I have no problem with taxes, per se, as long as they are applied to the kinds of things government should focus on:
Maintaining roads and bridges
Maintaining a strong defense
Managing foreign policy
Managing public property and resources (parks, etc.)
And a few various other things that are essential, such as basic education.

The problem is, once you get a politician touching money that isn’t his/hers, there is a natural inclination to misuse or misallocate those revenues.

As such, the money I earn from my job is MINE, and not the governments, and I can use it in a far more efficient manner than any politician can.

I would have less of a problem with taxation if I could tell the government precisely where the money needed to go. But the politicians don’t want that, because it would deprive them of their favorite activity – pork barrel politics, accepting bribes, and basic corruption.

If you don’t believe this behavior is utterly pervasive, then you’re terribly naive.

The Last thing I’d like to comment on is this. Taxes in this country are designed to tax wage earners. Wage earners cannot hide their profits from their labor. Yeah, there are a few deductions, i.e., mortgage interest but generally, what you are paid you are expected to pay taxes.

If everyone would stop thinking about themselves and instead the good of the whole things would much improve. I know, that’s like thinking drivers entering the freeway will fit into the stream of traffic rather than cutting in as early as possible and screwing up the whole flow!

“If we wish to get health-care costs under control, then we should at least be honest with the American people and admit that we are all paying a collective fortune largely for three reasons: (1) to keep functioning into their 60s those who drank, smoked, and ate too much and in a past era would have passed on at 60; (2) to give us all an extra three to five years of mobility and functionality after we reach 75; (3) to fit us up with IVs, feeding tubes, and respirators so that in our last six months of life we can die in a rest home or among machines and specialists in a hospital rather than in our own home with a few morphine tablets for pain and a bowl of soup with a straw on the nightstand.”

My father then added one further point – if lawyers were not allowed to work purely on contingency fees, and lawsuits required plaintiffs putting up some kind of bond, then it’s likely that malpractice payouts and insurance fees would fall. Lawyers like to point to the “fact” that about 90% of all malpractice suits are found against the doctors, somehow using this to justify their position. They neglect to point out that only 10% of all cases make it to court and the other 90% are settled prior to reaching court simply to keep costs down – even winning a case would cost doctors huge sums of money to defend themselves.

1. Growth of community colleges. This has helped keep the overall cost of post HS education down. In all likelyhood, my kids will attend a community college or state school. And this isn’t a bad thing. Fact is, my first two years of college were spent completing a Liberal Arts Core which is just as easily finished elsewhere, for less money. Ivy League schools are now actively combing community colleges for students. A large cost to many colleges has been the amount spent on what could be termed as “remedial” education – helping to bring students up to speed. Oddly, though I am very good at math, I managed to FAIL the math aptitude test my first day at college. I missed by 1 point! Laziness, I guess. I wound up in a remedial class which I aced – 3 easy credits I really didn’t have to take, but everyone else in the class did.

2. Grants and scholarships – certainly these haven’t completely offset costs, but they have grown and have helped to make attending college less prohibitive. When I attended, only about 40% of all scholarships were utilized (I remember this number because I was always looking for another scholarship). Today that number has risen dramatically.

3. Growth of Employer based Health care benefits and COBRA – my benefits today are WAY better than they were even 5 years ago. It’s often lost on many employees that the “reduction in wages” they claim they’ve had are more than made up for improved health care. While many people in the US today are “without” health insurance, the reality is that nobody really is. What they are referring to is basic coverage – the ability to go in for checkups. Only private hospitals are allowed to refuse service based on lack of insurance, but you’d be hard pressed to find any that would in a catastrophic situation. As a result, the costs of my care go to cover the costs of those who are incapable of paying.

4. Neither education or health care are really everyday expenses in the same form as housing, food, heat or clothes. Education typically is termed post HS education – since we can all send our kids to public schools, this doesn’t effect us until our kids turn about 18. Health care is important, but if we are careful and maintain a healthy lifestyle it is diminished. My mother and stepfather NEVER had health insurance while I grew up, we simply were too poor. We also led very active lifestyles and rarely had health related issues. The few times we went to the doctor, my mother worked out acceptable payment plans.

