Craig.... It is the EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit) that gives a family with low income the 'refundable tax credit'. There is a fair amount of evidence that supports doing this over welfare and/or raising the minimum wage. The known list of measurable benefits include, but are not limited to: increasing teen employment, less total inflationary pressure, teach people to be less government dependent.

Jay: How long before we know if it works?
Seriously, Obamaphones are advertised on television. Public schools practically beg people to sign up for free lunch programs.
Seems to me it is not working, though one might argue it is a lot of work to sign up for all the free stuff..

@Craig... No social program is ever perfect;we will never eliminate every cheater. And, some programs, like the Obama-phone are out of control and need fixing:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323511804578296001368122888.html

I'm not defending the existence of every Social Program, just that we aim for the best and most statistically significant results;I'm after the best bang for the buck.

If you google it you will find research that shows we can spend EITC dollars more beneficently than Minimum Wage Increase Dollars (remember Minimum Wage Law is a TAX) and get the same benefit for 1/4 the price tag for the taxpayer and at 1/4 the inflation pressure, too.

Agreed.
I just want people to understand when they get more back than they paid in, it is a handout in some shape or form.

The 47% that pay no income tax still payroll withholding taxes and sales taxes. Much of the shortfall could be eliminated if we stopped subsidizing multi nationals and other big businesses. There is nothing wrong with the progressive tax system that couldn't be easily fixed by limiting deductions. These should include limiting personal deductions to four and mortgage interest deductions to a maximum of $5000 per family. No deductions for second mortgage interest or mortgage interest on second and third homes. Also, if we increased the capital gains back to 25% and inheritance taxes at 25%. Also, a national sales tax of 2% on all purchases except food and drugs. A flat income tax is the absolute worst idea, hitting those that least afford it paying more of their income.

Why is "fair share" based on how much you make? If I go in on a pizza my fair share is based on what I intend to eat.

Lyle,
Let's not worry about how we get there, we first need to define "fair share". How do you define fair share?

National sales tax ?!
Holey Moley, let's just add a bunch of taxes.
Lyle, the problem with your ideas: none do anything to fix the spending addiction our Government has.

Inheritance taxes are currently at ~45% Lyle- are you proposing lowering them, or eliminating the $2 Million exemption?

The 47% that pay no income tax still payroll withholding taxes and sales taxes.
They pay no tax...after it is withheld, they get it all back and then some.

@Greg....If you sit down to eat pizza and there are people there who don't have enough to cover their share, don't you pitch in a little extra so they can eat too?

@Craig....Spending addiction? What part of the spending do you want to cut? How about cutting military spending by about $200 billion a year and let the rest of the world pick up their share. How about going to a NHS and eliminate all the healthcare blood suckers? How about we stop subsidizing big business. You want to reduce tax revenues, as I do, let's do some significant program expenditures where they really count. How about the decriminalization of drugs and save all that money and not have to spend billions. Come on, let's get creative.

@Craig...I would be more than willing to limit the inheritance tax to 25%. Leave the first 2 million exempt, but implement a tax system without all the crazy deductions that benefit only special interests.

@Craig...How do you figure they get it all back. They're not getting back what they pay into SS or Medicare. They don't get back the sales tax they pay in. They may get an EIC, but you try raising a family of 4 on just $23 k. Of course, to be such low income they must not be personally responsible and sitting on their fat asses in front of their 60" HDTV watching cable and pay for view while talking on their IPhone 4S.

Or we could and should go to a straight national sales tax. Eliminate the income tax altogether. Why punish folks for producing that's "progressively" Back assward.

Lyle said "If you sit down to eat pizza and there are people there who don't have enough to cover their share, don't you pitch in a little extra so they can eat too?" But in Lyle's collectivist world you are forced by gunpoint or get thrown in jail if you don't chip in a little bit .. These sneaky collectivists
...

"@Greg....If you sit down to eat pizza and there are people there who don't have enough to cover their share, don't you pitch in a little extra so they can eat too?"

It depends. Why don't they have enough? Do they expect me to pay for their pizza everyday? Are they family, friend or neighbor? Why did thet agree to go in on a pizza knowing they were short? Do they want me to pay for their bowling too?

Lyle: Regarding your reply #1: Agreed
Regarding #2: I like that idea, but how would we pay for it? That is some serious tax breaks.
Regarding #3: A family of four with an income of 23K...it is very possible they will get more back than they paid in Federal Income taxes.
re:..sitting on their fat asses in front of their 60" HDTV watching cable and pay for view while talking on their IPhone 4S...I believe you are referring to the exception to the norm. In order to afford this they obviously are involved in tax fraud.

