Political thread 2011

[Trafik Jamz]

DaveH;325359 wrote:
That explains it. /shakes head

Eh, it's what I grew up on mostly....that and metal.

I like most music though.

[torbs]

I want Ron Paul to win the nomination, but...

I'm gonna take a long shot and say Newt is going to ultimately be the nominee, if he can get some capital together. I say this because he is BY FAR the best debater of all of them (we live in the USoE, United States of Entertainment), and there are MANY debates left in this primary cycle. He's like the professor in the room who chimes in with history lessons and attempts to keep everybody's eyes on the ball, which is defeating Obama. His polls have been moving up, slowly but surely. Let's not forget that at this time in 2007 it was (correct me if I'm wrong, going by memory) Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson on top.

(the following is in no particular order)

Romney is NOT a long-run non-contender as his beliefs just depend on what day it is and who he's speaking to (or maybe that's why he'll win?). Either way, the man can't hold a steady belief to save his life.

Hermain Cain's 9/9/9 plan will ultimately be his demise because people will eventually realize it holds no teeth and has a large chance (it's Washington D.C...99.999999% chance) of being misused and changed without placing it as a Constitutional Amendment and repealing the 16th Amendment simultaneously. It gives Congress an open door to an entire new tax (national sales) without getting rid of the income tax. I'm all for a national sales tax (i.e. Fairtax, which Hermain states his 9/9/9 is a path to) if it replaces the entire federal tax system, but his plan doesn't do any such thing. It is nice that he opened up the debate for a restructuring of the tax code, however.

Ron Paul has the best messages, but he is a poor communicator. Same story for Gary Johnson.

Santorum is the only one really championing social issues important to social conservatives. There is one thing he took issue which I think he needs to push more about, and that's the breakdown of the American family...Divorce rates, single parents, sense of entitlement, etc.

Bachman is done.

Huntsman still has a shot, although a long one.

Perry is done. He'll be used by the other candidates to help take Romney down.

I could be wrong on this, but this is what my gut tells me.

[torbs]

Trafik Jamz;325325 wrote:
His economic plan is far from solid and does little to encourage growth since the incentive is to save vs spend. It's affect on the lowest wage earners in this country will be devastating as everything that you buy will now be 9% more expensive due to sales tax. It also lacks the ability to even come close meeting our current spending needs (which need to be cut, but will never get to the point where his tax would be feasible during his potential 8 years as president). Plus he'd never get the votes to pass it, even with a republican super majority.

It's no secret that the base needs to be broadened in the tax system. Denying it will only make the issue worse. Nearly 50% don't pay in any income tax or actually gain money from the system. Personally, if you make $20K a year, you can afford to pay a maximum of ~$3438/year in directly visible (I say directly visible because the 9% business tax will be passed along to consumers as well) federal taxes (using 9/9/9), assuming you spend every penny you earn on brand new items and there are no taxes already built into the purchase of items. However, one can argue there's the possibility it would be less than a 9% net difference in cost of goods compared to the current tax system as there are several taxes already built into the price of goods that would be reduced, reducing the cost of the goods. Therefore, the ~$1638 of that amount will most likely be less. Also, think of it this way, a national sales tax (that repeals the 16th Amendment) which gets rid of the income tax, makes tourists and illegal immigrants federal taxpayers too. This is coming from somebody who has lived below the poverty line, but at the same time managed to not take handouts and have a pretty good standard of living.

To repeat, I'm not for 9/9/9 as it sits because there is no plan to repeal the 16th Amendment nor add it to The Constitution as an Amendment. I also don't like it for the fact it still has an income tax. Taxes at the point of where they are earned is not something the federal government should be doing, however, states have the right to do it if they so wish. Also, it's been far too long since I've argued with Chuck about something

[Trafik Jamz]

torbs;325366 wrote:
It's no secret that the base needs to be broadened in the tax system. Denying it will only make the issue worse. Nearly 50% don't pay in any income tax or actually gain money from the system. Personally, if you make $20K a year, you can afford to pay a maximum of ~$3438/year in federal taxes (using 9/9/9), assuming you spend every penny you earn on brand new items and there are no taxes already built into the purchase of items. However, one can argue there's the possibility it would be less than a 9% net difference in cost of goods compared to the current tax system as there are several taxes already built into the price of goods that would be reduced, reducing the cost of the goods. Therefore, the ~$1638 of that amount will most likely be less. Also, think of it this way, a national sales tax (that repeals the 16th Amendment) which gets rid of the income tax, makes tourists and illegal immigrants federal taxpayers too. This is coming from somebody who has lived below the poverty line, but at the same time managed to not take handouts and have a pretty good standard of living.

