SmellinRoses;842066717 said:

---

Good for Phil.

As a high profile resident, I am sure he was warned he'd be demonized by the professional Left as he is being demonized in this thread.

"Progressives" like to believe that as they gouge the productive in the state (highest sales tax and highest top income tax rate) to transfer their wealth to the public employees who fund their campaigns, there is no dynamic effect on anyone's behavior.

---

the "grass roots" tea party was started in part by a GOP luminary who charged the group 500k/year for the privilege of having him involved, and last year they paid glenn beck something like twice that to keep saying nice things about them. the idea of a "professional left" is laughable. conservatives like talking about this "professional left" because they can't seem to fathom that people would actually take positions that might adversely affect themselves. "professional left". ugh. go away.

sorry, back to the off-topic topic.

philly1121;842067408 said:

---

It is a question about policy positions with respect to social policy, foreign policy and women's issues. But it's the demographic shift in this country that should cause alarm bells to go off for the GOP. There are more single women and single moms in this country than ever before. There are more people who do not identify with a particular religion/faith. The ethnic demographics in this country are shifting. AND, they are shifting in terms of location (North Carolina and Virginia being one of the biggest two).

So though policy positions may shift (tho for Republicans they seem to be shifting in the wrong direction), the more diverse population and the youthfulness of it means that, at least nationally, Dems may hold the advantage for the long term. All the demographics mentioned above are firmly on the Dem side.

But with respect to more local races, and state houses, I think it's probably 50-50.

Not coincidentally, there is now a major push by Republicans in state houses and in congress to change the manner in which Electoral College votes are awarded. Rather than winner take all, they want it based on proportion. This is clearly a sign that Republicans see the demographic shift. In short, on a national level, they see long-term trouble.

---

It's basically CA Prop 187 all over again but on national level with an extra platform of anti-women. Prop 187 turned a previously receptive Latino and Asian population against the GOP. Previous to 187 Latinos and Asians both were in the 40-50% range as registered GOP.

Indeed if the GOP can't regain some % of the Latino, Asian and women vote...they're toast.

The Tea Party (aka Birchers) regressive immigration and women policy have pushed the GOP over the cliff to the extreme right. Heck even moderate GOPers don't like this sh*t and that's really big trouble. Heck moderate GOPers are going the way of unicorns.

sycasey;842067385 said:

---

If you were poor, how did you afford to go to a private high school?

Or maybe that means you went to a public school, which means you did take a few dimes from the government.

EDIT: Oh, and wait, you also went to Cal, which means at least 12% of your education was paid for by the state.

---

Let's see. As I grew up poor, my parents both worked and paid California state taxes for infrastructure (Brown 1), education (primary and UC), and then I worked summers and while at school and paid 100% (whoops, make that 88%, for my dad probably paid at least the 12% or more----his dimes for the government). The gov't doesn't create anything. It takes from one place and places it in another, hopefully for the mutual benefit of it's society, but then not always so, as today. The more people involved in paying for their government, the more interest they have in their implied ownership (as in renting vs. buying a home). If we all paid a portion of our medical care, we would all be involved in trying to drive it's cost down--natural instinct. As it is, fewer and fewer pay, and in turn question their medical bills less. I know when working, I was a much more involved medical consumer with a copay insurance policy than I am now with total coverage with medicare and the best medigap policy I can afford.

BGolden;842067410 said:

---

You have been brainwashed to believe that all people who are poor accept food stamps, welfare & housing.

You would be wrong.

Anyway, I was talking about myself, after I graduated, Einstein.

---

well why did you call it hypothetical? That's right, so no one can challenge details in your simple argument against taxes. What did your parents do? What did they do after they stopped working? How did you pay for yourself before you made the million? How did you get an expense paid tuition to a publicly funded institution? What private school did you go to where no one paid for your education? What does paying your medical bills in cash have anything to do with this? Where did you get the cash from? Could you have done the same exact thing but in a country without taxes, let's say China or Iran? Did you not use roads or bridges or parks before you became a tax payer? After this, I have a set of other questions to ask you.

