As The Rich Get Poorer

This conflates a lot of arguments into one! Of course its true that to produce money you need to produce goods and services, but companies have been shifting real production offshore, so their are fewer new jobs and as for service: it was largely financial services that boomed- and now its obvious these were poorly understood by the so called experts that created them! The first case requires regulation to make it attractive to hire people at home and jump start entirely new home grown industries - and the second is a case of ill-gotten gains. Claw it all back.

This was one of the most thoroughly offensive piles of rubbish I have ever read. The author reminds me of the French aristocracy BEFORE the revolution, and should probably face the same demise as they did.

Wealth is created only by the production of goods, or through providing services. The idea that the wealthy produce value through personal labor is absurd, they produce it by taking some percentage of the value of the efforts of others as a managerial charge against their labor.

Thus we have elitists whose salary is sometimes several hundred folds greater than the least paid within an organization. Do you truly believe a CEO???s bonus should be greater than the salary of hundreds of employees who have lost their job through the mismanagement of their so called superiors?

In addition a significant percentage of wealth in this country is inherited wealth following the path of primogeniture, as is often the case with political wealth as well. Do you honestly believe the child of a coal miner has the same opportunity as the child of a CEO? Perhaps only in this absurd authors delusions.

As long as the poor tolerate their poverty the status quo will continue.

Some have called American elections quiet revolutions, and that may be a good thing, but if the powers that be intend to still defraud the poor old and weak in this nation, I can assure you some of us a quite willing to offer them a more traditional revolution if needed.

Is the author of this article implying that if the incomes of top executives were reduced that they would stop doing business for our country?

You conservatives need to stop being so melodramatic (end of the world, communist takeover, losing the country, etc.). Clinton didn't "destroy" this country, as was suggested by your ilk back in the early 90s. Woe is not thee; in 4-8 years, you will still have your guns and your mixed market economy. If you have had enough or don't want to live under Obama, by any and all means leave.

How is that Viper?

Just look how bad Scrooge treated Bob Cratchitt just so he could hoard a lot of gold coins and count them every day. And there Cratchitt was with a disabled child. The old man still paid him a bare living wage and couldn't care less that Cratchitt couldn't afford an education for that boy. Selfishness can sometimes just go too damned far. I'm arguing for the kid. Turn loose of some of that useless gold and raise your helpers up. Got it?

If I was rich I'd be more worried that my kid wouldn't end up as useless and non-functional as Paris Hilton than a couple of percentage points on my tax rate. No amount of money can fix that mistake.

jdsmachine, you want to tax people like teachers making $25,000 a year, maybe with a family, 36%? don't be naive.

Sorry, but when one guy is working 60 hour weeks and making less than $30k while another is working the same 60 hour week and making $30 mil...that ain't right. I don't care if you say it's because of the decisions that that individual has made...not everyone is going to be a CEO. Not everyone is capable. Doesn't mean that someone who works hard and serves a useful purpose should live in fear of getting sick because he can't afford to. Or can never have kids because he can't afford to. Or can never take a vacation because he can't afford to. Or retire because he can't afford to. You get the idea. I don't believe that only the rich guys in America should be allowed to live a decent life. It would be great if everyone could be a multi-millionaire entertainer or sports star, but it's not possible. Doesn't mean a janitor (who is more valuable to society than some CEOs, in my estimation) should have to live like a pauper. I'm all for taxing that ridiculous CEO paycheck and doling it out to those scraping to make a living because said CEO has moved all his company's decent jobs to China and India.

Sorry, but when one guy is working 60 hour weeks and making less than $30k while another is working the same 60 hour week and making $30 mil...that ain't right. I don't care if you say it's because of the decisions that that individual has made...not everyone is going to be a CEO. Not everyone is capable. Doesn't mean that someone who works hard and serves a useful purpose should live in fear of getting sick because he can't afford to. Or can never have kids because he can't afford to. Or can never take a vacation because he can't afford to. Or retire because he can't afford to. You get the idea. I don't believe that only the rich guys in America should be allowed to live a decent life. It would be great if everyone could be a multi-millionaire entertainer or sports star, but it's not possible. Doesn't mean a janitor (who is more valuable to society than some CEOs, in my estimation) should have to live like a pauper. I'm all for taxing that ridiculous CEO paycheck and doling it out to those scraping to make a living because said CEO has moved all his company's decent jobs to China and India.

Sorry Robert, but this time you miss the point completely. The point is not that higher taxation on the wealthy will "save the economy." Rather, the point is that tax policy has little to do with economic cycles. We have had a generation of the Republican gospel that all you have to do is lower taxes (and yes, in particular lower taxes for the wealthy) and the magical results will be economic growth that benefits everybody. Well, we have had our tax cuts, and the wealthier you are the more you have enjoyed your tax cut and, guess what, the economy is in total meltdown. So much for Republican gospel. Obama's tax policy was never about fixing the economy. Higher taxes on the wealthy is just a return to the conservative American value of progressive tax structure and fiscal responsibility. To claim this is an attack on American wealth is ludicrous, as is the idea that somehow a 3% increase in marginal tax rate will "dull investment and risk-taking," or wreck our entrepreneurial spirit. Oh please. If I'm in the 36% tax bracket and have an opportunity to make another $1000 but it will mean my tax rate on that extra grand will go to 39%, what am I going to say? No thanks - I would take it if it would net me (1000-360=) $640, but for a measly $610 more in income I'm not doing it?

Sorry, but if this election proved anything it is that you just can't scare us with that baloney anymore.