published Saturday, September 18th, 2010

Beware of U.S. tax increase!

Watch out! President Barack Obama wants to raise taxes. That’s a very bad idea — especially in this time of economic crisis.

His pitch is to raise taxes on “somebody else” — not you — just on the people in the higher income brackets.

But not only are tax rates already far higher on bigger earners, those earners are the very people who are most important to us all in generating economic recovery and creating jobs for people in all income ranges.

To expand economic opportunities for us all, we need to avoid higher taxes — and to reduce unnecessary federal spending, especially the kind that is politically rather than economically motivated.

Fortunately, some Democrats in Congress are joining Republicans against tax increases. But unfortunately, Obama has a different idea.

40
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
whatever said...

Those bigger earners are the same people who have steadily increased their share of earnings and reduced the share that everybody else has.

Sorry, but they aren't creating economic opportunities for anybody.

September 18, 2010 at 12:37 a.m.
rick1 said...

Those bigger earners are the same people who have steadily increased their share of earnings and reduced the share that everybody else has.

Sorry, but they aren't creating economic opportunities for anybody.

It appears the rich are getting richer with the Democracts in charge. But isn't that what they say about Republicans?

Not when it comes to Federal stimulus funds being spent.

This past week The LA Times revealed how $111 million in stimulus money has so far funded a paltry 55 public-works jobs in Los Angeles. City Controller Wendy Gruel says two municipal departments, Public Works and Transportation, plan eventually to create or retain 264 jobs with that money, but the contracting process is so slow that most of the money is still waiting to be spent.

So the price tag per job is $2 million at this point. Even if the city departments meet their target of 264, it will drop to only $420,000. This is still several times what workers will actually get paid.

Where does all the money go in cases such as this? In part it goes to the capital costs and profit of the contractors. But much of it also gets absorbed into the normal process of government contracting, in which public employees are paid to ensure (ideally) that the taxpayers are getting the most for their money and aren't being cheated by favoritism.

Of course, bureaucrats typically feel no need to rush things along. They don't get paid any less if a street gets repaved a few months late.

On Friday V.P. Joe Biden talked about how the New York City Department of Transportation is spending $175 million to renovate bridges and a parking lot, putting all of 120 people to work. That's $1.46 million per job. Another job on Biden's list, a highway project in Ohio, has created 300 jobs and costs $138 million — $460,000 per worker.

The one area where stimulus spending unquestionably has created jobs — and quite a few — is in and around Washington. Unemployment there at last report (as of July) was 6.3%, well below the national average. Year over year, employment increased by 41,800 jobs, the largest total for any metro area.

Los Angeles, on the other hand, has an unemployment rate of 12.5% and has lost 23,500 jobs over the previous year.

Some folks are being put to work filling potholes, but the real gold mine is in the administrative overhead game. The task of dispensing all that federal money demands the services of private firms that draw up contracts, audit spending, see to the required disclosures and so forth.

It's no shock that, as the Wall Street Journal reports, the stimulus outlay in D.C. and two adjacent congressional districts has hit $2,000 per resident, almost triple the national average.

Looks like the Democracts are increasing the share of eranings for those big earners and reducing the share everyone else has, and your right this stimulus has not created economic opportunities for the rest of us.

September 18, 2010 at 8:41 a.m.
Francis said...

when was the last time anyone was hired by a poor person?

"the rich" are getting richer under obama..and they're holding on to their money. great job, obama.

there isn't one big pile of money, or share,.. and whoever gets to it is the winner. new money can be created by allowing opportunity to flourish by promoting entrepenuership and allowing people to keep the money they earn.

September 18, 2010 at 9:56 a.m.
Duford said...

What, venture capital funds, banks, and many investors are sitting on the sideline with billions upon billions in cash, waiting for the next opportunity to pop up.

Largely, the problem is regime uncertainty. Nobody knows what's coming next; businessmen are having a hard time forecasting into the future to value investment properly.

