When Have You Made Enough Money?

[rightwinger]

Exploitation of the poor, huh? Let's hear some specifics. Exactly WHO among the rich is "exploiting the poor", and how? WHAT "great crime", precisely? Details, asshat. Let's have some.

Here is our current distribution of wealth..

One way to ‘see’ the distribution of wealth in the U.S. is to imagine a group of 100 people who have a $100 between them. Evenly distributed each would have one dollar of wealth. Alas, that is far from the actual distribution. According to the most recent study, Currents and Undercurrents, by the Survey of Consumer Finance (Federal Reserve, Department of Treasury, 2006) wealth is distributed accordingly:

50 individuals at the bottom have a nickel. ($0.05 times 50 = $2.50)

The next 40 each have $0.70 of wealth (40 times $0.70 - $28.00).

The next 9 each have $4.00 of wealth (nine times $4.00 = $36.00)

The last richest individual has $33.40 (one time $33.40).

Given this example the rightwing chooses to attack those with a nickle and demand that they pay more. They also call them lazy, ignorant and deserving of their economic status.

Over the last thirty years this distribution has moved more from the 50% working class to the 1% wealthy. This is not because the wealthy have worked hareder, taken more risks or produced more product. It is because they have manipulated the system to get more tax breaks, more shelters, more loopholes, government subsidies to their business....all with a promise that they would eventually "trickle down" the wealth to the lower classes.

Guess what? It didn't happen

Why is everyone that wants to keep their $ "rightwing"?
When I buy a gallon of milk I do not pay more for it than the guy behind me. How do I receive more public benefit than he does? We both receive the same amount of defense of the country, roads, police protection, etc.
Why do I have to pay a higher tax rate because I WORK HARDER than the next guy?
You get more of what you reward and lessof what you punish. We are where we are now because wealth is taxed unevenly. Wealth is earned. You want more wealth you reward it, NOT punish it.

The typical standard for US wealth was manufacturing jobs. You started a company, worked hard, produced a product, created jobs....win-win all around

Todays mega wealthy are not creating jobs, not producing anything of value......They make money by moving it from one place to another and taking a huge dividend every time they do. They don't get mega wealthy by taking risks. They get that way by making sure there is no risk involved.

Its the old "Golden Rule"...he who has the gold, makes the rules. They lobby for legislation, tarrifs, labor laws, environmental waivers, tax incentives...all to ensure that they keep more money

Meanwhile the standard of living for working Americans has declined. It now takes two incomes to raise a family. My father barely graduated high school, worked for the phone company climbing poles....yet he managed to raise four kids and send them to college without my mother working. The house he bought on a laborers salary is the same size as the one I was able to afford on an engineers salary

 

[Frank]

No Limits from a government regulation standpoint. Doesn't mean mega income should not be taxed at higher levels

From a personal ethical standpoint you could look at Warren Buffet and Bill Gates who have established their own limits on what they should earn and are donating Billions to charity

i don't think that income should be taxed AT ALL. It shouldn't be any of the government's business to know how much I make.

I support a national sales tax. Tax what I spend, not what I earn.

 

[Bern80]

A truly progressive system of taxation is really all that is needed to deal with income inequity.

Assumming income inequality is somehow a bad thing. Do you not see what a horribly stupid idea punishing success is?

 

[DiamondDave]

everyone is being treated equally....anyone who makes a certain amount in taxable income is taxed the SAME as the next guy/gal with the same taxable income.....?

No.... they are being treated selectively.... punishment by government treatment for success.... and this is purposely done

So do you then support treatment in court differently because of income level?? Laws that have different levels of treatment based on income level?? I mean EVERYONE at those levels gets the same treatment, but the government gets to say it's not illegal for the rich when it is for the poor or that punishment levels for the rich are different than for the poor?

The system of inequality in taxation, as it is set up, adds to class warfare... ensures those with no stake voting to suck off of those with a stake in government... and ensures a masked system of redistribution thru the entitlement systems... sales tax is equal in treatment, our income tax system is not... sales tax does not differentiate between someone buying an item for $5 and someone buying an item for $5MIL... 6% is 6%

 

[Frank]

A truly progressive system of taxation is really all that is needed to deal with income inequity.

Assumming income inequality is somehow a bad thing. Do you not see what a horribly stupid idea punishing success is?

Exactly. If success is not rewarded (by making money that you can keep), then what really is the incentive to go beyond "just getting by". Initiative and innovation are lost.

