The coming civil war in the US

[Missourian]

Still have the Union Jack flying from the flagpole do ya?

Uh, no.

Treason against our country, which is the United States. Not Great Britan.

Funny how you neo-secessionists alway reference the Revolutionary War to defend yourselves, while omitting the Civil War.

History repeats itself, and you guys aren't saying anything the South wasn't saying to take up arms to protect it's "peculiar insititution".

BTW, don't give me a load of crap about how the Civil War wasn't about slavery.

I'll just cite the "cornerstone speech".

Just pointing out the hypocrisy of making unequivocal statement "I have no sympathy for treason" on the day you are celebrating an act of treason.

Guess a little treason ain't so bad after all.

 

[MaggieMae]

Nationally, the Democrats are historically the Tax-And-Spend Party, but the GOP is basically the Don't-Tax-But-Spend-Anyway Party.

And yet, people continue to elect people from one party or the other, instead of looking for politicians who are truly fiscally sound.

Well, there's a lot of talk on both sides about how politicians don't have the political will to do what's right - whatever "right" actually means to an individual - so in the end things keep going on the same way.

Frankly, "politicians" that are elected officials should NOT be doing what "they" think is right. They should be voting the way their constituents want. For example, do you think the conservative voters in Tom DeLay's Sugar Land, TEXAS, district really wanted him to shove through the most expensive entitlement program since Medicare? DeLay wanted that bill passed in order to woo every older voter across the country to the Republican camp, period.

 

[rhodescholar]

Back on topic, here is a perfect piece on the OP:

The Albany-Trenton-Sacramento Disease - WSJ.com

JUNE 26, 2009

The Albany-Trenton-Sacramento Disease
How three liberal states got into deep trouble with 'progressive' ideas.

President Obama has bet the economy on his program to grow the government and finance it with a more progressive tax system. It's hard to miss the irony that he's pitching this change in Washington even as the same governance model is imploding in three of the largest American states where it has been dominant for years -- California, New Jersey and New York.

A decade ago all three states were among America's most prosperous. California was the unrivaled technology center of the globe. New York was its financial capital. New Jersey is the third wealthiest state in the nation after Connecticut and Massachusetts. All three are now suffering from devastating budget deficits as the bills for years of tax-and-spend governance come due.

These states have been models of "progressive" policies that are supposed to create wealth: high tax rates on the rich, lots of government "investments," heavy unionization and a large government role in health care.

Here's a rundown on the results:

Government spending as economic stimulus. State-local spending per capita is $12,505 in New York (second highest after Alaska), $10,136 per person in California (fourth) and $9,574 in New Jersey (seventh).

Has all this public sector "investment" translated into jobs? Not quite. California had the nation's third highest jobless rate in May (11.5%). New Jersey and New York had below average unemployment rates in May compared to the national average of 9.4%, but one reason is that so many discouraged workers have left those states. From 1998-2007, which included two booms on Wall Street, New York and New Jersey ranked 36th and 31st in job creation. From 2000 to 2007, the New Jersey Business & Industry Association calculates that nine out of 10 new Garden State jobs were in the government.

Soak the rich. Mr. Obama plans to pay for his government investments through higher tax rates on the top 1% and 2% of taxpayers. Our troika of liberal states are champions at soaking the rich. The state-local income tax burden, according to the Tax Foundation, is the highest in the nation in New York, second highest in California and sixth in New Jersey. New York City boasts the highest business tax rate, 17.6%, according to a study by the American Legislative Exchange Council. Seven of the 10 highest property tax counties in America are located in New Jersey.

Instead of balanced budgets, these high taxes have produced record red ink. California's deficit for 2010 is projected at $33.9 billion, New Jersey's $7 billion and New York's $17.9 billion, despite multiple tax increases this decade. The Manhattan Institute finds that three-quarters of the loss in revenues this year in Albany is a result of reduced income tax payments by rich people even though the state keeps raising taxes on high earners.

California's debt burden has multiplied so fast that it now has the worst bond rating of any state, and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and state legislators are pleading with Washington to command the other 49 states to pay off its IOUs. The interest rates on Golden State bonds have nearly tripled in the last two years.

Powerful unions. Mr. Obama believes union power is a ticket to the middle class. The middle class is getting creamed in all three of these "progressive" states, where organized labor is king. The unionized share of the workforce is 20% in California, 19% in New Jersey and 27% in New York compared to 13% across the country. All three are non-right-to-work states, have super-minimum wage requirements and provide among the nation's most generous public-employee pensions.