Lyle: If I sit down for pizza and have just enough to cover my share, what then?
Should I not eat so someone else can?
Many people are on that cusp...

Your pizza comment brings up many good points. My point is the first time or 2 I would help cover his cost, after that and the trend continues where he makes no effort to pay his "fair share" then he would be gently reminded to pay his share or not go out for expenses he can't afford.
Which is exactly what our Generational welfare crowd needs. Living on handouts and money stolen from others is not a "Fair share" so why do they keep getting the benefits?
Craig said it best those of us who are fiscally responsible scrimp and save to provide for our families and possibly get a luxury item here and there, where as your people Lyle live high on the hog not worrying about anything because they will continue to get free money, rent paid, food stamps, etc etc despite committing crimes, being on drugs, having bad or no credit, being in collections, been evicted, filing for bankruptcy. It is sickening and a time for the rest of us to shed the freeloaders. (Not including those who rightfully earned their Social Security, Disability or retirement pensions)

Lyle...I would never TRY to raise a family of 4 on $23000. That is an absolutely absurd thing to even try to do. In one plain word, it's stupid. If I'm only making $23,000 why would I want others to be dependent on my?

I'll do math with you, because you claim that family of 4 is paying taxes. Let's assume this is a married couple, with 2 dependents...as the number work better for your argument. Standard deduction is $6100 per person x 4 people bringing taxable net income down to 0. Now, the two pay the SS/Medicare tax. So. 7.65 of $23000 is roughly $1700. State income tax is another 6.75% roughly, for $1500 in state income tax. All withheld, as are income taxes, so take home pay for this couple will be $23000-$1700-$1500-$2000 for a take home of $17800. I'm Let's tax that full amount in sales tax at 5.6% for another $1000 (which is generous, because all purchases aren't taxed) in taxes paid for a total of $6200 in taxes paid. This couple will bet back $2000 in child care credit, $5372 in EIC, and their original $2000 in Fed. Tax withheld. So, this family with a cash after taxes withheld is $16800 + $2000 + 5372 + 2000 =$26172. Exactly where are they actually paying anything?

Lyle said: How do you figure they get it all back. They are not getting back what they paid into Social Security or Medicare...
They get this back eventually too Lyle, presuming Washington doesn't screw it up.
Furthermore, let's say they earn $25,000 per year. The $2000 they pay into SSI and Medicare is made up in another form of a freebie. EIC, Obamaphones, food stamps, heat assistance, subsidized health care.
Holy Crap !
That seems like a pretty good trade to me.

@Bob McBride...I'm all for spending reductions and a re-prioritizing what we are spending money on. You can't run a service provider in the same way you run a business, so stop trying. Why is Medicare administration so much more efficient than private health care third party providers? Business doesn't have an answer for everything.

Lyle, there are plenty of "service providers" that operate as businesses rather than government organizations. As for Medicare, it gets to set its own prices and forces those who provide services it pays for to accept those prices, with others, including its beneficiaries (via supplemental insurance, if not out of pocket), making up the difference. That's not efficiency - that's utilizing your position as a government entity to force others to make up for your own inefficiencies.

@Bob McBride...I know all about private service providers for profit and I know what they charge in administrative costs. Even if Medicare had to pay full price, administrative costs at below 10% is better than admin costs at 20-30%. I've worked with plenty of companies that aren't efficient and they continue in business. You can't make the blanket claim that you did. Successfully running a government agency or non-profit requires a different skill set than running a business. I've done both and I know the difference. So don't try to use a single brush to cover all scenarios.

Lyle
business is incentivized to become more efficient. Government has a totally different agenda in which success for a liberal is defined by the number of of people on the dole.
The government has not ever measured themselves on the efficiency or effectiveness of their programs. Primarily because the left sees that they are able to simply legislate both income and clients.

What blanket statement did I make that wasn't correct, Lyle? That government agencies aren't incentivized to provide the most bang for the buck? I don't see where you've disproven that, Lyle.

Medicare, your example, doesn't have to promote itself against competitors, doesn't need a sales force, contracts out much of its paper pushing and shifts costs to beneficiaries and other providers. You can't compare an organization that is, essentially, granted a government monopoly and that is allowed to circumvent market forces to organizations that don't have those government granted advantages. Again, it's not true efficiency. It's the government shifting costs to others.

