Support NeoGAF

[surrogate]

considering i said "eligible taxpayers", i'd say it's pretty clear that i don't mean "every man, woman and child".

Exactly, so it would be much higher than $10k, probably over $20k. So are you going to give the government $20k next year or not? Also, better raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour because at it's current level everyone earning minimum will owe $5500 more than they make while taking home $0.

 

[Timedog]

It's interesting how high productivity growth was when the richest were taxed 91%. But of course theouterworldvoice is an idiot for calling the middle class the engine of the economy, and if the rich will simply stop "innovating" if they don't get enough billions, iignoring the fact that the super rich don't innovate anything 95+% of the time, it's the guys making 200k in lab coats doing any real innovating.

 

[giga]

Exactly, so it would be much higher than $10k, probably over $20k. So are you going to give the government $20k next year or not? Also, better raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour because at it's current level everyone earning minimum will owe $5500 more than they make while taking home $0.

And raising the min. wage will probably shoot the unemployment rate even higher. Win-win Faceless Master!

 

[Pseudo_Sam]

It's interesting how high productivity growth was when the richest were taxed 91%.

Interesting in what way?

 

[The Faceless Master]

Exactly, so it would be much higher than $10k, probably over $20k. So are you going to give the government $20k next year or not? Also, better raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour because at it's current level everyone earning minimum will owe $5500 more than they make while taking home $0.

why would people work at a job that puts them at a net loss?

And raising the min. wage will probably shoot the unemployment rate even higher. Win-win Faceless Master!

well, with no income, you won't have to pay income tax, right?

 

[Vast Inspiration]

I'd really like to hear your argument. The top 5% in the US is around 15 million people, and I'm having difficulty imagining that many people are gaming the system to extreme wealth. Outside of monopolies, economic exchange is "fair" in my book.

As to the bolded, that just makes you sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist.

Considering the economic crisis we're in, the people that were the most heavily affected by it, and the government regulation (or the lack thereof due to heavy lobbying and shady practices), "economic exchange" would NOT be fair in most peoples' books. At least not the way the REAL WORLD does economic exchange.

Again, this all goes back to what you bolded and what I stated already. What is "fair" is endlessly debatable and largely moot. I simply laugh when people use that argument (as you have).

 

[Timedog]

Interesting in what way?

I kind of went on a tangent, this thread it seems is more about if the tax system is just, but that fact I stated is counter to the argument the taxing the rich more stunts growth and innovation, which I think is the opposite of the truth.

 

[surrogate]

why would people work at a job that puts them at a net loss?


well, with no income, you won't have to pay income tax, right?

So now under your system, there will be even less taxpayers, thereby increasing the "fair share" for the remaining taxpayers which lead to even more people with no reason to work. Very well though out plan you got there.

 

[Pseudo_Sam]

I kind of went on a tangent, this thread it seems is more about if the tax system is just, but that fact I stated is counter to the argument the taxing the rich more stunts growth and innovation, which I think is the opposite of the truth.

Fair enough.

It's been a fun thread, but the lack of any outstanding challenges to my sanity tells me it's time for bed.

 

[Yaweee]

Considering the economic crisis we're in, the people that were the most heavily affected by it, and the government regulation (or the lack thereof due to heavy lobbying and shady practices), "economic exchange" would NOT be fair in most peoples' books. At least not the way the REAL WORLD does economic exchange.

Again, this all goes back to what you bolded and what I stated already. What is "fair" is endlessly debatable and largely moot. I simply laugh when people use that argument (as you have).

Fine. I hate the word "fair" too, and I regret using it. Still, I'm having difficulty seeing what the top 5% are doing that is so fundamentally horrible and abusive. Theres a lot of researchers, patent holders, doctors, dentists, and small business owners that clear the 170k necessary to be in the top 5%.

I can understand the anger at the financial crisis, but like I said, I think its beneficiaries are limited to a fraction of a percent, not this millions strong section that you claim it is.

 

[xnipx]

why should i pay twice as much as someone who makes 26k? do i use the roads twice as much? call the cops twice as much? it should be a flat value, not a flat %, a flat % is ridiculous and unfair to hard workers!

why is anybody taking him serious after this post? it's clear he's trolling those people who cry about the progressive tax system being unfair while at the same time touting a flat % tax which is inherently unfair to the wealthy. he's defending the progressive tax system.....