BGolden;842067377 said:

---

Here's a hypothetical:
Then, let's say, last year, I spent over 1200 hours over six months on a project that didn't pay me a penny (a speculative endeavor).

Then, this year, I am able to sell this project for $1 million dollars, plus future royalties.

The question is, is the government entitled to take 62% of that $1 million dollars, leaving me with $380,000 ( about enough to buy a 2 bedroom condo conversion in Concord?

Is this fair? Should I be considered one of the evil rich?

---

$380,000 after tax (plus future royalties) for six months of work seems pretty fair to me when you consider that's almost a lifetime of wages for some people. If you're as smart and industrious as you think you are then you just do it again, right?

wifeisafurd - You are correct. I thank God that my pension is from Ventura County, not Calpers. I thank God that the good old conservatives running the Ventura County Pension fund are not in trouble like the State and other counties. The corruption and political decisions of Calpers are a disgrace. Some people in public service did it differently - the right way.
The State, otoh, will be a huge mess soon.

OaktownBear;842067320 said:

---

Actually, no I'm not. Salaries for most professional positions are not the same. If Chevron can get the same service for less in Houston, and not lose benefits they get by being in California, fine, they should move. Businesses leave California and New York all the time because it is too expensive FOR THEM. People leave lots of places because it is too expensive FOR THEM. Hell, many of the businesses that are in San Ramon are there because it is cheaper than San Francisco and Silicon Valley. But the reason it is too expensive FOR THEM is that other businesses are pricing them out of the market. It's like saying "stupid NFL. Their high priced tickets for the SuperBowl are driving tons of people away" And your last sentence proves the point. The fact that you have to pay half a mil more for a house in the Bay Area dwarfs the annual tax bill.

So, yes, maybe a business like Chevron leaves. And then a business like Facebook pops up. The bottom line is, much of the high priced talent want to live here and businesses that want the high priced talent come. The Bay Area is doing fine. If Houston wants our sloppy seconds, fine. Again, people have been saying this about California all my life.

---

No, you really are totally and absolutely wrong. I'm retired now, but during my working life I was a senior executive for a major multinational oil company, a competitor of Chevron. I hired, transfered, and supervised hundreds of engineers, accountants, and business professionals. I can tell you with absolute certainty that salaries were exactly the same for those people, whether they lived in California, Texas, Missouri, or New York. Since the cost of living is significantly less in Texas and Missouri, folks living there enjoyed a much higher standard of living.

It would serve you well to be a bit more humble when you don't really know what you're talking about.

So who here wishes to live in Texas or any other non-tax state over California?

Just wondering since FIGJAM said he was going to move.

L.A., S.F., Boston, New York or gtfo.

dimitrig;842067429 said:

---

$380,000 after tax (plus future royalties) for six months of work seems pretty fair to me when you consider that's almost a lifetime of wages for some people. If you're as smart and industrious as you think you are then you just do it again, right?

---

So, you're a "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" kind of guy.

380,000 / 1200 = $316 per hour ( less than what a lot of lawyers make ) without a gaurantee of making a penny.

Apparently, you've never taken any risks in your life. Either that or, you're lazy and shiftless.

dimitrig;842067414 said:

---

So why are so many poor slobs working here in California instead of clamoring to move to Houston? Maybe because some of us would rather have a poor lifestyle in California than live like a king in Texas?


My girlfriend has a cousin in Houston and when her family goes to visit them all we hear about from them is how big and beautiful the cousin's house is. I've seen the pictures. It looks really nice and it costs a fraction of what my house here costs. Problem is: It's in Houston! And for all of the people oohing and aahing over their house not a single one of them has relocated (not necessarily just from California) either.


I am sure Houston works for a lot of people. It's one of the biggest cities in the country. However, I hate humidity, hate the Gulf (as compared to the Pacific Ocean anyway), and don't really like the politics of most of the people there. I would never move even if I could double my salary. Not to Houston. "Standard of living" has a lot of intangibles.