To repeat, I'm not for 9/9/9 as it sits because there is no plan to repeal the 16th Amendment nor add it to The Constitution as an Amendment. I also don't like it for the fact it still has an income tax. Taxes at the point of where they are earned is not something the federal government should be doing, however, states have the right to do it if they so wish. Also, it's been far too long since I've argued with Chuck about something

Sorry torbs, but I LOL when I hear "there are several taxes already built into the price of goods that would be reduced". Taxes seldom get reduced and would likely never do so across the board.

But let's look at the rest of your points. You've said over 50% of American's pay zero federal income tax. I can't argue with that. It is a fact. But it's a fact that will make my point in just a second. 52,000,000 working people had no tax liability in 2008 (latest numbers I could find in the 45 seconds I looked, of them about 1000 are millionaires bringing the total to 51,999,000 "non millionaires" without tax liability...is it ok if I use 52million for my calculations though? thanks!). By your calculations $3438/year in federal taxes (using 9/9/9) per person would be collected.

Simple math tells us that this means there would be $178,776,000,000 in new taxes being collected. This sounds great, right?

Well, maybe not. That also means that there is >$178BILLION that will not be spent at businesses which will decrease the amount of money spent at businesses. Guess what? Poor people shop too. I've been to Walmart, I can verify this. I don't think our economy can absorb an additional 178 billion in lost sales. Considering that 1/2 of American's have less than $2000 in savings I think it's fair to say that the average poor person spends almost every dollar they earn.

Then there is the other loophole in the 9/9/9 plan, it turns our Cain means 9/0/9 for the poor, or as Cain put it: If you aren't paying any income taxes now, you won't under my plan either. (paraphrased). This means that instead of $3438/year collected, the dollar amount drops to $93,600,000,000. So now we "only" take 93 billion out of the economy since they still have to pay the sales tax portion of it.

Point being: His business plan isn't good for the poor and it SUCKS for retail businesses as well.

[torbs]

Chuck, 9/9/9 replaces taxes businesses currently pay. Therefore, by its very definition, it would lower business tax burdens (at least it appears to on the surface). Also, I used $20K per year on taxes as an example. Please do not assert that it is an average for all individuals in that ~50% that don't pay taxes; I did not at all state that. You're playing a political word game in an attempt to make me look incompetent. Valiant effort, however.

Keep in mind I'm for minimal taxation on all individuals, I believe every person should be paying the same percent(ages) for each type of federal tax. A booming economy leads to more jobs, more taxpayers, and an overall larger pie. If somebody moves from making $20K to $30K, even at having to pay 9% both on the income and sales side when they didn't before, they are at a net gain from the 9/9/9 system. They will therefore have more money to spend and put into the economy. I'm not saying 9/9/9 will work, but it's at least something and in its concept may work.

[DaveH]

Trafik Jamz;325367 wrote:
Point being: His business plan isn't good for the poor and it SUCKS for retail businesses as well.

It seems like you are making the typical conservative argument, that you can't take more money from people in taxes because then they have less money to spend. Interesting.

[Trafik Jamz]

Yes Dave, I've always been in favor of moderately low taxes, especially on those who spend 99.99999% of their income to live.

I can make one statement with a fair amount of certainty, shifting to the 9/9/9 plan is regressive in that the working poor will shoulder a higher percentage of their wages as taxes vs the middle class vs the rich. Once you reach a certain point (and it's different for everyone admittedly) you are able to save more and spend less thereby lowering your percentage of income lost to taxes (under this plan). It puts the heaviest weight on those who can afford it least. I'd much rather see a tax rate of say 13% FLAT across the board except for those below the poverty line (progessive tax up to the poverty line, flat after that). No business deductions, no personal deductions, nothing. You make a dollar you pay thirteen cents. You make $1,000,000 you pay 130,000. And I KNOW that isn't a popular idea anywhere, but it is the most fair.

And Torbs, I used your numbers just for the sake of having a number. I know that some people make $5000/year and won't be taxed at that amount. I also know that some people will make $50,000/year (and pay no taxes currently) but will pay more than what you stated. You are trying to make an argument out of me using the average number that you presented. I thought it was a fair number and a close approximation of what reality may be).

[torbs]

Trafik Jamz;325371 wrote:
Yes Dave, I've always been in favor of moderately low taxes, especially on those who spend 99.99999% of their income to live.

