…

…

Ok I can\’t hold back – $250,000 is a ton of money, and I don\’t think turning a blind eye to so much of the world\’s tremendous bad luck poverty is right. I agree that people with only that amount of money (250k) can\’t be secure 100% confidently, but I think that\’s a very very high standard of living, and pretty damn secure. People should be rewarded for their hard work, but I think $250,000 is where guilt should creep in when thinking of the majority of human destitution, the kind of line where you\’d think we\’d pick it up a notch if we lived in a voluntary tax system.

More importantly, today Politico did a story on Women being a key factor in the election — so, this makes Huckabee\’s win even more ASTOUNDING & NEWS WORTHY. So, again, why isn\’t the MSM covering this?

Oh, and by the way — Huckabee\’s press secretary has been trying to get him on Hannity\’s show tonight — any success with that??????? Hmmmmm [Just in- they\'ve now said Yes for tonight, Feb 1]

How about a debate between Hannity & Huckabee — since Huckabee\’s not only running against the Republican Candidates — but the Media as well? Perhaps this could be held on another \”Fair & Balanced\” network — any suggestions??

Also, Mike is only 1% behind Romney in New National Poll!! So HOW DARE the media ignore and suppress him? For Poll Results see: http://race42008.com/2008/02/01/poll-watch-fox-news-gop-national/

Let me ask this of those who want to tax the rich more: When was the last time a poor person gave you a job?

Would love for politicians salaries to be capped at 2 x minimum wage – how can a politician represent anyone in financial aspects when they have nothing to worry about trying to pay mortgage, income taxes, property taxes (real estate), personal property taxes (automobiles, equipment, etc), utilities, etc.

And I also think attaching \’pork\’ or anything else to a bill is BS a bill should be proposed for one item per bill so that voters know 100% of what is being voted on and not some hidden agenda attached to it.

Taxes – they need to be simplified, flat rate or progressive rate – hard to say without the gov being on a budget and doing some impact research to see how things would work the best for all concerned both now and in the future.

Well, my 2 cents guess I\’d owe taxes on that if this wasn\’t the internet

Brian

I believe that your proposals are well-intentioned, but I really do not think they would work.

As a number of posters have already mentioned in the comments, such luxury taxes have been tried before and failed miserably (as you would likely agree – we live in a world economy and, unless every other country does the same, the rich will go elsewhere to find most of these luxury items).

Sure, you may have no problem paying an extra $10,000,000 for a jet or boat. However, many others will. Of course, I am no billionaire. I am no millionaire. But, if I were, I sincerely doubt that, if given the choice, I would give my extra $10,000,000 to the government when I could use that money to enjoy life, save for retirement or save for my children\’s educations.

I guess that, if you have more money than you can ever spend, money is less significant to your thinking. Most people here likely come from a different perspective than yours.

The idea that the \”rich\” (as you rightfully point out – that definition is being set at too drastically low of a level by many of the Democratic candidates) pay no taxes or less taxes than the poor or the middle class is ridiculously absurd. The \”rich\” typically pay the bulk of taxes. Moreover, the system of tax rates are set so as to punish you for making more money (i.e., the \”marginal rates\”… as your income grows, the amount you pay increases).

I am fortunate enough to make about $200,000 per year. While I am, by no means, living in poverty…I certainly do not consider myself rich.

Last year, for example, I paid approximately 40% of that income in federal income tax, state income tax, local property taxes, etc. (excluding sales taxes, which would likely drastically increase this percentage if I could accurately track the amount paid).

Most of my income is spent paying taxes, housing, automobiles (no Lexus, unfortunately), food and schooling for my children…. oh, and trying to save for my retirement and my children\’s college. After all that, I do not have much discretionary income.

So, it really irritates me hearing someone say \”yes, let\’s tax the rich more\” and \”the rich are not paying thier fair share\” when they define being rich as making over $250,000.

However, politicians use such mantras to score points with the lower and middle classes … Yet, when you take a look at the percentage of people\’s income spent paying taxes, it is no contest. The \”rich\” (or those that the politicians want to believe are rich) pay a greater percentage of their income than the lower and middle classes do.

Are there exceptions? Of course, look at people like Theresa Heinz Kerry whose only income comes from tax-exempt interest paid on millions of dollars worth of municipal bonds. However, the majority of the rich and upper middle class have no such luxury.

As such, your point of \”redefining\” what makes someone rich is very welcome from my standpoint.