Workers in these paradises are indeed uniting -- by leaving. New York ranks first, California second and New Jersey third in moving vans leaving the state. A study by the National Institute for Labor Relations Research found that over the past decade these and other high-union states (mostly in the Northeast) had one-third the job growth of states with low union penetration.

Government health care. New York, New Jersey and California are among the leading states in government spending on and intervention into the medical market. A 2008 study by the Pacific Research Institute ranked the states on the basis of government regulation of health care and found that New York is most regulated, while New Jersey ranks sixth and California seventh. "New York," the report declares, "suffers from government health programs that are out of control, a grossly overregulated private insurance market and almost completely uncompetitive provider markets."

Have government controls and Medicaid expansions ("the public option") lowered costs? Here is what the American Health Insurance Plans found. For family coverage annual premiums in 2006-07, the national median cost was roughly $5,300; in California it was $5,884, in New Jersey $10,398, and in New York $12,254. New York's coverage mandates cause families to pay more than twice what they do in other states for insurance.

As a result, California and New York have more than one-third of their residents uninsured or in Medicaid -- much higher than the national average of 25%. More government involvement in health care in California, New Jersey and New York has raised costs and often reduced private coverage. That's hardly a model for the nation.

So goes the real-life experience of progressive governance, with heavy tax burdens financing huge welfare states, and state capitals dominated by public-employee unions. Formerly rich states, they are now known for job losses, booming deficits and debt, wage stagnation, out-migration and laughing-stock legislatures. At least Americans have the ability to flee these ill-governed states for places that still welcome wealth creators. The debate in Washington now is whether to spread this antigrowth model across the entire country.

 

[mightypeon]

Pensions are going to be the catalyst for the coming right wing revolt?

Yeah, right.

We all know why you guys are going bonkers.

Anyone that takes up arms against their nation, deserves what they get:

To be crushed by the federal Army.

Again.

Im sure that's what the Britains throught... They sure showed those Americans didnt they?

Prior to the invention of the machine gun, explosives as standard issue, mechanized Infantry, CAS, and Armor, the average citizen could expect to match the firepower of the average federal soldier.

Times have changed a bit. Something the neo-secessionists always seem to omit from their MDMP.

Any modern rebellion unit would quickly be crushed. People are ill advised to take up arms against their nation.

I disagree and agree to an extent.

First: A serious revolution may have a significant amount of the military defecting. This happens in all revolutions, in some more ins some less.
Second: What happens if the rebels get a nuke? It should be a nice way to carve out "rebelland" from the federal gouverment.
Third: If you are staging an insurgency: well, it kinda works in Afghanistan and Irak does it?
Fourth: It will be very interesting to see how the international society will react towards it.

 

[JW Frogen]

I want a US Civil War.

Drunks tend to do quite well out of the carnage.

 

[DamnYankee]

Thanks for sharing your fantasies with us.

So like most leftist chimps you prefer to continue to allow this theft of mine and all other hard working americans' money to continue unabated, a concept you cannot share since you probably have been collecting welfare using 4 names in 6 states.

I don't mean to rain on your parade or anything, but us public servants who actually DO work not only contribute to our pensions but <gasp> allow theft of our wages too. That would mean that we're paying ourselves to work.... Dayum....

 

[Jon]

BTW, don't give me a load of crap about how the Civil War wasn't about slavery.

Wait, so you think it WAS about slavery?

It was absolutely about slavery.

Even the "Tariff of Abominations" was tied to slavery.

Don't take my word for it, though:

Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution — African slavery as it exists amongst us — the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted.

(Jefferson's) ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. ... Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner–stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition.

That would be the Vice President of the Confederacy saying that the cornerstone of the confederacy was the perseveration of slavery in 1861 (prior to Sumter).

But what you fail to realize is that the Union did not give two shits about ending slavery.

 

[editec]

There are some who have been saying for decades that another civil war is coming to the US, and have differed over what it will that causes it to start, but in my mind, one of the thrusts will be for the impoverished, broken middle class worker who will begin a major attack on the public workers, and their unions.

Yes, the public employee unions, unlike most other unions in the USA, seem to have kept their employees working and their salaries seem to have kept up with inflation better than most other union workers.

Taxpayers who aren't so lucky naturally are chaffing under the yoke of increaing taxes.

Certainly local and state governments seem to be reponding to the current economic crises by freezing hiring though.

The public unions have for far too long, been damaging the cities and states' ability to function, by forcing ever higher taxes to pay for their ever increasing salaries, benefits and pensions - which start for many public workers in their early 40s.

