Can anyone say Jimmy Carter? Is he advising? His tax increases worked out so well. Can Bobby Jindal be Ronald Reagan?

I suggest we avoid the term “wealthy”.  Let’s give a number folks.  Is it any family that earns 250K or more?  if so let’s say so.

Time to look at this WSJ editorial called “The 2% Illusion.”  He can’t do what he says he will.  The numbers aren’t there.

Also note that some of this does not happen for 10 years.  That is, 2 years after he leaves office if he serves two terms.  It’s the same trick that Bush pulled.  It gives the impression you are doing something (but not really) and sticks the next President (or two) with it.

Pretty soon those of us who he is targeting to redistribute our hard-earned money elsewhere may actually be the ones who will need some of that redistribution to live in our old age.  I am fully convinced that we will come full circle.  Wouldn’t it be nice if he would embrace the fair tax system being promoted by Neal Boortz and others?  I, for one, would love it!  Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for helping those who are truly in need, but not those who are lazy and just want government handouts.

Folks, its time to reread “Atlas Shrugged” and decide whether we will go along with the looters or live the question, “Who is John Galt?”.

Massive tax increases on the corporations and people that create jobs… exactly what we need in the middle of the worst recession in 30 years!

I’m still waiting for the President to pay off my student loans   Free seminary for everybody!!!!!!!!

President Obama has made a good start by making his cabnet members and appointees pay up to the tune of $600,00.00 or so.  Now if we can only get Rangle, Dodd   etc to pay up in no time we could balance our budget!

Tax the walthy for more and more $. Then throw it to those earning less than 250,000$.  Is this creating wealth?  Am I missing something here??

No, Harvey. That’s creating a welfare state. And Obama knows it.

I should say Obama and the Democrats know it.

If this monstrosity goes through, I hope anyone unemployed reading this isn’t counting on finding work for the decade.  Because if it does, the first thing “the affluent” will stop buying is your services.

While I would be ecstatic to be making $250,000 (and have never held a job paying more than $38,000) in this day and age that is NOT wealthy. 

Not in markets where a moderately priced home (1600 sqft +/-) goes for $200,000 and even a townhouse is $175,000 for a one bedroom.

Cars start at $24,000 for an economy sedan and more for hybrids.

A night at the movies can set you back a minimum $50.00 for a family plus a friend or two—and that’s without popcorn!

Add in the cost of food, clothing, etc, all on the rise, and $250,000 is NOT wealthy.

Dilbert #6, Atlas is already shrugging.  Have you seen the market since Comrade Barack was elected?  Money is fleeing anywhere he can get his greedy mitts on it.

J, the market will bottom eventually and investors will flock back in only to have their gains very heavily taxed to pay for this liberal wet dream. The question will remain, “Who is John Galt?”.

The taxes won’t be that heavy.  It will still be less than the fair share.  Businesses are empowered when there are things the public pays for: roads, schools, scientific investment, police, firemen and public health.  Businesses will do very well with an expanded health care system.  They’ll wonder what they’ve been missing all along.

Not to mention hospital “businesses.”

Hey, John Wilkins - define “fair share”

“The taxes won’t be that heavy.” - I agree, because we should all pull a Geithner (or is that a Daschle?) and not pay our taxes. Then, if the IRS ever catches us (as we’re being appointed to a Cabinet position), we can get Obama to cover for us and we’ll all be fine!  In reality, we (and I’m speaking for my family) won’t work as hard if the government takes more, because we’re already supporting the 40% who already don’t pay taxes, but will miraculously be receiving “tax refunds.” As a matter of fact, we will probably retire a few years earlier to keep from having to pay the higher taxes, and then the government will no longer have our taxes at all. Take away the incentive at creating a better life for one’s family, and we might as well all move to France.

Let be hypothetical.  We have a population of 1000 plus one individual.

The one individual earns $10,000,000 per year and his icome comes from an enterprise that employs many many people.  Probably more than 1000 people.

We tax that one person at the 90% rate and he pays $9,000,000 in taxes.

Now if the income of the other 1000 people averages out at $50,000 per person and if we tax EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM of them at a rate of 18% then they collectively, we must not disregard “collectivism” without the risk of being callled “insensitive,” then that tax would also generate $9,000,000 in income.

Which is “fairer?”  Is it wrong for a person to earn more money than another person?  Do low income people generate thriving businesses that employ many other people and provide those other people with an income?  Do low income people share in the risk, agony, stress, losses and personal sacrfice that people who start businesses experience.  Doesn’t the voting public realize that for every successful ‘new-start’ business venture that there are 5, 10, 15 and 20 businesses failures that enterprising ‘businerss-starters’ ‘lose their shirts in?’

If nobody started a successful business and then started climbing the income ladder, where would those people who depend on jobs created by others be?

JW, to a good liberal/socialist taxes are never too heavy. To you guys any money the rest of us earn is not really ours anyway. The only number that matters is what socialist government wants and the rest is possibly, maybe, potentially available to return to the proletariat as the socialist government’s deigns as a good will gift to the grateful, but helpless with out the socialist governments firm leadership, plebes.

I’ve been a Plebe and once is enough. Find another sucker for the socialist bilge.

And another darn thing!

Per the Ayn Rand Center - http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=22647 -
sales of “Atlas Shrugged” have tripled in response to Mr. Obama’s initiatives.

Looters beware!

Who is John Galt?

JW says: “The taxes won’t be that heavy.  It will still be less than the fair share.”  The term he keeps using, “fair share” is STRAIGHT out of Atlas Shrugged.

Barstool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers,’ he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.’ Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%! savings) .
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

‘I only got a dollar out of the $20,’declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,’ but he got $10!’ ‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!’ ‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’

‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Author unknown

No need to bother with bar stools. Self-pitying losers can stage a whinefest anywhere, anytime.

Make that a winefest and I’m there!

Well Branford, as long as you can acknowledge the fact that you’re a self-pitying loser not to want the State to have more of your money to give to things they deem more worthy, you shall have the winefest.  ; > )

I know, Sarah - but Irenaeus sounded so - I don’t know - angry that I thought a little humor might help   (And by angry, I don’t mean at me, I think there’s a little buyer’s remorse in his/her remark, if you know what I mean)

No buyer’s remorse for me, more like “I told you so!” 

JE

#15 - why should I trust the dow?  If the market was so smart, why did it drop when the government refused to bail them out?  They work short term, like a bunch of lemmings.  Orchestrated irrationality.  They see things in three month segments.  BTW, did you see the GM and Toyota reports?  Or what’s happening to HSBC?  Seems like the market has a lot of other things to worry about, besides Obama.  Like there’s no money anywhere.  And nobody’s lending. 

Branford offers an interesting anecdote, but it’s quite misleading.  that’s not quite the way taxes work, but it does fuel class resentment of the rich against the poor.

And Obama is fueling class resentment of the poor against the rich.