I have paid my way and then some both with my taxes and service in the military. The bottom line is this nation is going deeper and deeper into debt and the day is comming when we will be required to pay for our irresponsible fiscal behavior.

Terpfan: Progressive tax rates exist because as incomes rise each dollar has less marignal utility. People use their first ten or twenty thousand for important things like food, clothing, medical care, and clothes, so it makes sense not to heavily tax income used to secure these basic necessities. As you get into the $100,000+ bracket, people should pay more taxes because these dollars go toward less necessary things like a nice car, etc.

This concept is known as 'vertical equity' and left and right wing economists alike generally agree that it is a fundamental characteristic of a good income tax system. Col. Gene is not proposing anything Soviet and you'd do well not call call everyone you disagree with a commie. No one is arguing for really high tax rates on the rich, just one that better incoporates vertical equity.

A flat tax is a bad idea because it taxes high utility dollars at the same rate as low-utility dollars. A poll tax, where all citizens are required to pay X amount of dollars regardless of income, is an even worse idea because low and middle incomes now pay a higher % of their income in taxes than the rich.

So we are left with a progressive tax system - one which taxes the rich at a higher rate - as the only reasonable alternative. If you choose to see this as "robbing from the rich and helping shield the poor", fine, but someone's gotta pay the bills.

Finally, get off Col. Gene's ass, for crissakes. Show some respect, honour, and decency. Your attitude is uncivilized and way out of line. It's clear he is an educated and accmplished man and doesn't need you teaching him math or berating him for ranting. Col Gene does not "rant", his tone is impassive, he provides facts and figures, displays excellent understanding of public policy and offers many solutions in his posts. JoeUser is lucky to have a knowledgeable guy with a long fuse posting here in the Politics section.

David St. Hubbins

bwah-ha-hahahahahahaha!!!

Finally, get off Col. Gene's ass, for crissakes. Show some respect, honour, and decency. Your attitude is uncivilized and way out of line. It's clear he is an educated and accmplished man and doesn't need you teaching him math or berating him for ranting. Col Gene does not "rant", his tone is impassive, he provides facts and figures, displays excellent understanding of public policy and offers many solutions in his posts. JoeUser is lucky to have a knowledgeable guy with a long fuse posting here in the Politics section.

It's clear only that he wants to sell books and he continues to points whore with the same repetitive topics over and over again.

Get off his butt my ass.

Below me.

I may rant at times. Hell, I may rant all the time. But I show far more intelligence in any single reply than the COLs continued Bush bashing bleets.

You can cry if you want, I don't care.

I appreciate your attempt to explain the utility of money, but I would again point out that it's not for you, COL Gene or any other individual or group of individuals to decide how much utility there is to my money, or anyone else's money as I or others acquire more of it. If I collect it and never spend it, even if I only make $10,000 a year, then how much utility was there to my money? If I make $300,000 a year, and spend $280,000 of that money on trivial wasteful items (think M.C. Hammer here for a sec, during his 15 minutes), then was there or was there not more utilitarian use of the money? Keep in mind that M.C. Hammer gave out money like Michael Jackson giving out candy to kids at Neverland ranch. Were the people that took his money any less entitled to get it directly from him than they were from the government in the form of a welfare check?

You say reasonable alternative, I say B.S. I don't want to put too much burden on the poor, but I also don't like the system as currently structured with loophole after loophole that are used to provide tax breaks for those that can afford to pay CPAs and tax lawyers, or for those that are "too poor" to be paying into the system. I'd rather see a flat tax and no deductions at all than have the mess we have now. I expect it will never happen, but I can hope for it.

And for the record, I actually do look at athletes like the MLBPA, or actors and others like the MPAA members that make well more than $1,000,000 per year and think "gee, wouldn't it be nice if those people could live off a reasonable amount of money, and we didn't have salary inflation because each has to outdo the last for salaries?" I'd love to say that if you make more than $1,000,000 a year the government takes 99% of the money, but then what incentive is there to try harder than the next person? And who gets to arbitrarily decide what salary level is appropriate before taking all that money from the person that was supposed to get it?