 

[Frank]

everyone is being treated equally....anyone who makes a certain amount in taxable income is taxed the SAME as the next guy/gal with the same taxable income.....?

No.... they are being treated selectively.... punishment by government treatment for success.... and this is purposely done

So do you then support treatment in court differently because of income level?? Laws that have different levels of treatment based on income level?? I mean EVERYONE at those levels gets the same treatment, but the government gets to say it's not illegal for the rich when it is for the poor or that punishment levels for the rich are different than for the poor?

The system of inequality in taxation, as it is set up, adds to class warfare... ensures those with no stake voting to suck off of those with a stake in government... and ensures a masked system of redistribution thru the entitlement systems... sales tax is equal in treatment, our income tax system is not... sales tax does not differentiate between someone buying an item for $5 and someone buying an item for $5MIL... 6% is 6%

 

[Care4all]

So even though we have what everyone agrees is a progressive system it isn't actually progressive? That is the richer you are you really don't pay a greater percentage of your gross income in taxes? Tell me another one care.

sure they do, for the very highest bracket of income, they do pay more....for ALL THE MONEY THEY EARNED in the other 3-4 tax brackets below the highest, they pay THE SAME tax rate as EVERYONE ELSES taxable money earned in those brackets.

When the middle class person starts earning enough money to move up a bracket, that income in that bracket with be taxed equally, for him and for the wealthiest guy, with income in that tax bracket range.

I do not see it unfair at all....for a progressive system.

It could be sooooooooooo much worse....it could be that when you enter a higher bracket, that they tax ALL of your money earned at that high tax rate!

care

I understand how it works. It doesn't change the FACT that as a percentage of what they make they pay more in taxes. No one can explain this to me, it seems. Why is it fair to tax you more because you make more? How is that FAIR in any way shape or form? As pointed out before, no one seems to understand what that word even means. For something to be FAIR, there needs to be a moral justifcation for doing it. Because they have it is not a moral justifcation. Because you think you need it and the rich are the only place to get it, as another alluded to, is not a moral justification. There are more fair systems that could be used, and that no one wants to talk about them shows that you may not want the system to actually be fair in the first place. But this line of BS that the current system is fair or it's the best we can do, is just that, BS.

it is as fair as it can be....you can NOT get blood out of a turnip.

In the early years of our country, the middle class and below, paid no income tax at all and ONLY the wealthiest were income taxed.

You want to go back to that....?

you can not tax a couple making $20,000 to live off the same amount as you tax the couple making $2,000,000....unless of course you are in to starving them to death....

That's just the way it is....

I could probably agree to a flat tax, but ONLY IF the first 20k-30k or so for EVERYONE, is TAX EXEMPT.....

As it stands now, with the standard deductions, no couple pays taxes on that amount....on the first $20k, not even the wealthiest couple pays taxes on their first $20k earned....

 

[Care4all]

everyone is being treated equally....anyone who makes a certain amount in taxable income is taxed the SAME as the next guy/gal with the same taxable income.....?

No.... they are being treated selectively.... punishment by government treatment for success.... and this is purposely done

So do you then support treatment in court differently because of income level?? Laws that have different levels of treatment based on income level?? I mean EVERYONE at those levels gets the same treatment, but the government gets to say it's not illegal for the rich when it is for the poor or that punishment levels for the rich are different than for the poor?

The system of inequality in taxation, as it is set up, adds to class warfare... ensures those with no stake voting to suck off of those with a stake in government... and ensures a masked system of redistribution thru the entitlement systems... sales tax is equal in treatment, our income tax system is not... sales tax does not differentiate between someone buying an item for $5 and someone buying an item for $5MIL... 6% is 6%

Hi Frank....GOOD to see you posting! Welcome aboard!

Care

 

[Bern80]

everyone is being treated equally....anyone who makes a certain amount in taxable income is taxed the SAME as the next guy/gal with the same taxable income.....?

You need to add a provision to your reply (interesting that you ignore the rest). Everyone is treated equally....UNTIL person A makes more than person B. Person A then pays a greater percentage of their income then person B, for no other reason than they have more.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The problem of "people who earn too much" CANNOT be adequately addressed by higher tax rates. For starters, those rates would apply to high earners we do not object to. But more importantly, the taxation of overly-rich compensation packages would do NOTHING to discourage the diversion of corporate wealth into them.

