Don’t raise taxes on anyone!

With the Bush tax cuts, the lower 85% of tax payers get 4% of the cut. The top 15% of tax payers get 96% of the tax cut. small business owners should have their tsxes cut only after they can show that they have created jobs.

Mind sharing where you got those numbers?

Here's some for you:

Top 25% of taxpayers pay 86.6% of the taxes.

Top 50% pay 97% of the taxes

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

Now who should get the benefit of the tax breaks? Income redistribution is a good thing right?

hambone..that's a lie...totally absurd...the irs's own numbers back what sailorman has listed. check it out.

as usual, liberals have lies, distortion, name calling and propaganda on their side, conservatives have facts and numbers. in fact, it has nothing to do with conservative or liberal, it's just the numbers. they don't lie.

small business owners don't have to prove any- thing...most people in this country are employed by small to medium size businesses. hambone do you have any conception of what it's like to work for yourself or run a small business? i do. how about government get off everyone's back and how about the gov. prove that they're a friend of free enterprise. our purpose is not to be a source of revenue for beurocrats. how about the government be as responsible and accountable as the small businessman has been.

I stand by these numbers. If you would bother to read thw wording you would see that we are talking about two different things. But then again don't let FACTS change your thinking!!

Taxes on businesses is called the fools tax in some political circles. Anyone thinking taxes and other legislatively imposed cost is not included in the purchase price of goods and services didn't pay attention in their high school economics class.

Politicians criticize and tax businesses that employ tax paying workers then tax the bejeebies out of them to hide taxes which are eventually paid by the working consumer.

The political strategy; collect the fools tax then use it to buy the fools vote.

Politicians are experts at using the gullible media to bash big businesses and have tax payers join the stoning. They feign shock and criticize again when businesses relocate to where they are treated better. Workers join this criticism and accept the politically planted inaccurate thought that it is the wage difference. Many businesses are poorly manged which makes this political ploy very successful.

The strategy works. 95% of incumbents are re-elected so the tax, borrow, spend tactic continues with no good ending in sight.

You want more of something then recognize and reward it. If you want less then criticize and punish. Why are we so intent on using a terrible tax system to punish success. I didn't attend college and take risk to achieve significant success but I don't support punishing those that did.

Taxes should be paid on what a person spends, not on what they earn. But, that is too simple and takes away the politicians ability to manipulate. Taxing as spent takes away all deductions and the ability to avoid taxes regardless of how the spendable money was obtained.

So you want to change it all to a national sales tax. What would be the rate needed to pay for government and pay off the national debt in say 20 years? Would this tax be on top of state and local sales tax? What would the states that have a income tax do? How would you prevent a run away black market barter system? Would you impliment this tax over night or phase it in? How long would phasing in take?

Doesn't sound all that simple to me.

hambone

Obfuscate all you want. You're complaining because those who pay the most in taxes benefit the most from a rate reduction. Well duh, that's a shocker.

Where did you get the numbers you "stand by".

BTW read the Fair Tax books by Boortz.

While i'm on my soapbox this morning. Someone explain to me how with the tax cuts we've had for 9 years how we have the unemploment we have today. 9.6% Why no jobs created?

sailorman, you're still missing the point. If you want to help the economy you put the money in the hands of those how will spend it asap. They spend it, small business creates jobs. Small business can't create jobs without a market for their goods. A store full of Widgets is no good without customers.

Does anyone believe that moving the top tax rate back to 39% will disincentivise anyone? Get real,progressive tax rates never made a single rich person poor. America's best years were in the middle of the last century with a healthy balance between tax rates and income. The unsustainable debt began with lower tax rates and has now reached a level where the US is faced with some form of debt default.

When a small percentage controls most of the nations wealth,when the vast middle class can no longer live a middle class life,it's time to admit that we have a structural problem. Sure,wasteful government spending is a problem and must be addressed,but the bigger problem is debt service and an enormous percentage of the national income going for military/security purposes.