Yup.

And the number of ex miliatry who then become public employees so that they can double dip into pensions is, I think, also quite common.

This scenario is totally unsustainable, and will lead to a major internal conflict, if I am correct:

Editorial: $100K pension club is growing - Sacramento Opinion - Sacramento Editorial | Sacramento Bee

Group Shines Light on Hefty Government Pensions - WSJ.com

"One of the top 10 pensioners listed is from Sacramento. Donald Gerth, No. 3 on the list, retired in 2003 after 19 years as president of California State University, Sacramento. Gerth receives a $278,555 annual pension, or $23,171.22 a month."

This is just fucking insane.

Yes, it is.

Worse, it is unsustainably insane.

If people aren't making enough money, they cannot pay enough taxes to sustain these extremely generous compensation and retirement packages.

 

[Old Rocks]

There are some who have been saying for decades that another civil war is coming to the US, and have differed over what it will that causes it to start, but in my mind, one of the thrusts will be for the impoverished, broken middle class worker who will begin a major attack on the public workers, and their unions.

The public unions have for far too long, been damaging the cities and states' ability to function, by forcing ever higher taxes to pay for their ever increasing salaries, benefits and pensions - which start for many public workers in their early 40s.

This scenario is totally unsustainable, and will lead to a major internal conflict, if I am correct:

Editorial: $100K pension club is growing - Sacramento Opinion - Sacramento Editorial | Sacramento Bee

Group Shines Light on Hefty Government Pensions - WSJ.com

"One of the top 10 pensioners listed is from Sacramento. Donald Gerth, No. 3 on the list, retired in 2003 after 19 years as president of California State University, Sacramento. Gerth receives a $278,555 annual pension, or $23,171.22 a month."

This is just fucking insane.

And many of the CEOs that engineered the present debacle are getting pensions in the sev en figure range.

As for your civil war, take your pop gun and stick it up your ass. I am truly getting tired of this idiotic talk. You Conservatives lost an election. That is what happens when you show yourselves to be really incompetant. Grow up and stop talking about harming your fellow Americans just because they don't want to be incompetantly governed by feckless people.

 

[Old Rocks]

Thanks for sharing your fantasies with us.

So like most leftist chimps you prefer to continue to allow this theft of mine and all other hard working americans' money to continue unabated, a concept you cannot share since you probably have been collecting welfare using 4 names in 6 states.

Look, you silly asshole, I have worked 50 to 80 hr weeks most of my life. Your yapping about "Lib Ba Ruls" not working just shows the shallowness of your intellect. As for your little revolution, I own guns, and have a nice little DD214 that says Honorable. Don't threaton me, you haven''t the skills or cajones to make it stick. Just another fatass Rushpublican spouting nonsense.

 

[Old Rocks]

As idiotic as the OP is, many public pension plans are too rich and are going to require taxes be raised or services to be cut. The plans are going to have to be cut or cities such as San Diego are going to declare bankruptcy.

Of course, pensions and medical expenses are a big reason why the auto companies are bankrupt. Also, many bankrupt companies have dumped their pension obligation on the Pension Guarantee Corp., the government plan that guarantees private sector pensions. So it isn't just government.

Only when the companies that pay failed CEOs huge pensions rescind those pensions and put the money back into the company or employee's salaries. A single bout with pneumonia can put all too many retired American's into bankruptcy, and losing their homes. Yet we continue to allow the very people that created this debacle, and support this system that penelizes those that are honest, to collect kings ransoms for their failures. And, yes, I am one of those people that have worked on the factory floor the whole of my life.

 

[Toro]

Nationally, the Democrats are historically the Tax-And-Spend Party, but the GOP is basically the Don't-Tax-But-Spend-Anyway Party.

Yeah, or another way of looking at it is the GOP is the tax-your-children-and-spend party.

Of course, Obama is usurping that title.

 

[EriktheRed]

Thanks for sharing your fantasies with us.

So like most leftist chimps you prefer to continue to allow this theft of mine and all other hard working americans' money to continue unabated, a concept you cannot share since you probably have been collecting welfare using 4 names in 6 states.

And just who the fuck do you think YOU are???

 

[Tech_Esq]

I don't care much for the OP, but we are setting ourselves up for a train wreck of some sort. How exactly it will play out is anyone's guess. But, we made it so half the people don't pay taxes. Ok, well those people will probably be on one side.