I can make one statement with a fair amount of certainty, shifting to the 9/9/9 plan is regressive in that the working poor will shoulder a higher percentage of their wages as taxes vs the middle class vs the rich. Once you reach a certain point (and it's different for everyone admittedly) you are able to save more and spend less thereby lowering your percentage of income lost to taxes (under this plan). It puts the heaviest weight on those who can afford it least. I'd much rather see a tax rate of say 13% FLAT across the board except for those below the poverty line (progessive tax up to the poverty line, flat after that). No business deductions, no personal deductions, nothing. You make a dollar you pay thirteen cents. You make $1,000,000 you pay 130,000. And I KNOW that isn't a popular idea anywhere, but it is the most fair.

And Torbs, I used your numbers just for the sake of having a number. I know that some people make $5000/year and won't be taxed at that amount. I also know that some people will make $50,000/year (and pay no taxes currently) but will pay more than what you stated. You are trying to make an argument out of me using the average number that you presented. I thought it was a fair number and a close approximation of what reality may be).

Chuck, you may want to look into Newt's economic plan. One can either use the current system or use an optional 15% flat income tax. It's very similar to what you outlined, and I think it would actually be very popular, contrary to what you believe. I would also like to see a system similar to it. Here's that part of Newt's plan:

Move toward an optional flat tax of 15% that would allow Americans the freedom to choose to file their taxes on a postcard, saving hundreds of billions in unnecessary costs each year. This optional flat tax system will preserve deductions on charitable giving and home ownership, and create a new personal deduction of $12,000 for every American. This deduction is well above the current poverty level, ensuring that this new system does not unfairly target the poor. Source: http://www.newt.org/solutions/jobs-economy

My point is that the number I presented was not presented as an average number. It was used as an example of a single person's income, not meant to be an average. It's not a big deal. There are bigger and better things to talk about.

[63vette]

Trafik Jamz;325371 wrote:
I also know that some people will make $50,000/year (and pay no taxes currently).

Can you name one person making 50k and paying no takes. I cant, its almost impossible unless the person is getting the 50k already from the government in aid, grants, etc..

[DaveH]

Trafik Jamz;325371 wrote:
especially on those who spend 99.99999% of their income to live.Why does that matter?> Trafik Jamz;325371 wrote:
I can make one statement with a fair amount of certainty, shifting to the 9/9/9 plan is regressiveI haven't researched the 999 deal much, but from just looking at the basics it is anything but regressive. You can make "what if" senarios where the "rich guy" doesn't buy anything and bypasses the sales tax completely, but that is just silly. The "rich guy" has to spend at least as much as the "poor guy" to on the basics to live, most often times way more I would guess (nicer clothes, better food, etc). > Trafik Jamz;325371 wrote:
I'd much rather see a tax rate of say 13% FLAT across the board except for those below the poverty line (progessive tax up to the poverty line, flat after that). No business deductions, no personal deductions, nothing. You make a dollar you pay thirteen cents. You make $1,000,000 you pay 130,000. And I KNOW that isn't a popular idea anywhere, but it is the most fair.A flat tax is ok too, altho I don't really see the end numbers really being much different than the 999 plan. Lets not talk about "fair". "Fair would be everyone paying the same amount. You are an american, you pay $3000 in tax, I'm an american, I pay $3000 in tax, torbs is an american, he pays $3000 in tax, baller fontaine is an american, he pays $3000 in tax. :DI would mainly just like to see that everyone has some skin in the game, the fact that ~43% don't pay income tax is just rediculous.

[Trafik Jamz]

63vette;325375 wrote:
Can you name one person making 50k and paying no takes. I cant, its almost impossible unless the person is getting the 50k already from the government in aid, grants, etc..

Me, 2 years ago....paid zero taxes, made decent money between my wife and I (way more than $50,000) but I have cattle and other write-off's that I get to depreciate on my father's farm. Last year I made too much on the cattle and paid in a bit. Don't ask me to explain how, I have an accountant that does my taxes for me.

[Trafik Jamz]

DaveH;325376 wrote:
Why does that matter?I haven't researched the 999 deal much, but from just looking at the basics it is anything but regressive. You can make "what if" senarios where the "rich guy" doesn't buy anything and bypasses the sales tax completely, but that is just silly.

Never said they wouldn't buy anything, just that they don't spend ALL of their extra income each paycheck like most of the poor do. Let's say they put away 10% of their money. If that is $100,000 per year (on a millionaire) then they are paying a lower rate than the ones who put away $0/year. The regressive part about it is that the poor will almost always spend all of their money every year whereas each level up from them will save a larger portion.