Until those items are addressed,America will continue to wither.

hambone

I'm not missing the point at all. I don't disagree a bit that putting money in the hands of those who will spend is a must. Your approach is take it from those who have it and give it to those who don't because they are more likely to spend. That's like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The money will be spent regardless. If I misunderstood, I apologize but that's how I interpret what you said.

On the other hand, NC is exactly right - a few percentage points is not going to cause the end of the universe. We most certainly have a structural problem. One which no amount of government tinkering is going to fix. That tinkering is one of the major contributors to the mess we're in. Be it social engineering, NAFTA, GATT, or the tax breaks for big business moving overseas, Washington has incentivized the dismantling of the middle class and American economy. To all you anti-corporate types, yes they are most certainly part of the problem - enabled and exacerbated by encouragement from Washington.

Y'all have a great Labor Day

Fair tax? How about NO income tax.

Think of all the capital sitting on sidelines that would be put to work...

sailorman, How much longer are you saying to wait for the Trickle Down to work? I Don't see it working yet. This country has reached the point that the only one that can create jobs quickly is the government.

hambone..the government?

how do you think we got in this mess. what makes someone like obama, who is the ultimate big goverment/socialist guy, qualified to create jobs? whats jobs?

who will create them, some potato chip munching beurocrat who's spent his whole life in "public service" burping at his desk deep in some isolated, over- priced federalbuilding. what does he know about being an entrepenuer?

if you want jobs created "asap"..then eliminate the income tax, institute a consumption tax and lower property taxes. it will allow individuals to spend more, keep more of what they earn, save more and be more self sufficient. businesses will be able to hire more employees and pay their employees more. consumer confidence will go through the roof and employees will reinvest and hire with confidence.

there is no greedier entity that exists today in america than the federal governement.

What do you estimate your consumption tax will be? What % of your gross income?

i have no idea..there're various consumption and national sales taxe proposals out there..all of which are much more fair than confiscating someone's income. which is immoral. gross income will not come into play at all. why should the governement know how much i make? ...on the other hand, they don't have to answer to anyone. the waste is unbelievable. yet my taxes are gone over with a magnifying glass. the harder you work, the more they take away. not only is it immoral, it's thuggish. we have to decide if we exist to support the federal government, or is the government there to aid the private sector. as it stands, by the amount taken from us at all levels of government, the latter is the case.

what is the obsession with knowing what people make? whether it's the government or individuals. it's class envy, jealousy, pett- iness and an attempt to control people. the time has come to stop that.

hambone

Who said anything about trickle down? Are you really this stupid or are you being deliberately obtuse. Your solution is to take from person A and give to person B because you think person B will spend it and stimulate the economy? Lenin would be proud. Why not just have gov confiscate everything and send everybody the same amount? Oh that's been tried. Turns out there are some more equal than others and the rest starve.

As for consumption tax vs percentage of income - so what? Learn a little bit about the Fair Tax before spouting off.

Good grief.

We've had trickle down for 9 years now and are set to renew it for some period more. It has done just the opposite of create jobs. What I've been saying is to keep the tax cut as is for the lower 85% and to give small business a tax cut for creating jobs only if they are small business and when they show some jobs. It's redistibute the wealth back to where it was 9 years ago when we had a booming economy.

It's false logic to assume that "trickle down" or whatever political terminology you want to describe doesn't work, just because of what's happened over the past 9 years.

It's a non-sequitur.

Capital investment, unimpeded, always produces jobs, drives down costs, and usually produces wealth for the risk-taker.

It's when governments and their henchmen -- which is deeply intertwined in the financial system still to this day -- intervene and attempt to re-define the rules of the game that you have a mis-allocation of resources, ie, the housing and dot-com bubbles.

Men left to their own resources and best interest have a better track record than a bureaucracy with monopoly power at allocating investment in the most resourceful manner.