We've set up a system where ever more taxes will be needed and we are shoveling more and more things onto that pile "Health care," "cap and tax," increasing the generosity of pre-existing programs, creating more agencies etc. This will increase the tax burden on the half of the people that actually pay taxes.

At some point, it may no longer make sense for a certain portion of the taxed to do work in the US. Whatever that work maybe. Some of them can be expected to vote with their feet. Some won't be able to. The people most likely to leave will be those wealthy enough to leave and therefore probably the ones paying the most in taxes. This will put increasing pressure on those that don't leave. At some point, the desire to continue a system where there a very limited rewards and very high penalties will cease to be attractive for most or maybe a plurality of those paying taxes. That is your powder keg.

The question is whether the air gets let out before it gets critical. Or, whether politicians find themselves in a politically untenable situation and don't have the guts to deflate the balloon before it explodes. Regardless of the answer, I view this as a problem with a 10 - 30 year event horizon unless Obama invents even more reasons to tax folks. If the US is placed in an economically untenable situation first, all bets are off.

 

[Nik]

I don't care much for the OP, but we are setting ourselves up for a train wreck of some sort. How exactly it will play out is anyone's guess. But, we made it so half the people don't pay taxes. Ok, well those people will probably be on one side.

We've set up a system where ever more taxes will be needed and we are shoveling more and more things onto that pile "Health care," "cap and tax," increasing the generosity of pre-existing programs, creating more agencies etc. This will increase the tax burden on the half of the people that actually pay taxes.

At some point, it may no longer make sense for a certain portion of the taxed to do work in the US. Whatever that work maybe. Some of them can be expected to vote with their feet. Some won't be able to. The people most likely to leave will be those wealthy enough to leave and therefore probably the ones paying the most in taxes. This will put increasing pressure on those that don't leave. At some point, the desire to continue a system where there a very limited rewards and very high penalties will cease to be attractive for most or maybe a plurality of those paying taxes. That is your powder keg.

The question is whether the air gets let out before it gets critical. Or, whether politicians find themselves in a politically untenable situation and don't have the guts to deflate the balloon before it explodes. Regardless of the answer, I view this as a problem with a 10 - 30 year event horizon unless Obama invents even more reasons to tax folks. If the US is placed in an economically untenable situation first, all bets are off.

Half the people don't pay taxes?

Who is exempt from Sales Tax?

By the way...I assume you want to infer that only income tax should be taken into account. Please provide a link that shows that 50% of America pays 0 in income tax.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I don't care much for the OP, but we are setting ourselves up for a train wreck of some sort. How exactly it will play out is anyone's guess. But, we made it so half the people don't pay taxes. Ok, well those people will probably be on one side.

We've set up a system where ever more taxes will be needed and we are shoveling more and more things onto that pile "Health care," "cap and tax," increasing the generosity of pre-existing programs, creating more agencies etc. This will increase the tax burden on the half of the people that actually pay taxes.

At some point, it may no longer make sense for a certain portion of the taxed to do work in the US. Whatever that work maybe. Some of them can be expected to vote with their feet. Some won't be able to. The people most likely to leave will be those wealthy enough to leave and therefore probably the ones paying the most in taxes. This will put increasing pressure on those that don't leave. At some point, the desire to continue a system where there a very limited rewards and very high penalties will cease to be attractive for most or maybe a plurality of those paying taxes. That is your powder keg.

The question is whether the air gets let out before it gets critical. Or, whether politicians find themselves in a politically untenable situation and don't have the guts to deflate the balloon before it explodes. Regardless of the answer, I view this as a problem with a 10 - 30 year event horizon unless Obama invents even more reasons to tax folks. If the US is placed in an economically untenable situation first, all bets are off.

Half the people don't pay taxes?

Who is exempt from Sales Tax?

By the way...I assume you want to infer that only income tax should be taken into account. Please provide a link that shows that 50% of America pays 0 in income tax.

Yes, I am referring to the Income tax. The federal government funds exactly nothing from a sales tax nor do they collect one.

What percentage of the population do you think are net payers of income tax Nik?

 

[Nik]

I don't care much for the OP, but we are setting ourselves up for a train wreck of some sort. How exactly it will play out is anyone's guess. But, we made it so half the people don't pay taxes. Ok, well those people will probably be on one side.

We've set up a system where ever more taxes will be needed and we are shoveling more and more things onto that pile "Health care," "cap and tax," increasing the generosity of pre-existing programs, creating more agencies etc. This will increase the tax burden on the half of the people that actually pay taxes.

