• I don't support wealth redistribution. End the income tax, abolish the IRS and abolish the Federal Reserve.

    July 31, 2011 at 7:46 p.m.

  • Amend the Tax code and adopt some tax idea from the Paul C Fisher Tax System
    1) 15-30% cut across the board for eight years.
    2) The Fisher Tax plan An Asset/Value Tax on goods and services ranging from 2% (Food ) to 25% (Luxury items). Those making over $300,000 would pay a Flat tax.

    July 31, 2011 at 7:21 p.m.

  • Rollingsomething;

    I make perfect sense. You just don't get it because it does not agree with a very narrow vision and lack of understanding anothers view point. Try harder.

    July 30, 2011 at 4:59 p.m.

  • rollinstone,

    I'm just saying they cannot have it both ways. They want business in the US, it comes at a cost. They don't want to do business in the US, let them figure out how to make it without the American consumer. I'm betting they want the American consumer more than they want cheap labor and trying to sell their products to other countries, only.

    July 30, 2011 at 3:52 p.m.

  • Vet, as usual you don't make any sense.

    B2BM, I guess if you were in charge we'd run every stinking corporations we have left out of town and overseas - sounds like a plan :(

    July 30, 2011 at 3:25 p.m.

  • Uh Observer,

    You make it sound like the vote is all about, and only about, taxation. I don't think that is all this Country is about.
    If larger corporations and businesses don't want to be taxed, then they can move the hell out of this Country and don't come back, or bring their products back over here to sell. They use the taxpayers roads, ports, airports, bridges, government building, and a thousand other things paid for by the taxpayers (both local, state, and federal), so don't even think all of their profit should be theirs and they owe nothing to the citizens of this Country.
    Take the government controls that protect their patents and other things in place over here that protect them, away and see how long they get to keep things. They have what they have "because" of the government, which is you and me.

    July 30, 2011 at 2:12 p.m.

  • It is already being redistributed. From my pocket to Wall Street, GigaOil, MegaCorp and the Forbes top $$$$$$$ list. Then I pay for the guys that write the tax breaks that suckup cash like a Hoover. The Republican type, not the vacuum cleaner.

    July 30, 2011 at 1:52 p.m.

  • Observer.

    PLEASE !!!!!!!!!! If you ( or your cohorts) try to take away my right to vote, then there will be problems. That is not threat, that is a promise. Don't sit there and proclaim someone is not paying their taxes, when they pay gas tax, sales tax, and proverty tax. DO not , I REPEAT, DO NOT play the "you are a liberal game". That is because I am not one and second you and other cry babying conservatives have been collecting money from the government.

    So lets not go there.

    Williams 2014

    July 30, 2011 at 1:40 p.m.

  • It's being on the "public dole with representation" - and BTW a major political constituency. A very dangerous situation for our fragile democracy. As mentioned in this blog this debate going on is really not about the debt ceiling it is about the exploding cost of income redistribution that knows no limits. In fact these costs are a major reason for our high unemployment and why it remains high and getting higher.

    Two things need to happen we need to get these costs under control and we need to lower taxes on businesses and corporations, both income and payroll taxes. Corporate profits are taxed at 35% and then again at 20% when the profits are distributed to shareholders. It's no wonder we are losing manufacturing jobs with that kind of taxing policy.

    July 30, 2011 at 11:56 a.m.

  • Well, the left wing has been heard from. I believe the basis for the American Revolution was "Taxation without Representation". If this is not what occurs when those who pay no taxes are allowed to vote on the amout of taxes to be assessed on those who do pay taxes, then "Taxation without Representation" must mean something totally different from what I learned in American History.

    July 30, 2011 at 11:37 a.m.

  • Observer.

    Then who are those people who will only vote? Rich white people. I suggest you want the return of the Poll Tax and the abolishment of the 13th amendemt. Good job.

    July 29, 2011 at 9:24 p.m.

  • Observer,
    That's prejudiced against those who don't make enough to pay income tax, including many seniors. There are other taxes that all of us must pay, so just because someone doesn't pay income tax doesn't mean they do not pay taxes and they are not just as good of an American as you and I are.

    July 29, 2011 at 4:58 p.m.

  • The simplest solution to this problem, one that would resolve it in a decade or less, is to replace the current voter registration system with a requirement that, to vote, one must present one's last Income Tax Return that shows one paid at least $1 in income taxes. Only those with a dog in the fight would be allowed to vote on how the fight is conducted. Problem solved, quickly.

    July 29, 2011 at 3:30 p.m.

  • A flat tax code without loopholes would be interesting. Everyone, and I mean everyone would pay the same percentage. The wealthy would pay more and the poor less but all would pay the same percentage of their income. No income tax forms to worry with, no April 15th deadline. The IRS could essentially be dissolved which in itself would shave a tidy sum off the Federal budget. Sadly all politicians are wealthy, be they Democrat or Republican, and as such we will never see a flat tax.

    July 29, 2011 at 10:11 a.m.

  • The tax code is written for and by lobbyists and PUCs. This is why they all should be in prison. The little guy is played out kinda like Little Blackie on True Grit.

    July 29, 2011 at 8:22 a.m.

  • I am for the flat tax as mentioned by butwiser. Some of these large corporations that do not pay any taxes at all get refunds in the millions. Something is wrong with that picture, go figure. I work as hard as they do, actually probably more. I don't call it a redistribution, I call it supporting the country we live in.

