On the industrial side - at least what's left - there is a real shortage of skilled people; I can't get enough pipe welders. Contractors are walking away from bids 'cause they can't meet deadlines.

On the other side, I know a high-skilled computer geek who can't find a job, and minimum skilled service oriented paper-pushers are a dime a dozen, or at least $5.85 and hour.

LESSON to all kids: Get you skills up. Learn a Trade. Be more than a service oriented paper-pusher.

Andrew, I believe that you are probably aware of what I am going to say. However, as most people are aware that the stock market is setting new highs. Those numbers are extremely misleading for the average person. Sure a company's stock can be going up, however, that does not equate into the average worker making more money. It DOES equate into the stockholders making more. The old Reaganomic principle of "trickle down" does not work. We have seen that proven false for far too long. When the large sums are made by a corporation, the money only flows to the "big wigs" and the stock holders. We all know they are the ones doing the hard work to make the company and its products a lasting success!

Shalom

Yes, let's turn America into the worker's paradise via income redistribution envisioned by past world leaders. I know it will work THIS time.

Darryl, you make it sound like one has to be wealthy to own stock when in fact millions upon millions of everyday people own stock. Many corporations give their employees attractive stock ownership programs. My former employer had such a program and I walked away with $35K in stock, which I used as a down payment on my home. Of course the govt. took away 40% of it.

So Darryl it's not just corporate big wigs who benefit when the stock market goes up. I smell a bit of class envy here.

Note to all: Reagan, Bush, Clinton you name whoever the president is...none of them are responsible for your success or failures in life nor are corporations. YOU ARE!! Take JDR's advice and gain employable skills.

"Hmmm, what a thought."

Yep, a very simplistic, naive, bordering-on-ignorant thought.

Usually letters like this have a disclaimer at the bottom that reads something like this:

This letter written by a 3rd grade student at Florence Elementary School.

Neocon,

you always have a comment but never a solution.

do you have any solutions?

Yes. Stop the government from mandating what employers must pay an employee and do away with the illegal income tax. This will create an economic boom that can be felt from top to bottom. imo of course.

What is your solution?..more government mandates on private enterprise?

Hello nitpicker,

I did not know you used the name truth before. Just was back reading and saw that and wanted to stop in and say hello. I believed I emailed your old truth account a couple of months back, wanting to know what happened to you and didn't hear anything back. Glad to know you are still around. By the way, do you remember Tater? and do you know what happened to him? Bythe way you weren't the hateful yellowdog were you?

Neo, just wanted to say I so enjoy your post you have such a wonderful sense of humor. I have been way too busy to post, but I do read whenever I have a free minute and it never fails, your post always cheers me up.

Hey trish,

How you doing? I didn't get your email. I would have definitely responded.

No, I wasn't the yellowdog that you are referring to. His trademark spelling and grammar issues would give him away. Not that I'm an English professor or anything (Notice all the sentences ending in prepositions?)

I do remember Tater. I haven't seen that name around for a long time, though.

It's funny to think about all the folks who've come and gone over the years (yes, I do mean years).

I wonder if we would spend our time doing something productive instead of chatting on this blog just what wonderful things we could do.....

Good to hear from you.

Get a room, you two (or three).

But yes, big laughs on both posts.

Trish,
You make an old man's day. Also, your common sense and knowledge are sorely missed here.

Dan, you're right that a lot of little people own stock. There are two types of people who own stock. People who own Some stock and people who own HUGE AMOUNTS of stock. The dividends that all the little people earn can in no way compare to the obscene amount the big guys get. After you have $100 million stashed away in the bank, what do you do with more money? How many houses, cars, boats and gadgets can one person possibly use in a lifetime? I don't understand the mentality of having money for the sake of having money. And don't anyone give me the tired old line about these people make it possible for you and I to work. I had a job long before we had a burgeoning mega-millionaire class and I'll have one if this class suddenly gets swallowed up by an earthquake. After all, the Bush administration trumpets the value of the SMALL business person. I don't hear them tout the virtues of the mega-millionaires very often. They kow-tow to them, but the don't actually talk about them very much.

"And don't anyone give me the tired old line about these people make it possible for you and I to work. I had a job long before we had a burgeoning mega-millionaire class and I'll have one if this class suddenly gets swallowed up by an earthquake."