At some point, it may no longer make sense for a certain portion of the taxed to do work in the US. Whatever that work maybe. Some of them can be expected to vote with their feet. Some won't be able to. The people most likely to leave will be those wealthy enough to leave and therefore probably the ones paying the most in taxes. This will put increasing pressure on those that don't leave. At some point, the desire to continue a system where there a very limited rewards and very high penalties will cease to be attractive for most or maybe a plurality of those paying taxes. That is your powder keg.

The question is whether the air gets let out before it gets critical. Or, whether politicians find themselves in a politically untenable situation and don't have the guts to deflate the balloon before it explodes. Regardless of the answer, I view this as a problem with a 10 - 30 year event horizon unless Obama invents even more reasons to tax folks. If the US is placed in an economically untenable situation first, all bets are off.

Half the people don't pay taxes?

Who is exempt from Sales Tax?

By the way...I assume you want to infer that only income tax should be taken into account. Please provide a link that shows that 50% of America pays 0 in income tax.

Yes, I am referring to the Income tax. The federal government funds exactly nothing from a sales tax nor do they collect one.

What percentage of the population do you think are net payers of income tax Nik?

So federal taxes are the only taxes that count now? Interesting theory that.

The Tax Foundation - Number of Americans Outside the Income Tax System Continues to Grow

That link says 32.4%. Oh, by the way, funny you leave out Payroll taxes which are generally around 15%. Why would that be?

 

[MaggieMae]

Back on topic, here is a perfect piece on the OP:

The Albany-Trenton-Sacramento Disease - WSJ.com

JUNE 26, 2009

The Albany-Trenton-Sacramento Disease
How three liberal states got into deep trouble with 'progressive' ideas.

President Obama has bet the economy on his program to grow the government and finance it with a more progressive tax system. It's hard to miss the irony that he's pitching this change in Washington even as the same governance model is imploding in three of the largest American states where it has been dominant for years -- California, New Jersey and New York.

A decade ago all three states were among America's most prosperous. California was the unrivaled technology center of the globe. New York was its financial capital. New Jersey is the third wealthiest state in the nation after Connecticut and Massachusetts. All three are now suffering from devastating budget deficits as the bills for years of tax-and-spend governance come due.

These states have been models of "progressive" policies that are supposed to create wealth: high tax rates on the rich, lots of government "investments," heavy unionization and a large government role in health care.

Here's a rundown on the results:

Government spending as economic stimulus. State-local spending per capita is $12,505 in New York (second highest after Alaska), $10,136 per person in California (fourth) and $9,574 in New Jersey (seventh).

Has all this public sector "investment" translated into jobs? Not quite. California had the nation's third highest jobless rate in May (11.5%). New Jersey and New York had below average unemployment rates in May compared to the national average of 9.4%, but one reason is that so many discouraged workers have left those states. From 1998-2007, which included two booms on Wall Street, New York and New Jersey ranked 36th and 31st in job creation. From 2000 to 2007, the New Jersey Business & Industry Association calculates that nine out of 10 new Garden State jobs were in the government.

Soak the rich. Mr. Obama plans to pay for his government investments through higher tax rates on the top 1% and 2% of taxpayers. Our troika of liberal states are champions at soaking the rich. The state-local income tax burden, according to the Tax Foundation, is the highest in the nation in New York, second highest in California and sixth in New Jersey. New York City boasts the highest business tax rate, 17.6%, according to a study by the American Legislative Exchange Council. Seven of the 10 highest property tax counties in America are located in New Jersey.

Instead of balanced budgets, these high taxes have produced record red ink. California's deficit for 2010 is projected at $33.9 billion, New Jersey's $7 billion and New York's $17.9 billion, despite multiple tax increases this decade. The Manhattan Institute finds that three-quarters of the loss in revenues this year in Albany is a result of reduced income tax payments by rich people even though the state keeps raising taxes on high earners.

California's debt burden has multiplied so fast that it now has the worst bond rating of any state, and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and state legislators are pleading with Washington to command the other 49 states to pay off its IOUs. The interest rates on Golden State bonds have nearly tripled in the last two years.

Powerful unions. Mr. Obama believes union power is a ticket to the middle class. The middle class is getting creamed in all three of these "progressive" states, where organized labor is king. The unionized share of the workforce is 20% in California, 19% in New Jersey and 27% in New York compared to 13% across the country. All three are non-right-to-work states, have super-minimum wage requirements and provide among the nation's most generous public-employee pensions.