 

[Timedog]

why would people work at a job that puts them at a net loss?


well, with no income, you won't have to pay income tax, right?

So unemployment will be super high, we won't be able to pay our state workers or our debt, government programs will be shut down leading to even higher unemployment, due to an unsustainable model USA will cease to exist in less than 10 years.

 

[unomas]

They rape my check every two weeks for obscene numbers of dollars yet our country is in debt beyond belief, and I'm still anti handout. Nobody said welfare mom's were living it up, but they shouldn't be allowed to live on my dime. Go get a job for starters.

Fuck it, I'm gonna strive to have a bunch of kids, get some government housing and foodstamps and call it a day! I won't be living it up, but I'll be living on your dime.

 

[fortified_concept]

What makes you think the rich have any "responsibility" to the middle and lower classes? Fucking bullshit.

Because the money they make come from the exploitation of the labor of the lower and middle classes.

That's exactly what's wrong with America. We live in an age where the government legislates morality, and some people still have the balls to call this a free country.

Yeah fuck morality and let the country run under the economic anarchism the libertarians want. Let USA become Chile so that the libertarians can finally have the dogma they worship like a God become a reality.

I mean c'mon, morality? WTF does it have to do with the human species? Btw can I fuck a goat on the streets too or are you a proponent of ecomonic immorality only?

 

[SapientWolf]

It's interesting how high productivity growth was when the richest were taxed 91%. But of course theouterworldvoice is an idiot for calling the middle class the engine of the economy, and if the rich will simply stop "innovating" if they don't get enough billions, iignoring the fact that the super rich don't innovate anything 95+% of the time, it's the guys making 200k in lab coats doing any real innovating.

200k sounds way too high for research. Skilled researchers are lucky to get half that.

The tax system seems to be setup to reward those who invest heavily in America's businesses and infrastructure, which is something that the very wealthy tend to do anyway. I feel like they need to come down hardest on those in the top tax bracket funneling money to foreign countries.

 

[XiaNaphryz]

200k sounds way too high for research. Skilled researchers are lucky to get half that.

Yeah, I believe the average scientific or medical researcher with 5 years experience gets around 80-90k.

 

[Yaweee]

200k sounds way too high for research. Skilled researchers are lucky to get half that.

The tax system seems to be setup to reward those who invest heavily in America's businesses and infrastructure, which is something that the very wealthy tend to do anyway. I feel like they need to come down hardest on those in the top tax bracket funneling money to foreign countries.

Well, the figure of around 200k for the top 5% is for households, not individuals, so half that sounds about right.

Still, there's a huge range for research based on field, education, experience, and sector. For a PhD in physics going into medical, the average salary after ten years is around 120k, I think. A good patent or start-up company can make you multi-millionaire. Grant money on top of teaching salaries, or textbook writing, can lead to some very wealthy scientists/researchers.

It's really amazing how libertarians have the delusion that the rich are the ones that bring innovation and progress and not the ones that actually work for it.

Isn't there a correlation? People that innovate in meaningful ways tend to get rich.

 

[fortified_concept]

It's really amazing how libertarians have the delusion that the rich are the ones that bring innovation and progress and not the ones that actually work for it.

 

[The Faceless Master]

why is anybody taking him serious after this post? it's clear he's trolling those people who cry about the progressive tax system being unfair while at the same time touting a flat % tax which is inherently unfair to the wealthy. he's defending the progressive tax system.....

just had to out me, huh?

a flat % won't work.

some people insist it's fair, but it's not, fair would be a flat $ amount, which is just a more broken version of a flat %.

 

[Timedog]

One simple fact that people fail to realize is that in order for there to be ultra wealthy people it is a REQUIREMENT for there to be ultra poor people. This is becuase a functional middle class is also a requirement, and there are simply not enough resources to spread around. Contrary to popular belief in some circles, no, not EVERYONE can become super rich. If the super rich actually need the poor, then what is the problem with increasing their standard of living a little?

 

[BloodySinner]

One simple fact that people fail to realize is that in order for there to be ultra wealthy people it is a REQUIREMENT for there to be ultra poor people. This is becuase a functional middle class is also a requirement, and there are simply not enough resources to spread around. Contrary to popular belief in some circles, no, not EVERYONE can become super rich. If the super rich actually need the poor, then what is the problem with increasing their standard of living a little?