Excellent Phillipa! That was a very good point. It's crazy how corporations now think they drive the train. We the people must always remember that we can derail them at any time. WE HAVE THE POWER!

Dan, glad to hear the stock market did well for you. It’s good the company you worked with gave you that benefit. However, I imagine there are many more people out there suffering because of corporate bosses getting outrageous stock option benefits. It cuts both ways.

The issue is distribution of wealth. When I was young, I remember lots of professionals and white collar workers made at least forty thousand dollars a year. Some of those same people today are lucky to get a job starting at twenty thousand. The issue is not the mechanisms of our economy. It is an issue of morality. A moral country has a better distribution of wealth than we are seeing today.

If you want to see the Republicans lose power for another 40 years, keep on lightening the wallets of the working man.

I've made this suggestion before, so that might put Neocon to sleep ... too bad 'cause it's actually in concert with his idea to rid most of us of Income Tax. It's also in concert with phillipa's thoughs, i.e., how much is too much, Here it is:

Re-establish Income tax along the following lines of the original formula ... which was pretty much like this, adjusted for 2006 monies:

ALL income under $50,000 / year (on an individual basis) is Federal Tax Free.

Incomes above that are progressively taxed at rates up to 90% - hockey-stick style.

Hockey-stick style?

"What is your solution?..more government mandates on private enterprise?"

No, LESS government intervention on behalf of mega-corporations. I'll hold my breath waiting for it.

Hockey Stick:

______/

$00 to $ 50k: 0%
$50 to $ 99k: 10%
$100 to $250k: 30%
$250 to $1mil: 50%
$1mil to $10mil: 70%
over $10mil: 90%

no deductions

Mr. Murphy:

I run across people every day that aren't worth the minimum wage the government mandates. Do you think these people should be paid more?

Sounds like class envy Phillpa and Stevie. I for one wouldn't mind having $100 mil stashed in the bank and I bet you wouldn't either. Be honest.

If I had that kind of money I would give MUCH MUCH more to charity that I do now. I would also buy products and services that employ people, including my two pilots when I don't feel like flying my private jet myself and would rather relax in the back and have a drink.

I frankly don't have a problem with people who make alot of money and always wonder why some like Stevie people do. Lefties often use this argument with gay marriage: if two gays get married how does that hurt you? Same premise, if someone makes $100 million (legally) how does that hurt you?

I don't think it is moral to confiscate my hard earned money and give it to those who don't want to work and social benefits for illegals. You seem to think so Stevie, correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't have stats, but I would sumise that most rich people give more to charity than you and I, Bill Gates is a good example. If I had beaucoup dollars I would feel a moral obligation to give more to charity, but that should be my decision, not the govts.

JDR, how much more or less would your formula bring into the Federal treasury?

During the Clinton years the economy was boomin' and kep at a steady pace until the mornin' of September 11, 2001 when our nation was attacked. Shortly after the economy went into a semi-recession. Weather people agree or disagree with President Bush, his tax cuts did prevent this country for slippin' into a full blown all out recession. I remember when the Dow was at 8,800 and people were wonderin' if it would ever get to 10,000 and when it did everyone was so excited that I thought a national holiday was goin' to be declared. Since then the economic growth percentage has been the highest in 30 years, unemployment is at 4.6%, even with a slow 4 or 5 months more families own houses now than at any other time, the price of a barrell of oil has fallen from over $70 to right around $60, in the last 6 months price of fuel has gone down 80 cents and is still fallin', The Dow has gone from 10,000 to 12,000 in 1 and 1/2 times the speed that it went from 8.800 to 10,000. Yet all this has happened while we had Katrina and around 5 major hurricanes, a war in Iraq, The Resurgence of The Taliban in Afghanistan, turmoil in Isreal, Lebanon, and Palestine, instability in Africa, North Korea and Iran threatenin' the world, and a crazy man in Venezuela threatenin' to cut back oil with the U.S. while usin' his oil to buy off other countries and their votes. Still you have people like Mr. Murphy and others who hate the Administration so much that they don't beleive or don't want to beleive any numbers that come out. I'm tired of people blamin' the world for everything that goes bad in their lives. Stop blamin' others and look in the mirror and you'll see who to blame. Show some personal resposibility, don't expect the government to give you income distribution or any other support. If you're not happy with your job and money you make, quit the whinnin', educate yourself to get a better job and be responsible for the actions you make in life.