I can give you two examples:

1) A man I know took all of his money out of the stock market at the end of last year. He's opened multiple bank accounts so as to FDIC-insure his money. He's so worried about the financial picture that he'd take a loss in the form of inflation versus putting it into Treasuries for a small yield. And this is a multi-millionaire.

2) I went to school with a guy who's an analyst for NYC-based venture capital fund. He says his employer, as well as many other VC's, are largely flush with cash and are taking little to no risk in any new business opportunities.

Until businessmen become more confident with the near- and medium-term scope of the economy, you'll probably continue to see higher-than-normal unemployment and less wealth creation.

September 18, 2010 at 10:36 a.m.
hambone said...

rick1, You math seems to be a little fuzzy, what about materials, concrete, pavment, etc. , cost of engineering. All these need to be deducted before you figure the cost per job. Also what about jobs these job will create, where will these worker get their lunch?

As for Francis I can see where you need more tax cuts. If you get more tax cuts maybe you can afford to put a window in your home office and let some sunshine in. That dark room must be hard on your eyes.

September 18, 2010 at 10:45 a.m.
Francis said...

the workers will be bringing their own lunch because the vendors and res- taurants won't have insentive to remain in business and be profitable because of being overburdened with taxes by the federal government, local..and any other body that views them as just a sources of revenue. the goal is to make money and keep it. unless the restaurants are run by the federal governemnt then they don't have to worry about things like..spending more than you take in

actually if can keep more of what i earn i can support my family better. which is my goal. regarding sunshine...plenty of it this morning as i watched my daughter play soccer.

September 18, 2010 at 11:02 a.m.
nucanuck said...

When the entire nations wealth is in the hands of a tiny minority,when the average person can't live an average life,when thirty years of "trickle down" has failed to trickle,when our government is so broke that they may get a credit downgrade...when this is our condition,maybe we should ask if tax policy over the last thirty years could be part of the problem.

The tax reductions that began in the 1980s and culminated with the tax cuts of the early 2000s have paralleled a rapid expansion in debt that has brought the US to it's knees. We funded wars without taxing to pay for them. We have cut taxes on corporations that then moved jobs overseas,we have subsidized agri-giants and thereby discouraged small farms,we have allowed a financial industry to suck trillions from the people and then pay very little in taxes.

The rich are not taxed enough and too much government policy redirects tax benefits right back to the same rich. Corporate welfare and low taxes on the rich are significant contributors to the situation in which we find ourselves.

September 18, 2010 at 11:09 a.m.
Francis said...

what is enough? what percentage? what percentage of the rich's income is enough to right the ship? i'd really like to know.

September 18, 2010 at 11:24 a.m.
Duford said...

Good point, Francis -- there's a deeper question, however -- and that is, WHY, HOW, IS it right to to demand it, from anyone, at any level of wealth?

Nu, didn't I read you are in agreement with Austrian Economics? If that's true, then you have to consider the other side of the coin, which is unparalleled deficit-financing of our government.

Yes, taxes temporarily solve the problem, but have unintended consequences, like reducing incentive to invest and take risks, which inevitably result in higher unemployment, less wealth creation, and a flight of capital to other nations that tax less. See modern-day Europe for an example.

Why shouldn't we cut spending?

September 18, 2010 at 11:47 a.m.
FM_33 said...

That's "Liberal Socialism" for ya !

September 18, 2010 at 11:52 a.m.
rick1 said...

For everyone who are in favor of raising taxes, I have one question. When President Bush cut taxes for everyone (all tax brackets were reduced) did you continue to pay the higher rate from the Clinton Adminstration or did you take advantage of the lower tax rate?

September 18, 2010 at 12:11 p.m.
whatever said...

Looks like the Democracts are increasing the share of eranings for those big earners and reducing the share everyone else has, and your right this stimulus has not created economic opportunities for the rest of us.

So the Tax Cuts failed, and the stimulus failed. Well, then I guess neither was the right way to do things. Who knew?

Well, pretty much anybody.

September 18, 2010 at 12:21 p.m.
whatever said...

What, venture capital funds, banks, and many investors are sitting on the sideline with billions upon billions in cash, waiting for the next opportunity to pop up.