Took a while for someone to come up with such a comment.

 

[Pseudo_Sam]

Because the money they make come from the exploitation of the labor of the lower and middle classes.



Yeah fuck morality and let the country run under the economic anarchism the libertarians want. Let USA become Chile so that the libertarians can finally have the dogma they worship like a God become a reality.

I mean c'mon, morality? WTF does it have to do with the human species? Btw can I fuck a goat on the streets too or are you a proponent of ecomonic immorality only?

Sorry, I lied about going to bed. I had the sneaking suspicion someone like you would be a little lttp so I stayed put.

Let's break this one down:

Because the money they make come from the exploitation of the labor of the lower and middle classes.

Broad, generalized, offensive statements are "in", I see. Did you know everyone who disagrees with me is a socialist pansy dickwad?

Yeah fuck morality

Think about this for a moment. Having no morality - that is, feeling nothing about anything - is impossible. Thus I am forced to conclude that when you say "fuck morality", you are actually saying "fuck government-legislated morality" in a sort of mocking, derogatory way that would suggest government-legislated morality is somehow superior to individual morality.

If you are seriously suggesting that a system in which we, the people of the United States, are free to set our own standards of morals, and follow them to whatever means (barring the intrusion of another's personal liberty); that such a system is inferior to the broad intrusion of personal freedom we currently endure; if this is your suggestion, in all seriousness, I have lost all respect for you. You are suggesting that the elimination of a centralized, country-wide code of ethics would somehow devolve this country into an economically ruined, goat-fucking cesspool of corruption and greed. Seriously, man, do you really think we're that primitive of a people?

Btw can I fuck a goat on the streets

It's always bestiality you guys turn to when giving examples of a Libertarian society. Just interesting to note, that's all.

or are you a proponent of ecomonic immorality only?

There you go again, equating a lack of government-legislated morality with a lack of morality altogether. Did you know that - gasp! - most people have a sense of right and wrong? Crazy, I know! Private charities exist as a direct result of the inherent goodness in people. Just because Uncle Sam isn't forcefully taking my money and siphoning it off to the populace doesn't mean I can't have morals. Let's be reasonable here, people.


EDIT: One more

It's really amazing how libertarians have the delusion that the rich are the ones that bring innovation and progress and not the ones that actually work for it.

No real rebuttal needed. You are suggesting the rich don't work, support innovation, or bring progress. Sweeping generalizations are your forte, I see.

 

[fortified_concept]

Broad, generalized, offensive statements are "in", I see. Did you know everyone who disagrees with me is a socialist pansy dickwad?

No generalizations here. It's a fact that the rich haven't worked for that money. They make money exploiting the labor of the middle and lower classes. Even if you have a shop with two other employees and you work as much as they do but earn more that's exploitation too. Of course there are different levels of exploitation, some acceptable like the one I mentioned and some not like the one where rich assholes make billions exploiting a society that has people who can't even afford health care.

Think about this for a moment. Having no morality - that is, feeling nothing about anything - is impossible. Thus I am forced to conclude that when you say "fuck morality", you are actually saying "fuck government-legislated morality" in a sort of mocking, derogatory way that would suggest government-legislated morality is somehow superior to individual morality.

If you are seriously suggesting that a system in which we, the people of the United States, are free to set our own standards of morals, and follow them to whatever means (barring the intrusion of another's personal liberty); that such a system is inferior to the broad intrusion of personal freedom we currently endure; if this is your suggestion, in all seriousness, I have lost all respect for you. You are suggesting that the elimination of a centralized, country-wide code of ethics would somehow devolve this country into an economically ruined, goat-fucking cesspool of corruption and greed. Seriously, man, do you really think we're that primitive of a people?

What the hell are you talking about? You think there aren't people who want to fuck a goat or dipshits so blinded by greed that they create a pyramid scheme exploiting the deregulation of the Clinton and Bush governments? Hasn't the economic collapse taught you people anything?

You people have this belief in economic anarchism while defending social morality because you argue that economic anarchism doesn't hurt someone. But it does. The rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer and the middle class is being decimated in every fucking country Friedman's fucked up ideology was imposed. Chile, Argentina, USA especially during the Bush years etc.

