Comments about ‘Tax millionaires? Why not help all get ahead?’

One thing those top countries also have is some form of socialized/universal health care. Coincidence?

Why dont we ask:

"What is right"

Not:

"What is easiest"

The richest 10% pay almost 70% of all income tax.

50% of americans pay 0 income tax.

When a poor person drives his car on the road let just say for the sake of the argument that it does 5 cents worth of damage.

When a rich person drives his car on the road, guess what?

It also does 5 cents worth of damage.

Just because he is rich it doesnt' mean he is using 100 times the resources.

When I go to the store why doesn't the cashier ring up my purchases and then lump them together with the purchases of everyone else in the store and then allocate what we owe based on how much we make?

Such is the logic presented by the liberals.

Why dont we each pay for what we use?

Simple concept.

I dont care "what is easiest"

I care "what is right"

The rich are doing more than their share.

It's time for the rest of us to do our share.

We all use the govt resources. The poor in fact use more.

No reason to make rich pay most.

Profits for big businesses are increasing, but so is unemployment. I wouldn't be as angry about "job creators" having lower tax rates if they actually created jobs.

While I have friends and family members living in constant debt because of health and living costs, these so-called job creators are enjoying the splendors of life. I watch the Real Housewives series and wonder how people think those women are better than the rest of us...that they deserve more.

The following quote still holds true:

You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation.. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it

Even IF there were a flat tax, the rich would still be paying significantly more than everyone else.

Just because a person is rich does that mean he is using more government resources?

No.

Why then should they be force to pay for someone who is using more than their fair share of government resources?

It's a novel concept I present that we should each pay for what we USE.

Simple enough.

Yet confusing is that the liberals dont think we should pay for what we use.

I go to the store. I pay for what I use. Simple

I go on vacation. I pay for my vacation. Simple

I buy a car. I pay for the car I buy. Simple

It is not:

I go to the store. I pay for what my neigobor uses and another guy.

I go on vacation. My neighbor pays for his vacation and mine.

I get a car. Random guy in Boston forced to pay for my car.

See how this works?

Not tough.

The rich are already paying way more than what they are using.

We need to step up and do what is right and pay for our share.

libs want people to be dependent on the government. therefore they control the power over those on the government dole. remember, about half of the country pay no fed income tax and many of them accept fed benefits. is that fair? i don't think so. all should pay something.

So, Obama wants to tax himself more? In that case, I'm all for it. Since he's rich, let's set his tax rate at about 70% with no deductions. Maybe he'll have another book ghost written for him by his buddies.

"Simply put, many of us still hold out the hope we can become one."

Reveals much more about yourself than other people. I've observed far too many people pass up opportunities to make money because of principles.I think most Americans want to have a decent life and rear productive families. Nowhere in the scriptures do I see where the purpose of life is to become rich. On the contrary I see a plethora of teachings on just the opposite. Jacob says this: "and because some of you have obtained more abundantly than that of your brethren ye are lifted up in the pride of your hearts, and wear stiff necks and high heads because of the costliness of your apparel, and persecute your brethren because ye suppose that ye are better than they." True, pride may be abundant among the poor, but the love of money can be destructive to the real purpose of life.

Pagen, Your Pres. extended the Bush tax breaks. He said you can't raise taxes with the economy the way it is. What has changed? Only Obama's political campaign strategy. Create a gridlock barrier (new taxes the Rep. vowed to vote against)then blame it on your opposition when nothing can get done. This is just more of the same Chicago politics as usual. Believe me, more and more people are seeing right through this charade.

The US House can't forget the rich-vs-poor grudge match, and focus on ways to improve economic freedom for everyone. There is also no mandate in the Constitution for federal tax money to be given to companies engaged in alternative energy development, or given to anyone else including gifts as foreign aid. The Koch Brothers. But what we should be asking is, are those laws in compliance with Article 8?. Are the expenditures authorized by one or more enumerations of power contained in the Constitution? Are they necessary to carry out government functions? If not, then they are unconstitutional and illegal, and Congress is guilty of abuse and misuse of taxpayers money. The Middle-Class. GOP Politicians today have found ways to tax everything we do and are still looking for more sources of tax money, to provide themselves with all the money they need to do whatever they want to do, without regard for the limitations placed on them by the Constitution. Isn't it time we take back our country from corrupt politicians who, for decades, have been stealing our freedom and liberties, and constitutional rights, to say nothing of our money?. Tax the untra-rich then.

Ah, yeah. Let's talk about the Bush tax cuts.

After the Bush tax cuts took effect, tax revenues increased. When people keep more of their money they spend it. This causes demand and businesses hire. More employed people equals more tax revenues.