Business will always be more efficient than Government. It has to be accountable or it goes away. We are not that lucky with Government .

lol

Bottom Line: Spot on !
Ask a farmer about the death tax and how it can destroy his family farm.

yep- ANY family business- the owner dies accidentally, or before he can "transfer" ownership...suddenly the kids are left with a business they cant possibly affort the "death tax" on....frigging retarded our tax laws are.

@Bottom Line....Why should I benefit from your hard work and success. Shouldn't each generation be personally responsible for their own success? What do you really owe your progeny? As far as I'm concerned, raise your children with good values, learn how to work hard, assure they get a good education and then pat them on the backside as they go out the door to pursue their lives. You don't do kids any favors by giving them too much. I don't know how many successful second generation businesses end up folding because "the kids took it over".

The idea of a large inheritance is archaic at best. Real inheritance is good values, moral and ethical living, not material possessions.

@Craig...Inheritance tax is not a "death tax". The family farm is a business like any other. If you owned a business, wouldn't you set up legal mechanisms to assure that it would survive beyond your death? The family farms that are lost due to death is because the farm owner didn't do what was necessary prior to the inevitable.

@Bottom Line....What is investing if not legalized gambling? Gamblers must pay taxes on their winnings, why shouldn't the investor not be considered in the same light?

@yomammy...A person that sets up a business needs to be smart about how they set it up. Every business that I have set up and owned is set up from the very beginning with a survivor's plan, including key man insurance owned by the company to provide for eventuality I wouldn't survive. People that don't take the necessary personal responsibility are just plain stupid.

Lyle: ...death tax or inheritance tax- it is the shaft either way you name it.
Try to convince a farmer to purchase a $2million dollar life insurance policy to cover the "tax" on his assets when he dies. He is consumed with buying next years crop and what the new combine will cost him. What if we have a bad year for the cash crop and I can't pay the premium? This is why you see so many farms selling off a big chunk of their land to developers.

You asked Bottom Line about investing. Though I am not sold on the idea, there is the thought process that says: I invest in a business that pays taxes on profits, why should I pay taxes on those same profits? This is why Cap Gains tax is lower than income tax.
This is beneficial to Granny who lives off Social Security and a little Cap Gains from her investments. At one time she was fortunate to pay zero capital gains, but those days are behind us.

Lyle: I applaud you for your business savvy. Not everyone does this, and for some it is not affordable/possible to do so. In some cases the key man is uninsurable. Just having Diabetes can be the reason.
The same can be said about buy/sell agreements. Often the owner (future seller) is uninsurable, making the future buyers unable to secure the coverage to assume ownership at death. With this situation, the business must close and be liquidated. People become unemployed. The owner's next of kin is forced to take pennies on the dollar for the fire sale.
Kudos to you for doing things right.

Lyle, as a business owner, you know that it's not like you have 25% of the value of the business laying around in cash. That means the heirs may need to sell off a large part of the business to pay for taxes. A business that they likely grew up in and wanted to keep running as the family business for another generation.

You asked "What do you really owe your progeny?" The other side of the coin is what more do you owe the government? Business owners have paid income taxes, matching FICA and Medicare taxes, business taxes, unemployment taxes,... Most people would prefer to give whats left to their kids rather than the government.

Let's say somebody has inherited the family business and managed to pay the inheritance tax without destroying the business. What will happen? One possibility is that the heir is totally inept and the business will go down the drain anyways. This will just open the door for a new competitor or open market share. The other is that they really do have a good head on their shoulders and manage to keep the business running , keep employees on the payroll, and continue to pay taxes.

Our biggest problem goes back not to revenue, but to spending!!!

the Anti-Alinsky.... I have several friends and acquaintances who started businesses that became successful. In two of the cases, they have, over the last ten years, sold the businesses to their kids. Since they have already sold their interests there won't be any inheritance tax in either case. One of them is under contract as a consultant to the firm so that he can guide the new owners. In a couple of cases they have set up ownership with trusts. My point is that proper planning will take care of the inheritance problem. My personal plan is that by the time my wife and I'm gone we'll have already transfered our assets and will own nothing.

@Lyle Ruble... In your example, "sold the businesses to their kids" prior to death, you likely just 'Cost Shifted' the Inheritance/Estate Tax burden into the Capital Gains Tax burden column.

Your "set up ownership with trusts" example avoids the capital gains tax, as it transfers the assets to trust at 'current fair market net asset value', so the 'appreciated value' from 'date of trust creation' forward avoids the Inheritance / Estate Tax. Any amount transferred to trust, while still alive, counts against ones lifetime Estate Tax exemption amount.

