Non Sequitur by Wiley Miller for March 09, 2013

Kind of a subjective definition, isn’t it?

No brother, the definition of ‘compromise’ is that NEITHER side is happy ….. :o

Being a lawyer, Bob also favors more regulation.

http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/YandleChart4-580.png

As rapacious politicians decide they need more of other people’s money, the definition of “rich” will eventually mean anyone making more than 10% above the minimum wage.

An employee of a box store in a nearby town was very rude to me because I was having difficulty with the card processor at the checkout stand. For a moment I wanted to respond in kind but then I remembered that she was making a pittance at her boring job day after day. It may be that she was having a bad day, there were domestic problems at home, she was not feeling well, etc., but I think making a living wage may have cheered her up.

Our present system of taxing and redistributing is insane and will eventually destroy us. How about we end social security, welfare, medicare, medicaid, and cut back on military “offense”! Our Constitution supports common defense and general welfare, not common offense and individual welfare. Our founders had no intention of setting up a system whereby the general government saved every single person from poverty and sickness, and they sure as hell didn’t want us getting involved in foreign conflicts for humanitarian reasons! You want lower taxes? Problem solved. This would cut the Federal budget by over 90 percent, and put the responsibility back on the States, where it was intended to be.

the idiots who think the minimum wage is a living wage need to be paid the minimum wage. watch their attitudes changes, asap. lol

something in the Constitution about general welfare and the common defense of the people, but i guess living breathing poor people and working people don’t qualify. lol

and i wonder where all the profits come from. do they suddenly appear out of nowhere. not like those working people actually create the “product and profit” the rich get from other people’s labor.

but the lies are so well funded, aka Fox/Republican party/Media, the house of cards has to fall down completely before the “truth” will be acknowledged by the “idiots” who say they are the job creators.

ignorance must be America’s greatest “product”. there is so much of it being “sold.” lol

As far that Republicans are concerned, compromise means they get EVERYTHING they want and YOU get the shaft!

That is the problem with you dopes you want to raise taxes but the more money you give them the more they will spend. I am not anywhere near the 1%

So, the government is saying that we should not discriminate against people or punish them – unless WE say it is OK – and then you should discriminate like there is no tomorrow.

One of the reasons Bush was able to pass his tax cuts for the richest 5 percent was that something like 30 percent of all Americans believed they were in the richest 5 percent. This seemed to include a lot of people who lived in trailer parks and did all their shopping at Walmart*

Yes, but remember the lawyer’s fees are a deduction for next year. Something mostof us can’t afford…

The interesting thing is that no one is actually talking about raising taxes on the wealthy. What they are talking about is raising taxes on high-income people, which is to say for the most part people who are in the process of becoming wealthy. But to people who don’t understand the difference between an income statement and a balance sheet, and has been taught that envy is a virtue, that’s close enough to get their votes, which is all that matters.

You might be surprised about that.

The top 1% is composed of people with an adjusted gross taxable income of over USD 369,690 per year (for the 2011 tax year).

Nearly all of those are Married, filing Jointly, so it is the combined household income that puts them into the top 1%, usually just barely.(The Biden’s are in this group)

Half of those made less than USD 558,725.(Doctors, lawyers, corporate middle and upper management…)

Nine out of 10 made less than USD 1,695,135.(The Obama’s fall into this group)

Ninety Nine out of a Hundred made less than USD 9,141,190.

It’s that 0.01% (15,246 households) that make the big bucks (over USD 9,141,190).The Clinton’s, the Romney’s, some professional athletes and coaches, high earning entertainers, some corporate officers…

I know exactly what the founding fathers intended….But I’m not telling…..

Let’s end corporate welfare, tax all income at the same rates without special loopholes no matter where made or how, end the cap on Social Security contributions and make all lobbying transparant.

There is just one thing I do not understand – how will raising taxes on the wealthy bring more jobs back into the country and raise the wage level of American workers?

We know that giving them tax breaks didn’t do it. I am concerned that raising their taxes will only accelerate job loss and movement of profits off-shore.

No matter how much government force you use, the wealthy will find ways to avoid taxes – especially since they have the government in their pocket.