---

I was born and raised in California and have lived here for most of my adult life. I have also lived and worked for 14 years in Houston. I chose to retire in California because I very much enjoy the lifestyle here, and I'm fortunate that I can afford to do so. An increasing number of people, however, are not so fortunate. Eventually, that will become a significant problem for California. A declining number of people are paying a higher and higher price to live here and support an increasing number of people who live off of the income of others. To those people supplying that support or subsidy, as time goes on, Houston and places like it begin to look better and better.

BGolden;842067438 said:

---

So, you're a "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" kind of guy.

380,000 / 1200 = $316 per hour ( less than what a lot of lawyers make ) without a gaurantee of making a penny.

Apparently, you've never taken any risks in your life. Either that or, you're lazy and shiftless.

---

Most lawyers don't make $316 per hour after taxes and overhead.

dimitrig;842067429 said:

---

$380,000 after tax (plus future royalties) for six months of work seems pretty fair to me when you consider that's almost a lifetime of wages for some people. If you're as smart and industrious as you think you are then you just do it again, right?

---

plus who would structure this payment without writing off costs or prorating payments, or make it an equity buyout? I mean if you don't like taxes, then why make it so you had to maximize the taxes you paid?

BGolden;842067420 said:

---

Scholarships. Any money the government spent on my education has already been paid back in taxes.

The stupid is strong with these.

---

Your poor parents were able to get you a scholarship to a private high school without being supported by food stamps or in some other way by the government? I'm surprised.

Also, the reason you are paying those taxes now is because the government CREATED and RAN those schools you were educated at. Cal would not exist unless the government paid for it.

But thanks for elevating the discussion by calling me stupid. It certainly makes me more likely to accept your argument.

sycasey;842067449 said:

---

Your poor parents were able to get you a scholarship to a private high school without being supported by food stamps or in some other way by the government? I'm surprised.

Also, the reason you are paying those taxes now is because the government CREATED and RAN those schools you were educated at. Cal would not exist unless the government paid for it.

But thanks for elevating the discussion by calling me stupid. It certainly makes me more likely to accept your argument.

---

What you keep missing is that the government paid for nothing sycasey. The taxpayers paid for that portion of Cal which wouldn't exist were it not for them. The gov't just took it from one and gave it to another. Where does the gov't. create money? What are some of the innovative businesses for profit that they run?

OdontoBear66;842067454 said:

---

What you keep missing is that the government paid for nothing sycasey. The taxpayers paid for that portion of Cal which wouldn't exist were it not for them. The gov't just took it from one and gave it to another. Where does the gov't. create money? What are some of the innovative businesses for profit that they run?

---

Well, at this point the argument becomes circular. The government is also elected by the people, so when it comes to criticizing "government" on a large scale, aren't you also criticizing those same taxpayers for electing people who choose to spend money in this way?

The government does not exist to make a profit. It exists to provide order and support for the citizenry. How much is up for debate, but to judge the government by the same standards as a for-profit business is faulty.

mvargus;842067285 said:

---

Yes, the rich did pay more, partly because for a long time in economic history they were the only ones who could pay at all since the poor had nothing or were effectively enslaved by the local governments that existed.

However, historically a high tax might be 1 part in 10. Now we argue over tax rates that add up to 1 oart in 2 for the wealthy. I can understand wanting the rich to pay more, but they already do and at some point it cannot be fair to demand more from them.

But that gets into the argument of how much government should do and how generous benefits should be and that is something I quite honestly have never found a good answer for. My compassion says that we should always try to give more to the old, sick and poor, but my analytical side knows that there is no level of taxation we can put forth that will give those groups everything that people demand. Worse, long time evidence shows that at some point increased taxes result in reduced revenues. There is an absolutel limit on how much you can collect with taxes. In the us is seems to have topped out at around 20% of GDP as tax revenues run between 18-21% and have since the income tax was first introduced. So while I want to see the poor given more, at some point you have to call a halt and then start to make the difficult decisions as to what programs must be cut.

