Is it even worth it?

[SL_Solow]

David;  Let me know, I will arrange a game.

[Lester George]

Kris,

"As my STRONG support of caddie golf is well known to many on this site, VK's comments might differ in some significant ways from my own, but he is certainly entitled to them. The last time I checked this was still America".

Yes, VK is entitled to his comments, and some on here have spent a lifetime defending his right to his opinion.  My only question is this, if he felt so disturbed and offended by TPauls revelations and comments, wouldn't it have been more a compelling reason for him to CONTACT Tom in advance of his nuclear strike rather than make a fool of himself then realize TPaul is not so bad after they spoke?

Lester

[Mac Plumart]

Yes, VK is entitled to his comments, and some on here have spent a lifetime defending his right to his opinion.  My only question is this, if he felt so disturbed and offended by TPauls revelations and comments, wouldn't it have been more a compelling reason for him to CONTACT Tom in advance of his nuclear strike rather than make a fool of himself then realize TPaul is not so bad after they spoke?

Sure, he should have contacted Tom Paul privately before making a fool out of himself.  But as someone who's made a fool out of himself many times over, sometimes we make mistakes. 


VK...let's see that lotto list!!! 

[V. Kmetz]

Hi Mac,

I just got a litany of copy edits to incorporate for my Master's Thesis, I was settling down to re-create the bulk of the post last night (that I lost) and I have to do this as the damn thing is due Thursday.  I didn't anticpate so many things to have to pick through with a comb

I will respond as soon as I can but this may not be until tomorrow afternoon.

I'm trying not to look at the board until then at it is worse than Facebook or a teenager's cell phone for distraction.

cheers

vk

PS:  Lester, I only knew Tom Paul as a former poster that was off the board, I didn't know an immediate way to contact him directly.

[Michael George]

Is it just me, or is the prose of V. Kmetz difficult to read?

Most self-absorbed, pseudo-intellectual, angst-ridden political tomes have an element of reading difficulty to them.  I'm just having fun here, but my new, mental image of our colleague Mr. Kmetz is that of the political prisoner chained to the train car in Dr. Zhivago, railing against the car's inhabitants.  Again, just teasing, because the Access Whore in me is still trying to figure out a way for VK to arrange a gca play day/political theory retreat at Winged Foot later this summer.

+1.  Remember law school judge.  First rule in legal argument was to make a clear, concise argument that is easy to read or understand.  Funny how our good Mr. Kmetz feels the need to write in such manner, while the greatest attorneys in America, like David Boies, speak so simply.  As a great litigator once told me, beware of the rural attorneys, as their simple verse has a way of convincing people.  Maybe that is not Mr. Kmetz's intent - don't know.

[Michael George]

Kris,

"As my STRONG support of caddie golf is well known to many on this site, VK's comments might differ in some significant ways from my own, but he is certainly entitled to them. The last time I checked this was still America".

Yes, VK is entitled to his comments, and some on here have spent a lifetime defending his right to his opinion.  My only question is this, if he felt so disturbed and offended by TPauls revelations and comments, wouldn't it have been more a compelling reason for him to CONTACT Tom in advance of his nuclear strike rather than make a fool of himself then realize TPaul is not so bad after they spoke?

Lester

Why is it that those with the last name George make the most sense around here ?

[Sven Nilsen]

Kris,

"As my STRONG support of caddie golf is well known to many on this site, VK's comments might differ in some significant ways from my own, but he is certainly entitled to them. The last time I checked this was still America".

Yes, VK is entitled to his comments, and some on here have spent a lifetime defending his right to his opinion.  My only question is this, if he felt so disturbed and offended by TPauls revelations and comments, wouldn't it have been more a compelling reason for him to CONTACT Tom in advance of his nuclear strike rather than make a fool of himself then realize TPaul is not so bad after they spoke?

Lester

Why is it that those with the last name George make the most sense around here ?

I thought George was your first name.

[Mark_F]

Debt from previous years (in this case incurred by borrowing to cover Iraq and Afghanistan war costs) aren't a part of the DoD budget. The actual spending for military related activities is in the 600-700B range.

The USA borrows money to wage war on harmless foreign countries? 

