On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 13:35:33 -0700 (PDT), Jonathan Cook
wrote:

On Sep 30, 9:20 am, D. LaCourse wrote:

much reinvesting in the store. To think that $250k a year is a lot of
money and those that make it are *millionaires* is false. It takes
money to run a business, any business, and to pay more taxes just is
not right.

The money they reinvest won't be taxed regardless the tax rate; that's
a red herring. Presumably they are paying themselves a reasonable
"living" wage which comes out of the business before figuring its
profit, so if they're pulling $250K profit on top of that I have no
problem taxing it. I have personal decades-long experience with a
small business that didn't see that kind of profit in 10 years, much
less one, so I'm having a hard time sympathizing.

This is what I don't get - why shouldn't _all_ "business owners" be taxed
equally? Why should those who do _moderately_ well be taxed more? Let's be
realistic, 250K is certainly comfortable, but it isn't rolling-in-it-rich - why
not tax 100K or even 50K at 40%? According to your own description, you spent
decades and only made 25K a year - where does your "sympathy" begin?

Congress and this president think that we can spend our way into
prosperity. That is the first time I have ever encountered that
thinking.

Oh come on. Both parties have been doing this for 40 years...neither
party is saying anything that could be even remotely construed as
coming close to doing anything serious about deficit spending. They
are both addicted to Bernanke's printing press.

My grandkids are ****ed at you and me and Fortenberry, et al for the
position we have put them in.

And they should be. The prosperity we enjoyed (you included) we didn't
earn; we simply borrowed it from them.

Um, what's this "we" ****, Kemosabe? I work _hard_ to earn what I earn (and
yes, I readily admit it - I "play" pretty hard, too, but I do it on money I've
earned) and I put my own capital at risk when and where necessary. I do not
feel the need to further subsidize things for those who simply don't wish to pay
for what they want - _want_ - not _need_ and are unable to provide it for
themselves. For example, I've never financed a car or any other consumer
good(s), yet plenty of folks finance darned near everything and do so based upon
_want_, not _need_.

Many folks in the US make such a big deal about how well many European countries
treat folks, but in France, for example, if you earn anything, you pay into the
kitty, and even with that, they've still managed to spend themselves into
problems. Most folks accept the fact that no one will just come right out and
buy them a TV, a car, etc., yet somehow they think that others should pay for
their "government-supplied" services (and even those things that really
shouldn't be government-supplied, like health care or retirement, the small
portion of society who simply cannot provide for themselves excepted).

TC,
R

Jon.