Why has not one Fortune 400 CEO yet been able to claim the $1 million prize that Warren Buffett offered 4 years ago for proving that his/her tax rate was lower than their receptionist's? As tax rates have gone down, real wages for 99% of us have fallen, unemployment has risen and the economy has tanked. Yet CEO pay is at its highest level relative to the median wage in US history. See anything wrong with this picture?

Trickle-down economics doesn't work. Never has, never will. Too many greedy SOB's in that top 1%.

Agreed. Good and accurate comment. Thanks.

So let me get this right...

The top 1% pay 40% of all federal income tax and the bottom 50% pay 0% of all federal income tax....and that is unfair? I agree...that is unfair. Let's start taxing the bottom 50% too.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

I've been at the bottom too. I'm not rich by any means, but I worked for every penny I have and I expect the government to keep their godd@man hands off it. I earned it, not the government, and certainly not you people. Do I think we need some social services and national defense? Certainly. Do I care that other people are filthy rich compared to me? Absolutely not. Why should any of us care what others have? How childish is that?

I'd be willing to bet NONE of you people know what its like to have 1 can of beans to live on for 3 days or what a ketchup sandwich tastes like. I do. I also recognize the value of having to work for what you own and I was taught that you should be able to keep what you EARN. I was also taught not to be jealous of others. Was I really the only one that learned these lessons?

Jess, good post. I agree that it's curious that some people are so willing to attack people who have done so much for this country in terms of bearing quite benevolently the burdens of literally millions of Americans and being basically responsible for any accomplishments of philanthropy, the evidence of which surrounds us wherever we go.

Life is good. I'm not rich. I have well to do friends that give me nothing but friendship. I also benefit partially off their willingness to pay a much higher percentage of their income and to give a much higher percentage to charity in support of those who don't have as much. Some of them pay more in taxes than my gross income for a year. They don't complain much and in fact just try to earn a little more for what they want. When that happens, we all benefit from it in turn.

I'm not ashamed of our country and its treatment of its citizens. I am not ashamed of our rich citizens. I don't feel guilty when I have more than someone else so why should I feel animosity toward someone who has more than me?

The good side of the wealthy must be given its due. The demonization of them here is uncalled for.

I wish my post was insightful as yours, Richard. I still have a lot to learn in life, but I know truth when I see it. Thank you for your post.

What is deceptive about the trickle down is no one asks "what if the rich and super rich do not pay their taxes but do offshore bank accounts for tax evasion?" Remember the UBS Swiss bank scandal with just under five thousand American rich and super rich using them as an offshore bank for tax evasion? And that is just one bank.

Demonization? That is similar to being called a commie for bringing up the gargantuan disparity between rich and poor in this country. Oh my gosh! I'm advocating redistribution of wealth. But what did Bush do with is tax cuts to the rich and super rich? In the 2000-2010 period of time, the top one percent of the richest Americans took over ownership of the majority of the financial wealth in this country. The fact is, we have already had class warfare started by the rich and super rich and they won.

At the same time the tax burden was shifted to the middle class, which is still being hammered by the recession. On the other hand, you have the study of hedge hog fund managers. The top 25 hedge hog fund managers in 2009 made an average of ONE BILLION DOLLARS EACH. I saw the follow up news coverage to that NY Times article with video of the mansions of these people, many of whom are the one and the same people that caused the recession through derivatives white collar crime. The recession has never touched them despite their white collar crimes that caused it.

When I hear "trickle down" I ask for evidence of that working and all I have ever gotten is Republican bombast and dogma. On the other hand, there are articles like this one:

Trickle-Down: Four Reasons It Just Doesn't Work (with stats and graphs).

http://www.faireconomy.org/research/TrickleDown.html

All I see is the old hog snout in the profits trough attitude from the super rich. Basically, Republicans are supporting the same "the market takes care of itself" deregulation philosophy that goes way back to the 1920's, Republican Presidents Warren G. Harding, Calvin Collidge, and Herbert Hoover (president during the 1929 stock market crash that started the Great Depression). In 2010, Republicans like John Boehner advocating a 80-90 plus year old economic philosophy sound like "regressives." It didn't work back then, and it doesn't work now.

What this article fails to say is that during Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush presidencies we had the highest revenues from our tax system. Why? Because tax cuts creates revenues. Also, the main reason Clinton was so sucessful was the Republican congress and holding spending in check and yes, budget cuts. I am not a fan of Clinton, but in 1994 when the dems were voted out and his healthcare fiasco, he had no choice but to negotiate with the Republican congress. Bush's problem is that we had increased revenue, but the Republicans lost their direction, the contract with America, and spent as badly as the democrats. Does any one actually think if taxes are increased that we will see spending decrease to reduce the deficit? The dems tax and then spend. They will spend every dime that they can get their hands on and more. People had better wake up and realize before we turn in to Greece and forced to drastically reduce spending and entitlements, that it is easier now than later. Look at Social Security. The dems moved it from the trust fund to the general fund so they could use the money for anything they wanted. The dems want to use the leftover stimulus funds for other things, which may be unconstitutional. Social Security will be paying out more than it is taking in about 2016. Wake up, people.

Mountain, if you are going to try to find a foothold on this topic, perhaps you should go scratch up one single shred of evidence to support your claim that the middle class bears the tax burden in this country. According to everything I see, the top 1% pay 40% while the bottom 50% pay nothing. Try to stay away from your far left lunatic websites when researching. It is obvious they mislead you on the FACTS.

Who care what top hedge fund manages made? Quit being a child about it, whining that it isn't fair, get off your mountain, and go start your own next best thing. Go become a hedge fund manager, but whatever you do, quit whining about what others have and how it isn't fair. The constitution doesn't guarantee life is fair. It doesn't guarantee that you will succeed, and it certainly doesn't gurantee there won't be a wealth gap between classes. In short...you're a far left lunatic. The Constitution does however guarantee you the right to be that.

Jess, the top 1% pay 40% of the tax because they have 40% of the money http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html . It's that simple. In past years they would have paid a higher proportion of the total tax share, and the flattening of the tax code has allowed them to increase their wealth quite effectely. See Table 1 http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1797 . If it were actually true that the bottom 50% pay no taxes that would be entirely fair in light of the fact that they control 2% of all wealth http://www.seeingtheforest.com/archives/2010/04/concentration_o.htm . Of course they actually do pay taxes http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/debunking-47-pay-no-taxes-talking-point , regardless of what Rush, Sean, and Glenn would have you believe.

mountain mike

The Bush tax cuts benefitted everyone not just the rich and super rich. In dollars it may seem totally lopsided but in actual percentage of income it's not. When these cuts expire everyone is going to get a tax increase not just the rich and super rich as the administration would have you believe. Our tax system is grossly unfair and our growing government grossly inefficient. Additional huge social programs create additional burdens that like those already in existence consume more and are seldom cut. Right now if the cuts are renewed no one is out a dime except the greedy politicians in washington salivating at the potential increased revenue that they can over spend. I would agree to letting the cuts expire for everyone if congress would first cut spending by an amount equal to the projected increase in revenue from the increased tax rates.

