Let me ask for those who think a corporation's primary objective is making money? Who/what should be making money - the corporation or the shareholders? Should it be profit at all costs?

Bingo. All fiduciary responsibility is to the corporation NOT to the stockholders as many today would have you believe. And no, they're not the same thing.

The corporation is legally viable under a corporate charter issued by the states. This is a key. Many haven't yet grasped the connection.

When/who was the last major corporate HQ that OKC landed?

When/who was the last major corporate HQ that OKC landed?

Even though it was a subsidiary of OG&E, I'd say Enable Midstream. It could have gone with Centerpoint to Houston.

Even though it was a subsidiary of OG&E, I'd say Enable Midstream. It could have gone with Centerpoint to Houston.

True.. although they had some sort of ties here. How about I rephrase it... What was the last major HQ relocation that had no previous ties to OKC/Oklahoma?

SandRidge <- Raita Energy

Vote Rand Paul for tax fairness.

GOP?s Rand Paul Calls For 14.5% Flat Tax - WSJ (http://www.wsj.com/articles/gops-rand-paul-calls-14-5-flat-tax-1434587746)

True.. although they had some sort of ties here. How about I rephrase it... What was the last major HQ relocation that had no previous ties to OKC/Oklahoma?

Not really an HQ relocation, but the largest single influx of high paying jobs would have to be Boeing. Between 900 and 1,100 in a 4 year span.

SandRidge <- Raita Energy

I was going to say that, but Tom Ward bought them with the specific intent to relocate them to OKC. It's not like the City went out and recruited them.

Didn't some company move here from Tulsa about 5 years ago?

I was going to say that, but Tom Ward bought them with the specific intent to relocate them to OKC. It's not like the City went out and recruited them.

Didn't some company move here from Tulsa about 5 years ago?

Blue Knight Midstream, and Flogistix (sp?) moved here from Texas 3 years ago.

How about General Electric Global Research... lol

Not sure about Blue Knight, but Flogistics was a Tom Ward type deal where the CEO already lived in OKC.

Vote Rand Paul for tax fairness.

GOP?s Rand Paul Calls For 14.5% Flat Tax - WSJ (http://www.wsj.com/articles/gops-rand-paul-calls-14-5-flat-tax-1434587746)

With a phase in time period I like that idea a lot …. It would simplify the tax codes and make our economy more efficient…. A lot of tax attorneys and accountants would need to find other work.

Very Interesting that folks are having a hard time on this one and even more telling is the companies mentioned are not on the radar screen of most people.

I would add Continental Oil, but Hamm already lived in OKC as well.

If we want to make the game even harder, what was thr last non-O&G company that is/was publicly traded?

I would add Continental Oil, but Hamm already lived in OKC as well.

If we want to make the game even harder, what was thr last non-O&G company that is/was publicly traded?

He lived here but commuted to Enid for a year or so until CLR moved. I'm not so sure that his marital status didn't contribute to his move to NH. ?

Bingo. All fiduciary responsibility is to the corporation NOT to the stockholders as many today would have you believe. And no, they're not the same thing.

The corporation is legally viable under a corporate charter issued by the states. This is a key. Many haven't yet grasped the connection.

OK, but why is the corporation making money? I agree that in today's environment, the shareholder(s) is a sort of absentee owner, but the tail wags the dog pretty damned hard, sometimes. Look at Carl Icahn and tell me he has no say in how the corporation works.

Carl Ichan represents everything that is wrong with Wall Street. The Stock Market was created so companies could raise debt-free capital for R&D and/or expansion. It has now turned 180 degrees where R&D cut and layoffs/store closings boost stock prices. The day traders, and now HFT, don't give a crap about anything more than 7 days out (or miliseconds out for HFT). All Carl Ichan is, is a glorified chop shop operator. Your car is worth 5x more in parts than it is as an operating vehicle - but for some reason you don't unlock that 'value'. That is where Carl comes along. He doesn't care if you have to walk after he chops your car up. He unlocks the value in your car and then finds someone elses car.