FYI: The current Estate tax exemption is just over $5 million/person.( It is inflation indexed and I think it's going to 5.25 million/person next year.) So, a couple can protect over $10 million, Net Asset Value, from the Estate Tax.

@ Sanders
Why must you bring the rabbit industry into this?

Whoops!

Personally, if I can not afford to dine out for pizza with friends, I am not going to sit down at the table.
I have been in this boat before. I went home to a yummy Hamburger Helper meal.

@Bottom Line...In a perfect world it would be better to handle things on the local level and through private contributions. However, we tried that in the past and it was a total failure. Under your system, if someone was completely destitute and the local community or government choose not to help the destitute, then there is no redress. Look at the history of almost all of the southern tier of states. Throw in West Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee and you'll see how effective your system works. This condition persisted until the federal government got involved and forced them to adequately provide for the poor and disabled. Do you realize that there wasn't a mandate for universal education in the south until after the civil war and that not all states implemented it until 1894? Obviously you don't know your history very well. The states and local communities have always been able to take care of issues at the local level, but failed to do so.

Lyle ... you claim the States and Local communities were able and chose not to take care of issues. If the citizens made a choice you should respect that, they are more intimately aware of their conditions than you or the Federal Government. Some look at issues differently than you do, and you haven't the right to do more than plead your case. Mandating your measure of charity fails to respect the rights and wishes of those States and Municipalities.

@Bottom Line...This is a question of sovereignty and priority. It's been pretty well documented what the minimum needs are for survival. The sovereign community has a duty, morally and legally, to assure survival and security needs are met. For those communities and or states that either choose or are unable to meet those needs, then it is the role of the federal government to move in and meet the needs. The practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws are a prime example. We can review our history through centuries that demonstrate the failure. Your whole idea of fair share is misleading and should focus on the question of what are the minimum needs everyone has a right to expect by simply being a citizen of this nation.

Lyle Sez ... "Your whole idea of fair share is misleading and should focus on the question of what are the minimum needs everyone has a right to expect by simply being a citizen of this nation."

Lyle, it our President, not Bottom Line, that is tossing around the words 'fairshare', sans clear reasonable definition;that is in-fact what created the need his blog post.

It is, in-fact, the President that is misleading with his usage of 'fairshare'. I have not heard the President tie 'fairshare' to anything other than 'Pay MORE Taxes'.

I'd like to see a Lexus/Nexus of the Presidential use of 'fairshare' . I'd bet we would only find 'fairshare' tied to paying more taxes;never to your point Lyle, 'focus on the question of what are the minimum needs everyone has a right to expect by simply being a citizen of this nation.'

That Lyle, sadly, very sadly, is the very definition 'Presidential Failure to Lead'

@Jay Sykes....I don't think in terms of fair share and whether Obama or Bottom Line uses the term is meaningless to me. I also don't blindly support everything the President claims or proposes. As usual, my support is for meeting survival and security needs. Whether one is able to achieve is entirely up to them as long they have a reasonable opportunity to do so.

@Lyle... I did not intend to suggest that you unilaterally support the President;only point out that the man with the bully pulpit shapes the debate and defines the terms. What you, or I, say will not change that one iota. The way the President is discussing 'fairshare' reminds me of Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master that's all."

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again:

"They've a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they're the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That's what I say!"

@skinnyDUDE....What an irresponsible statement. Where's the proof of your supposition. The economy gets "killed" by stupid people who can't look any further than the nose on their faces. Business ruined the economy and then turned around expecting us to bail them out.

@Lyle
How did business ruin the economy . Business is the economy. Your comment is the height of economic ignorance. As to Irresponsible statements.....You have perfected the concept with your ever changing ideas and broken ideology. You clearly do not understand even Basic economics. Practice this = Government ruins economies while it produces nothing.
As to your re wording my statement it clearly shows you agreed with it to some degree or you wouldnt of changed the content of the statement. I didnt call anyone Stupid . In fact the people on the bottom learn how to manipulate the government for maximum benefits, If you pay for more and more unwanted outcomes it is not stupid to think that you will get more of those outcomes. Its Economics 101 . if you agree with the bad outcomes than you not be concerned . The fact is those Bad outcomes will always grow if you tie resources to failure by rewarding those outcomes. That is what government does. A good intention with a bad result is not doing anyone any true favors. But you liberals are ALL IN on bad outcomes. You are not only bankrupt of fiscal responsibilities . You are bankrupt of positive results .

