>>>>>In addition to being a lock on the list of the most memorable new phrases of 2012, the so-called fiscal cliff has to be on the short list of the most misrepresented issues. Taken straight off today's news wire, here is John Boehner saying with a straight face that it is a tax hike on the rich.
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/05/politics/fiscal-cliff/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
>>>>>
>>>>>He is correct that they will be paying more taxes than they are now. What he leaves out is that the tax rate for all Americans was reduced during the Bush administration (with bipartisan support) for a limited time. That time period has been extended at least once and is now scheduled to expire at the end of the year. President Obama has agreed to extend the tax rate cut for all but the richest 1-2% of Americans, those with reported earnings over $250,000 a year. Yes, you read that right. Almost all of us will be paying less taxes than than we would if the temporary tax cut expires as scheduled. The Republicans are going to the wall for the top 1-2%. Think about that.
>>>>>
>>>>>Obama said repeatedly during the campaign that he did not want to extend the tax cut for the wealthiest. This was said and debated many, many times. His position could not have been more clear. He won the election. Now the House Republicans want to have their way anyway. Is there something wrong with this picture?
>>>>
>>>>You just don't get it. I understand that things didn't work out for you, professionally and family-wise. And I am sorry for that.
>>>>
>>>>But for a family of two professionals that have a career of 25 or more years, making 250K is not out of the ordinary. And they are not rich; even though they belong to the 1-2% of higher earners. If you live in NYC you will pay more than 50% for every dollar you make (federal, state, property, fees, etc.) And not much less in my liberal state.
>>>
>>>That's an interesting personal spin on things. I will leave it at that.
>>
>>Let me share with you another personal "spin" :). My brother-in-law is 20 years younger than me. So I have known him since he was in the elementary school. In college he was very liberal (just like most college kids). After college, while at his first job he is still very liberal. My wife and I are laughing amongst ourselves like "give him time he will change." The kid is very hard working and ambitious. He is not happy with what kind of money he is making. So he goes to school for his masters. After masters he gets another job. Still very liberal. Works very hard and still not happy with his financial situation. So he goes to law school at night (borrows money on top of what he already owes for other schools). Make the long story short. He is now a partner in one of the top law firms in Boston. Married to a professional; has two kids. He is now Republican and proudly displays it on his Facebook. So my conclusion is that if a person, by the time they are 35 yo, is still liberal he/she is either socialist or loser <bg>
>
>I guess that makes me either a socialist or a loser ;-)
>
>My father predicted the same thing to me many times, that I would become more conservative. Call me a bleeding heart but that has never happened, not even when I was making a boatload of money. I have always been a liberal and don't apologize for it. I have always believed in our progressive tax system -- that's a fact, BTW, not a debate -- in which those with higher incomes pay not only more tax dollars but at a higher rate. That is the way it is in every other industrialized country as far as I know -- the more fortunate give a helping hand to the less fortunate. And before you say it, I do not mean fortunate in the sense that they were just lucky. In many, if not most cases, they got there with hard work. That doesn't change the view that we should help out the less able.
>
>Let's just agree to disagree. Neither of us is going to convince the other anyway, are we?

I was hoping there is hope for you still <bg>.

One of the problems with progressive tax system is that it is for middle or upper middle class only. The rich - really rich like W. Buffet - will get away paying less anyway. The system is progressive now but Warren Buffet payed what.. like 17% tax. So by raising his rate to 90% - on paper - won't make a difference. Notice that Obama is against closing loopholes. Because the real rich give Obama money. And Obama likes it that way <g>.