Just abolish the federal corporate income tax and be through with tax giveaways. Make up for lost revenue by raising income taxes of millionaires. I don't care if tax accountants have to be laid off.

Vote Rand Paul for tax fairness.

GOP?s Rand Paul Calls For 14.5% Flat Tax - WSJ (http://www.wsj.com/articles/gops-rand-paul-calls-14-5-flat-tax-1434587746)

The Flat Tax is the most unfair tax proposal there is. A middle class family pays the same rate as Donald Trump and the 1% - who have as much wealth as the rest of the country (99%) put together? The Flat Tax is a huge giveaway to the rich. That this makes sense to people is just shocking. Only In America.

Just abolish the federal corporate income tax and be through with tax giveaways. Make up for lost revenue by raising income taxes of millionaires. I don't care if tax accountants have to be laid off.

You realize that most millionaires are not wage earners and are not subject to the same rates of taxations that wage earners are.

You realize that most millionaires are not wage earners and are not subject to the same rates of taxations that wage earners are.

Exactly right. I have seen proposals that included a Flat Tax rate, elimination of the inheritance tax (which only applies to estates over 1 or 2 million dollars anyway) --- and elimination of capital gains. Imagine that gift to the rich. The consolidation of wealth is happening at a frightening pace and is not about the rich versus the poor. It's about the very, very, very rich and everyone else. They buy our elections, run our corporations, manage our banking system, decide who can and cannot keep their homes, own our elected officials and run roughshod over people who actually work for a living (as opposed to pushing paper). Just say no to the New American Oligarchy (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/28/dawn-of-the-age-of-oligarchy-the-alliance-between-government-and-the-1.html).

I support a wealth tax. Every year everyone fills out a networth statement and we pay taxes on that. Either that or the Fair Tax coupled with a stock/commodities purchase tax.

I support a wealth tax. Every year everyone fills out a networth statement and we pay taxes on that. Either that or the Fair Tax coupled with a stock/commodities purchase tax.

Me too.

I just don't understand the rationale behind requiring people who are more successful to pay a higher percentage of their income (which as a general rule they absolutely do, loophole bandits notwithstanding). Someone should pay a higher percentage of their income just because they have more money than me? Class envy is an ugly thing.

High-income Americans pay most income taxes, but enough to be 'fair'? | Pew Research Center (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/03/24/high-income-americans-pay-most-income-taxes-but-enough-to-be-fair/)

http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2015/03/FT_15.03.23_taxesInd.png

I don't understand the rationale of why someone who is under 18 years of age pays sales taxes. Nor do I understand why residents of the District of Columbia pay income taxes w/o representation. I guess I have an issue with your terminology of "punished". Paying taxes is a responsibility not a punishment. Why is the poor guy punished with jail for stealing 50 bucks from a retailer and the rich guy who manipulated hedge funds which resulted in many losing their pensions is fined, while not admitting wrongdoing?

I support a wealth tax. Every year everyone fills out a networth statement and we pay taxes on that. Either that or the Fair Tax coupled with a stock/commodities purchase tax.

Second the motion.

I just don't understand the rationale behind requiring people who are more successful to pay a higher percentage of their income (which as a general rule they absolutely do, loophole bandits notwithstanding). Someone should pay a higher percentage of their income just because they have more money than me? Class envy is an ugly thing.

High-income Americans pay most income taxes, but enough to be 'fair'? | Pew Research Center (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/03/24/high-income-americans-pay-most-income-taxes-but-enough-to-be-fair/)

http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2015/03/FT_15.03.23_taxesInd.png


Thank you, Urbanized, for proving my (and others) point.
Most on the right have stopped using this "look who pays the taxes" excuse. Because it simply proves the point of concentration of wealth.
This isn't really that difficult...
If all the money is being made by the few - who will be paying most of the taxes?
Simple, really.