@skinnyDUDE...Business decisions made without regard to long term consequences. If the economy goes south and business is the economy, then how can you not hold business responsible. I was in business for too many decades not to know how it works. As a social institution, government is only an actor and agent of the citizenry; blaming government is blaming the citizenry, what good does that do? Blaming government is shifting the blame from those truly responsible to a faceless entity. BTW, I took many econ courses and much of what is wrong with business and the economy can be traced directly back to the garbage being shoveled out at the business schools. Economics is a measurable social science and provides value, whereas Business schools provides -ZERO-. Business has to be learned through doing.

@ Bottom Line
I agree totally . Too bad liberals support the impossible . The only hope is pro growth capitalistic policies . It is a new world economy today. But the general cause and effects that grow and economy are relatively unchanged. Liberal policies can be examine on a state level . Look at CA which is geographically a place people want to be . The Liberal Government policies have made prosperity flea .The hunger for new revenues to pay for massive spending has shrunk the tax base and any new growth prospects in the state are very limited . So they basically killed the goose that lays the golden eggs. Than when revenues are stunted and spending is increasing they kill the goose again and again and again .
The same is true for any nation . The rest of the world represents other potential prospects to create wealth .The more the government kills those prospects here, the more they will show up in areas that welcome commerce and jobs . USA is where most want to be , But the Govt policies simply discourage it under Obama.

@skinnyDUDE...Having lived in California for quite some time, you don't have a clue as to what caused CA's problems. It started with Ronald Reagan and then Prop 13.

@ Lyle
Having seen so many of your ideas on this very forum. The overwhelming view is you are the one that is clueless as to how the real world works. As you never really answer questions posed to you . You only move on to other non sense and babble meaningless views not founded in reality. You are in Denial and will die that way. Those of us that have seen your constant misguided views all accept that reality.

@Mike
Did Christ tell that to us as a legislative proposal to force the extraction of cash from the wealthy or did he pose that as an individual response to the salvation he was offering? You are making the assumption that Christians are hoarding cash and not providing help to poor; rather than surrendering ever penny not needed for survival to whom? The government? Was that really Christ's message? Christ's message was never forced obedience. The liberal message is forced obedience.

As for limits on earning, please tell me what the appropriate limit is? If I have a house of 7 people with an income of $100k, does that mean that the government should mandate that every citizen can exist on $14,300? Or what monetary limit do you believe should be imposed. 'Need' is subjective and not definable as a blanket policy. 'Enough' is subjective and not definable as a blanket policy. However, as you appear to be able to define the subjective, please enlighten the rest of as to what level of 'need' and 'enough' each citizen should be capped off at.

the poor lady at church offering the last of her money while the rich man throwing in 1000 bucks....yeah, we know, the poor lady "gave more"...blah blah...
point is...she had a CHOICE....

First off, please know I am a different "Mike", and I don't like my name being sullied by such silly statements. It is not anyone's right to tell me how much I can earn. If I start a company and that company is hugely successful and leads me to make millions of dollars, then I am earning that money and after paying the taxes I owe by law, the rest is mine to do with what I choose. People like the Mike above want everyone to have freedom, except the rich, who shouldn't have the freedom to earn money and do with it what they please.

"Does anyone "need" to earn 1 million, 2 million, or more dollars?"
Do you think it is right to limit how much a CEO can make? When Lee Iococca saved Chrysler, do you think maybe he earned his pay? Along with that big paycheck come some very heavy burdens.
A self employed man making anything, including a million per year doesn't qualify for unemployment. Should he be limited by the Government? He is already being taxed to death. And if he accumulates more than 2 million in assets- after death they are taxed at 45%. Some incentive to save, huh? All his working life he paid income tax on his earnings, likely ~35%. Then the Gvt takes half at death...
The market dictates what a CEO makes. If he doesn't perform, he gets fired. I doubt he will be happy sitting home collecting UC at under $400 week.

Jesus was a carpenter, I doubt he worked for free.
I bet he wasn't in a union either.

@J.B. Schmidt..."Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's....."

There are objectives statistical studies that indicate how much each person needs per geographical area. It's not quite as subjective as you suggest.

@Lyle
"And to God what is God's" I get it. I am not claiming to stop paying taxes. There is no biblical doctrine that prevents a Christian from voicing opposition to a government not using God's blessings of tax revenue with good stewardship.