I had major surgery 2 years ago when I was unemployed and on COBRA. My insurance was minimal. I worked with the hospital to reduce fees and develop a payment plan that worked for both of us. Too many people are unaware they can do this. It’s unfortunate, but all they have to do is ask. The hospitals, for some reason, won’t tell you. But I told them upfront of my difficulties, and they worked very closely with me to sort out all the financial issues. I finished paying them off this month.

When these items are factored in, housing remains the only true impactful area of real price increase.

Truth is, while real wages have stagnated over the last 20 years, the real prices for almost everything have fallen significantly. Only housing, in the last 7 years, has risen in real terms.

It has risen ridiculously high.

Also, education.

Also, health care.

I was motivated to do well, and I have. My father couldn’t offer any assistance in getting employment, I’m not in medicine. My mother couldn’t either. I had to go off and make it on my own. Which I did.

Today I look back on what my mom had and realize that I couldn’t get much worse off, so comparatively I’m doing much better. But I’m also doing better than my father and I’m not making as much money as he did at his peak. How could that be?
Truth is, when my compatriots were off taking vacations the first 5 years of employment, I was staying home and visiting family. I was maxing out savings and 401(k). I didn’t advance as rapidly as some of my compatriots (some of whom are now looking for work – advancement doesn’t always correlate with skill), but I was smart with my money. That is why I’m better today than my father at the same stage, and it’s why I’m better off today with 2 kids than I was 15 years ago with 0 kids (or 10 years ago with 2).

I have an MS now in Econometrics, with a heavy emphasis on statistics. I have found most statistics are misleading because they are delivered in a fashion to make a point – usually whatever point you want to make.
But a good statistician can spot flaws and objectively analyze the real back stories. Truth is, while real wages have stagnated over the last 20 years, the real prices for almost everything have fallen significantly. Only housing, in the last 7 years, has risen in real terms.

Truth is, if a person is not living as well or better than your parents, the causes are probably limited to a few reasons:
1. they haven’t been smart with their money
2. they don’t value certain things in a similar fashion to their parents (by taking 2 or 3 vacations a year, which their parents never did, they fail to recognize the improvement in their life…or by going out every Friday, which their parents never did, they fail to see the differentiation in lifestyle)
3. they took jobs that don’t pay as well as their parents (even then, as my case points out,this is NOT a one-size fits all reason)
4. they view their WANTS as NEEDS as opposed to the other way around and have a very skewed view of how to manage money.

I can point to people all around me who have these problems, and they don’t recognize it until it’s pointed out to them. Once they see the reality, the usually become more optimistic and their demeanors improve dramatically.
In addition, I usually point out things they can do to improve their lives. One story I found especially interesting occurred a few years ago. My sister ran into a woman I once worked with. The woman told my sister to thank me. My sister asked why. The woman replied “I’d always wanted to open my own business, but never thought I could. Your brother told me to set aside 10% of my income and I wouldn’t miss it, but I’d save enough in a short period of time to start it. He was right, and now I have a thriving business.”

Attitude and following solid advice is important. Since most people ignore good advice, they typically get angry and depressed with how things turn out, and then say they’re not doing well. Perhaps they’re not doing as well as they’d like, but almost always they’re doing better than people in the past.

Our current economic environment is very reminiscent of the 1970’s. It was only natural that we’d eventually have a turn of events that led to this. Anyone who thinks this is abnormal or unexpected is simply someone who hasn’t been paying attention or is poorly informed.

That said, thinking it HAS to go on for years is also foolish. Individually, we are capable of overcoming this if we work hard and use our money wisely. The problems we face are what I’ve often termed the “waste associated with plenty”. We’ve done well for SO long, we’ve forgotten what we need as opposed to what we want….and therefore can’t differentiate them or plan for them properly. So we view this in a very negative light.

I view it very positively. I have always lived carefully and spent/invested wisely (by the way, I DID NOT convert to cash because I don’t believe I’m capable of timing the market, and any good market watcher will tell you that the gains that you will get when the market turns will be ASTOUNDING). As a result, I remain cheerfully optimistic – barring a massive socialist takeover, which is possible – about my childrens’ prospects. And if the socialist future proves out, who cares? Nobody wins in that scenario – so anything I do now to “preserve capital” is wasted effort. In that scenario, the government will provide….