Has Harvey Norman branched out into America ?  Bomb Kabul today, no interest, no repayments until June 2026?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Lester, I only knew Tom Paul as a former poster that was off the board, I didn't know an immediate way to contact him directly.

You could have inquired, in a thread or vis a vis IM's and ascertained his contact info rather quietly and quickly.

[John Kirk]

My general sentiment about today's world is fear.  I'm worried about things, and cannot see how (at least American) society will be equal or more prosperous in ten years.  To me, the world appears in an endgame battle for money, oil and other precious resources.  No other rationale accounts for the behavior of nation states so well.

Lots of people are afraid, apprehensive at least.  I wanted to comment on this thread several times, but am well aware that anything I say has the potential of enduring personal attacks.

And I got rid of the link and post.  Too radical, too inflammatory.

[Dan Herrmann]

John - just wait - you think countries fight over oil...  Wait till you see the world fight over water in 30 years.

Yes - this ties in to GCA.  We need new grasses for golf that can thrive without irrigation.  But that's another thread for another day

Please continue

[Will Lozier]

Will Lozier,

Some hard working successful people in New Jersey pay taxes on upper end income at about 65 %.

What's their fair share ?  75 % ?     85 %   95 % or 100 %

Let's not confuse capital gains taxes on investments placed at risk, with taxes on ordinary income.

For those whose income is deemed "ordinary", why do you seek to take substantially more than 50% of what they make.

Pat,

I don't seek to take substantially more than half of what they make.  Half would seem to me the ultimate number - no higher.  I don't know what the number should be...even as a math teacher, I've never sat down to crunch any numbers.  I just think it sucks that, however one earns their money - by working 70 hours a week as a teacher and coach or simply reinvest their earnings - Mitt Romney and Warren Buffet pay a lower rate to do the latter.  Investing is their job.  As important as investors are, they shouldn't be taxed in a way that rewards one way of income over another - especially when my job is fairly important itself .  

The reason I brought those past rates up is that we again have entered - justly or unjustly (and illegally) - into warS and it doesn't seem to be good sense that cutting wealthy Americans a break at a time when these wars are being fought on the backs of the mostly middle and lower class.  To me it would seem to be worthy patriotic sacrifice, duty?  I do understand that many Americans don't trust the government to spend any tax revenue efficiently and the resultant feeling that "they" are taking "your money".  I just don't buy that...that money raised could go to directly pay down the debt (maybe very little?).  I also don't buy that higher taxes will inherently strip the wealthy of their desire to make more money.

Cheers

[Will Lozier]

From Bill McBride:

At some point in the not-too-distant future of this great country, the adults are going to have to sit down together and have an intelligent conversation about how we're going to move toward a balanced budget, and what level of revenues and spending will be required to achieve that objective over any given decade (as a dedicated Keynesian, I don't believe "balanced" is necessary or desirable on an annual basis).



Bill,

Brilliant and simple reality.  Well done.

Cheers

[jeffwarne]

From Bill McBride:

At some point in the not-too-distant future of this great country, the adults are going to have to sit down together and have an intelligent conversation about how we're going to move toward a balanced budget, and what level of revenues and spending will be required to achieve that objective over any given decade (as a dedicated Keynesian, I don't believe "balanced" is necessary or desirable on an annual basis).



Bill,

Brilliant and simple reality.  Well done.

Cheers

Will,
How about 50% for everybody? (no deductions and no capital gains exemptions related to a business)
That way the "rich" will pay way more than anyone else and shelter nothing, the deficit will be solved immediately, and we can test that theory about tax rates and incentives on the entire working population.
at least 48% of the population will of course be surprised to have a tax bill.

For the life of me, I've never understood how a progressive tax rate is fair, yet it not only is accepted, many want to raise the percentage of taxes those in brackets above them pay.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't seek to take substantially more than half of what they make.  Half would seem to me the ultimate number - no higher.  
But, the government already takes half.

So you want to take another half of what they have left over after the first half is taken ?

And how and WHEN would you propose confiscating the other half you want ?
Annually ?  Once in a lifetime ?  When would the confiscation occur ?

And, in what form would you want that half ?  Cash ?  Or just a 1/2 ownership interest ?