---

I fully appreciate the argument against government waste.
But the real question is "what programs are wasteful".

Building a bridge or tunnel may be wasteful (i.e. the infamous "bridge to nowhere") or not wasteful (i.e. the NJ-NY tunnel which was rejected by Gov. Chris).

However it is a well established fact that every dollar given to low income individuals generates goes into the economy (because poor people spend what they get) and generates more than $1.00 of value in the econmy.
This is in addition to the benefits of providing decent living conditions which improve the lives of the individuals and reduce crime.

So one could conclude that spending on the poor is good for the economy just as spending on needed infrastructure improvements.

Golden One;842067435 said:

---

No, you really are totally and absolutely wrong. I'm retired now, but during my working life I was a senior executive for a major multinational oil company, a competitor of Chevron. I hired, transfered, and supervised hundreds of engineers, accountants, and business professionals. I can tell you with absolute certainty that salaries were exactly the same for those people, whether they lived in California, Texas, Missouri, or New York. Since the cost of living is significantly less in Texas and Missouri, folks living there enjoyed a much higher standard of living.

It would serve you well to be a bit more humble when you don't really know what you're talking about.

---

I have worked for two companies that had major presence in both Texas and California. All the people who worked in California made significantly more than their counterparts in Texas. People who were transferred from Texas got pissed really quick. Anyone with any juice who got transferred negotiated new employment terms to offset the cost of living in California. I've had multiple bosses tell me not to tell my Texas counterparts what my salary was because "they wouldn't understand". I've seen market data for various types of employees as part of my job. I can tell you that lawyers in New York make more than lawyers in SF and a lot more than lawyers in Missouri.

Maybe you should be humble enough to realize your experience at one company in the oil industry, a major industry in Texas where the employment opportunities are far greater, may not be the same across all industries. Talk to almost any HR person on this. I absolutely know for a fact that in one company salaries were higher in the Bay Area than in Austin which was higher than in St.Louis.

Part of the reason that Californians are screwed by taxes is that the federal rate doesn't account for the fact that we make a lot more money but achieve the same standard of living.

Quite frankly, everyone knows this to be true.

Golden One;842067435 said:

---

No, you really are totally and absolutely wrong. I'm retired now, but during my working life I was a senior executive for a major multinational oil company, a competitor of Chevron. I hired, transfered, and supervised hundreds of engineers, accountants, and business professionals. I can tell you with absolute certainty that salaries were exactly the same for those people, whether they lived in California, Texas, Missouri, or New York. Since the cost of living is significantly less in Texas and Missouri, folks living there enjoyed a much higher standard of living.

It would serve you well to be a bit more humble when you don't really know what you're talking about.

---

Sorry man, as a person who advises companies in outsourcing, insourcing, cosourcing, etc., there is absolutely no question the salary differences between different areas of the country. Maybe for some particular professions, there is not much difference, but for the vast majority, sometimes it is double the salary in California.

Now what his face is sorry for what he said. Go figure!

http://espn.go.com/golf/story/_/id/8868333/phil-mickelson-says-regrets-airing-opinion-taxes

tommie317;842067428 said:

---

well why did you call it hypothetical? That's right, so no one can challenge details in your simple argument against taxes. What did your parents do? What did they do after they stopped working? How did you pay for yourself before you made the million? How did you get an expense paid tuition to a publicly funded institution? What private school did you go to where no one paid for your education? What does paying your medical bills in cash have anything to do with this? Where did you get the cash from? Could you have done the same exact thing but in a country without taxes, let's say China or Iran? Did you not use roads or bridges or parks before you became a tax payer? After this, I have a set of other questions to ask you.

