trying to grok

What stunned me on the Idiot blog was the inability of so many people who are so smart to communicate without cursing. They obviously consider themselves to be far more intelligent than all of the f'ing, f'ers who think paying more taxes is not a good idea.

What part of 100% of what I work for should be mine by default - regardless of how much that is - is not comprehensible by these people?

The example of the guy winning $4 million at poker and getting to keep $2 being A-ok as plain stupid. What right does any government have to any amount of his winnings?

Now, should we collectively pay for the military and roads and a few other things - sure. But there is no reason for people making more to be paying a higher percentage of income. And if people don't understand how it's counterproductive to do just that - well, I can't help them.

Ugh. /end rant.

My first thought, I have to admit, is --dang! I wish I could afford to decide to make less to not get hit by the new proposed tax plan. I mean really, only someone who is making more than enough to get by can make that choice, right? I gotta say it's easy to get jealous when you're barely getting by right?

But I DO see the point. Punishing productivity could certainly get us into a huge can of worms. And besides that, it just doesn't seem fair.

Question: Under the proposed plan would it be possible for a person making over $250,000 to make LESS money because of the taxes they'd pay than they would if they made $249,999? Even if you are taxed at a higher rate aren't you still making more? Given that logic, I can see where the writer at the blog on the left side of this is coming from too.

I call myself a Democrat even though I'm a lousy Democrat because I think I'd make an even lousier Rebublican.... (And also because I'm honestly afraid that my Mom would haunt me if I slid to the other side, BUT....) In the utopian world of my mind I just can't figure out why something fair like a flat tax couldn't be utilized for what is absolutely needed... It just seems more fair to me to take 10% of poor and 10% of rich. But that's just stupid me.

Val -- I don't know if I can speak for "The Rich," but my guess is that, even if they still made more in the higher bracket, they oppose doing this ON PRINCIPLE. Like, OK, let's say that they take home an extra $5000 that year but they paid more in taxes on it; they'd rather not have the money -- because, as you said, they do better than just "get by" -- and stand their political and moral ground. And I understand where they're coming from, because I've done things like turn down "free" vitamins that would be covered by my military health insurance because I don't feel like that's an appropriate use of tax dollars, even though I'm entitled. And it hasn't materialized yet, but I considered rejecting a second stimulus check on principle. So I think that's where people are coming from. The extra money isn't worth it for them on principle. The commenters at that blog seemed to miss that point.