Workers in these paradises are indeed uniting -- by leaving. New York ranks first, California second and New Jersey third in moving vans leaving the state. A study by the National Institute for Labor Relations Research found that over the past decade these and other high-union states (mostly in the Northeast) had one-third the job growth of states with low union penetration.

Government health care. New York, New Jersey and California are among the leading states in government spending on and intervention into the medical market. A 2008 study by the Pacific Research Institute ranked the states on the basis of government regulation of health care and found that New York is most regulated, while New Jersey ranks sixth and California seventh. "New York," the report declares, "suffers from government health programs that are out of control, a grossly overregulated private insurance market and almost completely uncompetitive provider markets."

Have government controls and Medicaid expansions ("the public option") lowered costs? Here is what the American Health Insurance Plans found. For family coverage annual premiums in 2006-07, the national median cost was roughly $5,300; in California it was $5,884, in New Jersey $10,398, and in New York $12,254. New York's coverage mandates cause families to pay more than twice what they do in other states for insurance.

As a result, California and New York have more than one-third of their residents uninsured or in Medicaid -- much higher than the national average of 25%. More government involvement in health care in California, New Jersey and New York has raised costs and often reduced private coverage. That's hardly a model for the nation.

So goes the real-life experience of progressive governance, with heavy tax burdens financing huge welfare states, and state capitals dominated by public-employee unions. Formerly rich states, they are now known for job losses, booming deficits and debt, wage stagnation, out-migration and laughing-stock legislatures. At least Americans have the ability to flee these ill-governed states for places that still welcome wealth creators. The debate in Washington now is whether to spread this antigrowth model across the entire country.

Ironically, that would seem to make the case for health care reform, rather than allow it to indefinitely remain as-is (rising by 7% per annum in the private sector).

There's some very strange facts contained here, which would appear to contradict the hypotheses presented above.

The wealthiest (and poorest) places in the United States - Aug. 28, 2007

 

[Tech_Esq]

Half the people don't pay taxes?

Who is exempt from Sales Tax?

By the way...I assume you want to infer that only income tax should be taken into account. Please provide a link that shows that 50% of America pays 0 in income tax.

Yes, I am referring to the Income tax. The federal government funds exactly nothing from a sales tax nor do they collect one.

What percentage of the population do you think are net payers of income tax Nik?

So federal taxes are the only taxes that count now? Interesting theory that.

The Tax Foundation - Number of Americans Outside the Income Tax System Continues to Grow

That link says 32.4%. Oh, by the way, funny you leave out Payroll taxes which are generally around 15%. Why would that be?

The link says the number is 38%. The trend is up. My understanding is the current number is 41%, I'll try to find support for that number. Fact Check

I was actually rounding. My understanding is that the number is in the 40s and climbing. I see no support for thinking that Obama will increase the tax burden on the "poorest" Americans. In fact, he is promising to give a tax cut to those people. If we've already passed Obama's tax cut, then we would be in the 40s.

Payroll taxes are only 15% if you are paying both the employer and employee portions of taxes. Further, payroll taxes are social security and medicare, you have to pay it to get it on the other end. What are you suggesting? That it be a give away program?

 

[MaggieMae]

I don't care much for the OP, but we are setting ourselves up for a train wreck of some sort. How exactly it will play out is anyone's guess. But, we made it so half the people don't pay taxes. Ok, well those people will probably be on one side.

We've set up a system where ever more taxes will be needed and we are shoveling more and more things onto that pile "Health care," "cap and tax," increasing the generosity of pre-existing programs, creating more agencies etc. This will increase the tax burden on the half of the people that actually pay taxes.

At some point, it may no longer make sense for a certain portion of the taxed to do work in the US. Whatever that work maybe. Some of them can be expected to vote with their feet. Some won't be able to. The people most likely to leave will be those wealthy enough to leave and therefore probably the ones paying the most in taxes. This will put increasing pressure on those that don't leave. At some point, the desire to continue a system where there a very limited rewards and very high penalties will cease to be attractive for most or maybe a plurality of those paying taxes. That is your powder keg.

The question is whether the air gets let out before it gets critical. Or, whether politicians find themselves in a politically untenable situation and don't have the guts to deflate the balloon before it explodes. Regardless of the answer, I view this as a problem with a 10 - 30 year event horizon unless Obama invents even more reasons to tax folks. If the US is placed in an economically untenable situation first, all bets are off.

If all the tax loopholes were eliminated that only benefited the wealthy, there would be no need to raise anyone's taxes.