I applaud you, but I feel you are wrong in some ways. I've worked my butt off too, and I've done OK. Nothing like you, I suspect, but I didn't go to college. I worked several jobs, and I did it for almost 20 years while raising my kids. There was no opportunity to go back to school. I was lucky in many times in my life, the first of which is to fall into the industry I work in.

 

But there are many people out there who work their butts off and work multiple jobs, and don't get very far. Maybe some of it is a lack of luck, or a lack of God-given ability. But, I know a lot of people, GOOD people, who work very hard to fall into the very lower end of the "middle class". You don't have to be below the poverty line to need some relief.

 

I refuse to feel that wanting more for those who have less is a bad thing. It's not just about "me" (figuratively). There's a bigger picture. And it's easy to pigeon hole a whole demographic based upon the worst-case scenarios. But it's not a fair depiction, and someone has to defend those who are honest, hard-working people who have felt no relief as their wages have stagnated, their jobs often disappeared, prices rising in all areas. Without a voice, they will go unheard. There a champions for the poor, and the rich obviously have their champions. There's no voice for the majority, which lie in various levels in-between.

 

The best relief is tax relief for everyone.

 

If businesses have to pay higher taxes they will raise their prices to compensate for the increase. People in the lower half of the income scale spend a greater portion of their income on disposable goods like food, gas, dining out, clothes, etc. So, when prices go up the lower half is covering a greater share of the taxes. It just doesn't show up that way on a tax form.

 

Let's say they impose this methane gas tax on cattle farmers because their coes fart. What do you think happens to the price of beef? Who is hurt most by an increase in the cost of beef? There are so many examples of how increasing taxes on businesses hurt the lower end more than anybody.

I love it that "equality" is only an issue when the wealthy are worried they may lose money. They don't give a hoot about "equality" as long as those making 1% of their income stay in their places. Granted the "poor" in this country are richer than the truely poor in other countries. But, comparing the poor here is like comparing the wealthy of other nations. And in a country that prides itself on equality there's an awfully huge disparity between the top earners and even the middle earners.

 

Capitalism isn't perfect, and in this country, a person's "worth" is his "wealth". Sounds pretty much like what the problems were in the societies many of the first settlers in America were looking to leave behind.

 

I'm to the point of an extreme opposite. I'm to the point of discounting the opinions of the wealthy on what constitutes "good policy" or "equality". When they care to live like the least of the American earners, struggling to decide whether health insurance is a necessity or a luxury, whether working a low paying job will bring in enough money to justify paying for day care costs, whether fixing the car or paying the electirc bill is the bigger concern, THEN I'll pity them their plight.

 

You use the word "equality' When we speak of equality, it is equality before the law, the right to have the same opportunties to achieve, The Constitution does not say anything about 'equality' of outcome.

 

In several of the posts in this thread some individuals took the opportunity of to achieve because they had equal opportunity before the law. If the law said there had to be equality of outcome, no one would work very hard, as the outcome is already fixed. There is also the equal opportunity to fail.

You use the word "equality' When we speak of equality, it is equality before the law, the right to have the same opportunties to achieve, The Constitution does not say anything about 'equality' of outcome.

 

In several of the posts in this thread some individuals took the opportunity of to achieve because they had equal opportunity before the law. If the law said there had to be equality of outcome, no one would work very hard, as the outcome is already fixed. There is also the equal opportunity to fail.

 

You're right. You don't have to lecture me. I know all about both. But do NOT tell me that equal effort will result in equal outcome. There have been several posts that have said that those on the lower end of the economic scale do not work, that they do not try. And that's simply not true, and it's where this perception of 'class warfare' originates. Whey you label an entire demographic it's wrong. All rich people aren't greedy. But all poor people are not lazy. There's so much in between.

The best relief is tax relief for everyone.

 

If businesses have to pay higher taxes they will raise their prices to compensate for the increase. People in the lower half of the income scale spend a greater portion of their income on disposable goods like food, gas, dining out, clothes, etc. So, when prices go up the lower half is covering a greater share of the taxes. It just doesn't show up that way on a tax form.

 

Let's say they impose this methane gas tax on cattle farmers because their coes fart. What do you think happens to the price of beef? Who is hurt most by an increase in the cost of beef? There are so many examples of how increasing taxes on businesses hurt the lower end more than anybody.

 

Who's only talking about taxes on businesses? I'm talking about taxes all around.

Link? I have never seen any credible source that had that number in it as they just don't know.