It doesn't take into account the jobs the stimulus created or saved; it doesn't reflect what the jobs market would have looked like had the stimulus not passed; and it doesn't take into consideration the 3.6 million jobs that were lost in George W. Bush's last year as president

what the hell kind of made up statistic is 'jobs created or saved'? you have NO IDEA how many jobs were created or saved as it relates to the stimulus. it's some made up number. who knows if the economy would have grown without the stimulus. do you have some crystal ball into another dimension we don't know about? your liberal logic is ridiculous. jobs were lost under bush. no question. but to say that this administration saved jobs is total crap. you have no proof outside your wishful thinking.

John B...

Okay...so the top 1% pay 40% of the tax because they control 40% of the money. Makes sence. So then why does the bottom 50% pay 0% if they control 2% of the wealth? Using your own numbers, you agree we should start taxing them too, right?

If everything was "fair" and everyone is entitled to the same amount of money... Is it "fair" for me to force them to work as hard as I do....study as long as I have....and help others as much as I do? By your logic, it is. I'll go along with you as long as you agree to send them to prison for not working as hard or studying as hard as everyone else. Absurd huh? Why you ask? LIFE ISN'T FAIR!!! THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT IT IS OR EVEN SHOULD BE!!!! WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS???!!!

The simple truth of the matter is that there are people that produce and those that don't. You will find a strange correlation between the have's and the have-not's and thier work ethic. Are there exceptions to the rule? Sure. Do some people get it handed to them by their parents/grand parents? Sure. But what entitles you or anyone else to THEIR money? You're entitled b/c you were born here....because its "fair"....gimmie a break. That's a joke.

If the bottom 50% work, they pay payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes (if they have a car) - they are paying taxes - just perhaps not FEDERAL taxes. And really, if they aren't earning a living wage,...should they really be paying taxes? Is it more beneficial to keep them off food stamps, AFDC, Medicaid? Stop BLAMING the poor,...it's unseemly. What Would Jesus Do? I assure you, he'd tell you to help the least among us,...but as long as you get yours,...screw THEM!

It is obvious you didn't read anything other than what you wanted to see. Try reading my other posts. I'm not blaming the poor for being poor. I guarantee you I was poorer than anyone on this blog. I have been homeless. I have lived on ketchup packets and beans for days at a time. I know what poor is, while all y'all do is read/blog about it.

I blame them for staying poor. I worked my way off the street, shook my coke habit, went to school (that I paid for), and started my life over. I know it can be done and what it takes to do it. I can tell you from experience that 95% of the poor are poor becuse of choices THEY made. So don't even start to lecture me about blaming the poor!!!!!! You haven't the slightest clue what being poor is like!!!!! Broke maybe...but not homeless poor.

Jess,

Actually, some of us here HAVE been to that same low point that you have. I ended up homeless and living out of monthly food baskets myself, living on the street, I KNOW that side of things. I ended up there from health problems which caused me to lose my highly lucrative business where I WAS hiring others as well, so I KNOW that side too. The major problem we are facing is that the rules and laws have been made by the rich for the rich and the poor end up picking up the tab while the rich get richer. Many of today's poor happen to be there from decisions that their employers made, either to let them go or to keep their wages low. In either case, when you have kids to support you will do anything possible to feed, clothe and keep shelter over them, even if this means working at a job that pays less than what you really need. To blame the poor for being poor, as you allude to by saying that they can get out of their holes too, like you did, is missing the point entirely. The economic situation today has been engineered by the right and the Corporations to keep wages low so that people will be FORCED to work for low wages just to survive, while their CEOs take home millions or Billions EVERY YEAR!!! The wealth inequality that has been setup by the present tax structure is an abomination and severely needs to be redressed before it destroys America totally. The number of tax breaks and corporate boondoggles to get out of paying their fair share of taxes is atrocious and works to move money from the bottom to the top. I know this full well, I was able to do well with my business and pay employees yet show no profit because of the deductions I was able to take. The Right and the Corporations have been working to make most Americans into slave labor so that they hardly have to pay them yet retain their extreme pay and bonuses. THAT is why there are so many poor today, and Pres. Obama is doing everything that he can to turn the tide, yet is being opposed by the people who have the most to gain from the status quo: The Rich, the Banks, the Corporations and the Repubs who work for them. It is really just that simple.

OK, I get it. FYIGM conquers all. Why should the wealthy pay more? Because they have the most advantages of society and therefore owe more to society. Because they can best afford it and therefore are affected least negatively by it. Because it helps combat the tendency toward a feudal society in which there's no possibility to improve your lot in life because the "haves" have tied up all available properties and resources. Because we as a society have an obligation to those less fortunate.

Because progressivity in the tax system was an established principle throughout the civilized world for almost 100 years before we mainstreamed crazy and made selfishness the highest possible aspiration.

Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, Dick Schultz all started out dirt poor. Each one of them became middle class and each one of them became uber-wealthy. They don't have special access to any sociatal offerings any more than you, John. In fact, they likely use less of the things (public schools, local parks and rec, etc...) than you do but they pay for more of it. If I were that rich, I know I'd send my kids to private school and I'd probably buy everything they needed. Let's not forget that the majority of charities in the US are started by the wealthy. Then there is the old saying "I've never gotten a job from a poor person."

I know you want what you think is best for the people of this country and I can respect that. The problem is, taxing people into oblivion or redistributing wealth only makes things worse. Think of it this way, when a company is losing money and now has no way to invest in new business, what is the first thing they do? A: Cut the jobs of the middle and lower classes in order to save the majority of the company. What do you think will happen if the gov't starts spreading their hard earned money around?

Lastly, you do have the right to the persuit of happiness. You just have to be willing to put in the work and sacrifice. I've given you three examples of people who did it from the ground up...it is possible for the time being. If we keep down this road, It'll be a whole lot harder.

B Honest... You had me until you turned it into a partisan issue.

If you think that it is only the Republicans that are in bed with big business, you are sorely mistaken. Obama...your hero...the one "doing everything he can to turn it around"... Who was his biggest contributors? GE...one of the largest companies in the world. Who has had the most documented visits to the white house? Andy Stern - SEIU President of one of the largest unions in the world...so in other words...just another large company. (A company that destroys other comapnies under the guise of 'workers unite' that creates unsustainable business enviroments...what do I know...I was just a GM bond holder...but I digress.)

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but your Dem heros are just as guilty as the Republicans when it comes to pandering to big business. By making your argument a partisan one, you lose all credibility. It is now obvious that you have an agenda as opposed to an unbiased intelligent assessment of both sides.

Welcome to MountainMike's far left world of lunatics. How may I help you?