What Obama supports is better corporate governance, or say-to-pay. But as pointed out by Fortune Magazine, say-to-pay cannot work because far too much Fortune 500 stock is in the hands of institutional investors who align themselves with Corporate Management. Controls on the TYPES of compensation for Corporate Management is necessary as well as the levels, and once again, fiddling with the tax code will not work. Most Fortune 500 companies already employ compensation and benefit packages for Management that are not fully deductible to the corporation as "labor costs", etc. And, of course, many corporations engage in waste or fraud, including tax fraud, in order to funnel additional corporate monies to Management. E.g., Enron.


Corporate example - Enron

Then there are transfers of wealth that, under our system, cannot be taxed and may not even be easy to value. These include such things as stock options, preferred stock issues, opportunities to sit on the boards of directors of other corporations and receive Director's Compensation. (This is not a negligible item; the Fortune 500 Boards are extremely incestuous.)

When corporate wealth is stripped away needlessly for Management, the cost of goods and services produced by that corporation rises. The employees of that corporation have less secure futures. The stockholders receive lower dividends and stock prices may falter. The Corporate Management team does not have the stake in perpetuating the business that employees, suppliers, customers and shareholders have -- and they should NOT be left to their own devices to decide what to pay themselves.

What seems to be needed is a upper limit on Corporate Management Compensation and a ban on certain types of compensation altogether.

For starters.

If you own $.01 in stock then YOU arean institutional investor as it most likely is in a teacher's tretirement fund, company retirement fund, police retirement fund,givernment employee retirement fund, union fund, etc. YOU are also an institutional investor. 99.9% of institutional investing is FOR ORDINARY EVERYDAY MIDDLE CLASS CITIZENS.

PLease, learn that corporations are GOOD AND CORPORATE PROFITS ARE GREAT. This is what increases jobs. Send more of the $ to Washington and JOBS GO AWAY.

Corporate profits mainly go back to the shareholders and if management holds a lot of shares THAT IS VERY, VERY, VERY GOOD. That means they have THEIR OWN RISK at stake. Common sense. The more risk you have the MORE you have tolose and THE HARDER YOU WORK.

Enron was FRAUD. 99% corporations do not act that way.
And remember, corporations neverpay one cent in taxes. PEOPLE pay taxes. When you tax a corporation IT COMESOUT OF SOMEONE'S POCKET. Alla corporation is is an entity.
Every cent you tax a corporation from it's profits is a penny taken from a shareholder's dividend.
That is how it has ALWAYS worked. BTW, howmany corporations do you own?

Ok, if you want to lower corporate taxes, who do you want to pay the taxes that the corporation wouldn't then be paying?

 

[NYcarbineer]

everyone is being treated equally....anyone who makes a certain amount in taxable income is taxed the SAME as the next guy/gal with the same taxable income.....?

You need to add a provision to your reply (interesting that you ignore the rest). Everyone is treated equally....UNTIL person A makes more than person B. Person A then pays a greater percentage of their income then person B, for no other reason than they have more.

Ok, if the higher bracket tax rates are too high, and you want to lower them, you're going to lose revenue.

Whose taxes do you want to raise in order to make up for the lost revenue caused by lowering taxes on the wealthy?

Specifically.

 

[DiamondDave]

sure they do, for the very highest bracket of income, they do pay more....for ALL THE MONEY THEY EARNED in the other 3-4 tax brackets below the highest, they pay THE SAME tax rate as EVERYONE ELSES taxable money earned in those brackets.

When the middle class person starts earning enough money to move up a bracket, that income in that bracket with be taxed equally, for him and for the wealthiest guy, with income in that tax bracket range.

I do not see it unfair at all....for a progressive system.

It could be sooooooooooo much worse....it could be that when you enter a higher bracket, that they tax ALL of your money earned at that high tax rate!

care

I understand how it works. It doesn't change the FACT that as a percentage of what they make they pay more in taxes. No one can explain this to me, it seems. Why is it fair to tax you more because you make more? How is that FAIR in any way shape or form? As pointed out before, no one seems to understand what that word even means. For something to be FAIR, there needs to be a moral justifcation for doing it. Because they have it is not a moral justifcation. Because you think you need it and the rich are the only place to get it, as another alluded to, is not a moral justification. There are more fair systems that could be used, and that no one wants to talk about them shows that you may not want the system to actually be fair in the first place. But this line of BS that the current system is fair or it's the best we can do, is just that, BS.

it is as fair as it can be....you can NOT get blood out of a turnip.

In the early years of our country, the middle class and below, paid no income tax at all and ONLY the wealthiest were income taxed.