In all my 67 years I've never seem such a period of "capital investment, unimpeded" as we've had the past 9 years. Men have been "left to their own resources and best interest" and GREED took over.

trickle down, trickle up - it's all part of the same financial fantasy brought to you by the idiots in Washington.

What good is a tax cut for small business when they have no customers? Especially useless is Obama's ballyhooed capital gains cut for small business. If you believe that one - well.

I don't care if the Bush tax cut is extended or not for the top percent - except that a lot of them are in fact small business owners. Taking more money out of their pocket will help to create jobs how? Who's a more efficient user of your own resources hambone? You or the bureaucracy?

The government, at all levels, has been sucking the life out of this economy for years. If you don't see that by now, you're stuck on an ideological bandwagon and further discussion is pointless. Please note I said "government" - not democrats, not republicans. Yeah go ahead and blame the global corporations. Then ask yourself who aided and abetted their actions.

It might make your head explode but look at the Cato Institutes

"A department-by-department guide to cutting the federal government's budget." They make some good points.

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/

Forget the Fair Tax - ain't gonna happen. Too much political clout would have to be given up. You're probably going to see a VAT in the not to distant future anyway - on top of the current income tax. Think about how that will affect your disposable income.

I'm off to stimulate the downtown economy - have a nice evening.

Some how I deleted a post. someone else brought up a consumption tax or national sales tax. With that and a flat rate tax I have not seen a rate that was realistic. I should have said % on the dollar.

If we look around the world,we see the lowest taxed,least governed countries having poor standards of living. Conversely,we see higher tax countries having the highest standards of living. Am I missing something here? Looks to me as though there needs to be a positive symbiosis between good government and free enterprise that is required to achieve a successful societal balance.

We need a governmental frame work. That framework needs a tax base. For all the allure of a flat tax,it aggregates wealth at the top rather than promoting a strong middle class. It sounds egalitarian,but that is not the result.

I believe we are entering a new American economic paradigm where globalization will falter,growth and job creation will never again be like the recent past. The techno world toys will diminish in importance and America will go back to work in a whole different way.

What I can't forsee is the degree of difficulty getting from where we are (a bad place) to where we are going.

We need good leadership and a well informed citizenry. We have neither.

as usual, liberals have lies, distortion, name calling and propaganda on their side, conservatives have facts and numbers. in fact, it has nothing to do with conservative or liberal, it's just the numbers. they don't lie. Username: Francis | On: September 4, 2010 at 8:22 a.m.

Reply: Under President George W. Bush, "the national debt went from $5 trillion to $12 trillion."

The U.S. National Debt and How It Got So Big By Kimberly Amadeo, About.com Guide

http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscalpolicy/p/US_Debt.htm

What the U.S. National Debt Is: (Updated June 3, 2010) The U.S. debt is over $13 trillion, and is the sum of all outstanding debt owed by the Federal Government. Nearly two-thirds is the public debt, which is owed to the people, businesses and foreign governments who bought Treasury Bills, Notes and Bonds.

The rest is owed by the government to itself, and is held as Government Account securities. Most of this is owed to Social Security and other trust funds, which were running surpluses. These securities are a promise to repay these funds when Baby Boomers retire over the next 20 years. (Source: U.S. Treasury, Debt to the Penny; Debt FAQ)

The Size of the U.S. Debt: The U.S. debt is the largest in the world. How did it get so large? Purchasers of Treasury Bonds still reasonably expect the U.S. economy to recover enough to pay them back. For foreign investors like China and Japan, the U.S. is such a large customer it is allowed to run a huge tab so it will keep buying exports. (Source: CIA World Factbook) Even before the economic crisis, the U.S. debt ballooned 50% between 2000 - 2007, growing from $6 - $9 trillion. The $700 billion bailout helped the debt grow to $10.5 trillion by December 2008.

What They’re Not Telling You http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01sun1.html?ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

HOW DID WE GET HERE? When President Bill Clinton left office in 2001, the government had run surpluses for three straight years. By the time President George W. Bush left the White House, the government had run deficits for seven straight years, and the Congressional Budget Office projected a 2009 deficit of over $1 trillion.