The best thing to do is remain optimistic, remain calm, and keep working hard. That almost always pays off.

I disagree that this is more than a blip. This depends on how you choose to view things. If you view things from a negative standpoint (and it seems you do) then things will never get better. I refuse to accept negativity as a point of view from which to base my judgements. I see things improving all the time, even now. We can choose to focus on things that are bad, and thus make them worse, or we can focus on things that are good and help improve them. My situation today, despite a massive sell off in the market, is 100% better than it was 9 years ago. So is my children’s situation and their future. Sure, I was better off 1 year ago – but if I gauged everything based on recent past, I’d drive myself insane. I prefer a holistic view.

As for religions telling us to take care of others – wow, what insight! Yes, that’s facetious…but fairly so. Your comment added nothing to the discussion. My point was that while religions tell us to take care of others, religions ALSO point out that it has to be a conscious CHOICE to take care of others in order for this to have value in our lives. At what point does having the government do the work for us (inefficiently, unfairly, and full of corruption I might add), provide value and benefit to our lives? We’re not making the conscious choice to help – we’re being coerced into it by a kleptocracy! This is where the infusion of religious thought and care within politics and economics FAILS BADLY!!! Never allow your religious beliefs or understandings overwhelm common sense from a political point of view. They are very different things.

We seem to be discussing a few things:

1.) A philosophical discussion of about progressive tax rates. I believe that those who have achieved more should shoulder a higher burden. Not everyone agrees with this.

2.) A practical discussion of whether progressive tax rates deter work, accumulation of marginal profit, and by extension economic growth. Taken to the limit, I can see this might be true. However, I just don’t buy and have not seen any evidence that an increase of the marginal tax rate from 35% to 39.6% will deter any of the above.

I don’t know the limit and perhaps it is personal, but I think anytime I increase my income and get to keep the majority of it, I would. I hear people saying there is a point where they will stop working if there is too much tax. Why would these same people not quit working earlier if they kept more marginal income?

Dave

___________________________________
In your circumstance it may appear stupid but consider this:

My wife cuts two days of work out of her week to help remove us from the AMT. How much money does she really have if she didn’t cut her hours?
Federal taxes 25%.
State taxes 5%.
Social Security 7.65%.
Tithe (voluntary) 10%.
She ends up with almost half her pay gone (47.65%). But monetarily we are not finished. We now pick up deductions that we did not qualify for before as well as reduced commuting costs.

With two more full days a week my wife spends a lot more time with her children (all grown now), grandchildren, siblings, and ailing father. She is less tired and enjoys life more. Who can say what the monetary value of this is?

You point out that your wife “has no incentive to find work” because the benefits of not working outweigh the benefits of working. In our instance when we factor in taxes, the AMT, and the value of my wife’s time, she also has no incentive to work those two days a week. Your other points about cutting taxes I agree with, well said.

Taxation, when coupled with other factors (for example the value of your time), becomes a powerful dissuader to work.

Don’t over-generalize. It all depends on the tax rate, the nature of the work, and a person’s particular circumstances. There are plenty of cases where a person isn’t “stupid” because of “cutting pay to avoid taxes”– they just have different values.

Would a salaried person quit her job and pursue a lower-paying one over an increase from 35% to 39.6% at the margin? Highly doubtful.

But consider this scenario: let’s say we’re talking about a 50% marginal tax rate (quite modest by post-war historical standards– e.g. compared to the 91% rate [!] under Eisenhower or the 70% rate under Carter), and we’re talking about a professional who charges hourly or per-project fees to clients, and we’re talking about a high earner who has more than enough income and savings. Would that person consider “cutting pay to avoid taxes”? Possibly, depending on what else he/ she could do with that time– though that’s not how he/ she would probably describe it. Rather than say “I’m cutting pay to avoid taxes,” he/ she might well express it (for example) as: “That $400 per hour I can charge SOUNDS good; but life is too short to work that marginal hour for only $200, because I don’t need $200 and I do have friends I’ve been neglecting, after all.” (These figures are, obviously, only examples).

