The argument that raising taxes causes investment to leave the country doesn't appear to hold true.

http://www.muhlenkamp.com/upload/ima...al_figure1.jpg

I don't see any correlation between GDP and highest bracket tax rate.

Hard work, while important, isn't the main factor of financial success and it shouldn't be. It all comes down to playing the system. You will find people in all income categories that work tremendously hard but what separates them is what they are doing.

If you want to be financially successful you need to figure out how the world works and then be able to properly exploit it for your benefit. That will beat out hard work every time. It's not fair but it's how the world works.

This may be but A) you didn't post anything related to foreign investment and B) the nature of foreign investment is extremely different today than 30 years ago. Forbes tells us that most new Billionaires come from Brazil India China and Russia these days. The world has caught up and given investors something to invest in.

I tire. Believe what you want, as you will anyway.

If you want to be financially successful you either need to figure out how the world works and then be able to properly exploit it for your benefit, or figure out what the world wants and needs and deliver it for your benefit.

You've done nothing to prove that raising taxes on the rich will cause investment to immediately go overseas
As also you will.

Going back to the original topic... if the belief is that regular middle-class folks should not have to take a hit in this bad economy, and the reality is that they already HAVE, why should there be a "protected" class of regular middle-class folks who get special treatment? Seeing as they work directly for our government overlords, they get to experience an "imaginary" economy where everybody still has a job?

I HAVEN'T GOTTEN A RAISE IN THREE FUCKING YEARS, YET THESE FOLKS HAVE THE AUDACITY TO COMPLAIN??? Give me a break.

I was simply pointing out that both Bush I and Clinton raised taxes on the top wage earners. Only to lowered by Bush II with, btw, no positive impact on economic growth and a significant contribution to the debt that will only increase more if those top rates are made permanent.

IMO, arguments that raising taxes on the wealthy stimulate economic growth and are a deterrence to working harder are baseless.

Debt reduction will require both spending cuts and increased revenue (taxes) and the burden should be spread across the board, with the wealthiest bearing the brunt of tax increases of a few percentage points on their last dollars earned (not on the entire income).

If you look at data, public employee pensions put more back into the local economy than they take out...something like $1.75 for every $1.00.

At the same time, income inequality in the US has soared to the highest levels in history.

Between 1979 and 2005, the mean after-tax income for the top 1% increased by 176%, compared to...21% for the middle quintile, 17% for the second quintile and 6% for the bottom quintile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_..._United_States

I'm not even sure what that means, but I am positive it has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I assume it was supposed to, since you quoted me. Is this "a thing" with the political forum, where we just make a series of unrelated statements?

I've been trying hard to address the topics raised in the original post, and it's fine of course if you don't want to talk about that, but don't quote me and then launch into a complete non sequitur. That's a waste of everybody's time.

IMO, the attack against public sector unions, at least as it is suggested by Republican state governors and legislators that it is for economic reasons and to balance a state budget is bogus. It is to break the unions.

Here is an example from WI on the impact of the public employees pension in that state:

I think it is relevant to the discussion. Certainly more so than comments that small tax increases on top wage earners are a deterrent to working harder or some such argument.

As to the topic raised in the original post, PA has only tax rate (correct me if I am wrong).

The budget shortfall can be covered by simply raising the rate on wage earners over $500,000 by 1 percent rather than on the backs of teachers.

IMO, the arguments against such a tax are ideological, not economic.

When you cut (or freeze) salaries of the middle class or cut the workforce, you increase the likelihood that many will temporarily turn to other government programs to meet basic needs, so where is the savings?

When you raise the taxes on the top wage earners by a 1 percent, where is the pain and/or sacrifice?

The following stats come from a frankly liberal web site edited by Steve Kangas.

However, Kangas cites a wide variety of sources for his research - from the extreme right wing (Christopher Jencks, a controversial researcher in the ‘70’s), to middle of the road, slightly right leaning Business Week to the liberal Claude Fischer’s book, Inequality by Design..

The following table is from Business Week – not exactly a hotbed of left wing thought.

CEO pay and other trends (original figures have been converted into constant 96 dollars)

1990 1995 Percent Change

Average CEO Pay 2.34 million 3.86 million +65%

Average Worker Pay $27,615 $27,418 -0.6%

Coorporate Profits 212 billion 317 billion +50%

Worker Layoffs 316,047 439,882 +39%



Note that company profits went up by 50% but the compensation of CEO’s rose a full 15% higher than that – to 65%. I think EVERY worker’s pay should be tied to the company’s profits. Even if only CEO’s reap the benefit of increased profits via increased pay, why they should they have gotten and additional 15% increase. Flint can sing the blues for these CEO’s all he wants, but, personally, I won’t be sending them CARE packages any time soon.

Also from Business Week:

I don’t care how much “merit” the guy at the top has. If the managers who work for him are incompetent or lacking in some way, the corporation is not going to do nearly as well. Middle managers work their tails off – the good ones do, anyhow. And their reward is income stagnation or worse yet, they get laid off.

Flint may call it “merit.” I call it greed.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-richmerit.htm

Always referring to "rich" people in a dehumanizing manner doesn't lend any further ethical weight to the concept of taking from them the sweat of their own brow. Compile your list of "they are evil and don't deserve their money because" A, B, and C reasons, but at the end of the day the fact remains that money is hard to earn. Money represents hard work. On a purely ethical basis, it isn't right to take from a man the fruit of his own labor. What you're doing is concocting an elaborate, narrative construct to convolutedly justify something which is plainly wrong.

Money is hard to earn for you and me - well, me anyhow. It's a lot easier to earn if you start from a base of a $million plus the way at least 1/3 of all CEO's have started. And how is getting a 65% raise "punishment," especially when your company shows "only" a 50% increase in profits?

If you set up the system: "'the harder you work, the less you can keep' what would happen?" If you'd read my post, you'd see I answered that. Middle managers, demoralized by stagnant earnings and increasing layoffs, no longer give the job their best effort. This is both bad for them and bad for the company. Or are you so wealthy, you don't give a damn about the middle class?
:rtfm:

I am talking about an individual man earning money to support his family. The better he can do, the more he is able to earn, the more he should be able to keep. If he manages to put himself in an advantageous position, then he has earned the right to be there.

That's not even what your own source says. Read more carefully: "An inherited fortune" --what does that mean? Your parents left you $5,000 and a Chrysler LeBaron?

At any rate, why is it okay to take a man's money from his CHILDREN? (the greedy bastards who inherited it from him)

You're quoting something I posted two days before the post that you're berating me for not reading.