There are a lot of people sitting on their money, yes. I do not know if they are waiting for anything.

Or necessarily if there is anything worth waiting for, but that's another matter.

Largely, the problem is regime uncertainty. Nobody knows what's coming next; businessmen are having a hard time forecasting into the future to value investment properly.

Then they're consumed by their own fears, which is itself a problem, and may cause them more pain than they realize.

No surprise there. They want to be covered if they make a mistake, but they don't want to pay for that. They want to win the lottery, so to speak, but they don't want to pay for the police that will keep them from being robbed the second they collect the money.

September 18, 2010 at 12:26 p.m.
whatever said...

Why shouldn't we cut spending?

Well, the answer is, it depends on what spending you plan to cut. Cutting Spending on transportation infrastructure, for example, would lead to said infrastructure decaying without proper upkeep. Then it would depress the economy even more. So any savings would cost more.

Other examples of spending have that problem too. Health inspections, for example.

Concrete examples is what we need, not just wild-eyed screaming of how we're spending too much.

September 18, 2010 at 12:32 p.m.
hambone said...

More tax cuts? Where can I find a CD to learn CHINESE!! Is there a Rosetta Stone I can use?

September 18, 2010 at 12:42 p.m.
nucanuck said...

Some of you misunderstand my position.

If we lack the collective will to constrain our spending,then we should tax ourselves whatever it takes to pay for our indulgences,but to undertax our spending is not a plan,no matter how much you may hate how the money is being spent.

The other obvious point to me is that tax policy must be progressive because that's where the money is. Incentive to achieve(earn) does not recede unless rates become confiscatory,and while some here would differ,the US is nowhere near that point.

I suspect that we are in the early stages of central government failure worldwide. I have no idea what will emerge other than it will almost assuredly be smaller units. Will we regionalize? Will we revert all the way back to city states? It is going to be interesting. I'm sorry I won't be here for most of it. It will be a time like none other.

I believe we are at,or near,the end of growth,that we need to find an equalibrium,a balance. That probably means an end of leverage as we have known it. That means we must tax for what we spend and when the pain becomes unbearable,we will reduce spending.

In actuality we all want to cut spending...we just differ on what is most important. In the meantime tax for it all.

September 18, 2010 at 12:47 p.m.
rick1 said...

The liberals who love to tell us how we need to live our lives and how we need to pay more taxes, believe the same rules do not apply to them and are completely out of touch.

Senator Kerry’s docking of his new $7 million yacht in Rhode Island instead of Massachusetts, thus avoiding/postponing some $500,000 in state taxes.

Kerry who is a liberal proponent of higher and more redistributive taxes has acted antithetically to what he professes. In his 2004 campaign, Kerry alleged near-treasonous behavior on part of companies that relocated out of the country to seek lower taxes. Talk about hypocrisy, does he believe the laws should not apply to him? Does he yell for higher taxes feeling that will give him cover when he does not pay his? Or is there an assumption that such elites won’t get caught (remember, Geithner, Daschle and Kerry only paid up when public attention turned to their avoidance)? Don't forget Ranglel is still fighting charges of back taxes.

Is the liberal wing of the Democratic party now the choice of the very rich who see no dichotomy between their own enjoyment of the highest life and public remonstration against the wealthy? A pattern has certainly emerged: Yachtgate, the populist Clintons’ multi-million-dollar wedding extravaganza, John “Two Americas” Edwards’s mansion, green/live-within-our-limited-means Al Gore at home in Montecito and various other digs, and our “spread the wealth” and “redistributive change” president’s fondness for celebrity-studded banquets, golf, and exclusive vacation hideaways.

What Kerry calls a family “investment” would, in intrusive liberal orthodoxy, appear to others as an indulgence at a time when unemployment lingers near 10 percent and we are struggling to get out of recession. At some point, all the soak/attack-the-rich talk from the Obama admistration seems to clash with their actions.