I don't know what the number should be...even as a math teacher, I've never sat down to crunch any numbers.  I just think it sucks that, however one earns their money - by working 70 hours a week as a teacher and coach or simply reinvest their earnings - Mitt Romney and Warren Buffet pay a lower rate to do the latter.  Investing is their job.  

What you and many others don't understand is the following statement.

INVESTMENT IS NOT WITHOUT RISK.

If you don't reward that risk taking,,,,, no one will risk their capital.  You'll create a bunker mentality instead of an entepreneurial mentality.
Capital formation and investment will NOT occur.
Instead of capitalizing their money, they'll just invest it in bonds or the like, never creating a business and never creating any products or jobs

As important as investors are, they shouldn't be taxed in a way that rewards one way of income over another - especially when my job is fairly important itself .  

But, there's NO RISK in your job.
Your salary is not at risk, it's almost guaranteed, and if you work for the government, for sure it's guaranteed.
Every Friday you get paid.
When you invest money in projects, there's risk, there are no guarantees, no guarantee on the return on your principal, and no guarantee on the return OF your principal.  You can lose it all.
The historical difference between earned income and invested income is dramatic.
Yet you feel entitled to confiscate funds that another citizen has put at risk, IF HE'S SUCCESSFUL.
Are you equally prepared to share in his losses ?

The reason I brought those past rates up is that we again have entered - justly or unjustly (and illegally) - into warS and it doesn't seem to be good sense that cutting wealthy Americans a break at a time when these wars are being fought on the backs of the mostly middle and lower class.
You can't bring up past rates in isolation, you have to bring up the surrounding and complete tax code that accompanied them.
Only then would you get an understanding that NO ONE reached the top marginal rates.

In addition, how do you think the bulk of jobs are created in America ?
By entepreneur's investing their own money into a small business.
By RISKING everything they own to follow their dream.

If you tax them, without a premium or discount for the risk they take, no one will take a risk with their capital.
Then what ? 

To me it would seem to be worthy patriotic sacrifice, duty?

DUTY ?
So that the government can spend and waste more of your money.
That's not patriotic, that's idiotic.
EVERYONE of means that I know, would pay more in taxes IF they knew that the government would cut spending and use the increase in tax revenue to reduce the debt, such that our children and grandchildren would have a better life.
But, government has shown, for centuries that it's incapable of controllling itself.

Who said words to the effect, " I don't trust a man to govern his own affairs, why should I trust him to govern the affairs of others ?"
Not Dan King, but, Dan King would know.

Judge Learned Hand aptly described the proper approach to taxes. 

I do understand that many Americans don't trust the government to spend any tax revenue efficiently and the resultant feeling that "they" are taking "your money".  I just don't buy that...that money raised could go to directly pay down the debt (maybe very little?).


I happen to be a very strong supporter of dedicated revenue and discipline.
ie, the gasoline tax going to repair roads and bridges.
But, that doesn't happen in government.  Or even at golf clubs.
If the money is raised, it goes into the general treasury and is spent recklessly.
With everything you've seen over the last few years, you can't really believe that increased tax revenues would be dedicated to pay down the debt.
It will NEVER happen.

I also don't buy that higher taxes will inherently strip the wealthy of their desire to make more money.

From what perspective can you make that claim.
Higher taxes create a disincentive to work harder.
Why work ?  Why work harder if 85 % of what you earn will be confiscated by the government and spent as they see fit.

If a guy makes $ 200,000 and the government will take 85 % of the excess over $ 200,000 why would he want to sacrifice his health, family and time to net 15 % ?

And you don't think that won't strip the wealthy of their desire to work harder.

Let me see if I can rephrase that.

You want me to work harder to support the people who aren't willing to work harder.
How fair is that ?

It's more of the "entitlement" generation.

I saw a great bumper sticker the other day.

"Work harder, 62 people are depending on you ?"

[Mark_F]

My general sentiment about today's world is fear.  I'm worried about things, and cannot see how (at least American) society will be equal or more prosperous in ten years.  To me, the world appears in an endgame battle for money, oil and other precious resources.  No other rationale accounts for the behavior of nation states so well.