That person thus is willing to sell a marginal hour in order to acquire income he/ she doesn’t need… if the price is right. But if the price (after tax) goes down, then he/ she prefers to keep that marginal hour for non-remunerative purposes. This is EXACTLY the sort of behavior that can be characterized by an observer as “cutting pay to avoid taxes”, though obviously it’s not the “avoiding taxes” that’s the motivation. Nor is this person “stupid.” He/ she is, though a perfect illustration of the idea that increased taxes can be a disincentive to working that marginal hour per week– or those marginal 10 or 20 hours per week– depending on his/ her personal circumstances.

Calling it “cutting pay to avoid taxes” is not the best way to phrase such behavior. But behavior with exactly that result does, indeed, take place. But how widespread such behavior is, that’s another matter.

But that may not hold forever; if the economy cycles back strongly, age groups that are now finding it difficult to make ends meet while living a life similar to their parents will likely surpass the previous generation in living standards and expendable income.

The thing about statistics is that we often find they disagree with our immediate personal experiences. (”That can’t be true because it isn’t true for me.”) There are a lot of people in this country, and a good percentage of them are not like us.

Atul…I am also a Gen X’er (or about there…I honestly am not sure where the lines start and stop for the X, Y gen).

I am by FAR doing better than my parents were at my age without any question. Even during this economic “blip”. And even with losing 50% of my retirement account. I STILL have more retirement savings than my mom.

My father had a double Masters and my mom had her Master of Science and became an RN. Both were doing better than their parents at 30.

And today I am doing better than my mom. I don’t even have a masters degree and I make more at 30 than she did (even adjusted for inflation).

To make a statement like that is just ignorant of reality. Nearly every single generation lives better than their parents did. Are things difficult right now? Sure. But it is nowhere near the level of Depression era. And this situation is NOT permanent. Even with the asinine actions of the Obama administration, things will eventually pull around.

I agree that people lived beyond their means and that there was a huge bubble. But WE did not and now WE (my husband and I and all those who paid their bills and followed the rules) are being punished by those who did not. We’re still doing fine and even if I lose my job we’ll still do fine. Because we plan and we save and we know how to live within our means…we didn’t buy a bigger house than we could afford, nor did we fall for the line about an adjustable ARM mortgage. Those who did, weren’t paying attention and were greedy.

Oh…and this economic environment COULD have been a blip. Now I’m not so sure. I work in the investment world. My company is looking to lay off 20% of the company in the next month. The last year has been very tough but it will turn around eventually. This company was started DURING the great Depression. It has a solid vision and will come through this. I just hope that the damage Obama is doing (and that Bush II and the Democratic congress did the last two years) doesn’t make this Blip a much bigger hurdle. What we really need is a true economic conservative…not the spend crazy Socialist big government guy in charge right now.

Since he’s taken office the market has hit its 10 year low (not saying it’s ALL his fault, but the last 2,000 point drop is all his) and gas prices at the pump have risen because of his anti-drill policies. That’s not exactly helping the common middle class person.

I don’t mean to offend you and I hope you will regard my comments not as attacks on you, but to debate your points. I appreciate your arguments too, but I think you’ve read into many of my comments beyond what I meant.

Sure race relations have come a long way. Obama is proof of that. I never said things haven’t gotten better. But in my opinion dismissing racism or any other form of prejudice can be more damaging to race relations than being aware of it and being sympathetic to those who experience it. My comments and observations do not perpetuate racist behavior. Hatred and misunderstanding does. To think that prejudicial behavior has been eradicated is a dream that simply isn’t true. Regardless of somebody’s worldly experiences and learnings, how can anybody exactly know what it’s like to be of a different ethnicity? I can’t. You can’t. To stretch my argument to an extreme, we both can’t know what it’s like to be pregnant. Sure we can be sympathetic, but we don’t completely know. I agree that reverse racism isn’t right either.