---

Youngest of 6 children.
Father hunted, fished and trapped furs until he disappeared when I was 8.
Mother worked in a dairy until she died when I was 12.
Bounced around living with family and strangers until I was 17.
Graduated from Taipei American School in Taiwan.
Attended Cal on scholarships and went to work after graduating.
Obtained a professional liscense in Architecture.
The only time I've been in the hospital was for 2 hours with kidney stones.
Didn't have health insurance at the time & paid the $5000 bill in cash from savings.
When I've been covered by health insurance, I've never filed a claim.

Your last two questions, I dont understand.

My point is, why the f**k did I endure everything in life, pursuing the American dream, now only to have a socialist government and its sycophants tell me that I didn't earn it and don't deserve it?

tommie317;842067487 said:

---

Sorry man, as a person who advises companies in outsourcing, insourcing, cosourcing, etc., there is absolutely no question the salary differences between different areas of the country. Maybe for some particular professions, there is not much difference, but for the vast majority, sometimes it is double the salary in California.

---

Even the Federal Government factors in up to a 25% boost in salary for those living in the SF and LA areas, if not other areas; and, lesser boosts in other geographical areas. Ditto with per diem rates.

If they did not do this, my sense--especially in the law enforcement arena-- is that the citizenry would be less safe, as seasoned prosecutors and seasoned FBI agents would transfer elsewhere if they did not get the boost in the cost of living to remain.

BGolden;842067500 said:

---

Youngest of 6 children.
Father hunted, fished and trapped furs until he disappeared when I was 8.
Mother worked in a dairy until she died when I was 12.
Bounced around living with family and strangers until I was 17.
Graduated from Taipei American School in Taiwan.
Attended Cal on scholarships and went to work after graduating.
Obtained a professional liscense in Architecture.
The only time I've been in the hospital was for 2 hours with kidney stones.
Didn't have health insurance at the time & paid the $5000 bill in cash from savings.
When I've been covered by health insurance, I've never filed a claim.

Your last two questions, I dont understand.

My point is, why the f**k did I endure everything in life, pursuing the American dream, now only to have a socialist government and its sycophants tell me that I didn't earn it and don't deserve it?

---

Because it allowed you to come to the US and go to a great university and have the opportunity to obtain a license in Architecture and world class doctors who removed your kidney stones. Many of those people along the way may have benefited or are paid by the government. You don't live in a bubble. Just like global warming or pesticides, just because you can't see it, doesn't mean nothing has happened. This viewpoint is fairly sociopathetic in my opinion.

BGolden;842067500 said:

---

My point is, why the f**k did I endure everything in life, pursuing the American dream, now only to have a socialist government and its sycophants tell me that I didn't earn it and don't deserve it?

---

I don't believe most people (including actual Socialists, which our current government leaders definitely are not) would say that you didn't earn what you got. They are just saying that you should still have to pay some taxes on it, because you are still receiving the benefits of living in the society that the government aims to protect.

Also, while that is quite an amazing story, you certainly don't expect tax code to be written specifically for your situation, do you? Like, you don't have to pay taxes on local schools because you went to school in Taiwan? That's simply not feasible; tax code has to be broad because it has to apply to everyone.

sycasey;842067522 said:

---

I don't believe most people (including actual Socialists, which our current government leaders definitely are not) would say that you didn't earn what you got. They are just saying that you should still have to pay some taxes on it, because you are still receiving the benefits of living in the society that the government aims to protect.

Also, while that is quite an amazing story, you certainly don't expect tax code to be written specifically for your situation, do you? Like, you don't have to pay taxes on local schools because you went to school in Taiwan? That's simply not feasible; tax code has to be broad because it has to apply to everyone.

---

Most people on the far right don't. I assume he owns a gun, and figures if there were no taxes, and we had roving bands of warlords and private militias like they have in much of the Third World, he would be able to defend his home against them. I obviously disagree. As Oliver Wendell Holmes said, taxes are the price of a civilized society. Maybe if they had more support, his parents wouldn't have left the scene when he was 8 and 14. That fact that an individual did not live in a society that was willing to help the less fortunate is not, in my opinion, a good reason to resent our attempt to do so in this country. People may disagree on the methods, but I believe the goal is an appropriate one, if we don't want to just live in Hobbes' world.

sycasey;842067385 said:

---

If you were poor, how did you afford to go to a private high school?