'Needs', Lyle? Like I need warmth in winter. I will need a certain level of dietary subsistence. I require shelter from the elements. Those needs are subjective based on personal experience and ability. Not unlike Mrs Obama assuming the lunch needs of school students and making a blanket policy to fill those needs. She failed to take into account the differing caloric intake based on activity or the availability to unhealthy foods pre and post school hours. Sure we all need lunch, I don't need study to show me that; however, our lunches all vary. No study can expose those needs.

Yes the middle class faired well under Clinton...until recently.
By granting China Most Favored Nation status, he doomed our economy.
It is hard for any American manufacturing firm to compete with decent American wages vs China's pay of a bowl of rice per day.
Monica Lewinsky wasn't the only one who got the shaft from Slick Willy.

When did the Tea baggers claim anything as "fair"? It is the left that wants "fair". It is the left that doesn't want kids to keep score. It is the left that loves affirmative action. It is Obama that keeps on pushing "fair share" and who is afraid to define it. It is what this blog is about. Robert help us out, define "fair share", define the amount the rich should pay and be ready to back up your definition.

I'd like to hear other opinions too.

No Yo, half that state makes less than 40K. Check the facts.

The top 20% begins right at 100K.

100k aint #@$%$ for combined income in many areas of the state.
and if you think anyone making around 100k should be taxed more- you are nuts.

I totally agree. That is my point. Those making $100K+ are paying a vast majority of the taxes. But the Sentinel Journal wants you to think that the tax cuts only are helping the rich (BTW, Supreme Leader Obama said 250K is where the middle class ends). Those making $100K will get more $ savings, BUT ARE STILL PAYING WAY MORE TAXES THAN THE REST!

That is my point. Relax Yo. I am on the side of less taxes.

:)

There was a time when poor people on assistance went without certain luxuries the working people usually had.
Many people getting assistance have a newer car or high end SUV.
Most have cell phones with data plans, the internet, cable TV.
Heat assistance, central air conditioning (and they use it despite the high energy bills). I do not have a problem helping those who truly need it. Those who are fully capable of working but chose to live off the programs have a comparable lifestyle to a family living on a $50k income. It is almost a deterrent for those struggling to get by.
The only noticeable difference in a family making $100k is typically the size of their house. They still have the same issues with bills, repairs, lunch money for the kids, new shoes, etc. Yet they pay about $25,000 of that income in taxes. It is almost enough for them to say to hell with it too. The bigger home has higher energy bills, the bills are also higher to pay for those in need of energy assistance. It is a snowball effect. Add in the threat of taxing them more, and they may just join the ranks of the takers and not the makers.
What then? 80% of the workforce makes less than $100k, who the hell will we tax then? I'd like a numbers cruncher to examine how we can sustain living on the top 20%. My guess is even if we taxed them at 100% we would be in the red.

go to google and search for "eat the rich"
shows exactly what taxing the rich gets us...

That is the problem. As long as we give to them, they will demand more.

Think about it. If you choose to get no education why work? You can subsist on handouts instead of working.

Get rid of handouts and we will have a lot less people that need them. They will be forced to be productive.

oh...nooooo...cant have people "work"...that will be labeled as "racist" and "hurting the poor/children"... No politican will touch this with a ten foot pole. THATS the problem. Politicians more worried about re-election than doing anything.
Its like rasing the minimum wage....NOT every job out there needs 10.25 an hour...

Kerry said that Americans have the right to be stupid.
Think about that.
His party wants more of these people, so they can be reelected.

Agreed. Obama never should have been elected in the first place.
http://reagancoalition.com/articles/2013/20130226004-obama-2009-return.html?a=2

@ J.B Schmidt
Thats all True J.B. But I might point out that Lyle isnt a the standard bearer for logic and common sense. He seldom considers cause and effect of even his own ideas.

@Skinny
I would disagree that doesn't consider cause and effect. The problem with him and most liberals is that the effect (some supposed utopia) is their goal and to do so all causes are acceptable no matter the harm inflicted on the country. As example, look at Obama's most recent release of illegals. He understands the possible outcomes (increased violence); however, the outcome of forcing his socialist policies is more important the current state of the country.

@ J.B.Schmidt
Indeed. If we cant even slow the growth of increased spending when we are spending .47 cents on every dollar with borrowed money there is little hope in a STRONG prosperity in the USA in the future. We have a President that cant even lead on logical cuts on Increases . This is even more laughable from a President who said he was going to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. Unfortunately , we have a President who's only instinct is to divide the nation while he inflicts maximum economic harm with his anti capitalistic views.