There's a pretty good article in the online version of Melbourne's Age newspaper.
http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/apple-and-the-folly-of-outsourced-manufacturing-20120424-1xj2x.html

A teaser: "In the case of Apple, outsourcing manufacturing is not about keeping costs to customers down - they are still paying huge prices for the latest handset or tablet computer. Nor is it about the company's survival: it would still do tremendously well were it to bring those factories back home. No, in the case of Apple, moving jobs offshore has become a way of directing ever more money to those at the top of American society."

[Will Lozier]

From Bill McBride:

At some point in the not-too-distant future of this great country, the adults are going to have to sit down together and have an intelligent conversation about how we're going to move toward a balanced budget, and what level of revenues and spending will be required to achieve that objective over any given decade (as a dedicated Keynesian, I don't believe "balanced" is necessary or desirable on an annual basis).



Bill,

Brilliant and simple reality.  Well done.

Cheers

Will,
How about 50% for everybody? (no deductions and no capital gains exemptions related to a business)
That way the "rich" will pay way more than anyone else and shelter nothing, the deficit will be solved immediately, and we can test that theory about tax rates and incentives on the entire working population.
at least 48% of the population will of course be surprised to have a tax bill.

For the life of me, I've never understood how a progressive tax rate is fair, yet it not only is accepted, many want to raise the percentage of taxes those in brackets above them pay.

Jeff,

Tough to argue from a "fairness" perspective.  Perhaps then living wages might be, well, livable for some who would then have to pay taxes...and teachers might actually be paid what they are worth.

Let me know about your Vineyard experience when it happens.

Cheers

[Patrick_Mucci]

My general sentiment about today's world is fear.  I'm worried about things, and cannot see how (at least American) society will be equal or more prosperous in ten years.  To me, the world appears in an endgame battle for money, oil and other precious resources.  No other rationale accounts for the behavior of nation states so well.

There's a pretty good article in the online version of Melbourne's Age newspaper.
http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/apple-and-the-folly-of-outsourced-manufacturing-20120424-1xj2x.html

A teaser: "In the case of Apple, outsourcing manufacturing is not about keeping costs to customers down - they are still paying huge prices for the latest handset or tablet computer. Nor is it about the company's survival: it would still do tremendously well were it to bring those factories back home. No, in the case of Apple, moving jobs offshore has become a way of directing ever more money to those at the top of American society."

Then can you tell us how the money from offshore operations directs even more money to those at the top of American Society who reside within the United States ?

[Don_Mahaffey]

My general sentiment about today's world is fear.  I'm worried about things, and cannot see how (at least American) society will be equal or more prosperous in ten years.  To me, the world appears in an endgame battle for money, oil and other precious resources.  No other rationale accounts for the behavior of nation states so well.

There's a pretty good article in the online version of Melbourne's Age newspaper.
http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/apple-and-the-folly-of-outsourced-manufacturing-20120424-1xj2x.html

A teaser: "In the case of Apple, outsourcing manufacturing is not about keeping costs to customers down - they are still paying huge prices for the latest handset or tablet computer. Nor is it about the company's survival: it would still do tremendously well were it to bring those factories back home. No, in the case of Apple, moving jobs offshore has become a way of directing ever more money to those at the top of American society."

That explains why VK owned Apple stock...doesn't it?

[Jud_T]

The Buffet Tax is a red herring.  Just another gambit to impress a larger percentage of the voting middle class to run from Romney.  It won't make a dent in the deficit.  A guy works hard, pays 40-50% taxes on his income.  After he pays an exorbitant health care bill, medicare and medicaid taxes that he may or may not ever see and all his living expenses, he saves diligently and invests his savings profitably.  When he sells his investment, he has a return on money he's already paid taxes on.  Now he pays taxes on his investment gains.  He dies.  Now he pays capital gains tax.  Apparently three times isn't the charm....

[jeffwarne]

From Bill McBride:

At some point in the not-too-distant future of this great country, the adults are going to have to sit down together and have an intelligent conversation about how we're going to move toward a balanced budget, and what level of revenues and spending will be required to achieve that objective over any given decade (as a dedicated Keynesian, I don't believe "balanced" is necessary or desirable on an annual basis).



Bill,

Brilliant and simple reality.  Well done.