Lets look at how all this wealth was made: John Edwards made it summarizing personal-injury cases against doctors; Al Gore by hyping a global-warming Armageddon and then offering psychological and concrete ameliorations for it; John Kerry by marrying someone who had married someone who had inherited it. This suggests that some of the most influential of the rich Democratic elite don’t have much experience with the role of low taxes or less regulation in fostering profitable, capital-creating enterprises.

September 18, 2010 at 1:07 p.m.
whatever said...

I believe we are at,or near,the end of growth,that we need to find an equalibrium,a balance.

Quite possibly. The remaining frontiers on this world are limited, and the expansion elsewhere is as just undetermined.

The liberals who love to tell us how we need to live our lives and how we need to pay more taxes, believe the same rules do not apply to them and are completely out of touch.

Tell me that the Republicans don't behave the same way with a straight face. You can waste your life finding ways to accuse people of offenses, or you can proceed with an interest in resolving problems.

Take your pick. Me, all you convince me of by relying on such methods is that you aren't worth working with at all.

September 18, 2010 at 1:12 p.m.
Duford said...

Hey what,

Here's some concrete examples for ya:

-Cut military spending to just "national defense;" ie, close all bases abroad, stop our foreign engagements. If you think this is wild-eyed, I'll compromise with you (which I rarely do)-- end both wars and pull out of the Middle East completely.

  • Start to responsibly wind down Social Security and Medicaid. Too wild eyed for ya? Here's my compromise: let us young people opt out and not pay in if that's our choice, and let those who were promised benefits keep them.

Keep infrastructure spending, and, for the time, keep various Federal Departments intact. How's that for some concrete examples?

But... yuck! All this compromising... I feel like a politician. Better go take a shower...

September 18, 2010 at 1:21 p.m.
whatever said...

-Cut military spending to just "national defense;" ie, close all bases abroad, stop our foreign engagements. If you think this is wild-eyed, I'll compromise with you (which I rarely do)-- end both wars and pull out of the Middle East completely.

I'm afraid in this world that proper national defense does include having bases abroad. Having a world where dangerous things can happen overnight, and cross the oceans does require having world-wide response capabilities. Which will require some forces stationed across the world. I can negotiate it down lower though. And I'm certainly willing to end both the wars.

  • Start to responsibly wind down Social Security and Medicaid. Too wild eyed for ya? Here's my compromise: let us young people opt out and not pay in if that's our choice, and let those who were promised benefits keep them.

Social Security? How's this, you can have the option after 5 years of paying into the system. Young people often make boneheaded decisions without thinking about them, so let's not make it too easy for them to screw themselves completely. I may or may not want a minimum age.

May be more restrictions, but that's what I can think of now.

Medicaid...no. Sorry, but that's funded at the state level, not the federal, and it serves to prevent the innocent from suffering from things outside their control.

I'm willing to let adults suffer the consequences of their decisions, but not children.

Keep infrastructure spending, and, for the time, keep various Federal Departments intact. How's that for some concrete examples?

Well it's something to work with anyway.

September 18, 2010 at 1:43 p.m.
acerigger said...

Bush's tax cuts were rammed through in mid-night sessions,if they were so good for us,where are all the jobs created? Two terms of Bush= worst job creation record EVER.

September 18, 2010 at 1:59 p.m.
whatever said...

The jobs are overseas! It's a New World Order!

September 18, 2010 at 2:06 p.m.
Duford said...

Whatever.... YES!!! Sounds reasonable!

But, just for the record, it shouldn't be in our mandate to subsidize the world's defense at the expense of our fiscal health.

A continued presence abroad aggravates and incentivises the same nut jobs that ran planes into WTC. Just say no to perpetual war.

Duford/whatever 2012!

September 18, 2010 at 2:23 p.m.
harrystatel said...

Look at the government as a common thief, a robber with many guns, men, immoral laws, but always with the use of force.

If you're walking down the street and a robber with a gun tells you to give him all your money, you can give him what's in your wallet.

But you don't have to tell him you've got money hidden in your shoe. You're allowed to lie to the robber.

Same with the government. You may have to give Uncle Sugar what's in your wallet, but you are under no obligation to give him or tell him what you have hidden away. You can lie to the government.That is a moral act.