You want to go back to that....?

you can not tax a couple making $20,000 to live off the same amount as you tax the couple making $2,000,000....unless of course you are in to starving them to death....

That's just the way it is....

I could probably agree to a flat tax, but ONLY IF the first 20k-30k or so for EVERYONE, is TAX EXEMPT.....

As it stands now, with the standard deductions, no couple pays taxes on that amount....on the first $20k, not even the wealthiest couple pays taxes on their first $20k earned....

And what you are trying to do is make yet another graduated system... but simply trying to hide that behind your premise... a person making 40K is paying tax only on 50% of their income, while a person making 100K is paying tax on 80% of their income....

Eliminate loopholes and various bullshit deductions which only make the the tax code more complicated and easier to manipulate... thus leading to the need for more government bureaucracy and more government spending, leading to more government power and tendrils of control

What we have now is broken and wrong.. and to model any 'fixing' system after our current model would be lunacy

Whether you eat rice or you eat caviar is on you....

 

[DiamondDave]

everyone is being treated equally....anyone who makes a certain amount in taxable income is taxed the SAME as the next guy/gal with the same taxable income.....?

You need to add a provision to your reply (interesting that you ignore the rest). Everyone is treated equally....UNTIL person A makes more than person B. Person A then pays a greater percentage of their income then person B, for no other reason than they have more.

Ok, if the higher bracket tax rates are too high, and you want to lower them, you're going to lose revenue.

Whose taxes do you want to raise in order to make up for the lost revenue caused by lowering taxes on the wealthy?

Specifically.

Who is saying lowering taxes? If we need 35% or whatever, we need 35%... if we need 19% we need 19%... whether it be from someone making 10K or 10MIL.... What we do need is an equal treatment system and a revamp of outrageous government spending... and with a revamp of wasteful government spending, and everyone with a stake in spending because everyone would be paying income tax at the same exact rate, I think the % of taxation would not remain at as high of a rate

 

[Care4all]

It is immoral to tax those who make enough to just get by.

It is NOT immoral to tax those that make more than just getting by...

When the poorest among us end up improving themselves and making more, they too will be taxed equally, to the person making the same income as them.

This meets the constitutional muster OF EQUAL treatment..... it IS CONSTITUTIONAL.

 

[DiamondDave]

It is immoral to tax those who make enough to just get by.

It is NOT immoral to tax those that make more than just getting by...

When the poorest among us end up improving themselves and making more, they too will be taxed equally, to the person making the same income as them.

This meets the constitutional muster..... it IS CONSTITUTIONAL.

No... it is immoral to have an involuntary redistribution system... it is immoral to have unequal treatment...

And it is simple to see you are indeed another for selective equal treatment... the far left mantra lives on... and remains a huge problem

 

[Gadawg73]

Gadawg73 wrote:

If you own $.01 in stock then YOU arean institutional investor as it most likely is in a teacher's tretirement fund, company retirement fund, police retirement fund,givernment employee retirement fund, union fund, etc. YOU are also an institutional investor. 99.9% of institutional investing is FOR ORDINARY EVERYDAY MIDDLE CLASS CITIZENS.

PLease, learn that corporations are GOOD AND CORPORATE PROFITS ARE GREAT. This is what increases jobs. Send more of the $ to Washington and JOBS GO AWAY.

Corporate profits mainly go back to the shareholders and if management holds a lot of shares THAT IS VERY, VERY, VERY GOOD. That means they have THEIR OWN RISK at stake. Common sense. The more risk you have the MORE you have tolose and THE HARDER YOU WORK.

Enron was FRAUD. 99% corporations do not act that way.
And remember, corporations neverpay one cent in taxes. PEOPLE pay taxes. When you tax a corporation IT COMESOUT OF SOMEONE'S POCKET. Alla corporation is is an entity.
Every cent you tax a corporation from it's profits is a penny taken from a shareholder's dividend.
That is how it has ALWAYS worked. BTW, howmany corporations do you own?

Gadawg, the mutual fund or retirement fund shareowner is NOT the individual human making decisions on say-to-pay. If you read the Fortune Magazine article I linked before, you'll see that 99.99% of the time, institutional fund managers side with Corporate Management on compensation issues -- the loss of high levels of direct individual shareholders in Fortune 500 companies has proven to be a loss of some of the restraints Management once used towards the corporation's own wealth.

I OPPOSE using the tax code to control Corporate Management Compensation. I'm AGAINST THAT. Shall I write that 1,001 more times? It won't work and it's too broad a remedy.