Much of the deterioration resulted from huge Bush-era tax cuts, which left the nation chronically short of revenue, especially when it had to pay for two wars. And because the budget was already in bad shape when the financial crisis hit in late 2008, the necessary spending to rescue the system only deepened an already deep deficit. Unchastened, Republicans — joined by a few Democrats — are now determined to dig the hole even deeper by calling for all of the Bush tax cuts to be extended beyond their scheduled expiration at the end of this year.

"If we look around the world,we see the lowest taxed,least governed countries having poor standards of living. Conversely,we see higher tax countries having the highest standards of living. Am I missing something here? Looks to me as though there needs to be a positive symbiosis between good government and free enterprise that is required to achieve a successful societal balance."

That's a non-sequitur, Nu. You're trying to make the conclusion that JUST because a country has a certain taxation level, automatically determines its standard of living. That's in illogical conclusion.

"We need a governmental frame work. That framework needs a tax base. For all the allure of a flat tax,it aggregates wealth at the top rather than promoting a strong middle class. It sounds egalitarian,but that is not the result."

Aren't you in favor of equality, such as equal treatment under the law? Don't you understand the dis-incentiving effect of a tax burden on employers (or anyone for that matter), and how it effectively reduces the employer's taste for business expansion (ie, job creation)?

Assuming it's done fairly without forceful, immoral coercion of others, how is it any of your personal business how someone accumulate wealth? I'll tell you respectfully it's none of your business.

"I believe we are entering a new American economic paradigm..."

I agree. One in which the mass public has forgotten the roots of what makes us American. Our tenacity, our entrepreneurship, and our observation of natural law.

Instead, America has people who can justify legalized theft of wealth for the "common good," for entitlement programs that are massive wastes of scarce resources.

The framework for "good" government has always been there. Minus a few important modifications, it has now been discombobulated, shredded to pieces, and is only quoted when politically necessary.

"When President Bill Clinton left office in 2001, the government had run surpluses for three straight years."

Good grief, not this B.S. again.

It's no wonder so many people in thins country (see hamebone above) are so misinformed about economics when the media is spreading government propaganda like the "Clinton Surplus".

Here's a clue folks, if the article starts off talking about a federal government surplus and the timeframe is anytime after the mid-1950's, the whole thing is crap, and the author is either a government propagandist or an idiot who believes the government propaganda.

Witness the further claim that federal revenue fell after the tax cuts in the early 2000's. This is another lie as federal revenues did the same thing they ALWAYS do after tax cuts. They grew. The author is using the fact that the percentage of tax dollars collected fell relative to the GDP, which grew, to make the gullible believe that those tax cuts reduced the federal revenues as a whole.

It seems that the economic knowledge of those on the left is comprised of class warfare rhetoric, historical revisionism and bogus numbers and not much else. It's sad really.

SCOYYTM,be careful assuming your level of economic awareness is high. A little less certitude might be in order.

The one who flees his own country and then spends his retirement reading and believing pure Leftist propaganda, again tells the rest of us what's what. Btw, I know you're trying to appear the 'English country gentlemen' in your new adopted Socialist country, on an obscure island paradise, but having lived there many more years and lessons learned than you have, I know how to spell like a Canadian and "incentivise" ain't it.

What is lacking of course in the discourse here is the fact that coupled with high taxes or low taxes, out of control Bureaucratic spending of taxpayers money, is what gets a country in trouble. Canada and Europe sailed along for the last 40 years doing just that and no one in their right mind (esp. a knowledgeable economist) is going to say high taxin' countries are doing well.

For 50 years, Canada ruined it's poor, working and middle class people before it smartened up a few years ago, became more fiscally conservative and upped it's sales and marketing of its natural resources-like oil and gas. That is the plain and simple truth. High taxation and overspending the budget coupled with growing the Bureaucracy has never worked anywhere and never will (for we, the little people, that is).