Cheers

Will,
How about 50% for everybody? (no deductions and no capital gains exemptions related to a business)
That way the "rich" will pay way more than anyone else and shelter nothing, the deficit will be solved immediately, and we can test that theory about tax rates and incentives on the entire working population.
at least 48% of the population will of course be surprised to have a tax bill.

For the life of me, I've never understood how a progressive tax rate is fair, yet it not only is accepted, many want to raise the percentage of taxes those in brackets above them pay.

Jeff,

Tough to argue from a "fairness" perspective.  Perhaps then living wages might be, well, livable for some who would then have to pay taxes...and teachers might actually be paid what they are worth.

Let me know about your Vineyard experience when it happens.

Cheers

well hopefully in my Utopia the rate would be less than 50% and all people would have incentive to seek gainful employment and have the ability to pay taxes.

I do get irritated when I see campaign ads about "fairness" (as in the rich) in taxation, then find out my neighbors living a similar lifestyle pay no taxes and their kids go to private colleges virtually free-
 I'd actually say that's fair as we're both broke at the end of the month, except he won't have $400,000 in debt when his first 2 kids graduate college-and then I get to pay mortgage tax if i choose to refinance that!

[Randy Thompson]

Vinne or vk
Like previously stated, I thought your original post lost a lot impact for the sarcastic tone and the vocabulary in general went way over my head and was hard for me to follow but on the things I did catch, I agreed and disagreed, but all this is irrelevant because I am writing you for a different reason. I want to congratulate you for your excellent short story you wrote as an undergraduate. I read it Sunday night and had a smile the entire thirty minutes I read it. It was wonderful read and the best part was, it was free! Something unusual today in our society, thirty minutes of great entertainment for FREE! I grew up next to a golf course, did some very limited caddying in my younger-younger years and started digging holes and cutting greens on a golf course 38 years ago in New England. I got my education in Turf grass management, was a superintendent at a course with a PGA tournament, constructed courses and during the last fifteen years, hit an all time low and have become a Golf Course Architect! There was so much in the short story that I could relate to, that made it such an enjoyable read. Surrounded by millionaires, earlier in my career and graduated to billionaire clients in the latter part of my career. Some were excellent human beings and became friends and some were miserable despicable human beings, as in all walks of life. What I want to share is with you is that the envy that the caddies possessed for the clients can sometimes be a two way street. As you pointed out we all have a lot animal behavior in us and sometimes we think the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. Some twenty five years ago I became Director of Golf at a new development following the completion of construction in which I was employed. The project manager noticed my love and enthusiasm I had for the course and knew the best salesmen are those who believe in their product. Therefore he offered me to enter into the lots sales on a part time basis through the contact I had with the golfing public.  One of my clients and I were playing one day and we started talking about what he did for a living. He explained he refurbished and customized jets for Princes, Sultans, Kings and golf pro-turned architects. Continuing the round, the conversation turned to name dropping the great courses we had played, one trying to top the other and the great golfing experiences we had been fortunate to live. When backed into a corner by one of his recent trips, I played my trump card telling him how my best friend was building the third course at Casa de Campo and had the added responsibility of being in charge of Pete Dyes house on the fifth hole of Casa de Campo and how I had made two visits there and stayed in Pete Dyeīs house and was welcomed back at anytime. So during the beers after the round he says to me, I just finished customizing a zillion million dollar jet and have a contract on it but the paper work wasnīt finished yet and a temporary delivery date was set for ten days in the future. So he proposes we take it for a test drive to the Dominican. Forty eight hours later we were in the air and Dominican bound for Dye Estates! At the time American Airline, AMR had merged or something big was going on and the stock was supposed to soar and he bought in heavy before we left. We had the time of our lives, at least I felt we did, you can imagine all the details and some you might not could imagine. During the time we were there, AMR took a dive and he lost half or three quarter of million, on paper at least. He was quiet and deep in thought on the return flight and I sat next to him and tried to consul him with such comments, as donīt worry it, what goes down most of the time goes back up and you will get em next week. He said, itīs not that! When I dug deeper he opened up and said everything was great and thanked me for everything…very impressive but the thing that impressed me the most was our caddy, Sammy! He said, “I donīt think I ever met anyone that is truly more happy than he is and itīs made me look and reflect on my life”. He has nothing, maybe 2,000 dollars a year income and his energy and happiness you feel from one hundred yards. I havenīt slept in three nights because of that dam stock and I donīt remember the last time I woke up singing in the shower and I bet my bottom dollar that guy wakes up six to seven days a week singing in the shower! So envy is sometimes a two ways street!                                                                                                                    Itīs a shame more on the site didnīt read your short story. If they did, they would understand that you have a love for caddying that goes Soul deep! At least that was my conclusions. I wish you all the luck in your new career embarking. You have a god given talent. I hope you choose to channel it in a positive direction. I suspect you will still continue to caddy on and off throughout the rest of your life. If you ever write a book in the future about caddying, put me down for the first copy, just lighten up on the vocabulary please.