BTW...excellent post FrozenTundra!! A very insightful view...tyvm.

um no unions didnt hurt Gm

GM hurt it self way too much spending on cars americans didnt need or want

to much ceo pay

the gop has no plans to help anyone but the rich people

obama and dems get money from corps but they are usually from the wporkers which gops never get

this is a simple idea

bush and reagan claime that jobs would be plentifyl if the rich get to keep more of thier mioney

sadly reagan tripled the deficit bush doubled it

those same tax cuts have been in effect since 2001 so why do they have a net loss?

why would they suddlenly start to hire now? because they get to get the cuts

no they wouldnt hire anyways

taxs have been at the lowest point since the 50"s

Maybe you should study supply side economics as opposed to thinking that Keynesian economics actually works. If you also study history you would know that FDR used Keynesian economics in the New Deal and it only prolonged the Great Depression. Cartyer tried using Keynesian economics as well to no avail. Kennedy and Reagan both used supply side econ to grow the economy as well as Clinton with his tax cuts (even though yes there were some raises on certain things he lowered the most important of them which is Capital Gains). Also if you've been reading up on current economic events than you would know that certain schools are revising their views of the multiplier effect because in reality it's not a multiplier it's a divider (less than 1). Also try not to study economics at a liberal arts school.

While I'm not surprised at the debate between the two approaches to economics, you loose your credibility and ability to make a good argument when you need to resort to "Also try not to study economics at a liberal arts school." At that point you cease to be an adult having a discussion and become a second grader who has to demean the other person as their last point., e.g. "And besides you're ugly and stupid!". If economics were so simple and easy to do we wouldn't be in the situation we are in with so many different opinions on the way ahead. For whatever its worth, the approaches we were using from 2001 to 2009 did not work out so well.

However you libs want to slice and dice it, the numbers from the federal government show that the top 1% paid 40% of the total federal taxes in 2007 (the last year that I can find). That is greater than any other year in history (do you understand that one Mark and Luca??). The top 5% of earners paid more than 60% of federal income taxes; again, the highest number in history! Under your savior, Bill Clinton, who simply road the coattails of the dot.com boom, those numbers were about 10% less in each category (though Clinton did jack up the tax rate on all Americans in the top 25% of earners who paid over 86% of federal taxes in 2007). So, while Bush did get tax cuts passed, the actual percentage paid by those nasty "rich" people actually increased as a percentage of the total government "TAKE".

Furthermore, more than 50% of the tax-paying populace paid absolutely nothing in taxes! That includes many families making $50,000 or more! So, please, stop with the party line of the Bush Tax Cuts only helped the "wealthy"!

Oh, sorry to use facts, I know they get in the way of a good argument from you libs!

So it's fair that I pay more than my boss pays in taxes. I make an extremely modest salary less than your $50,000 argument. So please tell me how this happens???? My son makes less than $20,000 yet he pays taxes too.

So please explain to me why I pay more than my boss (who makes way over $200k)???????

Adam Blake

The Great Depression started under Hoover, a Repub, who saw the signs and ignored them. Get your facts straight. The only reason that FDR screwed up was w/ the amount that should have been spent to revive the economy. Like Obama, too many deficit hawks and not enough knowledge of the true damage done. Bush's tax cuts have done little to improve the economy. The excuses that have been made, 911, 2 wars, the Wall Street Collapse aren't enough. His adminstration was advised of Al Qaida and their desire to strike the United States, warnings ignored. W/ 911 it would have happed anyway because the Intelligence Agencies refused to work w/ one another. So if Al Gore was President, same result the towers are hit. But the wars, thats something else. Afghanistan was in response to the attacks on 911, Iraq was not. the Taliban harbored Al Qaida, Iraq didn't until we invaded. We had the chance to actually do something from the ground up in Afghanistan, take out Osama Bin Laden, instead he was used as a Boogie man to scare the population whenever the prior adminsitration malfeasance began to show. Always another tape whenever they started to look bad. Change the subject because the American peoples attention span si so short. And Wall Street, the Repubs have that as their very own cross to bear. Deregulation and tepid regulators and Greenspan is the cause. Remember the Repubs had the White House, The House and the Senate for much of the time Bush was in office. The American people like to blame those in power. Its now the Dems turn, even though all of their accomplishments will go for naught because of the chorus of NO coming from the Repubs.

Elise - either your boss is a cheat or you are simply wrong. This year with the Bush tax plan in place, you will pay 10-15% if you make less than $34K. You will pay 25% if you make between $34-82K and your boss will pay between 33-35%. Those tax brackets break down to $171K-373K is 33% and $373+ is 35%. If you and your boss are both married and file jointly with your spouse, his taxes are still 33-35%, meanwhile your taxes will be 10-15%. Either way, you don't pay more taxes than your boss. If you do, call up the IRS.

J.H.Moore....Yes the top 5% pay 60% of the federal taxes. What you fail to disclose is they own 90% of the wealth. So, in fact, they are grossly undertaxed.

The one thing all the conservatives overlook in all their "income tax" arguments is that everyone who earns a paycheck pays 7.65% in payroll taxes on every gross dollar that he earns, with no deductions or exemptions. To tale Arodoll's argument, that 25% bracket on $50K, add the 7.65% payroll taxes to it and Elise is paying taxes at 32.65%. If Elise's boss gets his income through an S-Corp and by renting the building to the business, he avoids paying payroll taxes and if some of that is capital gains/dividends, his tax rate is even lower than your stated 33% rate.

What some of you right wing 'tax experts' are forgetting is that the richest have tax lawyers who always have ways to find them loopholes or 'expenditures' to lower their taxes for them, and capital earnings taxes are DEFINITELY lower than than the taxes everyone else pays, even though this is income as well. The FACT that NOONE has been able to claim that $1M from Buffet shows that the taxes paid by the richer ARE less than his secretary and that is just plain a fact!. You folks should be ashamed at your lack of knowledge. The set tax rate is only a small part of the story, the tax breaks for so many things that only the rich are able to use are more of it!

Supply side economics has been debunked as well, that paradigm has nearly broke most of this Nation. Tax breaks for the rich have only worked to shift money from the many to the few and it is time to retire that dead idea. Maybe Keysnesian theory is not so great as well, but economics driven by supply for consumption is a dead horse.