Dan:

One answer to Question 1:

"Americans earning $50,000 to $100,000 a year give two to six times more of their investment assets to charity than those who make more than $10 million ..."

http://foundationcenter.org/pnd/news/story.jhtml?id=125900009

One answer to Question 2:

I'm positive my plan is not "correct", but the numnbers could & should be adjusted to make it cash neutral.

One answer to Question 3:

"If someone makes $100 million (legally) how does that hurt you?"

It doesn't ... BUT ... ask how this is possible?

Is he so freaking smart he has solved some universal problem .. has he added value to the world ... then I say OK.

Has he simply gambled correctly ... then I say hmmm .. as long as the next time when he gambles wron it does not cost me.

Most likely, he has simply been placed by the grace of God into a position where he can "demand" it, and fools give it to him.

The Fallacy with your "immoral to confiscate hard earned money" approach .. is the "hard earned money" is rarely true.

It's partially true in your case, partially true in mine ... but hear what Clint Eastwood says about it:

http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2006/edition_10-15-2006/Clint_Eastwood

Here's the quote:

"I remember years ago working with Richard Burton and somebody asking him about his great success. And he said, 'I attribute it to luck.' ”

Richard Burton ... an honest man .. finally.

Actually Dan, I think there are much, much more important things in life than money or luxuries. Things like watching my son succeed in school, seeing him be kind to people and not greedy or nasty, waking up next to my husband every morning and letting my dogs lick my entire face, laughing all the while. If I couldn't have things like that, what good is any amount of money.

I also think that the ratio of what you'd give to charity and what you'd spend on pilots or houses.

I don't want to give anyone's hard earned money to illegals either, but why not use it to pay for the things this country's already spent it on so our grandkids(something else I'm looking forward to) don't have to struggle under our massive budget deficit? And if this war is so all-fired important and righteous, why isn't George Bush asking us to pay more taxes so we can pay as we go? I'll tell you why: Because the money we're pouring down the rat hole in Iraq won't do that country or ours any good. All those people want to do is kill each other and kill anyone who gets in the way of them killing each other!

The name "Hockey Stick" came from some book I read ... but it accuratly describes it.

The concept was explained to me by a wise old man - how told me years ago, very high taxes at the stratosphere of salaries did a really good job holding those salaries in orbit - 'cause everyone knew the rule of diminishing returns: at some point most the money given to Big Boss went to the government.

This wise old man never pulled a blue lever in his life - he was a mid-level engineer who taught me much about both engineering and the way things worlk.

Sorry guys, I got ahead of myself.

edit: I also thing the ratio of what you spend on pilots or houses would be so out of balance it's not funny. I'm sure you could come up with lots of reasons not to give your money away and I have no faith at all that you'd be able to fight the temptation to just spend it on yourself!

JDR, thanks for the hockey stick explanation (I thought that's what it meant but wasn't sure) and the link to the Eastwood story. Thank you for the education you're providing for all of us.

One more observation ... If over the history of tax, you chart the lowest tax rates ... you will see a steady line that rises steadily ... higher and higher.

If you chart the highest tax rates ... you will see a sine wave that rises and falles like the tide. In the roaring 50's and early 60's, it was 90%. Kennedy made a huge splash by lowering it .. the Limbaugh types mention this, but always forget the detail that it went - all the way down .. to 70%. It's now 35%, with every dedution and hole money can buy, and they are whine.

... and Dan, you support this?

One final tax thought . about my favorite pick-on, Rush.

The man makes $30,000,000 per year ... tax him at 90%. That still leaves him $3,000,000 per year, or $250,000 per month in take home pay .. all for creating sound bites to prevent this from happening.

Sorry for the slop:

It's now 35%, with every deduction and hole their money can buy, and they still whine.

"Actually Dan, I think there are much, much more important things in life than money or luxuries. Things like watching my son succeed in school, seeing him be kind to people and not greedy or nasty, waking up next to my husband every morning and letting my dogs lick my entire face, laughing all the while. If I couldn't have things like that, what good is any amount of money."