[Will Lozier]

I don't seek to take substantially more than half of what they make.  Half would seem to me the ultimate number - no higher.  
But, the government already takes half.

So you want to take another half of what they have left over after the first half is taken ?

And how and WHEN would you propose confiscating the other half you want ?
Annually ?  Once in a lifetime ?  When would the confiscation occur ?

And, in what form would you want that half ?  Cash ?  Or just a 1/2 ownership interest ?

I don't know what the number should be...even as a math teacher, I've never sat down to crunch any numbers.  I just think it sucks that, however one earns their money - by working 70 hours a week as a teacher and coach or simply reinvest their earnings - Mitt Romney and Warren Buffet pay a lower rate to do the latter.  Investing is their job.  

What you and many others don't understand is the following statement.

INVESTMENT IS NOT WITHOUT RISK.

If you don't reward that risk taking,,,,, no one will risk their capital.  You'll create a bunker mentality instead of an entepreneurial mentality.
Capital formation and investment will NOT occur.
Instead of capitalizing their money, they'll just invest it in bonds or the like, never creating a business and never creating any products or jobs

As important as investors are, they shouldn't be taxed in a way that rewards one way of income over another - especially when my job is fairly important itself .  

But, there's NO RISK in your job.
Your salary is not at risk, it's almost guaranteed, and if you work for the government, for sure it's guaranteed.
Every Friday you get paid.
When you invest money in projects, there's risk, there are no guarantees, no guarantee on the return on your principal, and no guarantee on the return OF your principal.  You can lose it all.
The historical difference between earned income and invested income is dramatic.
Yet you feel entitled to confiscate funds that another citizen has put at risk, IF HE'S SUCCESSFUL.
Are you equally prepared to share in his losses ?

The reason I brought those past rates up is that we again have entered - justly or unjustly (and illegally) - into warS and it doesn't seem to be good sense that cutting wealthy Americans a break at a time when these wars are being fought on the backs of the mostly middle and lower class.
You can't bring up past rates in isolation, you have to bring up the surrounding and complete tax code that accompanied them.
Only then would you get an understanding that NO ONE reached the top marginal rates.

In addition, how do you think the bulk of jobs are created in America ?
By entepreneur's investing their own money into a small business.
By RISKING everything they own to follow their dream.

If you tax them, without a premium or discount for the risk they take, no one will take a risk with their capital.
Then what ?

To me it would seem to be worthy patriotic sacrifice, duty?

DUTY ?
So that the government can spend and waste more of your money.
That's not patriotic, that's idiotic.
EVERYONE of means that I know, would pay more in taxes IF they knew that the government would cut spending and use the increase in tax revenue to reduce the debt, such that our children and grandchildren would have a better life.
But, government has shown, for centuries that it's incapable of controllling itself.

Who said words to the effect, " I don't trust a man to govern his own affairs, why should I trust him to govern the affairs of others ?"
Not Dan King, but, Dan King would know.

Judge Learned Hand aptly described the proper approach to taxes.

I do understand that many Americans don't trust the government to spend any tax revenue efficiently and the resultant feeling that "they" are taking "your money".  I just don't buy that...that money raised could go to directly pay down the debt (maybe very little?).


I happen to be a very strong supporter of dedicated revenue and discipline.
ie, the gasoline tax going to repair roads and bridges.
But, that doesn't happen in government.  Or even at golf clubs.
If the money is raised, it goes into the general treasury and is spent recklessly.
With everything you've seen over the last few years, you can't really believe that increased tax revenues would be dedicated to pay down the debt.
It will NEVER happen.