If you should be caught and put on trial, they're will be those of us who believe in jury nullification and will find you not guilty as we will judge the law.

"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." —U.S. Supreme Court in 'Marbury v. Madison'

http://wp.me/p10KwY-hP

Harry Statel

September 18, 2010 at 2:36 p.m.
whatever said...

But, just for the record, it shouldn't be in our mandate to subsidize the world's defense at the expense of our fiscal health.

Well as long as we want to live in this world, we are going to have to worry about it. I'm certainly willing to take steps to improve our fiscal health though, as well as reduce the aggravation level we put on others.

Germany for example, isn't bitching too much about us, but the Philippines were So we stay in one, leave the other.

Duford/whatever 2012!

Sorry, I can't agree to Article VI (c). I want to hold a Constitutional Convention.

September 18, 2010 at 2:37 p.m.
nucanuck said...

Wow...folks mostly talking about possibilities instead of political labeling...that's progress.

September 18, 2010 at 2:40 p.m.
fairmon said...

Yes The jobs are over seas. The reason is not the wage delta. If you don't know the reasons that explains why jobs continue exiting our shores. Money goes to where it is treated best. Business have an obligation to their owners to go where business is treated best.

I do think CEO's and officers in many companies are paid too much. If I object strongly enough I can refuse to own their stock either directly or through a mutual fund. I can avoid buying any product they provide.

Do you search for made in America products even if slightly more expensive? Would you buy American products if the price was 30% less?

Fact. Abolish all legislatively imposed cost at the local, state and federal level and reduce the price of goods and services accordingly. You could double the adjusted cost of all purchased goods and services and submit 50% for taxes. Return to each citizen $500 each quarter plus an annual health care voucher for the cost of a standardized policy. People would be better served than the current ponzi scheme taxing system.

The dislike for this concept increases as wealth increases. Politicians would fight the loss of power and transparency. They would scare the heck out of those in the middle and lower income brackets to make sure they resist it. Those that cheat, those using tax loop holes and those with illegally obtained wealth would resist it.

All taxes would be paid as money is spent. You want to own two Mercedes and a million plus home, go for it but you will pay 50% tax on what you spend.

Over heard two "good old boys". Fred you remember that big company you used to work for. You and the union showed their profiteering ass didn't you? I like our senator he said they should pay more taxes since they make so much profit. I admire you Fred, I know they paid you good but a man has to have principles. When are you going up pick up your unemployment check and food stamps, I need to ride with you, lost my car you know. I hate using those public transportation tokens the government gives us.

September 18, 2010 at 4:13 p.m.
Francis said...

mr. statel...i don't think it's a stretch to understand why someone would feel the way you do. there're plenty of reasons why. the federal income tax...or the various state income taxes are, in my opinion, immoral and unconstitutional. i've never understood the defense of it. it's a gigantic attempt to gain control over our lives..and it's worked. many people have said if the federal government can force you to buy health insurance, then they can tell you to do anything. but i've always felt that if you have to tell them what you earn and they in turn can tell you what you can keep, then they can tell you to do anything; the health insurance mandate is a logical progression from that.

to often people who feel like you do are branded as wackos by the media... but, i guess where there's smoke there's fire..you could say. we in the private sector, in our work or private lives, have to have everything in order. we can't spend more than we take in, we get hammered for not reporting something...etc......etc.....the disrespect for ordin- ary americans by the government is epitomized by the appointment of a "tax evader" as head of the irs and the slack cut someone like charlie rangle by fellow congressmen.

September 18, 2010 at 4:22 p.m.
whatever said...

Yes The jobs are over seas. The reason is not the wage delta. If you don't know the reasons that explains why jobs continue exiting our shores. Money goes to where it is treated best. Business have an obligation to their owners to go where business is treated best.

Well, I wouldn't disagree that wages aren't the only thing involved, but here's the thing, the values of a business are not necessarily congruent with the values of the citizenry. Governments have obligations to their citizens that trump the interests of businesses.

