No I feel we should go back to the 75-90% tax rate for billionaires, at least until they figure out the only way to dodge that is to reinvest it into business, alternative energy, healthcare, ect..

 It is not the governments job to spur growth, it is the governments job to mandate usage to spur growth... You want to see more solar, make it mandatory for all new home starts to have to use 25% solar...BAM!

 Another follower of Atlas shrugged? The book was fiction, and still is, thats like living your life scared because the terminator is coming... Pure comunism is evil, pure capitalism is evil, you need balance for growth. Sooner or later the rich folk will figure out that they are going to have to exist with the rest of us, their ivory towers and money cannot protect them from the tax man.. Nor can it continue to brainwash the poor into voting against their own interest..

  The poor are obese, one reason being because they sit on their butts all day and eat all the wrong foods. Poor life choices are not made because you are poor, they are made because you lack education, you recieved no work ethic from parents, maybe you had no parents.. Mandatory military/public service would help this, if the parents don't want to teach ethic, a big drill sargent will...

   I don't begrudge someone getting help on welfare, but it should not be a generational fix...  I disagree with you on SS, a Ponzi scheme does not last 50+ years and save millions from poverty.. And many of the reports I see show it being solvent for many more years, the doom and gloom predictions are coming from politicians/economists that have not figured death and interest rates.. Its worked, it needs to be cleaned up a tad, but it works... My generation will be the first not to recieve all I have invested into it, most likely kick the bucket before...

Income tax needs to be progressive, the simple logic behind it is that as you climb in income youuse more and more of the infrastructure and that infrastructure is what provides you the income -
Here is a primitive and rough example. You make 30g a yr loading up stuff @ the docks. You used the roads to get you from home to your job @ the docks. You need to pay for that.
Walmart picks up that stuff and carts it to their store by the tractor trailer load. They use up more of that road than you did. So they pay more tax for that. Something like that.
The system isn't perfect, but in the absence of anything better, I'd say it needs to be left in place. You do it as sales tax, you shift the burden to the consumers. Un proportionately so onto people who spend nearly all their income.
Cool.
Srinath.

Are you saying those 1000s of american people wouldn't be working if there was no Wal Mart.Or are you saying 1000s of Chinese  wouldn't be working.

Midnightrider wrote on 08/20/12 at 12:51:34:



Correct, and If minimum wage was $23 an hour, milk wont be $25 a gal, cos afaik, cows dont get paid squat ... ha ha ha ha ha ...
Anyway its now 7:50/8 something right, A fair guess could be that many staples could cost ~25%-30 more. Cos the component of labor in those is just about 10% and that 10% tripling wont be more than 30%. I used to work @ a can factory long time ago. The cost split was somwehere near 3% for labor. Minimum wage then was 6.85 /hr.
Agreed Manufactured good are different, picking tomatoes is going to take more work than pushing buttons and sticking tickets on the pallets. I'd average it to somewhere near 10% and so you'd have everything cost more by 25% or so.

Cool.
Srinath.

WebsterMark wrote on 08/20/12 at 05:33:20:



so after you get your money back you'll stop taking SS then right?  i think it was 20/20 years and years ago, Stossel had s segment that examined how much retirees paid in vs how much they were taking out and they were taking out MUCH MUCH more than they ever paid in

Correct, and If minimum wage was $23 an hour, milk wont be $25 a gal, cos afaik, cows dont get paid squat ... ha ha ha ha ha ...

Fellas, wake up. IF minimum wage were $23 an hour, nothing would change. A 5 Star hotel sells a bottle of water for $5 because they can. Resorts sell $15 hamburgers because they can. People there pay for it because they can afford it. $5 means nothing. $15 means nothing. If everyone were walking around with more money in their pockets, prices will go up. You can’t stop that from happening. Money gets spent and the principals of scarcity, supply/demand curve moves prices upward to adjust. If everyone made $80,000 prices would adjust upwards to the point where standard of living would remain basically the same.
Conservatives are against raising minimum wage to non-market amounts because it cost jobs and increase prices un-naturally.

I don't have any "Claim" to anybody elses tax dollar, however this nations government does, you do not get services like protection, sewers, clean water, safe foods, safe drugs, highways, transportation safety, armys, education, and many other things for free... You are acting like "I" am trying to put my hand in Romneys and others pockets..

that's my point. you are asking government to do your dirty work for you. Like I always say Retread, have the balls to do it yourslef. Hang out at a Mortons and ask the first guy coming out the door in a suit for $50 so you can give it to the IRS. Just ask him directly, cut out the middle man. Afterall, Mortons is on a city street the guy didn't build so he should have no problem reaching into his pocket and handing $50 over to you....

We are overspending. There is no need for you to steal more money from Romney. Stop it, get your hands out of his pockets. Romeny pays enough. I pay enough, you pay enough, everyone pays enough. Stop spending. Stop spending. Stop spending. How much plainer can it be?

WebsterMark wrote on 08/21/12 at 05:52:30:

Thats already happening and minimum wage hasnt went up. The rich are reaping more than their share of all the benefits this country has to offer, there fore they need to give more to their country. Its only fair.