The risk to society by wealth concentration is far greater than the 'injustice' perpatrated on a few extremely wealthy. It's not wealthy or class envy - it's the sustainabilty of the Republic at stake.

NM. Pointless conversation.

For those who are intetested, I recommend The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek.

I just don't understand the rationale behind requiring people who are more successful to pay a higher percentage of their income (which as a general rule they absolutely do, loophole bandits notwithstanding). Someone should pay a higher percentage of their income just because they have more money than me? Class envy is an ugly thing.

High-income Americans pay most income taxes, but enough to be 'fair'? | Pew Research Center (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/03/24/high-income-americans-pay-most-income-taxes-but-enough-to-be-fair/)

http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2015/03/FT_15.03.23_taxesInd.png

Because the people that make the most, generally benefit the most from government services, infrastructure and spending.

Also your chart is pure propaganda since it does not also show the percentage of income for each bracket. That vital piece of information was left off very intentionally.

As you wish, here are tax rates by bracket, courtesy 2015 Tax Brackets | Tax Foundation (http://taxfoundation.org/article/2015-tax-brackets)

Table 1. 2015 Taxable Income Brackets and Rates

Rate
Single Filers
Married Joint Filers
Head of Household Filers

10%
$0 to $9,225
$0 to $18,450
$0 to $13,150

15%
$9,225 to $37,450
$18,450 to $74,900
$13,150 to $50,200

25%
$37,450 to $90,750
$74,900 to $151,200
$50,200 to $129,600

28%
$90,750 to $189,300
$151,200 to $230,450
$129,600 to $209,850

33%
$189,300 to $411,500
$230,450 to $411,500
$209,850 to $411,500

35%
$411,500 to $413,200
$411,500 to $464,850
$411,500 to $439,000

39.6%
$413,200+
$464,850+
$439,000+

Obviously many wealthy people can avoid much of this through loopholes, which in many cases I would support closing. But saying that rich people account for more of our taxes simply because of wealth concentration? That's the real propaganda. They also account for more because they pay at a much higher rate, in general. The fact that so many people are super-OK with this (and crying for even more flesh) is kind of gross.

That link and chart that I previously posted are from the Pew Reseach Center, not Forbes or Fox News. Pew is not in the propaganda business. Just because something clashes with your own worldview doesn't mean that it's "propaganda." In many cases it just means that you are so invested in your narrow opinion that you are unwilling to consider information that doesn't line up with it, factual or not. That's why this discussion is a waste of my time. Out.

What do you want to Urbanized? We have a $17 trillion debt and annual deficits between $400 billion and $1.2 trillion. Where do we get the money? Should we be giving tax credits/breaks/rebates to ANY companies?

Do you think the uber-wealthy even care about the debt the rest of us will have to pay off -maybe with our lives? The answer is, no they don't because they buy the tax-free debt. And what does the government do with the money? Answer, they turn around and spend it on products made by uber-wealthy. And what does the uber-wealthy do with the profits? They buy stocks, more government debt, and reduce their business costs by off-shoring jobs, iincreasing automation, and coming to broke states like Oklahoma asking for handouts. THAT RIGHT THERE IS THE GE BUSINESS MODEL.

Now if you are okay with that then great, but I am not okay with it.

http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2015/03/FT_15.03.23_taxesInd.png

I did it to one side on the gun thread, it's only fair I do it to the other side here.

I look at that chart and I see a problem. As we go up the chart, we see a gradual increase in the amount of total tax dollars paid, which we would expect with an increasing amount of wealth. We see a hiccup with the $200,000 to 249,999 group where they're paying a much lower amount of total tax dollars (about 1/4) as the group above them.. This may be explained by the large drop in population of that group -- you're going from 11.2% of the population to 1.4% of the population. So they're 1/8 the population of the group above them, but they're paying 1/4 the taxes. This basically makes sense -- since they're making roughly twice the amount of money as the $100,000 to $199,999 group, they're paying twice the taxes, per person. So that makes sense.