Bush unemployment: 5.3%
Obama unemployment: 9.6%

The problem is government can't stop spending. Government spending does not "pump new money into the economy" because government must first tax or borrow that money out of the economy.

We have a huge problem. You can confiscate ALL of the money the rich have and it would not even come close to paying off the deficit.

We're in trouble.

@ChrisB
"You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity."

I don't think anybody claims that raising taxes on the rich would make jobs or make the poor wealthier somehow. The reason taxes on the rich are being targeted for increase... is for deficit reduction purposes because it's the most painless way to go about deficit reduction without overburdening the poor and middle class or eliminating jobs.

Ask not what your country can do for you, but what YOU can do for YOUR country.

This is lost with so many richies today. Today, they use the government for tax cuts, handouts, subsidies, loopholes, and so many other ways.

Pay your taxes. We're in debt, wars, a retiring working class, recessions, wall street, etc have put us in this situation.

Now, help us get out of it. Don't "use" us to add on more mansions and yachts while the rest of us struggle to make ends meet.

It's sad that Warren Buffet's secretary paid more in income taxes than he.

The issue isn't about "punishing" the rich. The issue is continuing our country and helping our society flourish. Why should the rest of us be punished if the rich want to just rip us off?

continued Part II

Corruption and disregard for the Constitution has become the status quo in Congress. It has become acceptable practice by most politicians, therefore they are rarely called on it by others. Politicians in Congress have gotten used to the idea that their job is to provide for the general welfare of the untra-rich people by any means necessary. BIG Business. Congress systematically abuses the Constitution's "welfare clause" to control our lives in ways that would have been an abomination to the Framers. The original purpose of the Commerce Clause was primarily a means to eliminate trade barriers among the states. They didn't intend for the Commerce Clause to govern so much of our lives. For most of our history, the Courts foiled congressional attempts to use the "Commerce Clause" to sabotage the clear meaning of the Constitution, particularly the Ninth and 10th Amendments. For far too long, Congress has been violating the Constitution by passing legislation that gives them powers that were never authorized by the Constitution. In every case, those powers represent rights that were intended to be reserved to the states and to the people. Congress committed these grievous-violations and gotten away with it.

Tax breaks should have been canceled when Iraq war was started.

@alt:

"The reason taxes on the rich are being targeted for increase... is for deficit reduction purposes because it's the most painless way to go about deficit reduction"

Again, that is the problem.

Why aren't we asking:

"What is right"

NOT

"what is easiest"

Shouldnt we do what is right?

Usually the easiest answer is not the correct one.

Just because someone is rich does not mean someone uses more government resources. In fact, it likely means the opposite.

Hey alt,

If I can't pay my bills this month and you make more than me can I come steal from you?

Why not?

That is "easier" than me getting a 3rd job.

Please explain.....

@ ChrisB
Do you really believe that Warren Buffett should pay less tax than his secretary? (as quoted in the article) Is that WB's fare share? This article is about equality and its effects on national prosperity--not who uses the most resources of the government. To put this in perspective for you, Why should WB buy allowed to purchase new car and expect/demand that his secretary to pay for it? Just because he is wealthy enough to purchase the new car does not mean that he should pay a purportedly smaller percentage of tax for that privilege. WB would not have become wealthy without the secretaries of the nation doing the work underneath him. They both need each other. Take a close look at the poorer countries listed in the article and you will find that they have a wealthy class but no middle and lower class to balance their economy. Then look at their tax structure.

To "Pagen | 9:43 a.m." once again you are wrong. The Bush tax cuts that cut taxes for everybody by a few percentage points expired in December 2010.

In December 2010, a Democrat controlled congress sent a bill to Obama with taxcuts that mirrored the tax cuts that Bush had implemented. In addition to cloning what Bush had done, the Democrats added the bonus tax cut of cutting the employee portion of SS taxes.

So, right now we have the Obama tax cuts. If you are going to demoize a president for current tax cuts, you should at least demonize the correct president.

Mr. EveSen, maybe next time you could educate us about the defense budgets of Switzerland, New Zealand etc as well as the social safety nets in those countries.
Two-thirds of the economic gains in the past 20-30 yrs has gone to the top 1%.
Real wages for middle class Americans have remained relatively flat while exponentially increased for those at the top.
First, American families tried to cope by both parents moving into the workforce. Next, they took on more debt.
The economy is floundering because most Americans can't afford to spend money. Purchasing power has declined, demand has declined.

This is one of several articles this week defending low tax rates for the wealthy. I find this interesting of an LDS church-owned newspaper.

Sorry author Jay Evensen, but you lost me with your outrageously slanted very first sentence. Warren Buffett pays a lower tax RATE than his secretary, and his secretary is hardly "impoverished".