Originally Posted by Byronw

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.

Who is John Galt ?

Originally Posted by Joe S.

So rich people should get to keep their money but its okay to tax the living snot out of the middle class because they should pay the highest percentage of taxes?
Being a middle class guy who makes in the mid $150k bracket I think theres something slightly perverse about that. As much of a shock as it may come to some my wife and I work for our money to.
And for that matter the really wealthy already take their ball and go home in terms of hiding their wealth and offshore accounts. Hard for me to feel too sorry for them.

Originally Posted by MikeB

Please be more specific as to where they might go. The socialist paradises of Europe? Free-wheeling but communist China? Elbowing for economic space with Russian oligarchs? Maybe some sub-Saharan African country run by a bloodthirsty dictator?

Or maybe they will just decide that 65% of a fortune is inadequate and they will give up executive striving in favor of a strawberry farm in Oregon.

Your argument is ludicrous. And your tortured parable too sophomoric even for Reader's Digest.

Originally Posted by MikeB

Please be more specific as to where they might go. The socialist paradises of Europe? Free-wheeling but communist China? Elbowing for economic space with Russian oligarchs? Maybe some sub-Saharan African country run by a bloodthirsty dictator?

Or maybe they will just decide that 65% of a fortune is inadequate and they will give up executive striving in favor of a strawberry farm in Oregon.

Your argument is ludicrous. And your tortured parable too sophomoric even for Reader's Digest.

Originally Posted by Midnullarbor

.
Came across a little parable about overall business morality/philosophy
~ but as anything Christian [ or Palestinian? ] is non-PC on this thread
. . . then let's just call it an Arabian Analogy :-

Originally Posted by Dirt_Dad

...
Teaching a man to fish so he may be self-reliant is moral. A self-reliant man figures out a way to make himself more valuable to others to attract more success to himself. That is good for everyone.

Telling a man the river is unfair in it's distribution of fish, and that you don't think he should have to work so hard to get his own fish. After all, those successful fishermen got up before the sun to unfairly take those better fishing spots. So you benevolently take from the productive fishermen (because they already have more than they need) to redistribute to your constituency.

Creating a dependent that survives because of "your good intentions" is flat out immoral. Of course on the other hand, you now have a guaranteed vote, don't you. Which is good for you. Plus a whole lot of people think you're nice and that you care about the less fortunate. Anyone that sees what you are doing and speaks up can be called mean and heartless. What a wonderful way to amass power for yourself.

Originally Posted by hunt1moore

Typical union mentality.
At 150K I'm not sure you even qualify for "upper" middle class. If you do then you will fit in the top 3% of upper middle class.

Originally Posted by Joe S.

I'm not quite sure what your point is but I'm sure its meant to be snarky so go piss up a rope.
It takes my wife and I both plus some rental income to make that. I don't feel I have to apologize to anyone and we probably pay a higher percentage of tax than many who make far more.
Why don't you try explaining exactly how that makes a whole lot of sense?