Jim, just a curiosity, how you define 'very very' and/or 'crazy' level for taxes in numerical terms?

>Grady,
>
>I challenge your statement "...punishing a nation's successful people to pay for those who are much less successful only causes the successful people to question why they should bother to continue.".
>
>Where do you get off with your equivocating taxes with punishment? Taxes are NOT "punishment" unless they reach a very very high level. Taxes are used to pay for government services that people need or demand.
>
>What do you mean by "...to pay for those who are much less successful..."????
>People who pay higher tax rates are NOT paying for people who are much less successful! ALL taxes (supposedly) go to services for THE PEOPLE.
>
>And, believe it or not, more affluent people often reap far more benefits from those expenditures done for the people in general.
>Think of roads, for one example. You and I and average Joe get good benefit from long, wide and well-maintained roads. But richer people are the ones in a position to benefit even more. Those SAME roads get used by transport companies to make juicy profits. Those same roads are used by manufacturers to get their goods to market for their profits.
>Taxes pay for embassies and consulates around the world. Average Joe makes far far less use of those services than to business owners or richer people generlly. Embassies/consulates have business promotion (of the home country products/services) as one of their top activities. Do you think average Joe makes big use of those services?
>Taxes pay for nature conservancy and maintenance of 'wild' areas. Sure, you and me and average Joe make use of these faclilties. But let me tell you, those same areas (and others we aren't necessarily aware of) also have premiere lodging/services/facilities geared to the affluent.
>There are countless similar situations even without mentioning what having the bucks to do LOBBYING can do for the rich guy.
>Some time ago YOU were bragging about just how excellent your experience has been with healthcare services in Alberta (socialized medicine). And you've mentioned more than once that you are a pensioner on a meagre income (that actually shrinks as inflation grows). Where do you think those excellent services come from?... thin air?????? Taxes, of course, and the vast majority of Canadians are happy to pay extra taxes to have such a service available to us ALL.
>
>As long as taxes do not go 'crazy', taxing a more affluent person more still leave that person with a very nice portion of his/her earnings. It's NOT as if he "earned" $1,000,000 but by the time taxes are paid he ends up with -$50,000. It's more like instead of getting the full million the poor chap is ony going to be able to put $650,000 in the bank. Sure, keeping the full miion would be damned nice. But I think he will get by on $650,000 and won't feel that he's being robbed. If he does then he's just plain greedy.
>
>In other words, your "truth" really needs a thorough re-examination!
>
>Jim
>
>>Mr. Beane.
>>
>>The more to the left a group in power moves the more it raises the taxes of higher income people to finance it's programs. People such as you, Hillary and Obama et al think this is the way to get things done on a national scale. But when you get older and take a good look at it you'll see that punishing a nation's successful people to pay for those who are much less successful only causes the successful people to question why they should bother to continue. If pushed hard enough they will discontinue doing business, terminate employees and generally slow down because it no longer pays them to work. Some will raise the price of their products to compensate for the loss. This is not good for the country. Extreme left societies are doomed to fail economically or change to more capitalistic methods to stay in power. The USSR and China are good examples.
>>
>>Killing the goose that lays the golden eggs has never worked. More bluntly said, Robin hood, who stole from the rich and gave to the poor, was nothing more than a common thief and so it is with left leaning groups in power.
>>
>>Now, I know you aren't old enough to understand or accept this, but in a few years when your paycheck could be bigger you shall understand completely.
>>
>>
>>>Exactly what lie has he been caught in?
>>>
>>>If you put your political affiliations aside and just look at the "issue" I think you will see this as nothing more than a smear attempt by the opposing campaign. In this case, guilt by association.
>>>
>>>>I think it's already over for Obama. He has been caught in a lie, then he comes out with this slick oratory. The Republicans have probably got people working overtime on the commercials showing Obama sitting in the pews clapping and singing while his "minister" tells everyone how evil the US is, how racist the whites are, etc, etc, etc.
>>>>
>>>>I think you can stick several forks in Obama. He may not even get the nod, after Hillary and company hit the convention with this ammunition.
>>>>
>>>>Personally, I'm glad the media is finally doing the vetting that should have been done long ago. If it weren't for Drudge, Fox News and the blogosphere, we would never have heard this.