America unfortunately, is not learning the lessons of other failed systems and in the last 10 years, our Feds are outspending to the tune of trillions of middle class dollars-I say middle class because that's the first class to go down. The wealthy seem to survive by relocating somewhere else and/or passing their costs down to the poor working classes. Welcome, the new Soviet Union under this present administration of wealthy Elites and Union leaders. Unless we smarten up and kick the big spenders of other's money- out. Far out Bub.

Duford,

Can you think of a country that has low taxes,small government and a high standard of living? I can't. You are,of course,correct that high taxes don't insure good government or a high standard of living. And maybe it's just happenstance that the most successful countries also have higher tax rates.

You ask if I believe in equality,then assume your version of tax equality would result in overall equality. Should two people of unequal strength each be required to carry the same 100lb sack? Of course not,each according to his own ability is the only realistic way. The man making $20,000 paying 20% tax is crippled compared to the man making $200,000 paying the same (fair?) 20% tax.

Progressive taxation built a great country and a thriving middle class. The leveling of tax rates under trickle down theology has brought us to ruin and you want more?

It all comes down to whether you believe that individual wealth leads to the greater good for society.

To me,the more economic disparity,the more misery is created. If you have a better solution for a strong middle class,let's hear it.

C-bird,you rarely get things right,but I do live in a near paradise. Taxes are high,the middle class is large and thriveing,and the rich get rich more slowly. The poor? They are here too,but not so many,and in many ways they are the poor in spirit.

As to your assessment of Canadian economics,you missed it by country mile. For decades worldwide commodities were in surplus and bringing low prices. Canada was relatively poor during that epoch. All of that has now changed,commodities are soaring and commodity rich countries like Canada,Russia,Brazil,and Australia are flourishing.

Even when you have bits of information,it comes out of your processor looking like...well...

Hi Nu,

The fact of the matter is that very few countries anymore hold up property rights to the point of minimizing the amount and types of taxation.

The one country off the top of my head that upholds most natural rights and has a high standard of living is Switzerland. Despite it becoming more leftist in modern times, the organization of the country is highly decentralized, enough to the point that people like me who bicker about taxation levels can relocate to different parts of the country that offer lower taxation rates.

Even their right to bear arms is greater than ours. You can visit any village in Switzerland and see men strapped with fully automatic weaponry around their backs as you walk down the street. Needless to say, their crime rates are so low they don't even track them.

In response to equality, then by your response, I would say the "equality" problem rests with the government's inability to operate without confiscating nearly 2.5 months of your earning power.

Nu, just because the man next to you became more financially successful to you, does NOT mean he owes you or any entitlement program more of his income.

He is a man (or woman) like yourself, who just so happened to work harder, or be in the right situation at the right time, and did what it took to accumulate such vast amounts of wealth.

But the question begs itself -- even if higher taxation levels on the most productive of our citizens was beneficial (even though it isn't), is it the moral thing to do? You should try to answer this question.

Nu, it's not the tax rate that has ruined us; it's the unmitigated, unending spending binge our modern era of government has bestowed upon us, in combination with tax rate increases. It's as if you reduce your income, increase your spending, and open a credit card to delay the inevitable costs. The problem is not that your income is lower, the problem is you're imprudent with your spending, and it's out of line with reality.

And, finally, at least you revealed your premises. The economic reality is that men, willing to risk their wealth and sacrifice any sense of security, are the ones who create and expand wealth, which in turn provides for increased standards of living for all. Inadvertently, this gives the laborer the chance to learn the craft, and, if he is so cunning and tenacious, the chance to go into business himself against his former employer, and work to make a similar product more efficient and or cheaper. Which benefits everyone.

Nu, may I suggest a book for you to read? Please buy and read Peter Schiff's book "How An Economy Grows and Why It Crashes." This is probably the simplest, easiest to understand book on basic economics and how the free market system works successfully to grow standards of living, increase wealth, and improve opportunity for all.

