>>>>>>>>>>>No kidding today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read 'Vote Obama, I need the money.' I laughed.
>>>>>>>>>>>I got into the restaurant and again no kidding my server had on a 'Obama 08' tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference--just imagine the coincidence.
>>>>>>>>>>>When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in
>>>>>>>>>>>disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.
>>>>>>>>>>>I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I 've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.
>>>>>>>>>>>At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient needed money more.
>>>>>>>>>>>I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>You might try this experiment yourself
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Is there any information on how much more people over the magic number will be taxed?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>It depends entirely on Reps preserving filibuster-enabled votes in the Senate. The most vulnerable point is SS taxes: if cap is removed that anyone making more than 100K will be liable for 6.2% on excess amount for W2 filers, or 12.4% for independents. The next target will be capital gain taxes, that may increase from 15% to pre-Bush marginal rates, i.e. 36% for the people in question. Income tax increase that could come in 2010 may add couple more points (about 4-5% based on full earnings).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It might help paying off the huge deficit Bush has built up. Lets face it the rich have had good times for a few years and now you have to pay the tab
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Well, as I already mentioned on some occasion, the first problem is in definition of "rich". For some people, every person not on goverment dole is already rich and for the same people 'rich' means something detrimental, i.e. this person must be punished.
>>>>>>>Now we can go to your another proposition in regard to 'good times'. For you and your ilk 'good times' means that people get too much from government, i.e. government is entitled, in your world, to every penny around, compounding to 100% of earning, and if it 'allows' people ("rich" ones) to keep 60% then it means "good times".
>>>>>>>I think it is quite clear that my opinion in regard to your idea of 'good times' is different. I think that healthy society (one that plans to exist long), is a place where people, able to care about themselves, making own decisions, working hard etc, (i.e. 'rich' people of your mind or 'productive' people of my mind) prosper. The alternative is a place where denominator moved to low side so much (it is a cumulative process) that everyone is not rich and the party starts inventing helicopters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Historically your economy does better under Democratic administrations. You could take the view that the Democrats build everything up then the Republicans spend a few years skimming off the cream, now its time to start building up again.
>>>>>
>>>>>Hopefully, you are not an expert in history, are you? You are making blanket statement that looks very light-weighted. How did you figure out that economy does better under Dems? Is it empiric knowledge or it is based on your familiarity with certain economic theories? It is not just a rhetoric question. Economics is a science, so every statement should be based on theory. You got to explain, if you are serious enough, how you arrived to your conclusion.
>>>>
>>>>http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/21/markets/election_demsvreps/
>>>>
>>>>http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_05/006282.php
>>>>
>>>>http://blogs.princeton.edu/election2008/2008/10/why-the-economy-fares-much-better-under-democrats.html
>>>>
>>>>http://www.articleblip.com/democrats-are-good-for-the-economy
>>>
>>>Wait, a second. It was your personal statement, not just that you were conveying other people messages. If you made that statement then you should be prepared to defend it yourself. Every dumbo and his nephew can find a web link our days, and these links can support anything and everything. Take your responsibility seriously, be a man and put your mind where your mouth opened. You got to show your knowledge of economic theories if you are serious about the economic statement you made.
>>
>>Come on Edward. What do you want him to do, make up numbers? His personal statement is based on statistical evidence. If you refuse to accept statistical evidence then it should be up to you to show why that statistical evidence is bogus.
>
>I asked in first place if he based his statement on empiric (statistic) or theoretical knowledge, and I didn't receive the answer. Your voluntary help cannot be counted as the answer so your 'come on' sentiment is not quite applicable.
>Certainly, I am all out to talk with you about statistical evidence, though, as Mason knows very well, I cannot use links during business hours; therefore, kindly post your statistics here and we can talk more. Please, be advised I will have to take commute break soon, but I will be likely available again in evening hours.

This post reads much differently. I see your point now. I took away from your previous message a totally different meaning.