Some governments are willing to compromise that, so the businesses take advantage of it. This is not necessarily a good thing for the persons who are ostensibly being served by said government.

Also I overheard two fat cats. One complained about having only 90% of his income disposable. The other groused that he had to move his factory overseas because his employees kept complaining about getting cancer. Didn't they know buying more lead shielding would be expensive? Then they each rode off in their own separate limo.

September 18, 2010 at 4:38 p.m.
Duford said...

What is the incentive of the businessman?

What obligations to the citizens of said government trump the interests of the citizens who happen to work within business?

How does one go about preventing the compromising of serving its citizens to favor "business?"

September 18, 2010 at 4:57 p.m.
nucanuck said...

Francis,as you flail at US tax policies I wonder if you might have a country/model that we could emulate? If we were to follow your line of thinking,a decline in the social order would seem inevitable.

What countries do you admire?

September 18, 2010 at 5:19 p.m.
whatever said...

What is the incentive of the businessman?

Ask them.

What obligations to the citizens of said government trump the interests of the citizens who happen to work within business?

All of the obligations do. The point of compromise is at the methods, not the obligations.

How does one go about preventing the compromising of serving its citizens to favor "business?"

For one thing, we don't give businesses votes. Or the capacity to buy votes.

September 18, 2010 at 5:37 p.m.
whatever said...

What countries do you admire?

I like Elbonia.

September 18, 2010 at 5:57 p.m.
fairmon said...

Whatever

Any business intentionally or knowingly exposing employees to risk of injury or illness should not be allowed to remain in business.

Nothing I said suggest businesses should be allowed to operate without restraint.

An interesting experiment may be requiring each member of the congress and senate to have their own money at risk and their compensation depend on the success of a business they manage for one year.

I have seen the taxes a corporation pays. I have seen the mind boggling reporting requirements that are not necessary to accomplish the intended purpose. I have seen multi-million dollar job creating expansions canceled due to some illogical government intrusion. I have seen and assisted building factories in other countries that would have been U.S. based if the legislatively imposed cost had not been so unreasonable. A decision factor is the eventual tax liability once depreciation is exhausted.

Expouse all the philosophy you want but until someone figures out we are screwing our self it will not improve. I don't attribute it to one political party any more than the other. Both have one purpose, being re-elected and the re-election desire is not so they can serve the people and protect us.

It depends on what you mean by "serving it's citizens". If you mean taking care of them from womb to tomb then we have an irreconcilable difference of opinion. The creation of a consumer protection department identifies the gross failure of the education system. Would those funds be better spent on education? The parable about feed a man a fish or teach him to fish may apply.

To be very blunt I don't think an effective solution is within either party nor do I detect one outside the two parties. In my opinion until the majority feels the pain nothing will improve. Like one of the founders said revolution is necessary at some frequency. Until we see gas at $7.00 a gallon and taxes are painful to a majority we will continue on this slippery slope. I would not object to seeing that soon so the correction begins now insead of later. So, by all means raise taxes. Allow the Bush cuts to expire entirely, adjust the tax tables to the point we have no deficits. Add a surcharge percent for war funding.

September 18, 2010 at 6:10 p.m.
whatever said...

Any business intentionally or knowingly exposing employees to risk of injury or illness should not be allowed to remain in business.

I think this might be a rather broader statement than you intend.

An interesting experiment may be requiring each member of the congress and senate to have their own money at risk and their compensation depend on the success of a business they manage for one year.

Great, then instead of Congress being dominated by lawyers, we'll have it dominated by lawyers/businessmen.

No thanks, I'll have to disagree with that Constitutional Amendment. Even Heinlein's idea was better.

It depends on what you mean by "serving it's citizens". If you mean taking care of them from womb to tomb then we have an irreconcilable difference of opinion.

Only to a certain extent, namely with regards to those things beyond their reasonable control. Pollution for example, or criminals, or foreign invasion. Or natural disaster. Said protection of which occurs from womb to tomb.

Debate the particulars if you want, but it is for your whole lifetime.

And that's why I hate that metaphor.

