All those earmarks that get granted to them, special subsides they get. The war profiteering they make from big wars. All those pork projects that get granted to them. Why do you think they have a buttload of lobbyists in the government? Because they live off the government lagress. So to complain about paying pre bush tax rates is ludicrous. Of course they should pay more, they make so much money from the government at a disproportionate rate to regular 250K and under a year folk.
So the business owner with 4 restaurants or local doctor makes money off wars and pork projects? Whatever. Most of those affected by $250K get nothing from gov't but provide jobs, spend money and save/invest money, all of which is beneficial. It also pays the welfare checks for people of your ilk. Tax cuts shouldn't even be discussed. All stimulus should be immediately axed before we do anything else. $111M to create 55 jobs in CA? Nearly $1M for a study on African men washing their genitals? And that's just the tip of the iceburg. Cut spending. Cut Federal agencies. Cut corporate taxes and make us more attractive to foreign investors. Case closed and end thread.
Any discussion about taxing the rich has to begin with a definition of what "rich" means. Those who call for higher taxes on "the rich" often harken back to the "good old days" when tax rates were high in the 1950s. One thing they fail to mention is that high tax rates in the 1950s didn't kick in until you made over $200k per year. That's the equivalent of $2.5 million a year in today's dollars. Back in the 1950s, $200k per year really was rich. You could buy a house in Beverly Hills for $50k. You could rent an apartment on the beach in Malibu for $100/month. The best meal in town cost less than $20. If you want to tax "rich" people, first you have to start with a definition of what a rich person is. If you use the standard set in the 1950s, high tax rates wouldn't kick in until someone makes over $2.5 million a year.