The reason that the top 5% of the populace pays 60% of the taxes is because THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES WITH THE MONEY TO BE ABLE TO PAY TAXES, everybody else is scrambling to survive, including the so called middle class, what is left of them. When the top 5% own 60% of the moeny or more that means that those on the lower 50% do not have enough income to pay such a large %. If the rich actually stopped just trying to pad their pockets further and worked on OUR economy (rather than helping build China's, India's and all the other 3rd World economies) and started hiring at LIVING WAGES then the middle and lower income classes would have the Ability to pay more of a % in taxes. That percentage thing means a lot. Right now the top 400 families wealth wise control a full 40% of all of the money in the US this means that each of those families, on average, owns more money than over 100,000 families with two parents working. It is no wonder that the richer HAVE to pay more taxes since they have so much more and also that those 100k families pay less since they have so very much less. In fact, if those top brackets were taxed at the 1960's rates of 90% they would STILL be making much more money than those in the middle let alone at the bottom. As it is, the lower classes actually pay a greater proportion of their income on what they NEED to survive and they actually still pay taxes in FICA and their Social Security taxes and have relatively few tax breaks that they can actually use. The rich only need a tiny amount of what they earn for them to survive yet they get tons of tax breaks that they do not even deserve, yet they complain about high taxes?? Give me a break, I would LOVE to be able to pay taxes on their obscene incomes, even at 90% it would be more than 100 times more money than I would normally expect to see!

It is time for some sanity in our taxation policy. We have too many tax breaks for everything and all it does is starve our Government just like the top income brackets are starving everybody else. It is time to look outside the box with regards to our tax policies and our economic theories. Harald Ford knew 100 years ago that in order to have a populace that can buy your products that you have to pay them enough to buy them, and that is a good starting point to work from. We HAVE to redress the terrible wealth inequality between the top and bottom of our economy before we are all slaves to the rich and working only at their behest for whatever pittance they will let us have, and we are very, very close to that already and the Repubs are pushing us closer and closer with their inane tax breaks for the rich during war times etc. If their economic policy was so great then why isn't everybody in the US employed already, they had 10 years of the lowest taxes ever yet we saw a MAJOR job loss during the Bush Years.

The economic war that has been waged by the extremely wealthy against the rest of us has to be stopped, before they end up with ALL of the money. This is just a fact, and even you Repubs that call yourself middle class are at risk of being ground up and used as slave labor for the very richest, no matter how secure you think you are!

Elise,

You probably don't pay more in taxes that your boss. You might pay a higher effective tax rate. That was the issue with Warren Buffett and his receptionist.

Even though his income would have put him in the highest tax bracket, deductions of property taxes, interest, charitable gifts, losses, etc, would have dropped his effective tax rate down considerably. If his receptionist had fewer deductions, her effective tax rate could easily have been higher. Find some deductions. Contribute to your retirement plans and you can drop your effective rate too.

If we knew the actual dollars involved, this Warren Buffett/Receptionist thing wouldn't be such a great talking point.

I hear you Elise...

I am the accountant for my company and KNOW exactly WHO pays what and WHO doesn't...

So cry me a river about paying FAIR shares Candice!

They KNOW the system and 'game' it at EVERY turn!

One of the owners wives spends more on a pair of pants at Nieman Marcus than what my CAR payment is..... typical Republican't TAX CHEATS!

The study of economics is a liberal art in my book.

Al – While your example could be possible, you have omitted a great deal of detail on what this”boss” would actually pay. First of all, since he is drawing a salary, that $200K+ will still be eligible for payroll taxes. He may have enough deductions to cover that tax, but either way it is still assessed. Secondly,your example of the boss renting the building to the business is a stretch to say the least. First, if he is doing this and he is only an employee, most likely he could not afford to own a building that would be cost-effective for an S corporation to rent or lease. If a person on a $200,000 salary can afford to buy the building, wouldn’t you think the company paying him that salary would be able to purchase the building as well? But for arguments sake, let’s say your example is true. If he is renting the building to the business, he is paying property taxes on that building out of his personal income, thus giving back most if not all the amount he would be able to deduct.

Regarding dividends, last time I checked everyone who is a citizen of this country is allowed to purchase stock in S corporations so Elise could effectively purchase stock and pay a lower tax rate on her dividends the same as her boss would. He may have more income to purchase said stock but S corporation shareholders also are on the hook for both profits and losses so in effect, he may be able to purchase more dividends, but he also takes more risk.

Arodoll, my assumption was that the boss was an owner, fairly typical in a small business. Also, to avoid taking income in salary, it is quite common for an owner to hold company assets such as a building, equipment in their personal name and lease them to the corporation to avoid taking salary. As an accountant, I can assure you that this is a perfectly legal and legitimate way to reduce taxes. Also since an S-Corp is limited to the number of shareholders and is not publicly traded so it is not like going out and buying a share of stock so that option is not open to an employee. Profits that flow through to the shareholder are not subject to payroll taxes and distributions from the profits of the business are not considered dividends like C Corp distributions are.

Wiki does a pretty good job of describing an S-Corp (which is a whole different animal from a C Corp)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S_corporation

B Honest – I hate to break it to you but supply side economics, though not a full-proof system, has led this country to unparalleled economic success. A google search or a history book is all you need to discover that. Heck, your own example of Henry Ford proves supply side economics works.

Now, what tax break can a “rich” person get that any other American cannot? Everyone can donate to charities, purchase stock, invest in companies, save for retirement, purchase real estate, etc. If everyone is eligible, how do they do not “deserve” these tax breaks. So someone has a higher income than you, that makes them automatically the bad guy? What if they worked for it? Shouldn’t they deserve to be rewarded for their risk and entrepreneurship? Without the opportunity for wealth, we wouldn’t have any of the technologies we take for granted today. If someone didn’t risk every dime they had on a “start-up” business, we wouldn’t have Microsoft or Apple or Ford or Wal-Mart today. Are these people rich, yes, but they could have failed and wasted all of their money, that’s called risk. Most of us aren’t willing to jeopardize our livelihoods because of that risk.

You said “If the rich actually stopped just trying to pad their pockets further and worked on OUR economy...” well where is their incentive to invest in our economy? If they make money, they incur more and more taxes, if they lose money, guess what, they still incur more and more taxes. No motivation whatsoever. Why would they want to hire people, next year they will have to incur additional costs for healthcare or pay a penalty, along with, you guessed it, higher taxes!

You also said “We have too many tax breaks for everything and all it does is starve our Government” – Are you serious? You really think our government, the same one growing at 14% while unemployment is at 9.5%, is starving?? Hilarious!!! For once, I'm speechless.

Feisty,

My point was the difference between dollars, marginal rate and effective tax rate. If you are an accountant, you would realize that. Most accountants and CPA's I know exercise their fiduciary responsibility, code of ethics and due diligence by not allowing inappropriate write offs such as the wife's designer jeans. Of course, you didn't mention write offs...but otherwise, how would you know?

Hey, speaking of tax cheats, have you been following the Charlie Rangel, and John Kerry stories? Almost as interesting as Tim Geitner's Turbo Tax malfunction....

Actually, I've been impressed with the intelligent, well informed and well written discussions tonight.....until you showed up.

Al, if he has a good tax accountant - the building is a 'trust' asset and therefore tax exempt - he is probably reinvesting his trust income.