I don’t advocate hiring purely based on minority status over hiring on skill. Diversity does make companies better able to cope with globalization though. For example, if one our sales engineers wasn’t a Chinese American, it would be harder for us to do business in China due to language and cultural differences.

I never said 9/11 made my job searches more difficult, but you don’t know how some people looked at me a few days after the event. I may have been hypersensitive but it wasn’t all from my imagination. It’s not fair to use one anecdotal story from your friend as proof that it didn’t affect people. Right after 9/11 , people were shot and killed for wearing turbans! There are hate groups still in existence today. That’s all the proof you need. Contrary to what you might think, I don’t dwell on the idea that somebody else might be racist. I live my life open to people by treating them as individuals, just as you do.

I didn’t say that tax structures were or should be religiously ordained. I just said religions want us to take care of our fellow humans.

Our economy and innovation has come a long way, but a lot of where we’ve come recently was based on a bubble of debt and fake wealth. I could live like a millionaire to if I maxed out my credit cards and kept paying the minimum balance. I would call this current economic crisis more than a blip. Investments of just about every kind are down, we’re seeing deflation, jobs are being lost, companies are dying, consumers don’t have confidence, credit isn’t flowing, home prices are down and foreclosures are rampant. Now we’re resetting ourselves to reality. The government has to do something. We’ll turn things around, but it will be tough as the world becomes more global. I hope I’m wrong but I’d be willing to bet money that the standard of living in the U.S. will go down in the next 10 years and even more in 25. My generation, (Gen X), is the first generation that is less well off than our parents. I don’t see things turning around for Gen Y.

As a result, Reagan’s, Bush 1 AND Bush 2 would all see improvements. Clinton would see a decrease because he’d pick up 2001, which this author conveniently left off for dubious reasons.

It is also unclear whether the president should get credit for growth or Congress. Frankly, I’m a believer that Congress should get credit for all economic performance – they pass the budgets, which are ALMOST NEVER what the president wants (Bush 2 was the only president who got what he wanted for 6 years).

One thing that is VERY CLEAR is that a Republican Congress and a Democratic President produce remarkable results. Probably because that particular Congress was very much a responsible Congress (very different from the Republicans who replaced them by 2002) when it came to fiscal aptitude.

Here’s what I know about Presidents and the increase in GDP:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/clinton-economic-record-and-rising.html

Here’s what I know about Presidents and the budget deficit:

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

In my original article, I asked for statistics that prove that cutting taxes for only the wealthy stimulates the economy. So far nobody has provided any. (Though I see we’re having a stimulating debate about racism and whatnot. Not sure where that came from.)

Further, it’s ludicrous to assume that things are easier for white males. You were right in assuming I am one. What you aren’t aware of is that I’ve lost job opportunities simply for being a white male due to quotas. I’ve been the most qualified person for the job – of that I am 100% sure. I know I’m the best at what I do, my resume always generates a positive response and a great deal of interest.

So to say I don’t know how it feels is foolish and ignorant.

Did your friend do better by changing his/her name? Perhaps. Or perhaps in changing their name, they adopted a better attitude and were more welcomed into interviews.

As for diversity, I can tell you specifically that there is no sure proof that ethnically or racially diverse workplaces perform better. I know for a fact that the companies I worked for that stressed it above all else performed dysfunctionally. This isn’t to say I’m opposed to diversity – to the contrary, I support and promote it. But when I am told that my next hire MUST BE a specifically designated gender/race descent in order to fulfill a demographic quota, I essentially eliminate a vast amount of the highly skilled work force and am potentially forced into hiring sub standard employees (which has happened on at least 2 occasions with me due to puffed up resumes and interview tutoring on their part).

I do agree that most religions promote less of a reliance on material ownership. I have studied Islam, Judaism, Buddhism and I am Catholic. But to say from a religious perspective that certain tax structures are religiously ordained is absurd AND dangerous. Jesus said “Give to Caesar that which is Caesar’s and give unto God that which is God’s”. Basically, he was clearly saying religion makes NO claims or commentary on the affairs of man in the political or economic realm. When considering the Book of Samuel, it’s clear this is a common theme. God prefers to NOT impose His will upon man via a political process, because political processes are essentially corrupt or easily corrupted. Redistribution MUST be a choice in order to have value. Democratic processes are rarely unanimous, so saying the current Congress and Administration have a mandate would be a lie.

