Phew. Why does every conversation have to be an ordeal around here? Your example referred to an income of $300K. That's why I mentioned it. Last I heard, Obama was talking about raising the top marginal rates on people making $1 million or more. I haven't take the time to verify that figure because it's not going to happen anytime soon and harping on the precise figure seems like a petty sort of thing.It seems about right to me, but I don't claim to know exactly what the appropriate rates are for each income bracket. As a general matter, the tax burden has been shifted toward the lower income earners more than it should be, IMHO.

That way I read his words, the phrase "you didn't build that," refers to "roads and bridges" in the previous sentence. Any other meaning seems absurd to me. Maybe he was being absurd. I doubt it.

Who is the somebody else?

Didn't mean to dodge the question. Wasn't paying attention. "Somebody else" is many different entities. The ones that come to mind are: government (i.e. taxpayers); privately-owned utilities; and hybrid public/private entities.

OK, so if $100K of tax for $300K of earnings seems about right to you, please elaborate on what Obama is trying to obtain by seeking more money from those who earn more than $250K or $300K or whatever figure you are unable to obtain.

If $100K seems about right, than I'm certain that you would agree that $120K is too much...............right?

With regard to your assertion that the tax burden has been shifted toward the lower income earners, maybe you could reconcile the fact that a person who earns $40K pays no income tax but a person who earned $300K pays $100K in income tax. Maybe I'm not quite as smart as an attorney and you could possibly explain this discrepancy in light of your assertion.

You are aware, of course, that the two individuals in the aforementioned paragraph use the identical amount of services from the Federal government? I could easily make a case that each should pay the same amount...............but I won't.

Not necessarily.

The tax rate structure used to place a higher burden on those at the top as compared to today's rates. I think it should be shifted back to the rates we had in the 1990's, or at least in that direction. I have no opinion about what specific rates are appropriate for each level of income. I just would like to see the system shift back toward where it was before W came along.The lower-level earner pays taxes, even if they are not income taxes.What's with the snarky comments? I haven't pretended to be any smarter than anyone else here. That's uncalled for.How would I know that?

Who pays the most taxes?

Wealthy people and people who make a lot of money.

So the people who pay the most are allegedly also the ones who benefit the most.

How about the people who pay no taxes. Do they benefit from the wealth and work of others?

Many do.

If everyone is equal in the eyes of the law, then why should they be taxed differently?

__________________
1985 380SE Blue/Blue - 230,000 miles
2012 Subaru Forester 5-speed
2005 Toyota Sienna
2004 Chrysler Sebring convertible
1999 Toyota Tacoma

If their tax burden is different, why are they given an equal vote? Should the franchise be limited to people who contribute more than they take? How would you judge that?

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

Before W, all the marginal tax rates were higher. This will not shift the burden, if that is your desire.



I believe you should take some time and consider the specific amount of money that people pay at each income level before you put down a blanket statement that these higher earning people should pay more than they already do.





Non-sequitur.



Your assertion was so outrageous and false that I couldn't help myself.

Sorry.

For the record, you obviously ignored a clear refutation of your assertion in the above post.








Well, of course it was rhetorical, but you definitely knew that.

What they forget is that business builds and creates jobs.


When I build a house I create a lot of jobs for all the subs. Those guys in turn buy things with the money they earn.

When you cut their taxes, they already don't pay a lot, but they may buy some more stuff.

When you cut my taxes I have a lot more money to maybe buy a new truck to support GM, or a Cat excavator. Both of which create jobs. Cut my taxes further and I can swing an extra deal and build another house, which creates more jobs for the above.


Tax me to much and after say 3 houses instead of 5 I stop building because at that point it all goes to the government. Who does this hurt? Not really me although its very discouraging. It hurts the subs because they lose out on a lot of money, so they spend less. It also hurts the government because they collect less money from everyone.

__________________
2016 Corvette Stingray 2LT
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200

It's funny that you would post this immediately after implying that I have a superior attitude.

I disagree with just about every syllable in your post. It's too bad that you don't want to have a civil conversation about it. I will leave you with an article that expresses what I have been attempting to say: The Great Tax Shift | Brookings Institution Some of the authors' predictions didn't come true, but their basic argument rings true to me. I agree with their basic point that, under W, the tax system shifted in favor of the wealthy and high earners. I wish it would shift back. The exact rates that should be enacted are not of much interest.