To me,the more economic disparity,the more misery is created. If you have a better solution for a strong middle class,let's hear it. nucanuck | On: September 5, 2010 at 11:02 a.m.

Reply: The trouble is, it is the Republican and the Right's policies designed to create "disparity,the more misery" because that is the only way they can "thrive." Without the creation of fear, depression, and division of the people, based on the lies and misinformation to boaster their failed policies, how else could they get into power/control?

Apparently they don't want to have the propler balance such as the "middle class"? They operate on the extreme lower end of the spectrum, putting the people last in favor of the "Capitalist" without having any control on their actions and with the help of the lobbyist, look what has happened to the to the financial strength of our country.

Duford,

My wife and I spent years wondering about different low tax,low cost locales as places to retire and "live like kings". In the final analysis the tax burden became irrelevant to quality of life issues. I mean who really cares how many months of income go for taxes if you have enough to eat and can enjoy friends and family. We spent years trying to get rich before we discovered what rich really is. Once we applied a different metric we became exceedingly rich so to speak.

Back on topic...you won't find any hand guns in Switzerland,only rifles. Every male citizen is part of the Swiss Army and is required to have a rifle,I believe.

If your arguement for equal tax rates for all produces (my claim) a few very rich and mostly poor,how do you square that with a workable society? We have to find a way to create a balance with a big middle class or I think we are doomed.

Extreme wealth disparity is a formula for revolution.

Hi Nu,

"I mean who really cares how many months of income go for taxes if you have enough to eat and can enjoy friends and family."

Remember, that's your standard of value. Your implication is that what you value in life -- family and friends -- are more valuable than financial values.

Personally, I agree with you, but your effectively translating your own personal opinion over onto everyone, which is inadvertently disproportional on those most productive (as a function of their income).

On a deeper level, why I feel so strongly about taxation is that wages are a monetary equivalent of your mind and physical labor. In effect, it's your property. And when a government deems it legal to take something you've legally acquired, then this is an immoral act, no matter what income class you're in.

In essence and with all due respect, Nu, I think you're missing the point. It isn't the "extreme" accumulation of wealth (whatever that means) that's the problem. It's when individuals gain unfair favor with the government in creating legislation to protect their business. Ie, the banking sector, weapons development, and so on.

Society and its standard of living will take care of itself in a free society. It pretty much did until the early part of the 20th century.

Duford,

I confess to having mixed my personal thoughts among my societal thoughts,but be assured that my societal thoughts supercede personal in this discussion.

Taxes,I believe,are essential to a civil society,the variable is how and how much. We will all differ on those variables. We should be able to agree on what constitutes a healthy society,generally speaking.

Sweden,though high taxed,would be considered rich and stable. Saudi Arabia,while low taxed,would be considered rich and unstable. Cuba's taxes I don't know,but their society is relatively stable because they all struggle. Somalia has no taxes,no real government,and anarchy reigns.

Of the above four examples,two could be considered to have strong middle classes and be considered more stable than the other two. What stands out to me isn't the amount of wealth,but rather the countries that managed some degree of equalibrium. Tax policy in the US has been amplifying wealth disparity and that leads to instability. Your thoughts may seem the fairest on their face,but if they lead to instability,can they still be best for the country as a whole? I don't see how.

Duford,

"...wages are a monetary equivelant of your mind and labor."

Does this mean that one CEO can be worth 500 times his average worker while another is worth 50 times? Does this mean that a Federal worker is worth more than his private sector equivelent?

Are those who are outsourced now worth less because no similar jobs remain?

Sure we are all different,with different capabilities,but so many other factors effect outcome than skill and talent.

nn wrote,

"SCOYYTM,be careful assuming your level of economic awareness is high. A little less certitude might be in order."

nn, it's like this, 2 is a larger number than 1. 4 is a larger number than 2 and so on as one moves from 0 up to an infinitely large number. Given this concept, which is an absolute reality, I am 100% confident that the facts I've cited re "Clinton's Surplus" are true in an objective reality sense. The national debt has grown every year since the late '50s. Period. This isn't debatable. If you want to continue to live in a world where reality is subjective, you can go ahead and do so. Just keep in mind that not everyone is living in the same dream world with you.