Very well said Mr Lundt,
People were able to get just enough help to get by, which was an incentive to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and better themselves.
The Nanny State on the other hand, keeps them happy with everything they need and many things they could ever want. So there is no incentive.

@Mr Lundt....I don't know how old you are, but I can remember poverty very well. When I was younger I traveled and lived in many areas of the US and poverty was very much a part of the fabric of the nation. We had a large number of people dying from the affects of poverty. It was common for people to die of infections and untreated injuries because they didn't have money to pay for medical treatment. The War on Poverty was started to address the issues found in the rural south, Appalachia, and chronic poverty in the cities. What is different now compared to then is the availability of low skilled jobs. Back then you could get a low skill job doing manual labor or working on an assembly line. Those jobs don't exist in the quantities needed to employ those needing employment. Also, when the War on Poverty began we had a national population of 192 million and a poverty rate of approximately 20%, now we have a population of over 300 million and a poverty rate of 14.3%. That sir, is a significant change and to claim that things have gotten worse is just plain wrong.

What you don't seem to understand is that government is the agent of the sovereign community. By the power vested in the government by the majority of sovereign individuals, it carries out the public will. The government is not separate from society. Your position of treating government as a separate entity is entirely incorrect.

@lundt There will always be generations of people who live on government dole as long as our largest employers, WalMart et al, continue paying minimum wage to their employees to keep their profits up because they know that their employees have to qualify for welfare in order to survive. It's not always about laziness, there is a significant cycle that needs to be broken.

and...why should stocking shelves be compensated $10,12,15/hr?

McAvoy:

Walmart doesn't pay their employees based on them getting welfare to survive, they pay their employees based on the value of the work they are doing. How much should a person get paid to hand out shopping carts or to stock shelves? If people feel they aren't earning enough working for Walmart, they should apply for work at one of the many other department store chains.

Walmart has cheap pizza.

LOL...
IF that is his real name.

We just need more rich people.

"This will not add one dime to the deficit" - Obama hundreds of times.

He's right. It adds billions of dimes, not just one.

Steve ... what he says is not important .... obviously ... and that what he does ensures the poor are left wanting ... what a pathetic leader.

You give him too much credit by calling Obama a "leader" The only thing he leads is more division, fear and pain. He is truly pathetic.

@Bottom Line....Philosophically I don't support inheritance in the way we have allowed it to evolve. I am an advocate of equality of opportunity. My main opposition to inheritance is that it gives an advantage to those who benefit from the accident of birth. If one looks to socio-biology and its impact on positive evolvement of the species, the best is brought out by enduring and coping with external and internal stress. This is the role concept in social organization called exceptionalism. In other words it is where the best of the best rises to the top. We see this played out in athletics over and over again. It doesn't matter that someone is born to a great athlete, each individual starts at the bottom continuously proving themselves over and over again, having the opportunity to achieve greatness on their own. We hold dearly the value of self fulfillment and see that society, in general, benefits from people having to prove themselves. Those that receive large inheritances short circuit the process and do not necessarily deserve the position at the top. For example; would the Koch Brothers be as successful as they are if they would have had to start at the bottom like their father did? Would the inheritors of Sam Walton have been able to accomplish what their father did? One of the problems encountered by children of successful parents is whether or not they could succeed without the success of their parent/s.

And I could point to countless heirs who have squandered their inheritance.

Shut up Ruble, you make no sense.

Lyle: While I do not agree with you I think I understand your point. Where would Al Gore be without all that family tobacco money, etc?
But why should the Government get it?
This will somehow equate to equality of opportunity?

@Lyle
Who cares? Whether or not Sam Walton's kids got a lot or a little, makes no difference to me. You are trying to sell some idea that their inheritance has an impact on whether or not I can succeed. That's bull plop.

More importantly, you make the example of the professional athlete. There are people who will practice for hours, day, years hoping to gain the abilities that most professional athletes are born with. They have been born with an unequal advantage (genetic inheritance) that the rest of haven't. Watching my kids, it is plain to see that athleticism is an advantage some possess over others. How to propose to equalize that opportunity?

In both cases the desire to develop your inheritance is what separates all of us. Many inner city blacks that could go pro choice not to and live the thug life. If the Koch money would have gone to Lindsay Lohan, she would have snorted it long before it could have been put the good use. The difference between Lebron James a street thug is his choice to use his inheritance. The same goes for the Koch brothers. That choice is the American Exceptionalism, equality in opportunity you wish to denounce and destroy.