I totally agree, no money on the face of the planet is worth looking into my children's eyes or hearing them tell me they love me. I would live in a tent before I would ever give up the gift of having my wife and children. I would however take $100 mil versus having a dog lick my face :)

You seem to miss my point, money isn't everything in life I agree. But if I have the capability, which I don't, of earning millions each year frankly I don't see any problem with it and I don't know why you or anyone else needs to worry about it. And also, it's none of your business what ratio I give to charity versus a house or an airplane.

Geeeezzzzzz!! Do we need to enact a law where people, especially eeeeevvviiiill rich people, have to give a certain amount of money to charity?

JDR, if someone makes a bundle contributing to the world's problems then it's ok, if I win $100 mil in the lottery then it's not ok? Do I get taxed higher for winning the lottery?

If Rush only brings in $3mil out of $30 mil a year for his talents then what is the point in doing what he does? You would probably relish the fact that he would quit broadcasting. $3 mil may sound alot to you, but it's chump change if you have a staff to employ, houses to pay for, hell a decent private jet will run you $3 mil not including fuel and maintenance costs.

You guys seem to suffer from major class envy. I would suggest moving to Europe with it's 10+ % unemployment rate and cradle to grave nanny state that penalizes entrepreneurs. Been there done that in France, try it out for yourselves and you will realize how damn lucky you are to live here.

Read Pablo's post again, this country would be nothing special if you guys were in control.

BTW JDR, I am have the capability of earning $30 mil a year and I know I'm only going to get 10% of it, what am I going to do? MOVE TO ANOTHER COUNTRY!!!!!!! What good does that do the US and US taxes?

You guys truly amaze me. Move to France.

You didn't answer one of my questions, Dan. If this war is so all-fired important and righteous, why isn't George Bush asking us to pay more taxes so we can pay as we go? And doesn't the responsible rich man pay his debts as well as spend his money? This country is only doing the latter.

Dan,

So it's a case of class envy is it? It’s amazing how you can make that assertion even though you have no clue how much I make or what I own. You sound like one of those narcissistic fat girls on Jerry Springer that screams, “You’re just jealous!” to the audience while her big boobs are flopping around. ;-)

Stevie, I don't care how much you make or own, that is not the point. I always ask liberals this question: If you think we all need to give more to the govt. then why don't you do it?????

I currently give around 45% with fed taxes, state taxes, sales taxes, gas taxes, property taxes, vehicle taxes, etc. etc. If you want to give more than GO FOR IT!!!!!!!! Put your money where your mouth is!!!!

I don't watch Springer and big boobs, if you reduce your argument to that then I feel sorry for you, think about it: I, Stevie am using Springer to illustrate my point of view. That is truly sad.

Good night all, I'm going to bed.

I'm sorry Dan. Let's kiss and make up. Or, I will buy you an ice cream cone sometime. Geez dude, I was sorta pickin' with you a little bit there. I put a winking smiley at the end and everything!

But while we are at it, let's look at this thread. My first comment maturely indicated that I saw your point of view. I then made a point of my own. You then proceed to tell those who disagree with you to move to France and accuse us of class envy. That is insulting and you know it. It’s not a point of debate, it’s an insult.

Make no mistake about it; I don't always take the high road when sanctimonious comments get under my skin. Don't expect me to be "limp-wristed" when you include so many semi-veiled insults in your comments. I think you are good guy but don’t dish it out if you can’t take it.

I can appreciate humor from the other side. But, when you call us lefties and stuff like that, it’s not that funny. However, when JewforJesus said those who are half Jewish can only swim up to their waist at the Country Club. Now that was funny!

Woke up with what felt like a hangover yesterday without having the benefit of drinking anything the night before and missed this discussion.

Lots of good points on both sides.

I was a workaholic bachelor until my mid sixties. Lived frugally, made a more or less steadily increasing salary and put a substantial portion of it into "safe" long term investments.

I retired a couple of months ago at age seventy eight and now have assets of several million dollars. Although I feel that my work performance and dedication merited my financial success I fully realize that luck was indeed a major factor in it's accomplishment.

Rich? Yes, by most people's definition, but certainly not in the "mega" category.

Much like Dan asserted he would do I have given a great deal of money to charity, and as idiotic as it may sound I at times didn't even bother to list it on my tax returns.