Just like social morality is being set into laws to stop rapists just like that economic morality should be set into laws to stop greedy dipshits.

It's always bestiality you guys turn to when giving examples of a Libertarian society. Just interesting to note, that's all.

It's because the comparison is so perfect.

There you go again, equating a lack of government-legislated morality with a lack of morality altogether. Did you know that - gasp! - most people have a sense of right and wrong? Crazy, I know! Private charities exist as a direct result of the inherent goodness in people. Just because Uncle Sam isn't forcefully taking my money and siphoning it off to the populace doesn't mean I can't have morals. Let's be reasonable here, people.

I know that -gasp- most people have the sense of right and wrong. That's why why should make legal rape and murder and let the society sort it self out. It'll become self sustained!

 

[SapientWolf]

If you are seriously suggesting that a system in which we, the people of the United States, are free to set our own standards of morals, and follow them to whatever means (barring the intrusion of another's personal liberty); that such a system is inferior to the broad intrusion of personal freedom we currently endure; if this is your suggestion, in all seriousness, I have lost all respect for you. You are suggesting that the elimination of a centralized, country-wide code of ethics would somehow devolve this country into an economically ruined, goat-fucking cesspool of corruption and greed. Seriously, man, do you really think we're that primitive of a people?



It's always bestiality you guys turn to when giving examples of a Libertarian society. Just interesting to note, that's all.



There you go again, equating a lack of government-legislated morality with a lack of morality altogether. Did you know that - gasp! - most people have a sense of right and wrong? Crazy, I know! Private charities exist as a direct result of the inherent goodness in people. Just because Uncle Sam isn't forcefully taking my money and siphoning it off to the populace doesn't mean I can't have morals. Let's be reasonable here, people.

If there was no law enforcement pretty much everything with a hole would be fucked. We're essentially paying the government money to protect us from ourselves.

 

[fortified_concept]

If there was no law enforcement pretty much everything with a hole would be fucked. We're essentially paying the government money to protect us from ourselves.

NO! People have the sense for right and wrong. Yay for pure anarcism! (fun fact: Not even anarchists have this insane view of anarchism. They believe in local communities that still have some rules and regulations)

 

[GavinGT]

John Galt will buy us all houses.

Who is John Galt?

 

[Slavik81]

yes, and its fact that the top 1% pay 50% of the income tax burden of the country.

There are two justifications for this:
1. They pay 50% of the income tax burden because they make a very significant percentage of the total income earned.
2. The damage done to the standard of living of a person who earns that much money is minimal. That is, earning only 1 billion dollars instead of 2 will not significantly change their ability to live their life how they want to.

One simple fact that people fail to realize is that in order for there to be ultra wealthy people it is a REQUIREMENT for there to be ultra poor people.

No, that's not a requirement. This is not a zero-sum game. If Jack builds an army of servant robots that carry him to the middle of nowhere, then construct him a castle and farm him some food, this doesn't mean that people on the other side of the world get poorer.

The only way that's a requirement is if you define "ultra poor" as relative to the rich. At which point 'ultra poor' doesn't mean anything, because you can make people 'poorer' without making them any worse off.

 

[zoku88]

NO! People have the sense for right and wrong. Yay for pure anarcism! (fun fact: Not even anarchists have this insane view of anarchism. They believe in local communities that still have some rules and regulations)

Sure didn't work for the Romans when they didn't have police...


Just because people have a sense for right and wrong doesn't mean that all of them will act in accordance to those beliefs. Reason it out: the same reason you think capitalism is borked is the very same reason as this idea is flawed. Humans are naturally flawed creatures who often times act in their own self-interest, at the expense of others.

 

[Asmodai]

20 grand for 7 ppl is actually pretty bad.

And this number seems to high. 24% don't pay taxes of any kind? That's like, an unhealthy amount of poorness.

And it seems odd that ppl making 75K-100K can ever get into a situation to never pay income tax. That only makes it kind of suspect.

Is any amount of poverty healthy? Just joking with you, I know what you mean.

There are definitely serious problems with the US economy. I'm sure Obama will do his best to fix it, but to be honest, I don't think anyone really could. In the long term it's just not going to work, the best he could do is buy time.

 

[legend166]

I really don't get it.

It seems like a pretty simple equation to me.