Furthermore, it has been proven time and again that middle and lower class families in the US are much larger charitable givers, as a % of income, than higher income levels. It’s also been shown that charitable giving declines as the government enforces more redistribution – creating a struggling environment for many charitable organizations, which are more effective in combating poverty than the government itself.

What I find truly fascinating is how people can use 1 recessionary period that mimics a situation we’ve seen before (1979-1982) to freak out and call for HUGE changes to our economic and social structure. In the last 28 years, we have had MASSIVE growth and introduced many new technologies. Our productivity has soared, and prices have remained relatively stable. The 3 recessions during this period have gotten progressively weaker. Then we have a typical recession, and somehow something has changed? We are using an economic blip as “proof” that something is “wrong”? Please tell me how we argue that after 28 years in which we’ve had fully 25 years of incredible performance that something was done improperly? I’d have to say the statistics argue otherwise. Now if our current recession were to last for 25 years, then there’s a 50/50 chance you’re right. But something tells me people who are knee-jerking their way into this path are overreacting to a natural economic situation.

Joseph Schumpeter, one of the greatest economists of the 20th century, pointed out that recessions are necessary in a capitalist environment and viewing them as an anomaly is incorrect and can lead to some very poor decision making. I’d say we’re seeing that.

Rick,

It’s easy to say from a non-prejudiced person such as yourself (who I assume to be white and male), that race and gender don’t matter. I could never understand what it’s like to be an African-American or a woman and neither can you. We both don’t know what they face, but if you talk to them, many of the negative reactions they encounter can’t all be their imagination. Because I look Middle-Eastern I did sense some hatred shortly after 9/11. I’m not blaming any setbacks in my career on it, but these things can be an issue with some people. For instance, I knew another Indian guy who changed his first name on his resume to sound more mainstream and responses to his resume increased. I’m not advocating promoting diversity over skill, but diversity of all kinds does make a company stronger.

Job satisfaction is dependent upon a lot of things that haven’t changed. You make interesting points and bring up great examples. I’m just saying that many, (not all) companies today don’t value their employees as an asset of skill/knowledge that are human and can only do so much work. You can only take away so many headcount before department effectiveness goes down. At a prior employer, we had about 25 people in our department and we paid proper attention to what needed to be done and we became experts. Eventually, our portfolio of products doubled, but headcount was reduced by half. There’s no way everything can get done as well. The original 25 people weren’t sitting around doing nothing for 3/4 of the day.

The biggest lesson I’ve learned from Christianity is that we should all live simple lives and give to the poor and not care about material belongings. That’s what Jesus did. That lesson resonates in just about every religion. No religion’s main teachings are about less taxes versus more versus getting what you deserve. But capitalism does generate wealth for society, so we need taxation that keeps the economy strong while not leaving people hungry and unhealthy. As the wealthiest country in the world, we should best be able to take care of our people. It’s the ethical thing to do.

I agree that protectionism isn’t good for the overall world or U.S. economy, but our standard of living has nowhere to go but down because the world is getting flatter. Whether we go down with an open market or with some other way to slow the decline is up to us. Hard work and entrepreneurism will definitely help, but we’re losing our manufacturing base which, to me, is a sign that the party’s over.

OK, that’s my last comment. I need to get some work done.

In places like boardrooms, this WAS the case as recently as 10 years ago, but the tech revolution has altered this situation as well. Boardrooms across the US have become increasingly diverse (given the lousy performance of boardrooms in the last few years, one may wonder if this was particularly wise).

I have worked in companies which promoted diversity over skill. Both companies eventually faced financial difficulties and were forced to be sold. This is not an argument against diversity per se, but against diversity for diversity’s sake – which is what these companies valued.