The creation of a consumer protection department identifies the gross failure of the education system.

I think that it recognizes the gross immorality of the commercial enterprises. Which I suppose could be due to a failure regarding the education system's ability to instill morality or teach virtue, but I'm not sure what we can do in that regard.

I think I'll support a consumer protection department.

Would those funds be better spent on education? The parable about feed a man a fish or teach him to fish may apply.

Teach a man to fish all you like, you're doing him a disservice if the fish are laden with mercury that'll kill him in a few years. Or if you teach a million men to fish, but don't teach them about deplenishment of fisheries.

September 18, 2010 at 6:32 p.m.
hambone said...

Solmolia would be a good country for Francis, no government, no taxes, no restrictions of any kind.He would just need his own army to protect his home based business. But thats what we will have here if Francis gets his way.

September 18, 2010 at 7:58 p.m.
Francis said...

solmolia..do you mean somalia?...my home based business should be admired, hambone. i moved 700 miles for a good job down here..with two small kids.. after a year and 8 months the company downsized and moved to new york. i stayed. so i had two small kids, no job and living in a place where i'm not familiar with. so i went to work for myself. i had no clients, no capital, i took out a loan to purchase the computer equipment i needed. two years later i was profitable, paid off the loan and had a lot of clients..nationwide... i've done work for major organizations and won an award for what i do. you always want the facts, hambone, nucanuck and whatever..and the rest...well those are the facts...so when i say tax cuts have helped me in my business and to support my family..i know what i'm talking about. nobody gave me anything. i worked from scratch....that's an american success story.

never once did i say taxes aren't necessary...but i believe the income tax is immoral and unconstitutional. i never said "no government"...i tried' to show the hyporcracy and overreaching ...and i feel justifed in tearing into them. if you don't like me calling obama a jackass...well..you can deal with it.

i don't know where you work, hambone...but you seem to really feel the need to put down a business like mine. you've done it repeatedly.....would you like it better if worked in a collective and wear an all gray outfit? what i've done should be applauded. you've even said it must be "hell" for my family to live with me.....you need to back off. i attack public figures who i feel deserve it. that's what this forum is for...for comments. i don't know anyone on here personally...i have no business commenting on anyone's job or family...you seem to do that with me.......my commentary on the obamas, and other liberals....an whoever in politics is based on what i observe. they're fair game. your comments about my peronal life are over the top.

based on what you read of what i write on here...it's fair game to call me what you want...i've been called a bigot, uneducated, a racist...a liar..etc. that's the nature of this forum.....i can take that...but to continually put down my business and make comments regarding my family..that has to stop....

regarding somalia.... actually in somalia i'd need protection from extremist islamist who are trying to commit genocide....muslim backed factions, that is....muslims are trying to wipe out the native beliefs there....so my business wouldn't stand a chance there.

the pressure on americans from taxation is real...to ridicule those who bring that up by minimizing their experiences and equating them to anarchists makes you look foolish and lack empathy.

September 18, 2010 at 11:29 p.m.
hambone said...

So "income tax is immoral and unconstitutional" Francis? Don't pay it then, Call the IRS on its bluff.

September 19, 2010 at 12:23 a.m.
nucanuck said...

Francis,nobody likes taxes,but when it gets down to reducing expenses and cutting programs,disagreement sets in.

That's why I asked you about another country for a role model. Most of the countries that we would want to live in have higher tax rates and a more extensive social safety net. In recent years a fair number of developed countries have moved ahead of the US in business start-up opportunities.

When you rant about Obama and liberals,it sounds more like regurgitation or emotional opinion than something you have given serious thought to. As I tried to point out to you a couple of days ago,often the main difference between liberal and conservative views is wording and the speaker.

This forum is a good place to share thoughts and opinions,but it really only works when you engage in a civil way,stand up for what you believe and be prepared to defend your thoughts.

September 19, 2010 at 12:28 a.m.
Duford said...

Your subtle sarcasm runs dark and deep, whatever.

I do enjoy it, when I catch it.

September 19, 2010 at 7:11 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.