But now we get to the problem. The $250,000 and up group are 2.4% of the population, but are paying 48.9% of the total taxes. Now you were good to point out the tax rates everyone is paying. Assuming everyone is "head of household", most of the $200-250K group are going to be taxed at 33% (the cutoff is $209.850, so there will be some taxed at the lower 28%, but we're just spitballing here so it's okay). Those in the $250K+ category will be taxed at 33%, 35%, or 39.6%, depending on exactly how much money they make.

Now that group is 2.4% of the population. They are paying nearly half of the total income taxes. But while their tax rate is higher, it's not astronomically so. Somebody earning $500,000 a year is paying 39.6%, whereas someone earning $250,000 a year is paying 33%. Since the population of that group is 58% larger (2.4 vs l.4) than the income bracket before them, we would expect them to pay more money. Since they are paying at a higher tax rate, we would expect them to pay more money. But they aren't paying so high a tax rate, and they aren't so large a group population-wise, that we would expect them to pay 49% of total income taxes -- not unless their income was crazy crazy high.

In other words, the chart you posted doesn't make sense unless the rich are REALLY rich -- they don't have a big enough population and aren't taxed at that much higher an amount to account for why they are paying so much more in total dollars. The only explanation is that each of them has gobs and gobs of money. Some back-of-the-napkin calculations show that each of those guys would have to be making about a million dollars a year of taxable income for the chart to make sense. But we know not all of them are millionaires. There's a big group of people who are earning between $250,000 and $999,999 a year, and their income is not substantial enough to explain that 48.9% amount. In other words, all the people making between $250K and $999K are dragging down the average. That means the people who are earning a million-plus dollars a year must be earning a whole lot more than that, enough to make up for all the slackers earning $300,000 a year who aren't pulling their own weight.

The Flat Tax is the most unfair tax proposal there is. A middle class family pays the same rate as Donald Trump and the 1% - who have as much wealth as the rest of the country (99%) put together? The Flat Tax is a huge giveaway to the rich. That this makes sense to people is just shocking. Only In America.

The reason it's been pushed by the typical GOPer (I say this in all generality because I haven't seen any push from the Dems in favor of this...) for years is because it would actually be the fairest deal to the Middle Class, not the poor, and not *exactly* the rich, either. I know, that's extremely hard to swallow. But keep in mind, I'm meaning Middle Class, and more particularly "Upper" Middle Class, the ones who are generally able to start small businesses. We'll say for argument's sake those are the ones making $100-250,000 + yearly.

While your statement does contain some truth, I would have to counter that poor people, or just common people like us don't buy $1,000,000 yachts and cars ($145,000 in taxes right off the top at, for example, Rand Paul's 14.5% flat rate), relative to a bi-weekly or monthly grocery bill of $200 - $29 in taxes, for the rest of us. Of which we're probably paying more NOW with sales tax + additional income taxes. In fact, $17.16 in sales tax alone is paid on a typical grocery bill of $200 at Tulsa's sales tax rate of 8.584%.
That's where the fair tax makes it's greatest argument, in my opinion.

Now, to add to that...


Exactly right. I have seen proposals that included a Flat Tax rate, elimination of the inheritance tax (which only applies to estates over 1 or 2 million dollars anyway) --- and elimination of capital gains. Imagine that gift to the rich. The consolidation of wealth is happening at a frightening pace and is not about the rich versus the poor. It's about the very, very, very rich and everyone else. They buy our elections, run our corporations, manage our banking system, decide who can and cannot keep their homes, own our elected officials and run roughshod over people who actually work for a living (as opposed to pushing paper). Just say no to the New American Oligarchy (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/28/dawn-of-the-age-of-oligarchy-the-alliance-between-government-and-the-1.html).


I support a wealth tax. Every year everyone fills out a networth statement and we pay taxes on that. Either that or the Fair Tax coupled with a stock/commodities purchase tax.

