them the way it was promised at the founding of this nation? Would you expect powerful groups to want to hide that information from you? Bank on it!

There is a piece of legislation that has been stalled for years because of powerful opposition that is scared to death of losing their grip on us. You may have heard of it by now, and most likely, the facts have been distorted. Career politicians hate it, lobbyists hate it, and those who benefit from manipulating the tax code hate it, but every "common man" who takes time to get the facts loves it. It's called the FairTax (http://www.fairtax.org). I hope you'll check it out for yourself and make your own decisions with the facts.

Bill, you mentioned having unbiased economists have their say. Fairtax has the support of at least 80 leading economists who don't have political agendas to worry about. It is among the most well researched proposals ever developed, but it won't see the light of day until "We the people" demand it. There are too many powerful people blocking it to have it become law any other way.

Yeah, long post I know, but after seeing this thread go on and develop a life of its own, I wanted to put it back on the original topic with what I feel is a solution now that it's died down a little. And now that the election is over.

[Harold Mansfield]

I'm all for anything that is fair for everyone. I didn't read the link yet, but I intend to. I don't agree with penalizing the "rich" or making them pay more taxes, but I am against letting them pay less with the expectation that it will stimulate growth. It's not an across the board definite and it's the same trickle down theory that failed in the past. How will it be any different now?

IF there is to be a difference, I'm all for tax credits, subsidies, or special dispensation for businesses that qualify and those qualifications need to be based on a proven track record and circumstances that enrich the economy, not take from it.

For instance: I don't think that any business that has a majority of it's operations and employees outside of the U.S. should qualify. There are a ton of businesses that are merely headquartered here, but only have enough employees to run the local office. If they want a tax break, let them get it where the bulk of their operations are.

Just look at for instance a company like Dubai World which owns a casino on the Las Vegas strip. Sure they employ a good number of Americans, but they are headquartered in Dubai. Should they get a tax break for their U.S. operations? I'm not sure about that one.

Toyota, has a few plants here and they employ Americans, but they are headquartered in Japan. They got a few breaks to build plants. Good for them. No problem, but they need to pay a fair amount of tax on their U.S. operations before they take that money back to Japan.

I don't agree that at this time that well paid individuals should get a tax break just because they meet a certain income level. Why should the head of an Entertainment company like Disney, who makes $8 million a year salary, get a tax break? Why should execs at A.I.G who make a few hundred thousand on bonuses (still, even after getting bailed out) get a tax break?
But I can agree that the company he works for ( if they qualify) can get some consideration (unless they still owe us money).

Of course this is how I feel because i don't make $8 million a year. If I did I would probably want a tax break for my own selfish reasons, but that's really not far to everyone else in America that pays the full boat.

[Harold Mansfield]

Ha! After all of that, I get this in my alert box:
Fed to buy $600 billion in bonds to boost economy (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/03/AR2010110305412.html)

The Federal Reserve announced plans Wednesday to pump hundreds of billions of dollars into the U.S. financial system, an expansive and unconventional new effort to try to get the sputtering U.S. economy on track. The Fed will, in effect, print money to buy Treasury bonds - an extra $600 billion worth by June 2011 - in a bid to lower long-term interest rates. The action should make it cheaper for Americans to borrow money, take out a mortgage or refinance their house, and for businesses to borrow funds in order to expand.

[Harold Mansfield]

Well here we go. After all of the talk of compromise, it's the President that is willing to bend to continue tax cuts to the middle class and Republicans have vowed not to bend on tax cuts to the wealthy.
I didn't think anything would change, but I was hopeful.
http://theusdaily.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=1255488&type=home

[nealrm]

With any luck the Democracts won't be able to punish those who through hard work managed to build some wealth.

[Harold Mansfield]

With any luck the Democracts won't be able to punish those who through hard work managed to build some wealth.

I don't think they are looking to punish anyone. It's not raising taxes, it's just sending them back to normal.

[nealrm]

There is no "Normal" tax rate. Historically they have been everything from 1 to 90 percent.

This is a raise in taxes. The rate is going from the current rate to one that is higher. Calling it anything else is just political spin.

[Harold Mansfield]

There is no "Normal" tax rate. Historically they have been everything from 1 to 90 percent.

This is a raise in taxes. The rate is going from the current rate to one that is higher. Calling it anything else is just political spin.

OK fine. People may have to pay the same rate as before the temporary cuts. Technically that is higher than now, and tomorrow is later than today.

So let's just give it to them. Let's give everyone a tax break. Everyone wants to cut spending as long as they don't have to give up anything.
Where and when do we start?
That's another $12 trillion dollars in the hole so that wealthy individuals...not companies...wealthy individuals can keep a tax cut that they full well knew 10 years ago was temporary and going to expire in 2011.

If no one does anything, the tax break will run the course that was set by the Bush administration and expire at the time table they set. Why mess with it?
Just let it run the course that was set.

I already know how this plays out. The Reps fold their arms, stand in the corner and hold their breath until they get it, and then in the same week they'll deny unemployment extensions for people who are down on their luck and can't find work in the name of cutting spending.

I will bet $100 (tax free) that's how it's going to play out. It's nothing new than the way it always is.

That's getting political!
Honestly, either way I could care less. I expect that my life will continue the same or better next year no matter who gets a tax break or who gets unemployment.

I'll continue to pay my taxes without complaining just like I always do.
Unless there is a tax break for Small businesses, or single guys without kids...I really don't care.

[greenoak]

i wish they knew some of the hardworking older folks who can hardly make it now on social security and what little they saved out of their working poor work lives..... were they lazy and should expect nothing for working in low to middle low paying jobs for decades? i know a few of these guys in real life ...its pathetic...some vetrans

[Harold Mansfield]

Wow,cant believe that someone dug up this old thread, but boy is it relevant today and if I have to say so myself, I called it way back in November. Just as I expected, one side is refusing compromise in order to protect tax cuts to the wealthy and subsidies to corporations.

Just a quick aside, for those that say this is an attack on success, no it isn't
The egregious loop holes and tax dodges that Obama is looking to do away with don't affect people making 6 figures a year. That's doing OK, but it's not wealthy. He's talking about things like 15% on capitol gains income, while those same 6 figure people are paying 30-38%.

It's been 10 years of these tax cuts and they have not served to stimulate the economy or create jobs. Actually the top companies in America have created over 2.3 million jobs...it's just the they created them in other countries. They've downsized 2.4 million jobs here in the U.S. And we keep giving them money for that.

You can cut every social program, school and rob social security blind and funnel all of that money into tax cuts for the wealthy and it will will never stimulate the economy because tax breaks don't create jobs. An increase in demand for goods and services creates jobs.

We are the job creators. And the more you take from us, the consumers, the less likely it is that any job growth will ever take place. So those tax cuts are basically just putting money in people's pockets just because they have more. Because every millionaire and billionaire in this country is not a job creator, so giving them all a breaks across the board using that logic is the biggest scam since guys told girls you can't get pregnant the first time.