Less than fifty people in the United States, then (at least on a continuing basis). There have been a few people who spent years building up a company, then sold it for a billion or more, but that’s a one time profit for many years work.

See: http://www.forbes.com/billionairesfor net worth numbers, figure annual income to be about 3 to10% of net worth for most of them. You can filter it by country.

Nothing there I didn’t already know. My point is it’s not that the top 1% owns 36 % of the US wealth that’s the problem, it’s rather that the top 0.01 % owns 20 % of the US wealth, and just 400 people control more wealth than 80% of the US population.

Don’t bad mouth the 1%, most of whom are hardworking people in their late 50’s or older who have invested carefully their whole lives.

Yell at the 0.01%, the super rich.

My dad used to say tha if both sides complained about the legislation, then it must be a good law.

An idea who’s time has come! Let’s get on with it. The top 5% gained 90% of the economic increases of the last ten years. The Bush tax cuts for the rich blew a trillion dollar hole in the budget at a time when expenditures were increasing by giant steps.

I’ve noticed SeaFox and a few others using “Al-obama” or something similar. Apparently their thinking is that it’s derogatory. “Al” translated from Arabic to English means “the” as in the family of, in this case Obama. Obama is Barrack’s paternal surname. It’s not derogatory because one could conceivably use it in conjunction with any surname. If it pleases SeaFox, sobeit. It’s harmless although borders on coming across as el stupido.

i can understand why some people don’t want to pay their employees a higher minimum wage… if your small business is just keeping its doors open you may not want or be able to raise your prices to compensate for the raise in wages. Still the cost of living needs to be at a point that someone making the low end of the pay scale can still survive and raise a family.

It was also noted in the comments here that a compromise is painful for both sides… how about this as a compromise:Instead of raising the minimum wage how about we lower it? this would allow the (truly) small businesses to thrive.

For the other side of the compromise … what say we lower the price of essential goods like food, rent/mortgages, transportation, etc. while the price of luxury goods still ride the train of supply and demand.

I fear that if this was proposed there would be a deafening sound of whining from those who fear “socialism” yet don’t wish to know the difference from what we have today and what this would give us.

they should bring back the progressive tax rates of the 1950s. where the weathiest paid 90%.

Is it true that there is a character that looks like Richard Nixon and Danae’s father looks like Keith Olbermann?

Let’s try this: give massive tax breaks to every business that actually stays home and employs citizens of the country they want tax breaks from (actually be job makers!). If they go elsewhere, tax them tax them tax them until they squeal!-@Sharuniboy: Though your last statement is opinion, the main thrust of your comment is genius and should be required reading for everyone.

Don’t tax you, don’t tax me, tax that fellow behind that tree.

It surprises me how much conservatives disrespect people who work 40 for a living…You’d think they would respect that…Nope. They only make minimum wage, so they must be lazy….Please keep the cons as far away from government as is legally possible….

My conservative friends don’t think, they repeat.what they’ve heard…Sad, really….poor boobs…

True… those who think less of minimum wage earners are self-centered and have not taken the time to acknowledge, respect, or know their neighbor.-I have my own concept of wealthy, and freely admit it is arbitrary; any single earner of $250k a year. That seems generous to me because – even filing jointly – my wife and I never made more than $80k in our heyday. Then chronic illness occurred and that takes savings and throws it out the window. Reality.-As for the Constitution, it is preciously designed to be a flexible document to guide this country through future changes. Not a rigid set of rules. Those who aver their “rights” under the Constitution disrespect its intended purpose. The very presence of “Amendments” means it shall change. The Founding Fathers were not prophets, oracles, or psychics. They did not conceive of the world as it has become.-For instance, I staunchly defend free speech, but know that doesn’t give me the right to say anything at any time. Likewise, gun rights need to be “infringed” if one is not qualified to use them responsibly. Back in the day, these weren’t issues as much as our changing society has made them. We must flex also.-Rambling. It is late, and I am tired. Goodnight all.

Lawyer.Lawyers…..always gotta find(or fabricate) a loophole.

That is the definition of “Rich”. Anybody who makes more money than you do.