The "rich guy" has to spend at least as much as the "poor guy" to on the basics to live, most often times way more I would guess (nicer clothes, better food, etc).

I agree, he will spend more, but not a higher percentage of his income. No doubt, the dollar amount will be higher for nicer things but he will still pay a lower percentage vs what he earned.

A flat tax is ok too, altho I don't really see the end numbers really being much different than the 999 plan.

Except it's based on income, not consumption purchasing.

Lets not talk about "fair". "Fair would be everyone paying the same amount. You are an american, you pay $3000 in tax, I'm an american, I pay $3000 in tax, torbs is an american, he pays $3000 in tax, baller fontaine is an american, he pays $3000 in tax. :DI would mainly just like to see that everyone has some skin in the game, the fact that ~43% don't pay income tax is just rediculous.

I agree with the last sentence (it's 52% now I believe), and while I agree with the CONCEPT of everyone paying X amount, I don't think the reality is there for that EVER happening. So the next most fair thing is to have everyone taxed at the same rate as that is the most likely to happen (though still slim)

[DaveH]

It must be the same accountant that Wesley Snipes uses.:D> Trafik Jamz;325377 wrote:

Me, 2 years ago....paid zero taxes, made decent money between my wife and I (way more than $50,000) but I have cattle and other write-off's that I get to depreciate on my father's farm. Last year I made too much on the cattle and paid in a bit. Don't ask me to explain how, I have an accountant that does my taxes for me.

[Grr]

Chuck, when you look into the specifics of the 999 plan there is one thing that makes it the most NON-regressive of all plans

the 9% excludes necessities, such as rent/housing, food, and clothing. Thus the tax only really applies to luxury items such as bentley's, escalades, jewelry, etc. As a result the sales tax is nothing more than replacement for the luxury tax that was used for years previously, so this isnt a "new tax" its been around forever. Thus the more money you have the more (as a %) of your income goes to the sales tax. If you are making 20k a year odds are 70-80% of your income goes to those 3 basic items, which means you only essentially pay the 9% income tax.

Another thing is, the ONLY WAY we are going to be able to extract ANY taxes from worthless illegals and also the massive amount of tourism that is here is to implement a national sales tax, I like that cain is leading to that point eventually as there is no way it could be done in one swoop in this environment.

Also how can you not expect prices to fall? Corporate taxes are going to fall from 35% to 9%, those taxes are embedded in the price of items already, so we are looking at a minimum of 15% decrease in price liability to cover those costs. Include the massive accounting and tax savings, not to mention lobbying costs and such and the potential savings are huge. On another note, if prices simply remained the same the savings from the tax structure would result in much larger profits, and in turn much higher dividends to stockholders such as ourselves

[Grr]

on another note:

[Trafik Jamz]

Grr;325422 wrote:
Chuck, when you look into the specifics of the 999 plan there is one thing that makes it the most NON-regressive of all plans

the 9% excludes necessities, such as rent/housing, food, and clothing. Thus the tax only really applies to luxury items such as bentley's, escalades, jewelry, etc. As a result the sales tax is nothing more than replacement for the luxury tax that was used for years previously, so this isnt a "new tax" its been around forever. Thus the more money you have the more (as a %) of your income goes to the sales tax. If you are making 20k a year odds are 70-80% of your income goes to those 3 basic items, which means you only essentially pay the 9% income tax.

Another thing is, the ONLY WAY we are going to be able to extract ANY taxes from worthless illegals and also the massive amount of tourism that is here is to implement a national sales tax, I like that cain is leading to that point eventually as there is no way it could be done in one swoop in this environment.

Also how can you not expect prices to fall? Corporate taxes are going to fall from 35% to 9%, those taxes are embedded in the price of items already, so we are looking at a minimum of 15% decrease in price liability to cover those costs. Include the massive accounting and tax savings, not to mention lobbying costs and such and the potential savings are huge. On another note, if prices simply remained the same the savings from the tax structure would result in much larger profits, and in turn much higher dividends to stockholders such as ourselves

Fair enough, I'll have to read up more on the the sales tax portion. EDIT: Gary, can you please give me a link to look for the info you provided on this? Cain's website doesn't specify any exemptions.