I also don't buy that higher taxes will inherently strip the wealthy of their desire to make more money.

From what perspective can you make that claim.
Higher taxes create a disincentive to work harder.
Why work ?  Why work harder if 85 % of what you earn will be confiscated by the government and spent as they see fit.

If a guy makes $ 200,000 and the government will take 85 % of the excess over $ 200,000 why would he want to sacrifice his health, family and time to net 15 % ?

And you don't think that won't strip the wealthy of their desire to work harder.

Let me see if I can rephrase that.

You want me to work harder to support the people who aren't willing to work harder.
How fair is that ?

It's more of the "entitlement" generation.

I saw a great bumper sticker the other day.

"Work harder, 62 people are depending on you ?"

Wow.  

Pat,

I work my ass off in my job working with kids teaching them, besides math and soccer, to think for themselves, to be informed, and to be respectful.  I paid for my own college education with the help of government loans, invested my money in a house (with a government loan) which my wife and I renovated, and we don't ask for entitlements (please don't call government loans entitlements).  So don't label me as some preconceived fantasy notion of what you want me to be - someone who suits your ideological bullet points.  Don't pretend to have me figured out.

I simply and civilly pointed that over the last century in our country, during similar times, the highest income tax rate was substantially higher and the elite class much smaller in number.  Are you really that stubborn to not even contemplate that a low tax rate for the wealthy is a part of the problem rather than fire back with an overwritten presumptuous rant.  I guess I would want to teach my kids one less chapter if I had more of MY money CONFISCATED.  Absurd.

By the way, if revenue isn't properly spent at private golf clubs, the haven of wealthy investment bankers, how is the government any worse?

Cheers

[Sven Nilsen]

All of these quotes are from the same guy.  Guess who.

"If anything, taxes for the lower and middle class and maybe even the upper middle class should even probably be cut further. But I think that people at the high end - people like myself - should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we've ever had it."

"If past history was all there was to the game, the richest people would be librarians."

"I just think that - when a country needs more income and we do, we're only taking in 15 percent of GDP, I mean, that - that - when a country needs more income, they should get it from the people that have it."

"Of the billionaires I have known, money just brings out the basic traits in them. If they were jerks before they had money, they are simply jerks with a billion dollars."

"The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we'll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you. But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on."

[Patrick_Mucci]

I simply and civilly pointed that over the last century in our country, during similar times, the highest income tax rate was substantially higher and the elite class much smaller in number.

And I tried to point out to you that nobody reached the higher rates.
If you had lived and paid taxes in the 50's, 60's and 70's you'd understand that system better.
It's not as simple as you depict

Are you really that stubborn to not even contemplate that a low tax rate for the wealthy is a part of the problem rather than fire back with an overwritten presumptuous rant.

Low tax rate ?
Are you obtuse ?
What's low about a 65 % tax rate on earned income ?
You're living in a dream world.  There is NO low tax rate on earned income.
Especially in states like NJ, NY, CT and others.

Investment income should have a lower rate, especially when you consider that taxes have already been paid on that money.

If a guy invests $ 100,000 in a new business, that $ 100,000 was already taxed when he first earned it.
He had to make well in excess of $ 100,000 to net that $ 100,000.
And now that he wants to invest his after-tax money, you want to tax it again, at 50 %, despite the fact that he's putting it at risk ?
Give me a break.
You'll NEVER get anyone to invest a dime under your hairbrained system.
And, then what happens, capital flows to a better environment, overseas, and the overseas economies will prosper while we suffer.
You should run for office.

I guess I would want to teach my kids one less chapter if I had more of MY money CONFISCATED.  Absurd.

What's absurd is your lack of understanding when it comes to the real world.

By the way, if revenue isn't properly spent at private golf clubs, the haven of wealthy investment bankers, how is the government any worse?

"The haven of Weatlhy Investment Bankers" ?  
What dream world do you live in ?
Do you really believe that private golf clubs are populated with "wealthy investment bankers"  ?
Did you ever consider that they're populated by doctors, lawyers, dentists, small business owners, executives, and local merchants ?

Talk about being presumptive ......... and ignorant.