In all honesty, I do believe, Fair Tax or not, that those making over $1,000,000 need at minimum a 10% income tax, no loopholes, plus I think this could have potential for bi-partisan compromise (hopefully it's at least tri-partisan by the time this is ever taken seriously). I'm not one for class warfare, however, the gap between the classes is only widening and the wealthy are getting wealthier while the poor are getting poorer. Reason? Tax holes and inflation, to name just a couple key components. The whole system is broken (like many things) and filled with so much sh*t, that at the end of the day, we, the common people, get screwed.

Edit: I've modified this post a couple times, changing a couple details and removing parts of the original.

I just don't understand the rationale behind requiring people who are more successful to pay a higher percentage of their income (which as a general rule they absolutely do, loophole bandits notwithstanding). Someone should pay a higher percentage of their income just because they have more money than me? Class envy is an ugly thing.


Big gaps in income inequality is even an uglier thing.

The rich pay the same rate as the poor. They just start paying a little more over certain amounts. And I dont know why its a surprise that the very top earners pay so much of the income taxes as a whole. There is huge concentrations of wealth between so few of people. And the poor could pay more of a % of that total income tax amount if they rich paid them more. Raise wages and we collect more taxes from them while also lessening the amount of government assistance doled out. Its a win win for everyone except the very top earners.

The whole system is broken (like many things) and filled with so much sh*t, that at the end of the day, we, the common people, get screwed.


I am still sticking by my 2020 prediction so we won't really have to worry about it much longer. Personally, I wouldn't mind reverting to City-State Republics as the primary form of government.

I support a wealth tax. Every year everyone fills out a networth statement and we pay taxes on that. Either that or the Fair Tax coupled with a stock/commodities purchase tax.

Good luck on that one,

Good luck on that one,

Trust me, I am under no illusion that we will see any other tax code than what we have right now. We are all-in on the progress trap.

The rich also pay a hell of a lot more in sales taxes and excise taxes. They already pay their fair share (Loopholes withstanding).

Keep taxing them more and they will offshore more like the corporations have done.

10971

The rich also pay a hell of a lot more in sales taxes and excise taxes. They already pay their fair share (Loopholes withstanding).

Keep taxing them more and they will offshore more like the corporations have done.



About your little picture: It's funny. Some of the the most powerful nations in the world economically are based on democratic socialism or social democracy. But, a lot of people around here have no clue what democratic socialism is. Obviously you don't. But forget socialism. It's sad that you consider the ultra, ultra wealthy paying a fairer share "socialism!" Sounds good on a bumpersticker though.

The 1%, Adonis, that owns more than the other 99% put together (do you not see that as grotesque and immoral?), in NO WAY pay their "fair share." The high-end investor class makes money from money from money that makes more money, while people who work 8 hours a day, 5 days a week can't even afford the basic necessities. Your rich, you speak so highly of, sound like fair-weather patriots if you think they'll offshore if asked to pay a fairer percentage of their unearned income. And yes, you read that right, nobody can "earn" the huge sums of wealth accumulated by the 1%. And actually, you probably won't believe this, because it sounds so fantastic, but we're really talking about the upper 1/10th of the 1%.

They already pay more than their fair share. As you have said the socialism is strong in this thread. Even from the "conservative" Kerry

Its hard to say the ultra wealthy already pay their fair share when its the head of a household that makes $40,000/year ends up paying more to taxes as a percentage of their income than the one percenters.

And its not as if the lower and middle class wouldnt love the opportunity to pay more in taxes, its that their employers arent paying them better wages.

Its hard to say the ultra wealthy already pay their fair share when its the head of a household that makes $40,000/year ends up paying more to taxes as a percentage of their income than the one percenters.

And its not as if the lower and middle class wouldnt love the opportunity to pay more in taxes, its that their employers arent paying them better wages.

Maybe they should work for themselves ? I always contended if a person was going to really bust their butt, they should be self employed instead of working for the other guy.

Many of us are missing the elephant in the room in regard to this discussion.
It's not even so much about the employers and the wages they pay. I've always contended that I can complain and I can request higher pay, but ultimately, if I'm not happy, I need to move on. I'm not forced to work here or there for this or that wage.