How do I not expect prices to fall? Easy, manufacturing has been shipped overseas for decades lowering the costs of doing business substantially for corporations. The prices on MOST items still go up every year without exception. Lowering corporate taxes will lead to larger pay at the top (just like cutting jobs and shipping them overseas does) and at best prices maintaining their current prices on at the consumer level. I'd be willing to bet $1,000 that if Cain gets elected AND his 9/9/9 plan is put in effect that prices do not significantly drop on anything (besides tv's, phones, etc... because those things already get cheaper over time).

Besides, there are a BUNCH of Fortune 500 companies already paying less than 9% in corporate taxes and their products aren't known for getting cheaper:

Red Hat, Inc
Pre-tax income: $463 million
Taxes paid: $21 million
Tax rate: 4.62%

Boeing Co.
Pre-tax income: $17,587 million
Taxes paid: $796 million
Tax rate: 4.46%

Amazon (Best argument for lower prices, but they were built on low price items/services from the get go...anyway, expect their prices to go up under Cain's plan)
Pre-tax income: $3,512 million
Taxes paid: $152 million
Tax rate: 4.33%

Broadcom Corp
Pre-tax income: $1,228 million
Taxes paid: $41 million
Tax rate: 3.32%

Host Hotels & Resorts
Pre-tax income: $1,116 million
Taxes paid: $34 million
Tax rate: 3.05%

NRG Energy, Inc
Pre-tax income: $5,343 million
Taxes paid: $154 million
Tax rate: 2.88%

Teco Energy, Inc

Pre-tax income: $1,620 million
Taxes paid: $37 million
Tax rate: 2.31%

Allegheny Energy Inc
Pre-tax income: $2,538 million
Taxes paid: $58 million
Tax rate: 2.28%

NVIDIA Corporation
Pre-tax income: $1,817 million
Taxes paid: $41 million
Tax rate: 2.24%

Xcel Energy
Pre-tax income: $4,334 million
Taxes paid: $77 million
Tax rate: 1.78%

NextEra Energy Inc
Pre-tax income: $8,572 million
Taxes paid: $149 million
Tax rate: 1.74%

Plum Creek Timber Co. Inc
Pre-tax income: $1,355 million
Taxes paid: $22 million
Tax rate: 1.62%

Western Digital Corp
Pre-tax income: $2,507 million
Taxes paid: $40 million
Tax rate: 1.6%

HCP Inc
Pre-tax income: $614 million
Taxes paid: $9 million
Tax rate: 1.42%

Carnival Corporation
Pre-tax income: $11,250 million
Taxes paid: $126 million
Tax rate: 1.12%

Range Resource Corporation
Pre-tax income: $1,228 million
Taxes paid: $7 million
Tax rate: 0.53%

The above is based on aggregate data from 2005 to 2009

Article I copy/pasted my data from: http://www.businessinsider.com/16-more-profitable-companies-that-pay-almost-nothing-in-taxes-2011-3#16-red-hat-inc-rht-1

[Trafik Jamz]

Further review from Politifact:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/oct/18/herman-cain/herman-cain-says-9-9-9-plan-does-not-raise-taxes-t/

Politifact wrote:
Here, we wanted to check Cain’s answer to Cooper’s question, that the plan "does not raise taxes on those that are making the least."

We’ve been looking at Cain’s plan as part of our ongoing work fact-checking the Republican nomination contest. Based on what Cain and his campaign have said about the plan, the only exemptions on the income tax will be for charitable deductions and for undefined "empowerment" zones that would encourage development in inner cities. The 9 percent sales tax would apply to all new goods but not to used goods. Payroll taxes on workers would go away.

If you pay no income tax currently -- and about half the country doesn’t -- Cain’s plan means you would pay more income tax.

The day of the debate, a new analysis was published examining Cain’s tax plan. The analysis was published by the Tax Policy Center, an independent policy analysis group that includes tax analysts who have worked in both Democratic and Republican administrations.

The Tax Policy Center analyzed Cain’s plan using the same type of models it has used to examine other national tax proposals.

The analysis found that Cain’s tax plan would result in tax cuts for many of the wealthiest tax payers and tax increases for the poorest tax payers.

The center found that 83.8 percent of tax filers would get a tax increase under Cain’s plan, compared with current tax policy.

On the other hand, most of the tax filers who make more than $1 million would get a tax cut under the Cain plan, about 95.4 percent of this high income group. And the average tax cut for millionaires would be $487,300.

The center also offered analysis of Cain’s plan by income level compared with current tax policy. Most people earning lower incomes would see a tax increase.