When Corporate Management receives certain stock options and preferred stock, etc., they stand IN FRONT OF common stock holders, and their interest may no longer be the SAME. I'm not 100% opposed to compensation in the form of stock, etc., but I consider it problematic and worthy of examination.

Yes Enron was fraud, but no, fraud unfortunately is not uncommon in large corporations. All publically traded corporations must filed auditted financial statements with the SEC, etc. In the past few decades, auditting firms have been repeatedly sued for signing off on these financials even though they were fraudulent.

Accounting scandals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Audit firms are selected by a corporation's Audit Committee. It's not hard to see the "I'll scratch yours if you scratch mine" principle at work here -- Corporation A's Audit Committee is filled by Directors who are Managers from Corporation B. And vise versa. The audit firms very quickly clue in that retaining this lucrative business is a matter of pleasing the corporation's Management -- not some rouge group of shareholders who complain the financials make no sense. The audit firms have all been caught in bed with fraudulent Corporate Management so often, it seems sometimes as if they are married.

Yes, corporations pay taxes from profits that would otherwise be available for distribution to shareholders, etc. But far too often, the corporation's Managers decide instead that money should be paid out to them as executives and not reinvested into the company's business or given to shareholders as dividends.

When Unfettered Greed dictates a corporation's Management Compensation schedules, it is not likely the men and women who have signatory power over the checkbook will show any restraint -- and the extreme diversion of wealth out of corporations and into the hands of Management is BAD for this country. It is no different from the obvious harm caused by the Junk Bond scandals.

I decline to share my stock portfolio with you -- but I remind you, the stakeholders in a Fortune 500 company are not just the shareholders. It is also the company's employees, retirees, suppliers and customers. Every single stakeholder gets screwed when the corporation's Management over-compensates itself.

Then take your $ elsewhere. ALL institutional investing is for OTHERS, mainly middle class.
Board of Directors, NOT MANAGEMENT determines how profits are distributed. Please look into this before you make your mind up uninformed.
Define "greed".
Compensation is from PROFITS. Net profits go to SHAREHOLDERS. ALWAYS.
Accounting 101.

 

[Gadawg73]

The problem of "people who earn too much" CANNOT be adequately addressed by higher tax rates. For starters, those rates would apply to high earners we do not object to. But more importantly, the taxation of overly-rich compensation packages would do NOTHING to discourage the diversion of corporate wealth into them.

What Obama supports is better corporate governance, or say-to-pay. But as pointed out by Fortune Magazine, say-to-pay cannot work because far too much Fortune 500 stock is in the hands of institutional investors who align themselves with Corporate Management. Controls on the TYPES of compensation for Corporate Management is necessary as well as the levels, and once again, fiddling with the tax code will not work. Most Fortune 500 companies already employ compensation and benefit packages for Management that are not fully deductible to the corporation as "labor costs", etc. And, of course, many corporations engage in waste or fraud, including tax fraud, in order to funnel additional corporate monies to Management. E.g., Enron.


Corporate example - Enron

Then there are transfers of wealth that, under our system, cannot be taxed and may not even be easy to value. These include such things as stock options, preferred stock issues, opportunities to sit on the boards of directors of other corporations and receive Director's Compensation. (This is not a negligible item; the Fortune 500 Boards are extremely incestuous.)

When corporate wealth is stripped away needlessly for Management, the cost of goods and services produced by that corporation rises. The employees of that corporation have less secure futures. The stockholders receive lower dividends and stock prices may falter. The Corporate Management team does not have the stake in perpetuating the business that employees, suppliers, customers and shareholders have -- and they should NOT be left to their own devices to decide what to pay themselves.

What seems to be needed is a upper limit on Corporate Management Compensation and a ban on certain types of compensation altogether.

For starters.

If you own $.01 in stock then YOU arean institutional investor as it most likely is in a teacher's tretirement fund, company retirement fund, police retirement fund,givernment employee retirement fund, union fund, etc. YOU are also an institutional investor. 99.9% of institutional investing is FOR ORDINARY EVERYDAY MIDDLE CLASS CITIZENS.

PLease, learn that corporations are GOOD AND CORPORATE PROFITS ARE GREAT. This is what increases jobs. Send more of the $ to Washington and JOBS GO AWAY.

Corporate profits mainly go back to the shareholders and if management holds a lot of shares THAT IS VERY, VERY, VERY GOOD. That means they have THEIR OWN RISK at stake. Common sense. The more risk you have the MORE you have tolose and THE HARDER YOU WORK.