The issue scratched above but not thoroughly vetted is that we have evolved as a country so that existing economic theories have not played out as historically predicted. This is the result of globalization and gerrymandering some of the base data. Supply side economics is a misnomer in the current environment of a service based economy. Especially when those services are outsourced at grossly 'discounted' rates. We keep arguing old theories based on old models and no one has come up with data that mirrors the hybrid that we have become. I am not saying I have the answers; but no one seems to acknowledge that we can't continue to do the same things and expect different results. THAT should be the lesson of Bush II the Nightmare Years. PS. You cannot wage two wars and lower taxes, that was a really BAD theory that didn't play out. Where are the savings bonds now? yeah,...dumb question - dumb theory - dumb constituency. The problem is BIGGER now and needs to be reframed,...standing on either side of the debate and shouting over one another does not change the reality on the ground - - - the jobs are gone and they may not be coming back,...NOW WHAT?

Regarding breaks that some Americans can get and some cannot, it might be noted that Americans in higher tax brackets are not allowed the same exemptions and benefits that lower tax brackets enjoy. Married taxpayers earning over $160,000 were not allowed to participate in Roth IRA's, and could not deduct IRA contributions; over $110,000 they do not get the breaks on college tuition for their kids, don't qualify for education financial aid, grants and some scholarships, exemptions are phased out, marriage penalties kicked in at a higher rate and with AMT, even have to pay taxes on municipal bonds that would be tax free to other tax payers.

Luca, it does not take an economic major to understand a very simple concept. If businesses do not make money, they do not hire and/or spend. This is a very simple concept. If the government takes their money away, they will not hire. I can not believe any credible economic or business major/minor can not understand this. Also, keep in mind that these expiring tax cuts will affect the middle class, also. Not just the wealthy.

Feisty Redhead said: "I am the accountant for my company and KNOW exactly WHO pays what and WHO doesn't... One of the owners wives spends more on a pair of pants at Nieman Marcus than what my CAR payment is..... typical Republican't TAX CHEATS!"

Did you see where John Kerry, after getting caught at trying to cheat on his Mass. yacht taxes, has finally 'fessed up and will now "voluntarily" pay them?? From the Boston Globe:

Senator John F. Kerry announced yesterday that he will voluntarily pay $500,000 to Massachusetts tax collectors on his luxury yacht, a pledge made hours after state officials had begun inquiring into whether he had attempted to evade the payment by docking the boat in Rhode Island.

BTW, Feisty, do you collect a full-time paycheck for your accountant job and do you consider it "cheating" your boss because you spend so much time here on FR when you are being paid to do work for the company??

LMAO!!!!

"Find some deductions." Brilliant idea, Candice. The average lower level employee feels lucky to even HAVE a job coming out of the recession, spends probably half or more of his/her salary on housing, makes regular decisions on what to do without until they can get a little money scraped together, and your advice is "Find some deductions." They can eat cake, Marie.

The very wealthy are able to "Find some deductions" because their needs are taken care of MANY TIMES OVER by their pay--much of which is deliberatly structured in dividend payments, housing and car allowances, and other arrangements DESIGNED to give them deductions that most of us will never have access to. The richest among them are no better than John D. Rockefeller. From his perch as wealthiest man on Earth he was once asked how much money he needs. "Just a little bit more."

Al - As per Elise’s comments, the boss was drawing a salary of over $200K, that is what I was basing my argument on. Considering that, he would be subject to payroll taxes as I stated previously. If he wasn’t drawing a salary and held the building as a personal asset, you would be correct. I was just going off of Elise’s statement. I’m no expert on S Corp vs. C Corp but I have a good knowledge of both systems.

Of course if the boss were owner and was either the primary shareholder or total shareholder, he could draw more than $200K on profits but that profit margin would fluctuate with the business’ profit cycles. As an employee, it would be very difficult for Elise to know how much her boss would be getting back as a shareholder (of course unless she was one as well). Beyond that, the company is subject to a slew of taxes and regulation fees well before the profits of the company are assessed. This in effect becomes a tax on the primary shareholders’ (boss) income in your example. So what happens when the company’s profit margin doesn’t cover these taxes? That’s when the boss (or shareholders) will incur these costs. That is called risk. There are quite a few S Corporations in this boat right now unfortunately.

you know you loose all creditability quoting al franken.....too funny

personally - Al Franken has more knowledge than most of the Senators in DC. Who are you?

Bman ~ do you use roads? How do you think they get built, and patched when necessary? Do you ever need police services or fire fighting services or emergency medical services? Who pays for that? Who goes out to rescue people whose SUVs slide off the highway in an ice storm? And who pays for search and rescue when drunken boaters fall off into the water?

It's truly amazing to believe, Bman, but in addition to all of that, municipalities used to even have money to run decent schools and pick up your garbage. And then people like you came along.

Here's news for you Bman ~ the people who do all those dirty jobs? They all earn money, too, and they all pay taxes, too. What a surprise, Bman.

And here you thought it was only you, paying for everything.

Get a clue, Bman ... and buy a vowel.

Bman, I'm talking strictly economics, and there is a plethora of research on the subject. While this research doesn't necessarily speak to how efficiently government imlements expansionary policy (there are other studies that do so), it speaks to the effectiveness of tax cuts vs. fiscal stimulus with respect to which has a greater overall effect on the economy. Govt spending, as opposed to tax cuts for the rich, wins this argument hands-down.

To that end, the fiscal stimulus enacted at the beginning of Obama's term was far too small. We were trying to fill a $2+ trillion hole in the economy with only $860M, a third of which were tax cuts. While this was probably the only way to get the stimulus bill through congress, it conjures up the image of putting a bandaid on a shotgun wound. The funny thing is, had we enacted a larger stimulus, our debt/deficit picture would be looking much better than it is now. Economic growth is the great deficit eraser.

BMan, I'm always amazed at people who complain vehemently about the government and its services. I suppose you believe we would all be better off if we were a bunch of little countries without a central government instead of the United States of America. I wonder how long your home state would last without the support and the protection of the other 49 states. I wonder if our education system is so flawed that even the basic tenets of our government and the reason for our forming a united repbulic have been lost and are no longer part of the education process. Your basic lack of understanding of the purpose for our federal government is indicative of the overall problem.

Anna, Luca and Mark, you still haven't answered the question on how government creates wealth or value. I'm not arguing that government provides a service, just that they provide a very inefficient one that could be better provided by private companies. You mention roads, well companies that bid on roadway projects artificially inflate their bids because the government has no incentive to pay the least amount of money. Same thing with schools. Private schools have consistently spent almost half per student than many school districts in our country and its obvious that private education is more effective than public education based on test scores, graduation levels and higher education attainment.