Your post reads as pure envy/jealousy. True to liberal form, materialism makes the man.

@Craig...Thank you for acknowledging you get me point. I don't necessarily think the government should get your inheritance. The proper model is what I think that Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and Ted Turner are following, to donate their wealth to make the world a better place. They represent only the latest examples of such thinking. Andrew Carnage was one of the first benefactors to society. The Rockefeller Foundation has given to the world and much of it has benefited humanity. Look at the giving of the Walton Family and the Koch Brothers, it has had a positive impact.

My view and philosophy makes it more important to spend one's fortune on making the world a better place. I would much prefer it go somewhere that it could do some good rather than give it up to the government.

Something else one needs to look at is what was the purpose of inheritance. Prior to the advent of the nuclear family and welfare programs, inheritance was kept within the extended family to maintain the health and security of the basic structural unit. The extended family functioned as banker, landlord, old age security, child care center, etc. Usually the eldest son of the eldest son was the executor of the economic structural unit. The family owned the wealth, not the individual. Much of what we pay for now to provide essential services were provided for by the family. Also, family need was placed over individual need. We still see this model in Asian and Mid Eastern societies.

I agree Lyle.
All are great points.
The problem with family owning the wealth as opposed to individuals is the regulations. It is a separate entity that requires oversight, costs, taxation, etc.
The person who accumulated the funds has a right to do with them as (s)he sees fit. They can give everything to charity, give it to an individual, or place it in a trust. That should remain their right. Some people have the opinion that trusts are control from the grave, but so is the decision to leave everything to a charity.
Family dynamics often dictates what the decision will be.

@J.B. Schmidt...Please don't take things so literally, the Walton's was just an example. Let me see if I can't show you some examples that might better illustrate my point.

One of your children has the desire to go to one of the service academies. They work hard and achieve the academic record required, they are reasonably athletic and show a great amount of self discipline. They apply to your local congressman to get an appointment. At the same time a kid that doesn't have your kid's qualifications also applies, but his or her parents are big political contributors to the congressman and the congressman sponsors their kid. In this case merit doesn't matter, but social position and wealth does. Another example is someone who applies to medical school. They have all the right qualifications, tested very well on the MCAT. Another student not quite as qualified as your child also applies and gets in when your child doesn't. The other child's parent is a physician that has been contributing thousands a year to their alma mater. Did wealth and position not limit your child's opportunity?

This is not anything to do with envy, but everything to do with stacking the deck to assure you have or your progeny have a winning hand. If you, as you claim, support the idea that with enough hard work and desire, one can succeed; maybe not when privilege and position is unequally distributed. Inherited wealth is a means for unequal privilege.

@Lyle
When one of children fails to get the things you mentioned because of an affirmative action requirement, will you claim the same thing? Or is that equality in action?

If my child is that obsessed with the material, then I already failed. They are entitled to no position in life and at any number of crossroads life will slap them down. You are basing your justification for fairness on purely material things.

The examples you list are impossible to stop and they happen at every level of education and career path. My family faced it in an elementary school. By attempting to restrict the passage of inheritance as a means to end favoritism, is like trying to kill a weed by cutting off the top 1/4 of the plant. If you restrict inheritance, people who wish their wealth be given to their kids will find other ways of doing it. The expansion of the tax code always produces those that find a way out of paying. Not to mention, the actions you list will continue, because even if you remove the wealth, something like fame or celebrity status will replace it.

In the end, you have made an emotional piece of legislation that feels good, but has no bite. It would never correct the problems you list.

Lyle: Serious question for you.
I am broke, my kid is in the process of preparing to take her MCATs.
From what you said, am I correct to assume she is screwed and has no chance?
Should I be looking for someone to sell a kidney to so I have the means to grease a wheel?

@J.B. Schmidt....G-d's will!

@Craig....Fortunately, there are other options such as Public Health and military scholarships for training physicians. No need to sell a kidney.

Lyle: At this point, I'm all in at 23 grand a year. I'd double down if I have to.
No one would take my organs anyway, they are out of tune.

T. Boone Pickens 'sizes-up' the vacuous rhetoric of "fairshare" during an MSNBC Morning Joe visit. I've seen him do this on CNBC too, but the way he handles the MSNBC crowd is always...... entertaining. Nobody frames it better than T.Boone!

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/12/07/t-boone-pickens-wants-obama-tell-him-what-his-fair-share-taxes

mm mmm mm