Enron was FRAUD. 99% corporations do not act that way.
And remember, corporations neverpay one cent in taxes. PEOPLE pay taxes. When you tax a corporation IT COMESOUT OF SOMEONE'S POCKET. Alla corporation is is an entity.
Every cent you tax a corporation from it's profits is a penny taken from a shareholder's dividend.
That is how it has ALWAYS worked. BTW, howmany corporations do you own?

Ok, if you want to lower corporate taxes, who do you want to pay the taxes that the corporation wouldn't then be paying?

The corporation never paid any taxes TO BEGIN WITH. All they do is ADD IN the taxes to every good and service they sell.
You and I pay the taxes. I want ALL OF US to pay the taxes AFTER Washingon cuts the budget 20% yesterday. Immediate means test for ALL government programs, specifically socialsecurity and Medicare. Why we pay the medical bills of wealthy seniors IS INSANE.

 

[Bern80]

Ok, if you want to lower corporate taxes, who do you want to pay the taxes that the corporation wouldn't then be paying?

Unbelievable how narrow minded you guys are. Of course we need every tax dollar we're collecting right now and it would be absolutely ludicrous to get government to take hard look at itself and spend less and more efficiently. Or, if insist on allowing government to continue its wasteful ways, we come up with a fairer system capable of generating similar tax revenue.

 

[Foxfyre]

How can it be immoral to treat all people equally regardless of class, race, sociopolitical affliation, or status in life? How is it immoral to require all to contribute proportionately at a level that is not punative or detrimental for anybody?

How is it moral for almost 50% of Americans to pay little or no federal income tax and thus have strong incentive to vote so that the other half will have to pay it all and not care how much that might be?

I say this as one who, due to semi retirement, has ratcheted down her income to be among that 50% who no longer have to pay much, if anything, in federal taxes. And to me that is wrong. I shouldn't have motive to vote for Care or anybody else to pay more and more so that I can continue to pay no federal taxes.

On the other hand, if Care should invent something wonderful and become a fantastically wealthy person--I can forward full name and address to be includied in the will---why should she be punished for her success?

We should not look at the poor as pets to be fed whatever we wish to give them, nor should we despise the financially successful for they are the very best chance that the poor have to become unpoor.

 

[rightwinger]

Here is our current distribution of wealth..



Given this example the rightwing chooses to attack those with a nickle and demand that they pay more. They also call them lazy, ignorant and deserving of their economic status.

Over the last thirty years this distribution has moved more from the 50% working class to the 1% wealthy. This is not because the wealthy have worked hareder, taken more risks or produced more product. It is because they have manipulated the system to get more tax breaks, more shelters, more loopholes, government subsidies to their business....all with a promise that they would eventually "trickle down" the wealth to the lower classes.

Guess what? It didn't happen

Why is everyone that wants to keep their $ "rightwing"?
When I buy a gallon of milk I do not pay more for it than the guy behind me. How do I receive more public benefit than he does? We both receive the same amount of defense of the country, roads, police protection, etc.
Why do I have to pay a higher tax rate because I WORK HARDER than the next guy?
You get more of what you reward and lessof what you punish. We are where we are now because wealth is taxed unevenly. Wealth is earned. You want more wealth you reward it, NOT punish it.

The typical standard for US wealth was manufacturing jobs. You started a company, worked hard, produced a product, created jobs....win-win all around

Todays mega wealthy are not creating jobs, not producing anything of value......They make money by moving it from one place to another and taking a huge dividend every time they do. They don't get mega wealthy by taking risks. They get that way by making sure there is no risk involved.

Its the old "Golden Rule"...he who has the gold, makes the rules. They lobby for legislation, tarrifs, labor laws, environmental waivers, tax incentives...all to ensure that they keep more money

Meanwhile the standard of living for working Americans has declined. It now takes two incomes to raise a family. My father barely graduated high school, worked for the phone company climbing poles....yet he managed to raise four kids and send them to college without my mother working. The house he bought on a laborers salary is the same size as the one I was able to afford on an engineers salary

In addition, nobody is suggesting that existing wealth be confiscated and distributed to the poor.

We need to go back to the tax rates of ten years ago, reduce exemptions, loopholes, incentives that direct more available wealth to the upper classes

Don't give handouts to the working poor. Provide programs where they can afford to buy a home, send their kids to school, pay their medical bills