Anna Molly - Who pays for roads, police, fire etc? Why the TAXPAYERS of course! After the bureaucrats skim off their percentage. Luca, the problem is that no matter how much revenue expands, congress ALWAYS manages to spend more. And Mark you're about right. Mutual defense is about the only thing the federal government should be in charge of.

arodoll - that roadway creates value. Do you think Ford, GM, Chrysler, Toyota, etc would be as sucessful if we were still using dirt roads? Or even if there were not interstate highways, just paved two lane roads? Sure, some private company would build some roads and pave them but do you think they would serve rural areas? I think they would just pave the road that made them money, not all. And look at all the economic activity a good road system enables. We had railroads(i.e. private) only for a good while, they helped create more wealth and economic activity but I don't think nearly as much as having paved roads and automobiles. Now, for the problems caused by automobiles......stay tuned to the future.

Asbestos - I’m not saying that government doesn’t provide a service. i.e. roads But a private company would provide the service at a lower cost almost every time. They have less overhead and more incentive to keep prices down. You are correct about rural area roads, they would be next to non-existent without government subsidies but how many people do those roads serve as compared to their cost? The value of that road is diminished substantially when you take into account the cost for construction and maintenance. Thus the government still does not provide any real “value” that consumers (taxpayers) could not otherwise obtain.

Luca, thanks for joining our little group! Please don't let the nay sayers drive you away, your expertise is welcome.

Gee, Bman, I had no idea that roads would spontaneously generate if only we didn't let "bureaucrats skim off their percentage." If you're that insulting every time you require governmental services you deserve to be kept in queue for hours. Try having a little respect for the REGULAR CITIZENS who just go to a job and do the best they can every day like the rest of us. Even though you choose to refer to them as "bureaucrats" as if they're some sort of East German border guards.

And the Bush administration LOST 2.6 million jobs over his 2 terms. Thanks, economy-stimulating-lower-tax-rates!

The 1950's. How wonderful would it be to go back to the times when a single breadwinner could provide for a family comfortably and when Americans could expect some level of upward mobility...

Let's see.

Paying for World War II.

Paying for the Korean War.

Actually, I'll take my standard of living right this second over my parents' standard of living in the 50's. No hesitation.

JFK reduced the highest rate from 90 to 70%. Why did HE do that? I think it was because the 50's were over and the economy wasn't so hot. What a massive windfall to the rich. It's a 22% reduction. If you kept 100,000 of you million one year, did you get to keep $220,000 the next? How the hell did they fund the Vietnam War? Well maybe that's because revenues to the government increased but they spent too much? Ya think?

Bush's tax cut represented a 12% decrease in the rate for the "rich" and during his administration, the higher earning Americans actually paid a larger share of the overall tax burden.

Revenues aren't the enemy. We have met the enemy and he is spending and borrowing.

To me it seems the government can't lose. Revenues up, not enough. Revenues down, spend and borrow more.

If we take 25% of the wealth of the top 25% wealthiest Americans, we could pay off the national debt.

Anyone want to tell me why that's not a good idea?

Yes, I'm sure the NAACP would agree with you. Let's go back to the 50's everyone!!

Actually American..... that was an awesome job of cherry picking and analysis based on a minimum of information. Cite a 90% tax rate in the 50's and a 35% rate in 2003 and draw conclusions. Despite the aforementioned reduction in the highest rate by Kennedy. Despite the Reagan tax cuts that coincided with strong growth, the tax increase under Bush 1. Then the 90's with its greatest economy ever and you simplify everything with a comparison between the 50's and 2003.

Well, that ends it for me. I'm totally overmatched here.

Anybody that lauds Ronald Reagen's economic growth loses credibility. The man increased the deficit by 189%. Thats more then twice as much as #2. George W Bush.

Realamerican, you totally miss the whole story. It was Carter and Clinton that made it forced banks, Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae to give loans to people that just could not afford them. This is the main reason for the financial collapse. You can not blame Bush for this. He sent people to capital hill more than 17 times to warn them and every time Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, and Chris Dodd stated there was no problem with our financial system. And what happened?

Mark, that was debunked a couple of years ago http://howdidthishappen.org/myths/ but thanks for playing.

Mark, you are dead on! Great reply post! And, in the new financial reform act, guess who was left out of that? Fannie and Freddie handle 90% of the mortgages and they were left out of financial reform? This is proof that the current administration targeted the private sector financial institutions.

I think they mean government jobs. All those evil companies are holding on to thier money and won't hire. Wonder what they think all the new emplyees will do if there are no new customers? That's okay, the rich business owner has his stash to pay salaries. Who needs customers! Eventually the business owner goes broke. But that's okay, we are all already broke so he is just even with us now.

CLK,

If you have more employees that means that there is more money out there for people to buy your products, that is a very simple and telling FACT. If the rich would get off their mountains of money and hire then there would be more money circulating in the economy for people to spend. Ford proved this with his paying the people assembling the early automobiles a higher wage than he had to and their economic prosperity helped kickstart other jobs etc. The rich just holding their money in banks and the money markets does NOTHING for the economy. If they refuse to spend it, then tax the heck out of them, they will spend it rather than having it taxed. This also has been proven. Until the rich actually start hiring then we will continue to go downhill economically because no body else will have the money to hire or to even get out of their financial holes let alone thrive. We have been starved by the top income 'earners' for far too long as they attempt to turn us into another banana republic so they can have their labor nearly free and keep their incomes sky high. Time to turn the tables on them before they finish destroying our economy entirely!

Bhonest, the reason they will not hire is simply because of obama, pelose, reid, and the democrats. Their belief that the wealthy and businesses need to pay more. The put a healthcare bill in to place that will cost businesses billions upon billions of dollars more in costs. The dems may let the tax cuts expire. The dems are talking about billions more in the cap and trade. They are talking about raising taxes on the wealthy and businesses. There is a huge amount of money that that businesses are holding on to because of all the above and more. It is a concept that liberals can not understand. If you take money from businesses and more from the so called wealthy. They do not hire and they do not spend money. But of course, biden the idiot he is, thinks that for every dollar that the feds take in, it pays out 1.40. If this was true, why doesn't the federal government take everyone's money, give it back and they have profited 40 cents on the dollar. The largest amount of tax revenues ever generated was when the tax rates were reduced. Kennedy, Reagan, Bush all did it. The problem with Bush and the Republicans is they went from smaller government to large government and spending like the democrats.

The author also ignores the only meaningful real government spending cuts in the last couple of decades with the Welfare Reform legislation Clinton signed. I never really liked Clinton, until we got Obama.

The author also likes to conveniently ignore:

- The economy handed to Bush by Clinton was already in recession. Much of the increased economy of the Clinton years was faux tech and dot.com bubble house of cards, similar to the housing bubble.

- Bush responded with an aggressive tax cut plan FOR ALL AMERICANS. By the way, taxes for ALL Americans are going up this January 1. Hang on.

- 9/11 was about as big a fundamental impact to the nation as any event in history.

So it is laughable how the Obamites like to stress "how bad it could have been" and "jobs saved" in 2010, yet give no credit to Bush for keeping the country from heading into a more serious recession following the tech bust, massive corporate fraud during the Clinton years (WorldCom, etc), and 9/11.