    July 29, 2011 at 8:02 a.m.

  • "We seem to be hearing from our President and the elected Democrats that America does not have a spending problem," is correct in the sense that we hear what our hearts want to believe. Clearly the president and Democrats are taking the balanced approach. The problem with this crises and other crises to come is that the democrats need to understand that they should negotiate with the tea party and not the republican party. The tea party will make the party we know today as republicans, irrevelant by 2012. Maybe even a party name change.

    July 29, 2011 at 6:35 a.m.

  • Former State Rep candidate ALTON EASTON, BIGHORN, BEARUS, and ROLLINSTONE.

    Why aren’t you, any of you, talk about 2% of the people owning and/or controlling 90% of American industry and yes governance ???? Heck, don’t have to look at the nation, but look at the NEO-FEUDALISM in Victoria and in Texas. Genaie Morrison, VICAD, the UHV/A&M mess, etc are proof of it. This is why I believe in some concepts of Wealth Redistribution.

    How about some of you stop picking on MIKE and start picking on me and stop invading his blogs etc. Most of yall can’t handle me.

    Here is my plan, MY IDEA. Where is the former State Rep candidate is on this????

    Amend the Tax code and adopt some tax idea from the Paul C Fisher Tax System
    1) 15-30% cut across the board for eight years.
    2) The Fisher Tax plan An Asset/Value Tax on goods and services ranging from 2% (Food ) to 25% (Luxury items). Those making over $300,000 would pay a Flat tax.

    Williams, 2014

    July 29, 2011 at 12:21 a.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    July 28, 2011 at 10:39 p.m.

  • Far left winger? Really? And now we do know that anyone that believes in paying their fair share they are not invited to the Tea Party.

    July 28, 2011 at 9:05 p.m.

  • Maybe some of you commentors have noticed that when a very tough political situation, such as redistribution of wealth, is confronted as is in this blog, that we have not seen the pack of far left wingers do not offer one single honest comment.

    Where is Mike, WWW, Kyle, Vet43, etc...?

    Wouldn't it be interesting if no conservative, right wingers, republicans, etc.. would ever respond with comments to the blogs written by Mikey.

    July 28, 2011 at 6:23 p.m.

  • Everyone continues to avoid the obvious. There should be no deductions, credits, surcharges, tax credits and such. There should be a flat tax of say 10%. Yes, that means the individual that only made $10.00 for the whole year pays 10%. The individual that made 300 billion pays 10%. The same for the corporations. The only losers would be the large number of un-needed IRS employees. Wow, just look how much money would be saved and could go to the debt. And, just look how much more revenue the government would take in. Again, the loser would be the government official that would loose power to control your lives. This would also stop the marriage tax issues, single individual overtaxing, racial tax issues, and such. All we need is for govenment people to use their brains. Oh yeah, that is an oxymoron.

    July 28, 2011 at 2:37 p.m.

  • Rollinstone, I can agree with you on your comment. I was just offering a response assuming subsidies will not be done away with.

    July 28, 2011 at 12:48 p.m.

  • "Those companies that earn excess profits (like when earning more than it takes to produce plus a just profit) and are receiving subsidies ought to be taxed more than the company that is making its wealth without assistance."

    Why not just eliminate the subsidy? Every company should be treated exactly the same - in fact they should not be taxed or subsidize at all.

    July 28, 2011 at 9:51 a.m.

  • I think some wealthy ought to be taxed more. The key ingredient is some. Those companies that earn excess profits (like when earning more than it takes to produce plus a just profit) and are receiving subsidies ought to be taxed more than the company that is making its wealth without assistance.

    July 28, 2011 at 9:20 a.m.

  • RS: I agree with your fundamentals, but they offer no solutions. General revenue funds can't be earmarked for certain functions. Or at least, there is no political will amoungst the cowards we have elected.

    Continuing my prior thoughts, earmark surcharges towards paying the DEBT ONLY. I could stand for that, rather than allow the hogs from the left and right to continue this insanity.

    July 28, 2011 at 8:28 a.m.

  • I have no problem with taxing the rich at a higher rate to pay for the legitimate functions of government – infrastructure, defense, law enforcement. But when taxes are being raised from one group to give to another for doing nothing, that is bad public policy - it is the road to perdition.

    The function of government is to provide a stable platform that allows enterprise and commerce to flourish. It allows people and their families to succeed, grow and prosper on their own.

    Karl Marx said, “From each according to their ability and to each according to their needs.” Sounds great, unfortunately its leads to poverty and starvation for everyone except the political ruling class – think, vacations to exotic locations on Air Force One.

    July 28, 2011 at 8:05 a.m.

  • A more balanced approach is called for. A fixed surcharge on the higher income earners ($500k-10%), and the 47% WHO PAY NOTHING, TO PAY SOMETHING.

    A minimum percentage tax on ALL income earners-and the elimination of tax credits for those on the lower spectrum of income.

    Tie the high income surcharge to the minimum tax. Both should be the same percentage.

    July 28, 2011 at 7:18 a.m.

  • I do not support redistribution - the harder you work, the more you seek opportunities should get you something - it is called higher income. I don't covet the income of the rich. I have seen people rise to wealth through hard work.
    When hard work - risk taking - gets you nothing all people will stop working hard and taking risks. Then where will we be?

    July 28, 2011 at 7:08 a.m.