Or maybe that means you went to a public school, which means you did take a few dimes from the government.

EDIT: Oh, and wait, you also went to Cal, which means at least 12% of your education was paid for by the state.

---

YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT! (Yes, I'm shouting.). Everyone has access to roads and bridges and everyone has had a good teacher at least once in their life. If you were right, every Cal alum would be rolling in it. The difference is SACRIFICE and RISK.

Would you sacrifice to put in the mega hours and/or live below your means to get what you need to get started? Would you put that time and savings at risk to go for something that is a total flyer? Most won't. They want the guaranteed 35 hours for a steady paycheck. And, for that they want goodies that they can't afford and which our country can't afford.

Obama said, "You didn't build that" because he wants us to swallow that people above $50K didn't really earn it (yeah, I know the cut off is $400K, for now - you just wait.) and, therefore, he has every right to confiscate more and more of that which is above it. Mark my words.

We should be blessing the wealth creators. Instead, we are driving them out. And, what will we have left? 35 hour people whose jobs have gone bye-bye. I'm not rich and don't expect ever to be, but I'm eternally grateful that I live in a country that makes it possible for others to be (less so lately).

SNAP OUT OF IT!

sycasey;842067456 said:

---

Well, at this point the argument becomes circular. The government is also elected by the people, so when it comes to criticizing "government" on a large scale, aren't you also criticizing those same taxpayers for electing people who choose to spend money in this way?

The government does not exist to make a profit. It exists to provide order and support for the citizenry. How much is up for debate, but to judge the government by the same standards as a for-profit business is faulty.

---

+1

Remember that "of the people, by the people, for the the people" jingle? I wonder where it came from...

BGolden;842067500 said:

---

My point is, why the f**k did I endure everything in life, pursuing the American dream, now only to have a socialist government and its sycophants tell me that I didn't earn it and don't deserve it?

---

What do you consider to be the role of government? I think we can, and should have a vigorous debate about it. But when you start with socialist government and its sycophants you lose me.

Rushinbear;842067533 said:

---

YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT! (Yes, I'm shouting.). Everyone has access to roads and bridges and everyone has had a good teacher at least once in their life. If you were right, every Cal alum would be rolling in it. The difference is SACRIFICE and RISK.

Would you sacrifice to put in the mega hours and/or live below your means to get what you need to get started? Would you put that time and savings at risk to go for something that is a total flyer? Most won't. They want the guaranteed 35 hours for a steady paycheck. And, for that they want goodies that they can't afford and which our country can't afford.

Obama said, "You didn't build that" because he wants us to swallow that people above $50K didn't really earn it (yeah, I know the cut off is $400K, for now - you just wait.) and, therefore, he has every right to confiscate more and more of that which is above it. Mark my words.

We should be blessing the wealth creators. Instead, we are driving them out. And, what will we have left? 35 hour people whose jobs have gone bye-bye. I'm not rich and don't expect ever to be, but I'm eternally grateful that I live in a country that makes it possible for others to be (less so lately).

SNAP OUT OF IT!

---

The tax break were about to expire and Obama made them permanent for under 400k so in actuality he lowered taxes, but please continue to live in the republican bubble.

BGolden;842067500 said:

---

My point is, why the f**k did I endure everything in life, pursuing the American dream, now only to have a socialist government and its sycophants tell me that I didn't earn it and don't deserve it?

---

You have an admirable story making it.

As for a socialist government -- where, here in the U.S.?

I hope you're kidding or using exaggeration because that's not funny, maybe even ignorant. The U.S. and California are not socialist governments...unless you mean subsidies for corporations and industry.