As far as employee/employer relationships go, my staff has a very nice life. Sure they aren’t the highest paid in the industry, but they come and go as they like, work from home when necessary, and we are generally considered the best back office in the business. The occasional complaints I do get about pay I will respond by saying “try my job for a week – work with management, work on weekends, work at night”. I don’t LOVE my job, but in order to get the pay packet I desire, it’s necessary. I have developed skill sets to manage these things. Many people are not capable of these skills, and the last person who complained about pay spent a year doing a poor job and lying to me about what they were doing. They finally left for more money, and I spent 3 months cleaning up their mess. (before you say why didn’t you fire them – it takes ALOT to fire someone these days, particularly if the person is a woman or a minority)
This person left me with a disaster to fix – a disaster nobody else could work on because it was my responsibility. Sadly for this person, they took a new job and were laid off after 3 months when their new company collapsed.

Pay packets, job enjoyment, responsibility and skill sets are all intertwined. People value all these things differently. Some value work over family (I know one guy who has blown through 4 marriages – he’s wealthy as heck, but can’t stay out of the office). Some value family over work (I try to be as flexible as possible with my workers, but with the understanding they will be paid slightly less as a result).

At the end of the day, when you finally get right down to the basis of what we’re discussing, we all want one thing. We want to get paid a fair wage, with the ability to take care of our families, and not have the government take much of what we earn.

In the book of Samuel, as the Israelites ask God for a King, He points out to them that a king will enslave them, and take their goods that they worked for. Over time, we have seen this is correct. Even democracies will do this. Income taxes are a form of coerced payment – not unlike the “taxes” the mob collects from business for protection. This isn’t to say taxes are a bad thing, but they do have to be managed very carefully – and I believe this administration is playing fast and loose.

With regard to outsourcing – remember the Depression was partially the result of trade barriers. If you support barriers to job outsourcing, it’s a form of trade barrier. Perhaps you’d do well to read some David Ricardo and understand exactly WHY outsourcing is not a bad thing. Over time, Ricardo’s views have been proven correct.

Progressive taxation reduces overall growth, this is pretty well proven out over history. So people may not QUIT jobs, but they certainly will have fewer available to them.

Even so, there is a group of people, dual income types with one high and one low wage/salary, where losing one salary will BENEFIT their overall lifestyle.

Most families (such as mine) value family over money. But the trade off is not direct nor is it the same for every family. Were it not for the extended and expanded unemployment benefits, I doubt my wife would be doing what she’s intending on doing.

And don’t forget, if you get laid off (intentionally, as some people do), the job creation is also offset partially by the unemployment benefits paid.
So you potentially get less in taxes even as you pay more out. The concept of higher taxation is usually lose/lose.

I’m not bitter at all. I just know what I see and things aren’t like they used to be. I’m not pitting employees against employers for the sake of doing so. I’m warning people that the employers have already done a lot to pit themselves against the employees

By the way, I’m actually pretty happy with my job and very fortunate that I have one. A lot of people don’t have jobs partially because of what I talked about in my prior post. I know how to manage my employers’ expectations. Quality work on a task takes time and attention. More tasks take more time. I’m not opposed to working somewhat longer hours but I’m not going to completely dedicate my life for an employer that will drop me the instant they feel they don’t need me anymore. Loyalty that used to exist is long gone. This is why I have started my own business on the side.

As for your prior response to my prior response ( :-) ), to think that anybody can succeed in our country with equal likelihood is naive. Issues of class, family money, race, gender come into play regularly. I still think ours is the greatest country on earth to “make it” though.

And private charities can in no way support everybody who has needs. Who would orchestrate to make sure that whole communities weren’t left out and that subsidies are given out evenly? The government is the only organization that oversees our whole country and can come anywhere close to doing this properly. Sure, it has issues, but it’s the only way to do it properly. That’s why other countries work the same way.

Giving some employers higher tax burdens only matters when they’re making money, but rolling back tax cuts on the wealthy is not “punishing” them. Most business owners don’t make $250K. The top 3% of our country can afford to do more to help our country since they’ve benefited so much and don’t have to worry about feeding and sheltering themselves. Punishing the lower and middle classes with more of the burden does more harm to our economy and society in general. The ultimate incentive would be to reduce taxes for companies that create jobs or to penalize the sending of jobs overseas. It would be hard to monitor though.