The folks who make the most money also tend to, indirectly, use the most resources. As such, they should pay more taxes.

I don't think that's true. Rich people are less likely to use public services. They don't catch public transport, they send their children to private schools and colleges, have private healthcare, etc.

 

[zoku88]

I don't think that's true. Rich people are less likely to use public services. They don't catch public transport, they send their children to private schools and colleges, have private healthcare, etc.

But he's saying like... their employees would have been educated in public schools, for example.

W/o public schools, they could be starved of much of their workforce.

And a lot of private colleges still receive some amount of federal funding, btw. Like, almost all of them.

 

[Agent Ghost]

yes, and its fact that the top 1% pay 50% of the income tax burden of the country.

Well I'm sure Bill gates would love to switch places with the person collecting welfare.

 

[SapientWolf]

I don't think that's true. Rich people are less likely to use public services. They don't catch public transport, they send their children to private schools and colleges, have private healthcare, etc.

The wealthy have more to lose from changes in government policy and the economy. So they have more of a vested interest in the government. Which is why they donate generously to campaigns. Everyday is a recession for the poor.

 

[Terrascape]

There are two justifications for this:
1. They pay 50% of the income tax burden because they make a very significant percentage of the total income earned.
2. The damage done to the standard of living of a person who earns that much money is minimal. That is, earning only 1 billion dollars instead of 2 will not significantly change their ability to live their life how they want to.


No, that's not a requirement. This is not a zero-sum game. If Jack builds an army of servant robots that carry him to the middle of nowhere, then construct him a castle and farm him some food, this doesn't mean that people on the other side of the world get poorer.

The only way that's a requirement is if you define "ultra poor" as relative to the rich. At which point 'ultra poor' doesn't mean anything, because you can make people 'poorer' without making them any worse off.

Ummm, not that I really want to get involved in this clusterfuck of a thread. But isn't it the first thing you learn in economics that you need poor people to have rich people?

 

[Timedog]

There are two justifications for this:
1. They pay 50% of the income tax burden because they make a very significant percentage of the total income earned.
2. The damage done to the standard of living of a person who earns that much money is minimal. That is, earning only 1 billion dollars instead of 2 will not significantly change their ability to live their life how they want to.


No, that's not a requirement. This is not a zero-sum game. If Jack builds an army of servant robots that carry him to the middle of nowhere, then construct him a castle and farm him some food, this doesn't mean that people on the other side of the world get poorer.

The only way that's a requirement is if you define "ultra poor" as relative to the rich. At which point 'ultra poor' doesn't mean anything, because you can make people 'poorer' without making them any worse off.

Obviously what is considered "poor" is relative and changes with technology over time. I don't understand your point. To build a robot army jack will need to use up a considable amount of finite resources, taking those resources away from others.

Your analogy doesn't make any sense when dealing with the complexity and interconnectedness of the real world.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Not really surprising. When I was working through college I knew plenty of people that worked jobs under the table, or jobs for tips that they never claimed. So, while they would make 15k-20k a year they were only claiming about 20% of that.

Plus, you have others that are nannies or work in construction that get paid cash upfront and never claim. This money is often paid out by the "other" 50% that are wishing to avoid taxes, also. The underground economy is huge in America.

 

[Yaweee]

Ummm, not that I really want to get involved in this clusterfuck of a thread. But isn't it the first thing you learn in economics that you need poor people to have rich people?

You're kind of implying that economics is a zero-sum game, but the first thing you learn in (macro) economics is actually the opposite. Specialization and economic exchange can leave both parties better off.

 

[CharlieDigital]

It's interesting how high productivity growth was when the richest were taxed 91%. But of course theouterworldvoice is an idiot for calling the middle class the engine of the economy, and if the rich will simply stop "innovating" if they don't get enough billions, iignoring the fact that the super rich don't innovate anything 95+% of the time, it's the guys making 200k in lab coats doing any real innovating.

Guys in lab coats don't make 200k.

 

[Pseudo_Sam]

It's a fact that the rich haven't worked for that money.

No. You are absloutely ridiculous.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

The class warfare in this thread is huge, both against the top income earners and the poor. Both are villified on anecdotal evidence and made one-dimensional. Pretty sickening in both directions.

How about we approach this as policy? That is, what is practical and works, as opposed to wanting to punish some phantom class based on the (perceived) actions of a few?