But, what I was referring to, is the rate of inflation.
Inflation is what causes us to lose our buying power, what was worth $20 in the 1980s, just for example, is $40 or more now. This a major reason why people are poorer and why the income gap is widening. Inflation doesn't hit the rich like it hits the middle and lower classes of society.

[/B]

Maybe they should work for themselves ? I always contended if a person was going to really bust their butt, they should be self employed instead of working for the other guy.

Sure, they can go work on their own, even though it is so much easier said than done (takes money, time and resources that one doesnt have). But that still doesnt do anything about the low paying job that still exists and will be filled by another head of the household who can barely provide for his family at that amount.

Its the same for people who argue against minimum wage increases. Theres some uninformed person saying the low wage employee should get more skills/more education/find a better job. OK, but its not like the min wage job will go away. It will still exist and it will be filled by another who cant work enough hours to provide for themselves or family, thus relying on govt assistance.

This jusy in - the people we are talking about, the 0.1%, didn't get in that bracket via capitalism. They got there by manipulating the government and exploiting the people. Why is anyone Okay with that?

I hate the word 'inflation' because it is a word used to trick the populace. Since the inception of the federal reserve, the US dollar has lost 94% of its value. That is deflation.

The Fed has a mandate to maintain 2% inflation every year. Imagine if people really knew that meant the Fed attempts to devalue the money already earned by 2%.

But JTF, isn't the opposite even worse? If you have "deflation," supply outstrips demand and leads to layoffs and a dead economy. Doesn't a low inflation mean higher demand and increased productivity and opportunity for employment?

This jusy in - the people we are talking about, the 0.1%, didn't get in that bracket via capitalism. They got there by manipulating the government and exploiting the people. Why is anyone Okay with that?

Really? What a general statement THAT is. I look at this list and see the American dream; a ton of people literally self-made - several of them started businesses in their own friggin garages fercryingoutloud - and some first-generation descendants of the same type of self-made entrepreneurs: The Richest People in America List - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/list/#tab:overall)

But anyway, I get it; if someone has lots of money surely they didn't do anything to deserve such good fortune.

Come on Urbanized. Bill Gates didn't make billions off his garage startup. He made it on Wall Street.

Really? What a general statement THAT is. I look at this list and see the American dream; a ton of people literally self-made - several of them started businesses in their own friggin garages fercryingoutloud - and some first-generation descendants of the same type of self-made entrepreneurs: The Richest People in America List - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/list/#tab:overall)

But anyway, I get it; if someone has lots of money surely they didn't do anything to deserve such good fortune.

900 of the 1300 worlds billionaires were created in the last 20 years. People move up and down in income classes constantly. That's something that is never reported on. People are moving up and down in classes. The recession took out a lot of people and the recovery made a different set of people rise in income.

Sure there is a very very tiny portion of society that will live and die then pass on to their kids a silver spoon, but it's such an insanely small percentage. This notion that the elite stays the elite is a farce.

Billionaire boom may be ending (http://www.cnbc.com/id/102706874)

Jtf is a conservative in name only evidenced by the fact he subscribes to very little of what conservatives believe.

Oh and read an economics book, low inflation is good for an economy. If a currency stagnates and starts to deflate it quickly stops being $20 and starts being a piece of paper with a 2 and a 0 on it.

Something the millienials have embraced that the older generation hasn't is entrepnuership. You used to be able to work for a company your whole life, probably join a union, and be setup with a nice retirement. That's not how it works anymore. The economy has advanced past that. It will never go back without serious pain. We're a technologically advanced global economy now. If you want to go back to those days, go move to Greece. Market forces will inflict unimaginable amounts of pain on economies that try to fight it.

2 ways to win in today's world.
1. Education. Doctor, accountant, IT, engineer, lawyer (although that bubble is bursting).
2. Own something. On every transaction there's a side that makes money and a side that loses money. Whether you start a company, own rent homes or buy stocks, be on the side that makes money off the transaction, don't always be the consumer.