Reply #46 By: COL Gene - 3/9/2005 4:35:24 PM I have paid my way and then some both with my taxes and service in the military.

And so have I and my family you smug bastard.

All you know how to do is call people names. I would be glad to go toe to toe with you comparing education, experience and accomplishments.

All you know how to do is call people names. I would be glad to go toe to toe with you comparing education, experience and accomplishments.

I don't think anyone really cares!

That shows the flaws in your character.

That shows the flaws in your character.

You might have character flaws but I don't.

I did not realize that you were an ostrich with your head in the sand. I wanted to be polite and not tell you where I really think your hear is located.

did not realize that you were an ostrich with your head in the sand. I wanted to be polite and not tell you where I really think your hear is located.

You must be talking about *dabe*.

Returning to the tax rates in effect during the 1990's is NOT SOAKING THE RICH. The simple fact is that we are not collecting enough in taxes to balance the budget. If the choice is to collect a little more from those that can afford it or from those that are just making ends meet, the choice is simple.

Who are you to say what is soaking the rich and what isn't? I don't see you volunteering for your taxes to be raised.  The choice is not that simple. We can also cut costs which would work much better IMO. We, as a people, are collectively responsible for the debt. Not the top 5%.

The first thing we must do is agree on what we want the government to do for us. Not just the far Right or far Left but what the majority want. Second, we must pay for those services. Not pay part and charge the balance.

Except you don't want to pay for those services. You want ME to pay for those services. You're the one arguing for a tax increase on just one group.

See, here's the thing, I pay 35% federal income taxes already. I suspect Col Gene is paying no more than 25% after his deductions (and wouldn't be surprised if he's paying only 15% or less after deductions).

I'm paying my share and the share of many others.  It comes out into the 6 digit range each year.  I don't own boats or drive around on a Segway or something. Most of the income I earn I reinvest it into my business. I hire people. Those people inturn pay taxes and help generate more prosperity for all (such as the creation of this website).

It's not my fault the government can't manage to balance its budget. While I'm paying $100k plus in taxes, the Col Gene's of the world are probably paying less than $10,000 in federal taxes. And for what? Do I get to drive on special roads? No. Do my kids go to some special public school? No.  Do our soldiers protect me any more than Col Gene? No.  Do my kids qualify for special federal programs? No, in fact, we get discriminated against.  It's not like I'll get Medicaid when I'm sick. 

If Col Gene had his way, he would probably expect me to pay more for stamps for mailing things so that other people could get stamps cheaper.  He would probably want me to pay extra on cable TV so that people like him could get cable cheaper.  He would probably love to see me pay more for groceries, telephone, and clothing too so that other people could get those same things cheaper.

There's nothing moral or principled about advocating the government to steal from one group of people to subsidize another. The government was never supposed to get into that kind of thing in the first place. 

Consider this -- I work approximately 60 hours per week.  When you count federal, state, and other taxes, I am actuall working nearly over 30 hours a week for the government.  If you're going to just keep soaking me, why should I bother?  Why not just fire most of the people I work with and live off the reduced revenue that would result that would put me in say the 28% tax bracket?

Draginol

The proof that the old rates prior to the Bush cuts did not soak the rich is how well the top 5% did during the 1990's with the higher rates in place. The wealthy experienced a real boom and did far better then the middle class or poor during that 10 year period. To say the old rates had a negative impact of our economy or the wealthy as a group ignores the reality of the 1990's. There was no need or justification to cut the tax rates on the wealthy and the Federal budget needs that revenue to help balance the budget! The tax cuts to the middle income and the low interest rates that allowed home refinancing and the purchase of big ticket items are the reasons we have come out of the recession in 2000-2002. It was not due to the tax cuts for the top 5%.