 

[Evolved1]

Guys in lab coats don't make 200k.

A PhD Organic Chemist working for big pharma can make 200k... but they don't generally last very long. High turnover/burnout.

This is according to my PhD Organic Chemistry professor who used to work for big pharma... :lol

The class warfare in this thread is huge, both against the top income earners and the poor. Both are villified on anecdotal evidence and made one-dimensional. Pretty sickening in both directions.

How about we approach this as policy? That is, what is practical and works, as opposed to wanting to punish some phantom class based on the (perceived) actions of a few?

Class war is real... just look at the disparity of wealth. You cannot ignore it, and good "practical" policy should directly address it.

However, I'm in complete agreement that characterizing all rich people as greedy and immoral, or all the poor as lazy and jealous does nothing positive.

 

[Zaptruder]

The class warfare in this thread is huge, both against the top income earners and the poor. Both are villified on anecdotal evidence and made one-dimensional. Pretty sickening in both directions.

How about we approach this as policy? That is, what is practical and works, as opposed to wanting to punish some phantom class based on the (perceived) actions of a few?

How about we move the discourse beyond attacking the idea of a progressive tax system first? It's like discussing whether or not UHC works. There's nothing to discuss! It works! Proven by all the other developed nations in the world.

If we can move past that premise, then there's an interesting discussion to be had about how to best optimize and balance taxation and human behaviour.

That is to say, what can be done to incentivize people to pay their taxes, and at what point does there become a diminishing return in taxes, in taxation rate?

And how should taxes be best use to generate more wealth? Actually, the scope of that is a bit too huge, but nonetheless more interesting than arguing with libertarians over the merit of a proven system.

 

[Gallbaro]

No, that's not a requirement. This is not a zero-sum game. If Jack builds an army of servant robots that carry him to the middle of nowhere, then construct him a castle and farm him some food, this doesn't mean that people on the other side of the world get poorer.

Wealth is a zero sum game, the principles of inflation make ensure that wealth is a comparative value. Of course there is always the wealth of nations truth, that economic activity does universally improve quality of life, but that does not neglect the fact that for there to be rich people, there needs to be poor people.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Don't forget FICA! Burden increases more on the middle class!

 

[CharlieDigital]

A PhD Organic Chemist working for big pharma can make 200k... but they don't generally last very long. High turnover/burnout.

I assert again: just because a small handful can make $200k, it doesn't mean that most research scientists can get anywhere near that. Just because Brin and Page are billionaires doesn't mean that most computer science PhDs are billionaires (or even millionaires for that matter).

http://www.indeed.com/salary/Research-Scientist.html

http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swzl_compresult_national_EN04100175.html

http://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/Research-Scientist-Salary-SRCH_KO0,18.htm

I also contend that many of the biggest discoveries are products of public and private universities with funding from federal grants for the research.

 

[Evolved1]

I assert again: just because a small handful can make $200k, it doesn't mean that most research scientists can get anywhere near that. Just because Brin and Page are billionaires doesn't mean that most computer science PhDs are billionaires (or even millionaires for that matter).
(links removed)
I also contend that many of the biggest discoveries are products of public and private universities with funding from federal grants for the research.

I wouldn't disagree with any or that.

I was just sayin...

 

[fortified_concept]

No. You are absloutely ridiculous.

Wow great rebuttal. I made my argument the best I could to explain my position and all you had to say is that I'm "absloutely ridiculous". You should have become a politician or a scholar.

Btw I noticed that you had great rebuttals to my comparison between economic and social anarchism too!

 

[pedrothelion]

Don't forget FICA! Burden increases more on the middle class!

This. FICA tax sucks especially if you’re an independent contractor as you essentially have to pay it twice (you pay your portion and the portion your employer would have paid).

 

[LM4sure]

It means 24 percent are too poor to make a meaningful contribution

One poor person's contribution may not be meaningful, but if you take a small percentage from each of those 30 million poor people, it would make a difference. But lets not do that. Lets just make all the rich people front the bill. That's fair! (sarcasm)

And good luck to Obama in his promise not to raise taxes for the middle class. I don't know how long he'll be able to keep that promise. Bush Sr all over again?

 

[Spider from Mars]

Abolish the federal income tax and establish a national sales tax!!!!