That's it. Those are the ways to do it in a modern economy.

https://www.aei.org/publication/tracking-the-same-households-over-time-shows-significant-income-mobility/
That's what I was looking for. This isn't the hunger games. People move up and down frequently.

Jamie dimon is the poster boy for the elite. His grandfather? Greek immigrant.

Sure there is a very very tiny portion of society that will live and die then pass on to their kids a silver spoon, but it's such an insanely small percentage. This notion that the elite stays the elite is a farce.

That insanely small percentage are the people we are talking about.

Really? What a general statement THAT is. I look at this list and see the American dream; a ton of people literally self-made - several of them started businesses in their own friggin garages fercryingoutloud - and some first-generation descendants of the same type of self-made entrepreneurs: The Richest People in America List - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/list/#tab:overall)

But anyway, I get it; if someone has lots of money surely they didn't do anything to deserve such good fortune.

It's interesting you would support the corporatocracy that these millionaires and billionaires have given us. They manipulate the tax code and pay a far less percentage of taxes than most small businesses. Wall Street over Main Street. Your water taxi business, for example, is not what anybody here has a problem with. Nobody is condemning "success" - we are condemning EXCESS which hurts you and other small businesses right along with everyone else.

It's interesting you would support the corporatocracy that these millionaires and billionaires have given us. They manipulate the tax code and pay a far less percentage of taxes than most small businesses. Wall Street over Main Street. Your water taxi business, for example, is not what anybody here has a problem with. Nobody is condemning "success" - we are condemning EXCESS which hurts you and other small businesses right along with everyone else.

For every penny GE benefits from the tax code, the water taxi and every other small business has to make up for it.

But JTF, isn't the opposite even worse? If you have "deflation," supply outstrips demand and leads to layoffs and a dead economy. Doesn't a low inflation mean higher demand and increased productivity and opportunity for employment?

What is inflating and what is deflating? If I get paid today and put that money in a savings account it deflates. So why should I save money if it constantly loses value? The answer is - I shouldn't save, and neither should anyone else. However, we have a debt based currency and the only way new money is created is through new loans. However, loans are limited by the amount of money in savings accounts. See the problem? We have an unsustainable currency system (and it is one that I think will collapse in the next 5 years)....but that is a different subject.

They got there by manipulating the government and exploiting the people.I think many, if not most, of them got there by skillful selection of grandparents or perhaps great-grandparents -- Hunt, Rockefeller, Morgan, Kennedy, Hutton, and so on come to mind.

Billionaires lobby to protect themselves. They lobby to protect their businesses, to pay lower taxes. There is nothing inherently wrong with that.

The problem is that what is good for the billionaire is not necessarily what is good for the country.

If it is okay for the billionaire to lobby to protect their own interests, then it must be fine for the rest of us to lobby against those interests. Sometimes we will disagree with the very rich.

--

I don't hate the rich. I don't want to see the government rob them just because they are successful, to try and redistribute the wealth. I am not a Communist. But when I see a billionaire is paying a much lower percentage of the money he makes than I pay, then I have a problem. The very rich have managed to shift their investments to pay as little as possible, and they've been very good at it. I don't blame them for this -- I would do the same thing. But I'm not a socialist just for wanting to close those loopholes.

That is where we differ, I do blame them. They simultaneously avoid taxes and help create excessive government spending. They really are having their cake and eating it to.

There's not a soul out there that can't live the American dream. Everyone on this board can go buy GRDA bonds (or others), which are state and federal tax free. It's open to all, just do it. Who's holding you back other than yourself. I've worked as many as three jobs at once over the years and have done fairly well. As my almost 92 year old mother says - It's not what you earn, it's what you save. A persons lifestyle may be the problem, my tax accountant says he does a lot of taxes for doctors who make 400,000.00 a year, but their problem is they'll spend 410,000.00 in doing so. Wake up folks.