Jonathan-1978989

No Bush simply took over another cliff w/ the housing bubble and deregulation. As for 911, Bush dropped the ball. Had the reports stating Al Qaida intentions, ignored them. We saw the results played over and over again. Wall Street, also Bush w/ all the deregulation. 2 wars unpaid for. Remember the fuzzy math? Medicare Part D, unpaid for. Shall we go on?

Good post, but you failed to mention that Clinton was also aided by having a republican controlled congress during his last 6 yrs and that forced him to move to the center and center-right. If the republicans take over control of the house and maybe the senate, Obama will have to move to the center, but since Obama has never had any experience in running anything, I doubt it. (Remember both Clinton & Bush had been governors.)

Actually it would've been Chris Dodd & Barnie Frank. Sorry to burst your bubble.

tanstafl - Now Bush did a lot of negative things during his tenure but are you actually trying to blame him for the weak mortgage requirements? The President doesn't set those, Congress does! The Democrats have been in control of both houses since 2006 in case you forgot. They had plenty of time to fix things before 2008. Do you remember Barney Frank saying "These two entities (Fannie and Freddie) are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing”. That was in 2003 when Bush and Republicans were trying to clamp down on suspicious lending and sub-prime mortgages. Let’s not forget Frank infamously stated that both Freddie and Fannie were in good financial shape just two months before they collapsed. And his job is to regulate these companies! Not the President’s. Frank has also been the largest recipient of campaign contributions from both Freddie and Fannie, wonder if he gave them that money back when they both failed? I’m thinking no. Blaming Bush when you fail to mention those in charge of regulating the industry just deflates your argument.

Now I believe that Bush and Republicans should have done something more in 2004-2006 when it was the height of sub-prime mortgages, they should have had the foresight to see that the boom was not going to last. They should have done something about people overextending themselves but its hard for politicians to reign back an industry that was so prosperous for so many Americans, even if it’s the best thing for the economy. I wish Republicans would admit to this more and I wish Democrats would admit to their complacency as well.

One last thing, remember both wars were approved by members of BOTH parties and by most Americans. I have never agreed in us going into Iraq but our representatives voted for them (I probably would have too with the info they were provided and the political atmosphere when they voted).

Actually it's 'Tanstaafl"

tanstfl, carter with the community reinvestment act and Clinton telling the banks, Freddie, and Fannie to make loans to people that could not afford them and take on the toxic loans is what caused this. Amazing, the amount of people that have no clue.

Yes Mark, and you're one of them. Witness this screed from the obviously Communist organization Bloomberg BusinessWeek http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinvestment_act_had_nothing_to_do_with_subprime_crisis.html .

Still spewing the GOBP thing.

O.K.

Obama is the largest recipient of BP money in the last 20 years. BP's previous CEO, Browne, was/is one of the world's foremost promoters of cap and trade, Obama's centerpiece energy goal. BP re-branded as Beyond Petroleum. BP gave a $500 million grant to the University of California, Berkeley for green dream studies. The physicist and environmentalist at UC Berkeley credited with securing the grant was Steven Chu. UC Berkeley's Steven Chu is now Obama's Secretary of Energy. UC Berkeley donated $1,591,395 to Obama in the last cycle.

The Oil Protection Act of 1990 gives Obama the absolute authority to monitor BP, direct BP, or remove BP. Obama is responsible for everything BP has done and everything BP has failed to do. Obama said in a national address that he was responsible.

The world offered help and Obama looked for the union label. Obama's EPA allowed BP to pump and spray 2 million gallons of automotive anti-freeze and paint thinner dispersant in the gulf but denied the world's high tech skimmers from removing the oil because they released processed water back into the gulf that did not contain less than 15 parts per million of oil.

Obama wantonly allowed the disaster to become the disaster it became.

GOBP? Only for your Highness of Crap and Detachment.

not this crap again, hey what about bob, STFU

jomama,

I'm sorry.

But, it's kinda like talking to someone that has spinach stuck between their teeth. Sometimes you wonder if you should say something, or just let them go on looking stupid.

Actually, that is disingenuous. The Gulf disaster is infuriating to me, particularly because it is so clearly a wanton disregard by Obama for the gulf and the lives of the effected people. I have made numerous comments about this issue and will continue every time I see a post like yours and your abnegation.

With regard with to your STFU request - (You got spinach in..... never-mind.)

You make a fair point. However, I feel that if we did not enact the bank bailout, with so much red ink on the books and no where to run, credit would have closed up even tighter than it did. While long term that may be a good thing, short term it would have set off a deflationary period in which no one would have money to spend on anything. I feel this recession is the result of easy money practiced over the course of decades and and artificial growth pulled forward as a result. We needed to use whatever tools were available to prevent this from happening. Therefore, banks were relieved of some of their red ink and we can ratchet down credit in a more controlled manner.

When President Obama said "When I start presenting some very difficult choices to the country, I hope some of these folks who are hollering about deficits and debt step up, because I'm calling their bluff," I will hold him to it. I want to see a cut in spending to go hand in hand with increased tax revenue.

Iowa Independant,

Thanks for your comments and I agree with your contention about necessary allowances.

With regard to Obama's statement, I regrettably feel it is simply a disingenuous political trap, or gambit. He has shown no interest in limiting spending before or after that statement. He has escalated the deficit spending to such a degree that he has not even had the courage to present a budget. Irregardless, the nation will be shocked when they see it and Obama will have more crisis to justify his VAT.

I Hope I'm wrong, but I don't think we can tax our way out. I think it will take economic growth and economic growth is not the most important thing on Obama's agenda right now.

Bob-1805084

Are you saying w/o the stimulus which was too small, everything would have been honkey dorey? That hauling in Wall Street and trying to reform the problem. Yes the bill falls short, but its something to work on and improve. Or would you rather be like John Boehner, and not have any regulations period. Do you realize how many jobs the country was shedding when Obama took office? The Dems controlled the purse strings for 2 years before Obama came into office. From 01-06, the country was run by the Repubs my friend, yes GWB inherit a Recession from Clinton because of the Dot.com bust and NAFTA. Here's the problem, NAFTA shipped million of jobs overseas and they are never coming back. GWB simply found new and improved ways to scre the economy w/ the unpaid tax cuts, the wars also unpaid, and Medicare Pt D also unpaid. The debt created by the Repubs have now been handed over to the Dems like Hoover did to FDR. Like FDR, Obama is dealing w/ a Congress or a portion of the Congress ead set on his failure. Is this now starting to seem a little familar?

Bob,

I'm concerned with this (President Obama's statement concerning the faux deficit hawks) as well but here we are talking about letting the Bush tax cuts expire (to the tune of a $1.5 to $2.0T price tag). I could be persuaded to accept that these cuts need to remain in place for the shot term but extending them permanently would be disingenuous. Tough choice for this moment, lets see what happens.