Duford,

Great posts. Many who post here have no grasp upon reality as their world is warped by leftist propaganda acting upon a weak minds. They see only three possible worlds, one where businesses rule the common man by controlling capitol to his detriment(their concept of the current U.S.), the second which is a socialist utopia where everyone achieves equal prosperity under the force of law(what they want) and the third which is a distortion of free society they extrapolate into a government-less anarchy(what they believe those who favor smaller government desire).

They are as immune to logic and reason as our current fed.gov is to it's Constitutional limitations.

"Are those who are outsourced now worth less because no similar jobs remain?"

I'll take this one.

They are not worth less as a person as you've implied, but their skill set is worth exactly what they are being paid for it, which is 0. Time to learn some new skills for which a demand exists. It's called progress. Isn't that what those on the left desire? (Yes, that's a rhetorical question and a joke at the same time.)

SCOTTYM,

Try to push left and right terminology aside. All Americans are looking for basically the same things. Seeking similarities rather than differences gives us a better shot at solutions.

"All Americans are looking for basically the same things."

No we are not. Some of us want to be free to enjoy the fruits of our labors and be free in our endeavors to the maximum extent possible in a civilized society under rule of law. Others want our fruits taken and redistributed to others and the weight of a maternal government to direct our endeavors. These things are not the same, and are mutually exclusive.

Nu,

If I understand correctly, the conclusion you're making is that X% tax rate x Y% government size = Z Standard of Living Rating.

Personally, I don't think the equation works. If I may assume (you know what they say about people who assume...), taxes are inherently a good thing -- up to a point -- and government is inherently a good thing -- up to a point.

Understanding economic realities and the nature of government, I'd agree with this, but the % would be of the tiniest fractions.

Why? Because "standard of living" isn't necessarily my standard metric of quality. For me it's how free the society is I live in.

I'm sure Southern Plantation owners had a high standard of living relatively at the time, and paid little for amenities; but that's because slave labor existed and bore the tole.

And as far as your worth question goes, in a free society, those who are paid according to supply and demand. There are many people who can dig ditches; most everyone is able-bodied enough to do it. On the other hand, not everyone can lead an organization of hundreds of people towards improving shareholder value.

So, in a monetary sense, yes, those who are specialized in their labor -- thus providing more value -- do end up mostly justified of the lion's share of the earnings.

Well SCOYYTM,it comes down to whether you think in terms of "we" solutions or "me" solutions. You seem like a "me" sort of guy. Good luck with that.

"SCOTTYM, Try to push left and right terminology aside. All Americans are looking for basically the same things. Seeking similarities rather than differences gives us a better shot at solutions". Username: nucanuck

Right and Wrong, Good and Evil, Morality and Amorality. Hearts that exude compassion and those whose Hearts are ice-cold. Absolutes that have stood the test of time and human fallibility.

Proof is in the pudding-that is, the intentions, the words and the actions. The Progressive-Left has had over a hundred years of recent History and thousands of years of ancient history to prove themselves and they have been found very lacking in truth and righteousness.

The truth is that not all Americans and world citizens are "looking for the same things". Some want to build a better world. Some destroy and tear down what is good, while embracing the evil. Some want to work hard, be productive citizens and teach their children how to be moral, honest people. Others are lazy, mean, shiftless and teach their children how to do evil unto others. Some want to take away the rights and freedoms of others and are so cold, they have no feeling or compassion for the poor souls who will lose everything, even their lives in the process.

The ones who are truly selfish, thinking only of 'agenda', "the social good, the endgame", the "redistribution of others wealth" to satisfy their idea of what a victim is and who should get the wealth, in other words, the proven mentality of a fascist Progressive is found in who destroys and in the destruction, enjoys every minute of it.