 

http://www.uspirg.org/home/reports/report-archives/tax--budget-policy/tax--budget-policy--reports/tax-shell-game-the-taxpayer-cost-of-offshore-corporate-havens

 

The solution is to simplify the tax code, and IMO the best way to do that is to abolish the IRS and enact some sort of flat tax with minimal loopholes.

 

While I'm not sure the President wants to abolish the IRS he does agree that the tax code needs to be simplified.

 

http://www.ajc.com/services/content/printedition/2009/04/16/obama0416.html

While I'm not sure the President wants to abolish the IRS he does agree that the tax code needs to be simplified.

 

http://www.ajc.com/services/content/printedition/2009/04/16/obama0416.html

 

True, but Bush said it too (Year after year, Americans are burdened by an archaic, incoherent federal tax code. I've appointed a bipartisan panel to examine the tax code from top to bottom. And when their recommendations are delivered, you and I will work together to give this nation a tax code that is pro-growth, easy to understand and fair to all.), and nothing happened then. It's all rhetoric, although I'm not saying I won't give President Obama a chance.

I applaud you, but I feel you are wrong in some ways. I've worked my butt off too, and I've done OK. Nothing like you, I suspect, but I didn't go to college. I worked several jobs, and I did it for almost 20 years while raising my kids. There was no opportunity to go back to school. I was lucky in many times in my life, the first of which is to fall into the industry I work in.

 

But there are many people out there who work their butts off and work multiple jobs, and don't get very far. Maybe some of it is a lack of luck, or a lack of God-given ability. But, I know a lot of people, GOOD people, who work very hard to fall into the very lower end of the "middle class". You don't have to be below the poverty line to need some relief.

 

I refuse to feel that wanting more for those who have less is a bad thing. It's not just about "me" (figuratively). There's a bigger picture. And it's easy to pigeon hole a whole demographic based upon the worst-case scenarios. But it's not a fair depiction, and someone has to defend those who are honest, hard-working people who have felt no relief as their wages have stagnated, their jobs often disappeared, prices rising in all areas. Without a voice, they will go unheard. There a champions for the poor, and the rich obviously have their champions. There's no voice for the majority, which lie in various levels in-between.

You tell me I'm wrong in some ways, but I'm missing your clear outline of my errors.

 

I don't doubt that there are many who work their tails off and can't seem to get ahead. I'm there too... if I quit working like I do, my family's comfort and level of function diminishes greatly. I understand that all too well.

 

My point is, we can't possibly make this country better by pulling down the wealthy and punishing the achievers in an attempt to level the playing field for the poor or to reward the unmotivated.

 

It is not the government's place to distribute charity... and I'm pretty sure that forcing earners to contribute 50% of their annual earnings or go to prison is not actual "charity" anyway.

 

You want to identify the greedy, look at the politicians who play the poor like a fiddle just to keep their power. THAT is shameful, abominable and disgusting.

While I'm not sure the President wants to abolish the IRS he does agree that the tax code needs to be simplified.

 

http://www.ajc.com/services/content/printedition/2009/04/16/obama0416.html

 

My guess is you can go back over the past several presidents and find very similar thoughts.

http://www.uspirg.org/home/reports/report-archives/tax--budget-policy/tax--budget-policy--reports/tax-shell-game-the-taxpayer-cost-of-offshore-corporate-havens

 

Thanks but I'm not sure about how credible a blog about a resolution to a budget is. I'd love to see the source. As a CPA I've read many, many articles about this over the years and a common theme is that noone really knows how big the problem is. That's why I'd love to see how they estimated this number. Not saying it's incorrect, shoot it might very well be low, I'd just like to know how they generated it.

Edited April 17, 200917 yr by 75center

You tell me I'm wrong in some ways, but I'm missing your clear outline of my errors.

 

I don't doubt that there are many who work their tails off and can't seem to get ahead. I'm there too... if I quit working like I do, my family's comfort and level of function diminishes greatly. I understand that all too well.

 

My point is, we can't possibly make this country better by pulling down the wealthy and punishing the achievers in an attempt to level the playing field for the poor or to reward the unmotivated.

 

It is not the government's place to distribute charity... and I'm pretty sure that forcing earners to contribute 50% of their annual earnings or go to prison is not actual "charity" anyway.

 

You want to identify the greedy, look at the politicians who play the poor like a fiddle just to keep their power. THAT is shameful, abominable and disgusting.

 

:thumb: