'Patriotic Millionaires for Higher Taxes
 

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=14965909

Their are actually members of the 1% that care more about America than making another million!

This quote says it all!

"It's a Las Vegas economy where regular Americans put their money on the table and the richest 1 percent own the house," he said. "And if the 1 percent happen to lose money, the 99 percent bails them out – covers their losses and then stands by watching while the house does it all over again."

PULEESE... What a broad, stupid generalization. Such generalizations are done on both sides of the conservative/liberal, Republican/Democrat debate and serve no purpose other than firing up the base and continuing the worthless debate that serves as a major distraction from solving the real problems while at the same time keeping those on either side of the debate in power.

From each according to their ability, to each according to their need?

Redistributing the wealth has always worked in human history, every single time.

Almost everyone here has a job because someone in the 1% created that job.

What a dope. It makes you wonder how he earned his millions in the first place. He knows damn well that they don't need to pass a law for him to give more money to the government. They'll gladly take his donation. He's really just trying force the rest of the millionaires to go along with his dopey idea that giving an irresponsible government more money to waste is a good idea. Why doesn't he just cut out the middle man and give his money directly to Solyndra?

I can agree that the bailout mentality of our government is ridiculous because that's getting away from capitalism and the free markets. However, to act like the entire system is broken because of a few idiots is lame. Get a new administration in, fix the problem, eliminate bailouts, allow businesses to fail and let's get back to letting free markets work.

To state that we need more revenue (raise taxes) when as little as five years ago we were spending about half of what we're spending now is just pure stupidity!

I take it all back. I didn't realize that MOBY was the leader of the Patriotic Millionaires. I'm not sure why, but I must be wrong somewhere!

P.S. I can't believe MOBY still has a million dollars!

And why stop at top 1%? Why not top 10%, 20%, hell, 30%?

By virtue of having means and time to enjoy watersports, I'm sure most everyone here is in top 30%. Let's all write cheques to the government!

Sorry David, but whenever I see a reply like this I know the person can't be taken seriously. It totally misses the point. Not only that but I doubt the IRS would take his money even if there was some point to it.

No matter how much you downsize govt and cut spending you still have plenty of debt to pay back. The wealthy benefited most from the expansion of the money supply via govt debt. The wealthy are going to need to pay the most to square it away. Anything else is sheer stupidity,

The wealthy already pay the most FYI. You are missing the point here, the wealthy create jobs. If you increase their taxes they create less jobs. Less jobs means less tax revenue, and more welfare, increasing debt. This is economics 101.

There is a misconception among the poor that the wealthy hoard their money in a huge vault like Scrooge McDuck and just swim around in it. People who have the motivation and work ethic to get rich want to get richer, thus producing goods and services to that effect, which, gratuitously, creates more jobs.

These are the bare facts and they are indisputable.

Start increasing business and corporate taxes? They will move their businesses and factories to another country.

Enjoy your Kool Aid.

If they truly wanted to pay more, they could always pay their taxes without using loopholes or tax shelters. Any rhetoric stating otherwise is lost on me.

They already do. If you want to have a discussion about raising taxes, that's fine. Cut the spending first, then let's talk. Spending is so obviously the problem and higher taxes will make such a little dent in our debt that anyone arguing back and forth over it (ahem, "super" committee) is obviously playing politics. But...you probably won't take that seriously.

Taxes are not the issue but are being used to obfuscate the reality of the situation. Taking all profits of the fortune 500 and income from the 1% would not solve the problem. And while I wouldn't associate my POV with the narrator of this video it makes a valid point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ

The general anxiety about law not being applied equitably for financial criminals vs petty criminals is real and should be addressed but this pervasive thought that soaking the rich and corporations is absurd.

That's a completely different viewpoint and I do not disagree.

It's your kool-aid you drink it. And your kool-aid is not a fact.

There is no evidence that increasing taxes on higher incomes decreases jobs. People who say this frequently in the same breath say that if taxes are raised then they won't work so hard.

Well, no sh*t sherlock, that's exactly the point. Give the job to a lower paid employee. We don't want you working those jobs so you can hold on to a few extra bucks. If you want to throw away your life and free time working more hours for something someone else can do for lower pay, then go ahead but you'll be taxed higher.

I don't need a study to tell me that a 100% tax rate on "higher income" business owners will reduce the employment of those businesses to zero. So there's no doubt that increasing taxes too high will cause unemployment. If you want to have a discussion about where that tax rate should be, then that makes sense, but to say that there is no evidence that increasing taxes on those employers will cause increased unemployment just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Anyone is free to donate to the Treasury. Just go to Pay.gov.

LOL, that's the dumbest thing I've seen lately. I'd rather buy a Congressman.:D

This makes no sense and is not relevant.

I have a business and I employ people. Up my taxes any more and now my business is not profitable. I stick my money in bonds and tell the people I hire sorry, they'll have to get another job or go on welfare. Now we have less tax payers and more welfare recipients.

Decrease my taxes and I make more money. Not being content with just a bit more money, I expand, and hire more people. In fact, some of those people were previously on welfare. More people paying taxes. Less welfare.

My toddlers would understand this.

I think otherwise. If you tax 0% at earning below $1M and 100% at earning above $1M, I'm pretty sure as soon at the owner hit's the million mark he will be employing people so he doesn't work a minute more.

Of course neither is a realistic example and I certainly wouldn't try to argue a point with unrealistic examples.

You mean toddlers will buy it.

If your business isn't profitable your taxes will be low.:rolleyes:

What??? So he's not "working" any more, but he's still making money, assuming his business is profitable. You do know that you're taxed on your income, not the amount of "work" you do, right?

The more a company is taxed equals either less dividends, or less investment in new products and services. Either way, it doesn't help anyone except the Gov. Why exactly are we supposed to work hard to give up half of our reward?

I guess all those millionaires rallying to be taxed more weren't so patriotic when it came to putting their money where their mouths are. Too funny!

You're trying to tell me you can't understand why he would not want to work more if he wasn't making any more for it?

He employs more people to keep his business going and even growing. He can potentially grow his net worth without putting taxed cash in his pocket by growing his business if tax laws are structured correctly. I'm not advocating that people be given *zero* ability to earn more. This is just an argument you are making to point a hypothetical point that isn't even in the equation. A business owner should have the incentive to both grow his business and hire people.

I know tax laws are f**k'd. I bet those huge corporations that you are defending in the other thread have far more opportunities to avoid taxes than the little guy.

That's a bigger question for the people at the $100K level than the $200K+ level. Remember those guys at $100 are paying huge penalties for each extra hour worked to the tune of a 15% surtax.

I am speaking to the tune of business owners that hire the guys that make 100K.

This is another one that cracks me up, the assumption that these "huge corporations" are some entity up on a hill collecting dollar bills and paying no taxes. In reality, it's the middle class (the 99%) that own these corporations with shares in their retirement accounts and other investments. When most "huge corporations" do well, the "little guy" benefits because they own it.

I remember the interview with that Matt Damon toolbag talking about how he should be taxed more because if he gets more money he doesn't hire anybody or start a new business. However, unless he's stuffing into his mattress, he's investing it in some kind of business that is, in fact, hiring people and pumping money into the economy.

And don't even get me started on wondering why a corporation has to pay taxes on their profits and then when I, as a shareholder, get paid those profits through dividends, I have to pay taxes on the same money a second time. What??

David you pay way too little on those long term capital gains. Put them in the regular tax table and throw in a FICA tax then we can talk.

Paul, you're right that at the 100K level you're getting taxed way to much on each extra dollar. That's why you need to raise the taxes on higher earners.

But none of this addresses the true economic problems.

But that's only half the tax I'm paying. I'm also getting taxes when the corporation earns the money. Is that still not enough for you?

Wakeworld, you are wasting your time with these guys, don't bother. You'll never convince them otherwise that they are not entitled to your money. They live their lives blaming others for their problems and that won't change either.

What are my problems Nick?

This segue was because of the discussion about corps not paying any tax.:p

http://img.tapatalk.com/18415bfa-22d4-7c50.jpg

You feel like the bottom duck.

Nick, Does it make you feel good to be so arrogant? :o

forget to make the S election?

You are so wrong. I don't feel at all like the bottom duck. I not only make good money, but I could smoke pot, get drunk, and have sex with the cleaning lady in front of my boss at work and not get fired... if that was my desire (and the cleaning lady's:)). Not to mention I can call out I'm headed to the cable park any time of day without protest. If the govt pulled the safety net on the population, made severe cuts in govt employment, and the unemployment rate doubled I could still find work because my skill set is in demand and my needs are modest.

My problem is I'd like to see a solid economic model that creates real wealth and provides employment for people of all skill and capability levels. The only way to do that is target a zero trade deficit and return the country to creating a diversity of products that meet our needs. I'd also like to see govt downsized where it needs to be. I'd like to see a trend to the end of govt welfare for healthcare or make it single payer. And either end govt welfare for Wall Street with pensions, or dictate that all pensions be in individual accounts and funded in the year of work.

I'd like to see govt downsized where it needs to be and less regulation in many areas. I'd like to see a surplus rather than a deficit and the debt paid down. Most of all the reason why I make these arguments is because how most people view the problems and the fixes is insanely stupid. It doesn't even come close to reality. Cutting taxes to increase employment is a ridiculous claim. Cutting the govt safety net to fix the budget is a recipe for disaster.

You do realize that if you make life more difficult for a large portion of the population that they are just going to vote in a new block that will create giveaway programs. And when the path on both sides leads to more decline you can only expect a trend to more socialistic policies. Solutions have to make sense to both sides to get agreement. Otherwise you can just stand your ground and watch it get worse.

Fly, it amazes me that more people don't get it..maybe they don't realize how much 15 trillion really is. Maybe they don't realize how much in interest our debt is costing us. Maybe they are too concerned about their boat to be concerned about the strength of their country.

We have been fed this line of crap about how important the rich are and how much they do for us for so long that many don't know any better.

Maybe I should just stockpile ammo and gold while I wait for the collapse. I know how to use a gun so I should be OK.

Shooter & Fly,

To be honest your statements do not always reflect the position just enumerated which I'm inclined to agree with. The call for increased taxation is absurd as when tabulating state and local taxes into the picture citizens of this country are amply taxed in the most progressive model out there. The solution needs to come with government efficiencies and from there savings. But to ask for additional taxation is far from the point. Closing loopholes on the other hand should be discussed especially in the context or realigning tax revenues to address priorities more effectively.

That's the problem Mik. Govt efficiencies isn't the whole fix. A half fix is going to lead to a backlash. The fundamental underlying problem is the export of our economy overseas. Govt inefficiency is poor medicine but it's essential until the real problem is addressed. Govt debt is putting money back into the economy to stem to leak that's caused by you and me. The more money you have and spend the more you contribute to the leak.

Same with healthcare. The more we pour into it the more it inflates out of the reach of those on the lower end and even the middle class. Nobody is innocent. I'm 56 years old and in the top 10% of physical health for my age. I'd love to make people who eat unhealthy and don't exercise pay for their sins. But I understand the realities. We have a culture of bad food that the govt contributes to. Even the Republican's cringe at the suggestion that govt do anything to change this culture of bad nutrition. It's freak'n insane.

But I guess when people can make money making us unhealthy and obese that's the free market, right? Not counting the govt subsidies to these poor food sources. The official position in this country is to counter poor diets with pharmaceuticals.

Sounds like we all want the same end result just disagree on how to get there.

This is what happens in winter. Everyone's boat are winterized and people get ansty.

http://img.tapatalk.com/4ac696a9-f2bf-d953.jpg

I love this haha "what achievers read." :D

If raising taxes kills employment, as proclaimed in earlier posts, then cutting taxes should without a doubt help employment. Correct? Then what happened with the Bush and Obama tax cuts?

The Bsuh tax cuts actually moved the burden of taxes toward the most wealthy. That is part of the reasons the democrats did not get rid of it. It would have raised taxes on the poor and middle class if they did.

On your answer, how about this. The bailouts were supposed to stop job loss. Did that work? Many seem to think it did and I think you are included in that if I recall. It is the same point. That is more money in the economy for investment. Rich people are not just sticking their money into a shoe box. They invest it which goes to help companies. I guess you can make a argument that many of these rich people donating money does nothing for the economy. That money in some cases helps locally but if it is not going into actual jobs that make products then it is not as useful.

Currency manipulation by China is a big portion of the reason their products are so cost competitive. That being said exporting so many of our dollars could be stemmed through product standards. Though it is a path I would go down with caution and is little more than veiled protectionism it could go a long way to making american made products more cost competitive. Though this would need us to have a discussion about inflation.

From an economic standpoint if we could implement a "Japanese" style of universal healthcare our government would be saving significant amounts of money as their cost per citizen is roughly half of ours prior to implementation of obamacare which will certainly increase healthcare costs.

In the end subsidy for anything leads you down a slippery slope. But some subsidies create positive externalities desired by society just as some tax write offs (loopholes) do. The purist in me says do away with them all, the realist would investigate, eliminate the obsolete , and renew those creating positive externalities for society that are reasonably justified and pass the sniff test.

Nick is spot on. Fly, there is not much i disagree with you on in your desire for an end result, just on how we get there. We must get away from the class warfare and look for real solutions.

My answer? Ron Paul

Don't laugh. Don't say he's not electable. Read his proposals and come back and tell me what issues you disagree with him on.

www.ronpaul2012.com

That's the problem. We're not looking for real solutions. If you can't state what's wrong then you can't expect to find a real solution.

Whats wrong; Government spends more than my wife.

Solution; Get rid of them!

Its not just one problem. Its several problems. What we disagree on is how we priorotize them. It seems like all the problems spiral on top of one another and we debate on which one we fix first. The government cannot handle their finances. Either choice of giving them more money or giving them less money is a losing choice. Its stupid to throw money into a system that doesnt know how to spend correctly. Its also stupid to starve them of working capital.

The fix is an ugly one. Its so ugly that rather than deal with the hardships of a reboot, we just try to figure out more ways to avoid it for just a little longer. A reboot is coming, an we get to choose which generation eats it. A complete reboot would cause riot when you yank welfare. It will cause upheaval when you dissolve SS. The world will hurt when 100% of out foreign aid is cut off. Other economies will hate us when we put in place quality controls and tarrifs to make US manufacturing competitive and we rectify the trade deficit. Our standards of living will be reevaluated. It will be hard times for all Americans.

Nobody in this era of entitlement has the fortitude to vote for such a thing. Most could care less about the health of the country and will only vote for whatever makes their life easier. Thats why Ron Paul isnt electable. Our generation is simply not willing to get their hands dirty.

As long as we don't all have to be miserable. Happiness is a personal choice. And only you can ensure your own happiness.

Jason, I volunteer my generation to eat SSI. We will pay in and keep our parents and grandparents afloat without receiving benefits. So anyone born after 1975 want to step up with me?

Great post Jason!...NorCal, I'm with you if it's what's best for the country and my children. What I won't do is lose my claim to the crumbs while others continue to gorge themselves at the table.

I'm in. Well let our generation take care of our own retirements. Of course then someone will want the rich to bail them out.

Then why do you have a problem with higher earners and non-wage earners paying the extra 15% that all the other FICA payers are burdened with?

It make no sense that only the FICA payers join your movement. In fact it suggests all those who didn't pay FICA on all their earnings got off cheap.

I'm right there with you. THAT is the attitude we have to have from a majority or our generation. We need the same attitude from the welfare recipients, and the same commitment from the large companies. Everyone willing to take on the hardship of the reboot to make a better country for future generations.


But what is the likelihood that our generation can muster a majority in all these and the other hardships that a reboot would generate? We just don't see that kind of character here anymore.

John, eating the rich and corporations will not solve the problem but only perpetuate the spending and entitlements that are beyond sustainable limits. I think stabilizing revenues is a good idea. Dealing with capital gains as you suggest but not in every situation. Our income tax structure is one of the most equitable in the world. If we were to add a bracket at the $1 million mark I could accept that. I do not think it is equitable to increase taxes on inheritance or small business owners that would be affected by wholesale increases in taxes on non-FICA income.

My biggest concern surrounds the unnecessary and self-perpetuating bureaucracy that often regulates itself into roles well beyond the scope of the founding legislation. I know that at the Federal level there are many agencies, departments, boards, and offices that duplicate roles of their state counterparts, that often duplicate roles at the local, county, or district level. I believe any revenue solution needs to be accompanied by slimming at the top with responsibilities realigned back to the local level, closer to the people.

Our corporate tax is high compared to our international competitors and that needs to be remembered. That being said there are a lot of write offs and incentives for corporations and individuals that should be closely examined for relevance and possible elimination. But taking every dollar of profit and income from the fortune 500 and 1% still won't pay for a year of spending at this level and would cannibalize the wealth creation in this country moving forward.

And I fully understand that sacrificing some of the bureaucracy will not solve the immediate problem it is the principle of smaller government and ,he realignment will put more power at the local level where local voices are more likely to dictate the policies, fees, and taxes.

The baby boomers in power now are is fairly selfish. There parents were the "greatest generation" who created a lot of what is great about this country now and also allowed some temporary solutions to move on with perpetuity. While we need some of the self-sacrifice of the greatest generation there is a need to modernize our bureaucracy, their programs, and our tax structure to keep this nation competitive and secure (protect our natural rights and financial stability).

Their*** Sorry for the typo.

Again, Im right there with you. But at the end, it is going to require citizens to vote on things that directly and negatively effect their lives in the present in order to create a positive effect for a generation not even born yet. I dont see many Americans with the character to make that kind of call. We grew up with a sense of entitlement. The terms "right" and "fair" have become subjective in our culture.

Mik, you just advocated "eating the middle class and even poor", but you're against "eating the rich"? Do you think I'm going to take you seriously if you can't even follow logic as simple as that? And corporations are not part of the FICA issue.

You guys are full of crap when you talk about the current generation being more selfish. We're not selfish as much as ignorant. And we are ignorant because everyone from the top down is either lying or misinformed. The previous generations didn't have the option to send all the economy overseas. It's not that they were any less willing to buy whatever was the best deal. No wonder this country is in a mess.

Nothing I've advocated would increase taxes on the middle class or the poor. Not sure where you are getting that from? And corporations do pay payroll taxes which I feel should be eliminated as they create a negative externality on employment.

And the boomers control most positions of power in public and private industries and due to their poor decision making, policies, and investments have put us in this situation but are incapable of creating reasonable long term solutions to get us out. In turn this has prevented many of them from retiring and allowing the next generation come into positions of power. Additionally boomers are the biggest consumers or social services and less likely to take care of their parents compared to previous generations. And before you argue to refute me on this consider the polarization of our political parties that has happened as the boomers ascended to power. Makes you realize that alcohol, cigars, and collegiality between legislators across aisles was not such a bad thing, too bad your generation ruined that also... (note some sarcasm)

"On your answer, how about this. The bailouts were supposed to stop job loss. Did that work?"

You are comparing apples to Toyotas. I am not on here speaking for or against bailouts. But you, and others, have stated several times that "raising taxes will stop job creation". This implies that lowering taxes will create jobs, if it doesn't, please explain because this only leaves the option; "we keep taxes the same we will see the job growth". Bush implemented his tax cuts and employment figures went south (don't take my word for it, look it up). Obama didn't allow the tax cuts to expire, again no growth. So if we lowered taxes, how come we didn't reap the benefits of increase employment numbers? It is illogical to suggest that raising taxes kills jobs and then say that lowering taxes doesn't create jobs.

If you are against raising taxes, fine, but don't use job killing as your argument when there is little evidence that lowering taxes creates job growth (a la every current GOP candidate).

Jeremy, depends on the tax. Taxes that increase the cost of employment certainly do prevent job creation and cuts of those taxes will create jobs. So any fee or tax on wages which are often matched by the employers are job killing taxes. It is a pretty simple economic principle. But we should probably be more explicit in the taxes being discussed. BTW, Obama's failed job package proposed cuts that I have suggested. I have NOT advocated for wholesale tax cuts but been fairly specific in restructuring including a new bracket at the $1 million mark and if capital gains is looked at it should exclude small business and inheritance as both of those are regressive in my mind.

Mik, the statement above suggests that you believe that young people paying FICA should volunteer to pay it for older people and expect nothing in return. Either you are rich, stupid, or lying if you mean that you are going to do it yourself and have no expectations for anyone else to do it.

Payroll taxes that businesses pay are compensation for the individual's services. They are really taxes on the worker. You only need to work for yourself as an individual to figure that out pretty quickly. If you quit the business stops paying. The tax is entirely the result of services provided. And what is a "negative externality on employment"?

Perhaps you mean it's a tax on the worker that's hidden from the worker. The best way to tax the poor and middle class is to hide the taxes from them. Seems to be working quite well.

Apparently yes.

http://michaelscomments.files.wordpr...july-dots3.gif

Yes, the Boomers are like the Borg.:p

I'm not rich, in fact I took a big paycut 5 years ago to pursue a career that I would love and am just now getting paid what I used to make. I'm not lying as I am planning for my future as if those social programs will not exist. In fact anyone under 40 operating like there will be SSI is gambling in my mind. And I'm certainly not stupid but perhaps naive that people would consider taking care of their elders in a shared sacrifice for the good of the whole. But maybe a selfish boomer wouldn't understand that concepts? :rolleyes: Leave it to the boomers to think that taxation is the ONLY way to solve problems.

An externality is a consequence of an economic activity that is experienced by unrelated third parties. An externality can be either positive or negative. Even based on your statement of what a payroll tax is, you have described a negative externality. When budgeting for a business you have to account for these taxes beyond the wages of the employee. Additional costs of employment are negative externalities of employment. Thus removing them would remove costs from employment which I have stated as removing a barrier to employment.

John, do you obey the law and do what is right day in and day out with the expectation or being rewarded for you actions? Or do you do the right thing every time because it is simply the right thing?

Current national unemployment is what 9.1%? I think your graph is wrong.

I didn't look at the actual numbers, just the curve. let's try another...

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/images/2...d_20110209.png

I do what I consider the right thing. Not sure what you are getting at.

You have the strangest way of rationalizing things. The boomers have been paying a 15% tax all their life with little or no options for a loophole. Soley to fund a retirement, medical, and potential disability. But you portray it as selfishness to expect that money to be there as promised in an annual statement reaffirming it.

Pretending to be all altruistic when you don't have to follow through doesn't impress me.

I suppose if the govt told you that it was taking your 401K or IRA you'd think it was selfish to object. Not!

Then your claim of externality doesn't apply. There is no unrelated 3rd party. This is simply a tax on the worker. Nothing more, nothing less. Or it's a forced payment into a retirement and disability program. Depends on how you look at it. You've been duped if you think otherwise. The cost of any worker is a barrier to employment. If workers were free there's be no unemployment.

What bothers me is that people can't figure out if it's a tax or a retirement benefit. When it comes time to pay the benefits... it's a welfare tax and you don't deserve it back. But if it's a welfare tax then all those earnings that didn't pay it should of been paying. Then's it's a retirement benefit. That's a good example of selfishness.

SSI was not supposed to be a retirement plan and that might be one area where our thinking is divergent. Treating SSI as retirement is one policy where your generation is dead wrong.

Having spent a good deal of time in economic course and logic courses I do not see where my logic is flawed.

Just making stuff up doesn't make it so. While it's true that SS is likely to be inadequate as a complete retirement for most people, you have no ground to stand on to say it's not part of or even acceptable as a retirement plan.

I'm sure your logic is just fine for you.

SSI = Social Security Insurance
FICA = Federal Insurance Contribution

Flemming v. Nestor (1960) determined that there is no property right to SSI. There are no contractual rights to your contributions. The wholesale use of SSI as retirement is a big part of the problem with that program. It is an insurance pool (welfare or old-age assistance) not a retirement plan. The conversion and use of it as such is one of the biggest contributors to the entitlement laden system of governance that I thought you stood against. Another policy that the boomers expanded beyond their ability to control the costs.

I think SSI wouldn't be an issue today if lawmakers wouldn't have started writing IOU's out of the fund about 20 years ago. And call it "insurance" or whatever, but most people I know buy insurance with the hopes of not having to use it, with SS everyone will eventually hit 65 or 67.

Well if I die or get deported they won't have to pay. But why would I need a retirement plan if I'm dead? Its still a retirement plan with an annual statement of projected benefits.. The IOUs are bonds payable on demand. The govt will need to default on it's debt to not pay.

Or if Congress changes the requirements to a need based program as I would advocate for to save my generation from suffocating debt. The pervasive opinion of entitlement that has created this belief that SSI is retirement is exactly why it is just and sound to call the boomers a selfish generation. A social insurance program expanded and exploited on the backs of future generations without regard to their welfare. I'm willing to solve the problem but as long as the AARP continues to grow, solutions will not be found. I'm hoping by the time I'm old enough to wield the power to effectuate change, I will do what is right for future generations unlike the boomers.

Jeremy,

The point I was trying to make is the government tried to put money into the hands of the business. Why did they do this? They did it hopes that the businesses would not lay off workers and in some cases shut down. Well that is the exact same as letting businesses keep more of their money via less taxes. The government all but admitted that money in the hands of businesses helps with them with employees in regards to payroll. Of course common sense should tell them in the first place. If government thought that keeping the money or raising taxes would have helped then they would have done nothing or raised the taxes instead of a bailout.

John,

FICA is what a business owner pays for employees. If you are a contractor, then it would seem to me you are a small business owner and you are paying taxes for your only employee.

On everyones corporations are evil bit. Everyone is down about their corporate income tax (which is offset by tax policy) but they businesses pay a very large payroll tax. We never hear about that one but it is large part of the taxes. While corporate income tax has been stable as a percentage of total income since about 1950, the payroll tax has been climbing and is almost double the income tax. Sounds to me like we have been getting the money out of corporations, we are just lied too about the income tax part to stir up the ignorant masses for class warfare sakes.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/brief...rs/revenue.cfm

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/brief...-revenue_1.gif

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/brief...-revenue_3.gif

Just think. Or that large 48% that income tax for individuals, 10% of use pays about 70% or that. The top 1% pays 37% of that.

Just think. Or that large 48% that income tax for individuals, 10% of use pays about 70% and the top 1% pays 37% of that.

http://www.kiplinger.com/features/ar...stacks-up.html

http://www.kiplinger.com/kipimages/n...2009_table.gif

That's because it's really a tax on the worker. 100% associated with the worker's services. It's not a tax on the business. If the worker leaves the tax goes away.

Which further proves my point that it is a barrier to employment. It adds a cost to employment that makes our employees less competitive than foreign employees.