Cash income--------------------Percentage of filers with a tax increase
Less than $10,000--------------84.1
$10,000 to $20,000------------ 97.8
$20,000 to $30,000------------ 97.3
$30,000 to $40,000------------ 94.9
$40,000 to $50,000------------ 92.1
$50,000 to $75,000------------ 83.7

We should note that the Tax Policy Center said it had to make a few assumptions about Cain’s plan in order to analyze the plan according to its standard economic model. So it’s possible Cain may release more details that could cause these estimates to change.

Cain said the 9-9-9 plan "does not raise taxes on those that are making the least." But it would raise income taxes on people who now have low tax burdens due to exemptions and deductions. The Tax Policy Center analysis adds more detail and found that high percentages of lower-income tax filers would see tax increases. It’s true that Cain’s campaign may release more details on his plan that could change this picture. But knowing what we know now about the plan, we rate Cain’s statement False.

Unless new details arise, I see virtually no proof that this isn't the most regressive tax ever proposed.

[legacy-user-351]

DaveH;325376 wrote:
Lets not talk about "fair". "Fair would be everyone paying the same amount. You are an american, you pay $3000 in tax, I'm an american, I pay $3000 in tax, torbs is an american, he pays $3000 in tax, baller fontaine is an american, he pays $3000 in tax. :DNot many people seem to grasp that this is what a "Fair tax" would look like. I like to ask these 99%ers, "Do the rich consume more government resources than the poor?" Any tax based on a percentage is inherently UNfair. And any progressive tax is DOUBLY unfair.

People need to understand that mathematical truth before negotiating up from there.

With that said, those who make more money are generally willing to pay a little more as part of an unwritten "social contract" to use a lefty term. But to claim that the rich don't pay their "fair share" is ridiculous. Add that to the fact they they are our employers, and it's easy to see why they're a little pissed off.

[Eurofan]

I find it incredibly ironic that those who spew this income equality shit are generally extremely apposed to a flat tax system.

A flat tax is the definition of a fair tax.

[Trafik Jamz]

[email protected];325427 wrote:
Not many people seem to grasp that this is what a "Fair tax" would look like. I like to ask these 99%ers, "Do the rich consume more government resources than the poor?" Any tax based on a percentage is inherently UNfair. And any progressive tax is DOUBLY unfair.

Many times that answer is going to be yes, the rich DO get more government benefits (I'm defining "benefits" as any source of revenue or incentive received) than the poor. Whether it is the ability to earn money tax free (until the money is taken out of the fund anyway) on their investments in hedge funds and then borrowing money against the earned interest of those funds so that it looks like they are actually losing money every year, even though they are worth millions.

To say the poor don't pay "any taxes" (you didn't say it, but it's an argument I always here) is crazy as well. While it is true that up to 50% don't pay any federal income tax, they are still required to pay payroll taxes which pay for social programs such as medicare and social security. Every single wage earner in this country pays those taxes and at the exact same rate....unless you make more than $106,800/year, that is the cap after which you are no longer required to pay any additional money into Social Security/Medicare. You can make the argument that the poor take more benefits from SS/Medicare than the rich perhaps, but I don't know of a single person who has ever turned down SS/Medicare once they've retired. Keep in mind that statistically you have a >67% chance to have either cancer or heart disease regardless of income level and lifestyle (some things raise that rate of course...) so MOST people will have to use Medicare at some point in their lives, not just the poor...and when they do it will be costly.

With that said, those who make more money are generally willing to pay a little more as part of an unwritten "social contract" to use a lefty term. But to claim that the rich don't pay their "fair share" is ridiculous. Add that to the fact they they are our employers, and it's easy to see why they're a little pissed off.

Many don't though. A lot do, but many don't pay their "fair share". I can look to my own father for this one (who is by no means rich, but I never went hungry growing up either). He started farming in 1970 and bought the farm from my grandpa in 1972. I remember in 2001 him telling me that this was the first year that he ever had to pay federal income tax, and that was only because my mom went to work at a nursing home as a low wage CNA (to this day she still makes under $11/hour, which is the norm for Rugby, ND). Never mind that from 1995 to 2010 he has received almost $527,000 in subsidies.

So, do I think my own father paid his "fair share" of taxes? No. He doesn't think so either. I don't pay my fair share most years either. Yes, I have it taken out of my paycheck like most of the rest of us, but at the end of the year I get the majority of the money back because of my write offs. Just because I don't think I'm paying enough doesn't mean that I'm not going to do everything in my power to ensure that I get as much money back as is possible at the end of the year. Why? Because legally I have a right to get it back.