For me, the difference in the examples is the lack of government involvement in the renovation of the rich person's house.

I answered this in the other thread, but essentially, the rich person has $1 million less in cash when he/she has finished the renovation. Where did the money go? To craftsmen/women, carpenters, contractors, architects, retailers, service providers, landscapers. Such a renovation would involve significant expenditures on durable goods. In addition, the permits, taxes and other costs would help fund local government.

The people/entities receiving the $1 million would then spend it in their neighborhoods, on their children. If their wages enable them to live decently, they might own a house on which they pay real estate taxes.

The rich person has something that you might envy or disparage, but in getting it, the rich person has released cash assets into the community and the people who live and work there. The rich aren't "do it yourselfers".

This rich person also does this after helping pay over 50% of the income tax bill in the country.

It's not noble or self-sacrificing and I've never promoted that idea. But it's not evil and unproductive either.

Then there is the source of the rich person's riches. Does he/she run a successful business that provides jobs in its own right? Not always, but in this country I would bet that 80% of rich people are represented by this scenario.

And by the way, a house renovation is a capital expenditure. You act as if the rich person spending $1 million stimulates his sector of the economy, i.e. the "wrong" sector of the economy. Are the contractors, craftsmen, landscapers, architects, local tax authority, retailers and swimming pool services the wrong sector?

Then there are local sales taxes and income taxes paid by the individuals, social security withholding and medicare, all out of that $1 million less that the rich person now has.

There is one more telling thing in your post, Anna Molly. I'm sure it's just awkward phrasing, but maybe it's a freudian slip, but you seem to equate the rich with a government resource.

You may have inadvertently nailed the essential point of disagreement here.

Ok, one more thing, Anna Molly.

Dontcha think it's just a bit silly to stake yourself to the idea that only one rich person would engage in such "excess"? A one time only project? I'm guessing that in the course of a year more than 500 rich people spend $1 million. My guess is also that a good number of them even buy refrigerators. And ranges. And toilets. And furniture . . .

Sheesh!

I'm pretty good at inadvertently nailing things, Richard. So I suggest you don't put your hand in my path when I'm wielding a hammer. But I think you misunderstood. I wasn't equating the rich person with a government resource. My point was that giving tax breaks to the wealthy so they can live in excess, with the hope that some small piece of that will trickle down, is not a proper use of government resources. Whereas, giving tax breaks to folks who really need them, which will directly stimulate the economy, IS an appropriate use of government resources. If you read something else into that, I apologize for my clumsiness in phrasing. In short, Richard, the rich don't need governmental help; but the poor do.

By the way, the REALLY wealthy control far more than 50 percent of the money in this country. Thus, it is no great sacrifice for them to pay at least 50 percent of the tax burden. As a matter of fact, at that level, they may still not be carrying their own load. After all, the wealthy also USE more resources than the poor, if you think in terms of roads and parks and schools and other things that the government provides out of those tax dollars. Why shouldn't the wealthy pay in proportion to their use?

Oh, my, aren't we testy this afternoon? Of course, if you gave more rich people more money, they might spend more, but they probably wouldn't spend it all in ways that would create jobs. Okay. If you give 5 people a million dollars each for home renovation, how many stoves, refrigerators, and dishwashers do they buy? If you give that same money to a thousand lower income folks, with the specification that they purchase energy efficient appliances, how many of each would you sell? How much capital investment would one create, as opposed to the other?

By the way, you have no idea how I "act." You should be so lucky. ;)

You keep moving the target. I'll try to keep up.

I maintain that the wealthy DO pay in proportion to their own use. We all agree, don't we that a relatively small number of them, around 1%, pay 50% or more of the tax burden? I've never seen a statistic that would bear out that the 1% use more resources than the other 99%. Seriously, you're saying, under the 1% scenario, that 3 million individuals use more resources than the other 299 million?

Do you really think the wealthy use the parks disproportionately to the middle and working class? The really wealthy don't even use the public airways. They buy their own private jets. Or yachts. How many New Zealand yacht builders are employed because of John Kerry, er, Teresa Kerry?

The only way you can say that the wealthy use more resources is from the perspective that their wealth allows them to EMPLOY more resources. I now refer you back to the earlier parts of the discussion.

But, I have probably not convinced you that maybe the wealthy, especially in this country, are actually overwhelmingly benevolent. Since that is not the case, perhaps you could put a number on an amount or percentage of a person's wealth you would want to make everything proportionate?

And you know what else? We're not talking whether the number is a sacrifice or not. We're talking about fairness after all. Because in your world, if a wealthy person has $500,000 out of $50,000,000 to live on that would be no sacrifice.

So, what's fair?

Where have I said I would give rich people more money?

And we haven't even gotten into philanthropy yet.

You can't "give rich people more money", taxwise, until they pay zero taxes and receive an earned income tax credit.

And, you're not Feisty. You're Anna Molly. If you were Feisty, I'd be testy.

I'm enjoying the discussion.

Richard, the highest income tax bracket before Bush cut it was 39.5%, not 50%. The tax you're referring to is the so-called death tax which would revert to 49% and is only paid when dead and only if the dead person didn't do a lot of legal maneuvers to avoid it.

And maybe Tom Delay can join them.

They'll be right next to Bernie Madoff, JoAnna, no doubt a really good republican. Prisons don't recognize ideological walls.

Appears Bernie has more Democrat in him then Republican. According to his wiki article, Bernie and his wife gave over $230,000 to political causes since 1991, with the bulk (88%) going to the Democratic Party and 12% to the Republican Party.

Well, I'm sure I can find a few republican cellmates if I just look hard enough. I like Tom Delay. But it's not like republicans never commit any crimes. I suppose one could argue that only only goes to show how democrats are persecuted by the system. ;)

Tom DeLay compared to Bernie Madoff. Convenient but quite a reach there Anna Molly. Actually, I don't think you can't find a Republican that compares to Bernie Madoff in damage done and money stolen.

George Bush as part of your answer is already assumed.

JoAnna- They're 'do' rags, doorknob.

Which "wiki" article would that be, agent Smith?

Sounded like doomed words for a doomed man, to me.

It's my one gripe about the trial by jury system: how susceptible it is to manipulation by people who, in most cases, can speak for possibly hours on end and end up saying nothing of substance.

Otherwise, it's a great system.