With regard to a VAT, I think our tax system has been bastardized so badly it is within reason to believe that wholesale changes to our tax structure may be necessary to ensure everyone pays their fair share. Another debate for another day.

Thanks for your positive response!

I just purchased a 2011 Honda Pilot and am waiting to trade my paid off 2001 Honda Civic with only 96k miles in for a FIAT 500. I cant wait for my lil italian commuter car.

Soon Government Motors will be Goshdarnitwemadeit Motors. Chrysler will pay back their loans. Other banks will pay back their loans (with interest). Consumer confidence will rise. Companies will begin hiring. Jobs that were outsourced have been returning stateside for sometime now (ie DELL) and will continue to.

Corruption is so rampant in all sectors private or public that no one trusts anyone and that is understandable even warranted. However what if Obama is trustworthy? What if he truly is working for the "people". What if he truly is concerned about special interests and worked to create new ethics and disclosure/transparancy rules...

Has anyone been to ETHICS TRAINING? Ethics training for IT professionals specifically? Did you know that if a helpdesk person is working on a person's computer, and he/she sees an email on the screen describing a marital affair. That helpdesk tech should report the affair due to the issue of "harrassment".

Harrassment of who? That is up for debate (or i simply cannot recall). Someone needs to borrow your security badge to use the bathroom because they forgot theirs? Sorry cant borrow it. Not ethical. Why? Guess that could be up for debate as well.

In Obama we trust!

Philip,

The point I was trying to make is the damaging effect of current uncertainty, which is caused, or exasperated by the actions of government. The collapse of the housing market was caused not by true free market forces, but by government's over involvement. But, you know that. Did we need 2,300 pages of new regulations that tout consumer protection (which wasn't an issue in the meltdown), that doesn't address Fannie/Freddie (which was the issue), or did we need to get the SEC close the porn, do their job and make a few relevant/necessary changes?

Anyway, my comments were simply to question the effacasiousness of the actions taken as opposed to an equally extreme paradoxical alternative.

Bob

The true problem w/ the Housing crisis was due to Banks and subprime loans before Frannie & Freddie started into that mess. Frannie & Freddie didn't help, actually made the problem even bigger. But the banks had little to no oversight. What little they did have was ignored and simply pushed aside. The hearing before the Senate w/ Goldman Sachs, these people believe they did nothing wrong. The problem is w/o any new regulations and the Repubs fought tooth and nail against because their Corporate masters told them to. This Bill and now law is far from perfect, and needs a lot of work. One amendment that was actually not even up for debate was blanche Lincoln's. She wanted the deriviative market to be more open and accountable. Both sides jumped her sh** for that saying it was unreasonable.

Here's the problem, the true problem, the Banks now run this economy, have Senators on both sides in their hip pockets. The few who are not need to be empowered because if their not, who will look after the average American's interests?

You fail to completely understand the one tax cut that created those jobs. It was the capital gains tax. Maybe you should do some research and not just listen to what the leftist article is telling you.

Unfortunately, many of those jobs turned out to be temp jobs when the tech bubble burst. Kind of like mortgage brokers now. Jobs go away and revenues go down while public benefit payments go up. Income tax revenues decline, as do payroll taxes. And when the stock market bubble burst, capital gains revenues at any percentage kind of went "poof". Multiple effects on revenues that had their genesis while Clinton was president, which means nothing. Clinton being president I mean.

Jobs that were lost were with companies that no longer existed and job growth recovered very slowly.

Spending still flourished and does to this day. If Obama's deficits represent stimulus, why don't Bush's? Why doesn't the entire national debt represent stimulus? I could really convince myself that Bush actually "saved" millions of jobs that would have been lost if he hadn't doubled the national debt.

Oh, it's all very confusing and pretty much unresolvable here. We already have the economists presenting very plausible opposing theories and making good points. Round and round we go.

Debra, your illiterate rant gives you away as an Obamarxist. To reiterate my earlier point, the tax burden on the top 1% of earners had never been higher in history; in fact it is about 10% higher than it was under Clinton. Those nasty rich people pay more than 40% of overall federal taxes while 50% of the population pays zero. The top 25%, which may even include you, pays over 85% of the tax burden; again, the highest level in history. So, my liberal one, please stop watching Keith Olberman and Chris Matthews and do some research on your own; assuming you are capable of gathering information from anywhere but the boob-tube?

J.H. Moore........You cannot be this ignorant. The wealth of this country is in the hands of the top 10%. The bottom 50% are in debt up to their eyeballs. While the rich get richer the poor get poorer. Have you not noticed the middle class has vanished. So where as the wealthy can afford to pay more the poor cannot.

I think we all need to know and see what Our Hired- Elected Civil servants think about!!
Please read the web page below!

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/john-kerry-yacht-sales-tax-rhode-island/2010/07/27/id/365777?s=al&promo_code=A5D4-1" target="_blank">Sen. John Kerry Snaps Over Yacht Scandal

Debra, that's because wealth in more concentrated at the top than it has been at any time since the Gilded Age of the Robber Barons. http://www.businesspundit.com/wealth-distribution-in-the-united-states/ . They're the only ones of have benefited from 30 years of deregulatory, supply side, Chicago School, Laissez Faire economics http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html .

Al in Visala CA.....I've lived in Nevada and I've lived in New York. The old saying "you get what you pay for" applies. Where as I paid far more in taxes in New York the better quality of life more then made up for it.

Navada is ruined by harry reid. Stay in the states you have bankrupted! Stop dragging your messes all over the usa.

Show me the math!

Explain to me how taxing corperations creates wealth for the nation.

Corperations do not pay taxes they collect them from their costomers.

In my mathmatical mind that tells me the people pay a much higher cost of living.

I want to know exactly what you get because I dont want it!

How many people must you destroy and force into poverty for your Negative math?

sandy, Harry Reid is in Congress. How exactly has he ruined the state government of Nevada, a body in which he has no participation? And btw, it's a great talking point that ALL taxes get passed on to customers. In reality SOME do. Some are absorbed in lower profits. Some are compensated for by seeking out increased efficiencies within the business.

John B, Des Moines, IA

Don't argue w/ Sharon Angle there, she'll just run away if you ask her pertinent questions about the economy and Nevadan in general. Corporation never pay their fair share period.

Wromg john they never take cuts they cut jobs instead.

Corperations do not pay taxes they collect them from you.

Just let me ask you when prices go up in the stores and they will they will sky rocket what will you do?

shave your head because food is more important? stop buying things you cannot eat? How many jobs will this administration effect with their quadruple taxes?

Do a little research sandyshores, you'll find that taxes are only passed on to consumers to the extent that consumers will accept them. And if they're still making a profit (even if it's slightly less) why would they stop making the product? If you accept the premise of a free market this makes perfect sense.