I don't feel, and this is totally in the personal opinion category, that a 90% tax rate would accomplish little more than to create more tax fraud and less investment among the truly wealthy in our society.

Some people are just plain damn greedy.

I don't begrudge the "mega rich" their success, but I do resent and recognize the danger of corporate boards that are more concerned with ridiculously overpadding their own pockets than in providing for their employees and the fact that government offers little incentive for them to do otherwise.

As I said, some good points on both sides, but as for me I won't condemn anyone's take on this issue.

I'm open to suggestions.

Dan - let's follow your logic a bit:

Earning $30 mil a year and getting 10% of it, what am you going to do? MOVE TO ANOTHER COUNTRY! Can you still earn $30 mil a year in the other country?

Earning $300 mil a year and keeping only 10% - are you still MOVING TO ANOTHER COUNTRY? Many who could live anywhere make America their main residence - oh they travel, but they come back here - Michael Jackson excluded.

You earn $100,000 a year and pay about half in taxes. Why don't you MOVE TO ANOTHER COUNTRY? Maybe you can't earn that in the other country, or maybe America is just too great a place to leave.

"If Rush only brings in $3 mil out of $30 mil a year for his talents then what is the point in doing what he does?"

My na‧ïve take is because he likes to do it.

We should ALL do the things we like to do, and the funny part is if you like to do it, you get better, if you get better you earn more doing it. The trick is finding things we like to do that also add value; few make it rich testing mattresses.

That's one beauty of America - you are pretty much given that choice; a choice that is FAR from given in most of the world.

No-one's "suffering from major class envy", or suggesting a cradle to grave nanny state for individual ... but I can and have shown you that EEEEVVVIIILLL corporations do in fact have "cradle to grave nanny state coverage" .. you chose to ignore the facts. What-ever.

I believe the purpose of government should be to facilitate the most good for the most people. There has always been a struggle to keep the few from abusing power and taking it all. The Constitution and indeed the entire concept of America is about holding that in reasonable balance. John Adams agrees with me.

You also say - and we totally agree: "realize how damn lucky you are to live here". I see a small group that hogs for themselves Commonweal that, fairly distributed, would make it even nicer for everyone - including that small group of hogs you defend with such innocence.

You chose to buy bile, that's your choice, but I humbly suggest less reliance on Hannity Rhetoric would do you good.

Have you seen the little piggies
Crawling in the dirt?
And for all the little piggies
Life is getting worse
Always having dirt to play around in

Have you seen the bigger piggies
In their starched white shirts?
You will find the bigger piggies
Stirring up the dirt
Always have clean shirts to play around in

In their styes with all their backing
They don't care what goes on around
In their eyes there's something lacking
What they need's a damn good whacking

Everywhere there's lots of piggies
Living piggy lives
You can see them out for dinner
With their piggy wives
Clutching forks and knives to eat their bacon

http://www.amazon.com/Nineteen-Eighty-Four-George-Orwell/dp/0679417397/sr=8-2/qid=1161255297/ref=pd_bbs_2/002-7774463-5360046?ie=UTF8&s=books

JDR, whatever you put in your coffee pot in the morning....send me some please.

As for the economic beauty of this country, confiscating 90% or even 70% of one's income borders more on communism than socialism.

I can't make a living elsewhere doing what I do so I will have to put up the govt. confiscating 45% of my income. Rush on the other hand with today's technology, could broadcast from offshore where 90% of his income isn't confiscated.

Jan is right, people like their money. If you pass a law that confiscates 70% of someone's taxes who earns over a million, you will hear a giant sucking sound of money flowing to offshore banks.

Stevie, no problem kissing and making up. Now I need your help please. Using the term "liberals" seems to raise the ire of liberals so I used the term "lefties". Apparently that is not acceptable either and seen as an insult. Can you please provide me with a politically correct word for those who tend to vote more often with the Democratic party and believe in higher taxation?

Please call me conservative anytime you want, I'm proud of the term, I don't understand why the term liberal is seen as pejorative.

As for class envy, I really think it is true that many suffer from it, especially those on the left side of the political spectrum. (Code for lefties until you give me a new term). It's plain as day right here on this thread with suggestions that anyone who makes 1 million have 70% of it confiscated and end up with $300K. That my friend is class envy.

BTW, which would you rather have, $10 million or your dog licking your face?

Hmmmm ....... I'm now considering becoming a breeder of "Latvian Lick Hounds" which - at 10 million dollars a pup - should prove to offer an excellent return on my investment.

I said I was retired, not dead. ;-)

Wow, this blog exploded after I left yesterday.

Speaking of liberals/lefties, whatever, I imagine that if we went with the hockey-stick approach that James speaks about, you REALLY WOULD see Alec Baldwin, Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn and the other guys move to another country.

Here's my issue with that approach. Let's say you tax folks at 90%. First, you pretty much shut down the entire capitalistic system we have in place. You take away all incentive for folks to build large and efficent enterprises. I believe it would send our country into a depression that it would never recover from.

You might have thought Dan was being insulted, but if you believe this form of taxation is best, than perhaps you should move to France. Or some other country with that type of tax structure. This is America and part of the reason people ended up here is because of that kind of mess in Europe.

Secondly, what do you do with all that money you steal from taxpayers? Where will it be spent? Instead of big private enterprises, you'll suddenly have a big, BIG government. We've seen how efficient governments are, haven't we?

Third, and last, Phillipas comments about rich folks and how many cars and houses they need is kind of funny. I agree with many here that we do need some accountability on corporate boards and we do need to find ways to keep the division between the rich and poor from getting wider. I just think some of the suggestions are going TOO far. As far as rich people buying houses and cars....guess what? Somebody has to build those houses and make those cars. That's what keeps the economy running.

Alec Baldwin, Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn moving overseas......well that is one argument in favor of taxing the rich at 90%. Don't forget Barbara Striesand, who recently performed in concert at $750/ticket.

If Babs is so in favor of left policies of equality for the working person then why does she charge $750/ticket? Answer: like many of these hypocrits she is taking advantage of the very country and it's capitalist system she speaks against.

Nit you make too much sense, I didn't mean to insult anyone by suggesting they move to France, I've been there done that and seen socialism close up and personal. The excessive taxation and nanny state zap any initiative to work and innovate. I think JDR's tax plan would be disastrous for the economy and am surprised someone of his intelligence doesn't realize it.

Try running for public office with that tax plan and see how far it gets you.

Ok, that's enough for me, I'm leaving for the beach with no Internet access and gone till Sunday. Good weekend to all.

When the republicans were the party of tax less and spend less, the "tax and spend" liberal label really pointed out the difference between the two philosophies.

Currently, the republicans are for more spending and less taxing. I believe the label that has the zing right now would be "don't tax but spend anyway" conservative.

The argument has changed, Dan. If you want zing, think up a better complaint than "tax and spend." Your president may be a recovering alcoholic but he's an in-denial, addicted spender. He's just traded one vice for another. That's not leadership, it's slavishness.

One more before I go Phillipa. If you've read my posts in many, many previous blogs I agree that the ENTIRE govt. including Republicans is addicted to spending our money. Unfortunately Republicans have abandoned the conservative philosophy of taxing less AND spending less. Talk to you guys next week.

I love the way some want to make the USA an exclusive "country club" type environment where they can live and make all the $$$$ they wish. However, I believe that these people fail to realize that with the "little piggies" that JDR referred, these "country club" people would NEVER be able to make their $$$$ solely on US soil. There would be no one left to do the work using the methods that are listed!

Darryl,

I think all people should be taxed. I'm not saying that we shouldn't tax rich people. 90%, however, is over and beyond a reasonable plan.

As far making their money on US soil, these country club folks have shown they have no problems finding workers off of US soil (or bringing them here illegally).

I love the repeated “at 90% America would collapse” comments. The argument is like the Death Tax rhetoric – makes a real difference to only a very small count of folks, but ya’ll hop like it’s gonna sting you … you should be so lucky.

First off, the number of people truly affected would be purdy small – less than 3% make over $200,000. By the Hockey Stick plan, HALF of Americans would pay no taxes.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/63/Income-curve-%2410k.jpg

Here’s a brief history of the top tax rates:

In 1913 the tax rate was 1% on taxable net income above $3,000 – that’s 0% for those making less than $50,000 in today’s money – and $4,000 for married couples – that’s 0% for couples making less than $66,000 in today’s money. For Incomes above $8 billion annual salary (today’s money): rate was 7%

During World War I the top rate rose to 77%. Did America Collapse? I didn’t think so - weren't we also on the winning side?.

The rates went back down in the Roaring 20’s – we can all agree: a time of clear excess.

In 1939, the top rate was 75%. Did America Collapse? I didn’t think so, by then we were pulling out of the Great Depression.

During WWII, the top rate was 91%. Did America Collapse? I didn’t think so; we won that war too.

The 91% remained in effect until 1964. Did America Collapse? I didn’t think so – in fact those were boom years.

In 1964 the top rate was decreased to 70%, then to 50% in 1981, and 28% in 1986 - no wonder the money-men love Reagan! btw - anyone remember what happened to the National Debt?

http://www.lafn.org/politics/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html

btw - a problem with that chart: Anyone [but me] know what the current debt ceiling is?

In 1986 the bottom rate was raised from 11% to 15%

During the 1990’s, the top rate rose to 39.6%. Did America Collapse? I didn’t think so – boom years baby.

Currently the top rate is 35% - NEAR A HISTORIC LOW. Did you know we are currently in a war? Are we winning? What's the current debt ceiling?

By The Way – and just for Dan: An 1886 oleomargarine tax was designed to prevent margarine from competing with butter. DOES GOVERNMENT EVER INTERVENE FOR CORPORATE INTERESTS?

Another By The Way. Ya’ll worried about money going overseas? Too late. “Bermuda's business community includes subsidiary operations of over three-quarters of the Fortune 500 companies (including 75 members of the Fortune 100 companies).”

Why?

Make Bermuda your Corporate Home. All profits made in America are sent to the “overseas home office" – that converts profits into losses, converting taxable income into deductible costs. Clever, huh?

http://www.amazon.com/Perfectly-Legal-Campaign-Benefit-Everybody/dp/B0008102D6/sr=8-1/qid=1161293954/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-7774463-5360046?ie=UTF8

JDR, thanks for continually shinning the light in darkened areas. It is should be a crime when some refuse to look at the factual evidence shown and still want to "shaft the little man!"

Shalom

I've been thinking about it all day.

Would I agree never to get a dog for $100 mil? I don't know.

Would I give up either of my two dogs for $100 mil? NO. They love me just as much as I love them. They are part of my family.

You can have your $100 mil, I'll keep my dogs (and probably acquire more in my lifetime).

Charlie and Rascal: I love the way you smile at me, wag your tails and lick my face!

James,
I only wish you were not whistling in the wind! The ostriches will continue to keep their head in the sand about REALITY. Not listening to differing opinions is the hall mark of the current administration, so why should we expect any difference from the likes of Dan, et al.

Blah blah blah.

We hear, we listen, we respond to the letter or posts thereafter.

We are biased and we do tend to filter out stuff we disagree with. Everyone does. Some worse than others.

I can say, although I don't always agree with James, that he is one of the best and most interesting posters here. I respect him for the effort he puts into posting.

As far as the other topic, for $100 million dollars, you can have my dog, my goldfish, and my pinky.

I would be very poor indeed if I gave away two friends so I could have $100 mil. Money doesn't make you rich, your friendships do!

Nit,
Sorry if I struck a nerve with you. Problem as I see it, is that if our economy is in such great shape, why are there MORE (statistically)children living under the poverty line, and MORE people without health insurance???? Seems like a great economy would help that number. Alas, it is only the ones at the top being helped, and the plutocray grows, and grows....
funny thing, many who post here (neoCON) think they are the ones being helped! LOL!

Hi Folks. It's Mr. Murphy here, the author of this exquisite letter. I just wanted to clarify for all of those people who argued that I am "blaming everyone else for my own problems". I don't have any problems. Not with the money I make, and not with my education. In fact, I'm a soon-to-be college grad and will be attending law school in the fall.

So when you argue that I'm blaming the world because I believe that low skilled workers deserve to be paid better than slave wages, get your facts right.

And since many of you liked to comment that my letter is equal to the work of an elementary school student, I'll end this piece on a childish note:

Dems won, You lost. And now this argument doesn't matter because we're getting a higher minimum wage!

Thank You