Now if the U.S. and/or California really are socialist, well you freely participated, received a schollie from Cal a public university, so you're a bit of a hypocrite or a socialist. You could have freely left the country at any time.

I am working much too hard to happily pay my very high New York City and State taxes to post on this thread.

tommie317;842067514 said:

---

Because it allowed you to come to the US and go to a great university and have the opportunity to obtain a license in Architecture and world class doctors who removed your kidney stones.

---

Removed KIdney stones?

Obviously you've never had one. The most the doctors will do in the first 24 hours of a kidney stone attack is an MRI to see how big it is and if its jammed in too tight in your urinary tract. If it looks like it will pass they just fill you full of painkillers and make you drink a ton of water until your system washes it out.

And for that little bit you get charged about $5,000 if you aren't insured. I remember because I had one about 5 years ago while working as a contracter without health insurance. The sad thing was I knew what was happening and tried to just ride out the pain but was forced to go to the hospital eventually when I started having dry heaves to the the pain. I left the hospital 4 hours later after having passed the stone and have been healthy since. It still took me nearly 4 years to pay back the costs of the MRI and having a doctor tell me. "You're right its a kidney stone and it looks like it will pass just fine."

The only time a doctor would remove a kidney stone is if it got stuck after leaving your kidney, but they wait at least 24 hours before they decide its necessary.

[and now back to the regularly scheduled flame war]. :p

I am always amazed of the abject hypocrisy of people "who grew up poor," got scholarships and other hand-outs to make it along the way...and then when they finally make the big bucks, they instantly FORGET WHERE THEY CAME FROM, the helping hand they got along the yellow brick road to "success" and become ultra stingy when it comes to paying their fair share of taxes (=based on income)...to help out those (=now) who were in their situation when they were growing up, etcetera, etcetera.

Shame on you.

sycasey;842067286 said:

---

I understand that, but I think you grasped the point of my question: before there was infrastructure there were fewer wealthy people and it was much harder to become wealthy if you were not already. Infrastructure allowed wealth to grow much faster, at an exponential rate. It allowed for improved upward mobility. As such, the people who are wealthy now have indeed seen a great benefit from that infrastructure (which is in large part regulated and maintained by the government), even if it is in a somewhat indirect fashion, and therefore there is a reasonable argument to be made that them paying more in taxes to support said infrastructure is fair.
I mean, this is not a crazy argument. Moderate conservatives (like Eisenhower) used to make it.

---

And I don't disagree with this point. Although I think its also fair to point out that the first part of your statement that without roads it was much harder to become wealthy actually helps bolster my point that it was the poor and middle classes that benefited the most from roads since it gave them a new avenue to build wealth from.

And if you have read my arguments I have not said that the rich should not pay more. I accept that those who have the wealth have to pay more if we are to have a government that even attempts to provide more than the most basic of services. Where I disagree with many of the posters here is the amount that is demanded from the rich, and in truth the amount demanded from everyone. I feel that there are some structural inefficiencies in how government works that makes some government spending a drag on the overall economic health and I feel that the best way to improve everyone's economic fortunes is to work to maximize economic growth rather than to claim that the economic pie has a fixed size and then use government to try to right-size the slices everyone gets, which is what I feel too many people are trying to do when the demand that the rich pay "more."

I don't think there is a perfect answer to this problem. As I said in other post, my heart does want to give everyone everything, but my head says that trying to do that is a road we should never have set foot on. At this point however, all I can do is watch and see what happens in the future.

manus;842067552 said:

---

I am always amazed of the abject hypocrisy of people "who grew up poor," got scholarships and other hand-outs to make it along the way...and then when they finally make the big bucks, they instantly FORGET WHERE THEY CAME FROM, the helping hand they got along the yellow brick road to "success" and become ultra stingy when it comes to paying their fair share of taxes (=based on income)...to help out those (=now) who were in their situation when they were growing up, etcetera, etcetera.

Shame on you.

---

Hey that's the American way damn it...and it's rather f*cked up.