Middle Class Tax Increase

[Pandora]

Spoken like a true Palin-fan.

i dont think anyone was dazzled by palin, they liked that she was normal
and had values

 

[BigRob]

Heyyyyyy.....I can do that, too!!!

Are you refuting anything?

 

[BigRob]

Earned suggests there was some kind o' work involved.

I guess there is no work involved running a company, how silly of me to think so.

 

[Unite Our Nation]

So a "wealthy" person works, reinvests and earns more. But that isn't okay? What about the low middle class who works and earns more? Isn't this the same?

Bush taxes put a higher burden upon the "wealthy" than did the previous laws.

The "weathly" don't have exclusive rights to making money! They don't spend their money like the normal American while they are trying to get to being wealthy!! They also make good decisions on investments of their TIME and RESOURCES.

 

[Lagboltz]

So a "wealthy" person works, reinvests and earns more. But that isn't okay? What about the low middle class who works and earns more? Isn't this the same?

Yes it's OK. Seriously, all power to them. However, the lower classes don't have the businesses nor discretionary income in which to invest. The average household debt is $22,000 for the family of three -- not counting mortgages. (Yes, some are idiots for not being able to control their spending impulses.)

Bush taxes put a higher burden upon the "wealthy" than did the previous laws.

Yes. This is called a progressive tax structure. Sales taxes are regressive because they are equal for rich or poor. They are more of a burden to the many who make low wages and live hand to mouth. Social Security tax is super regressive because the lower working classes are hit with a substantial part of their income. For example, a person with a $1,000,000 income today pays $20,545 or 2.1% in Social Security taxes and everyone under $97,500 pays 7.65%. Yet the surplus SS tax every year is put into the general fund and spent. Since 1965, $6 Trillion of social security tax was taken out of the trust fund and spent!! So, as far as SS is concerned, the poor are subsidizing the rich. In 2014, the baby boomers will start to see IOU's that the government can ill afford to fund.

Please: I am not a liberal ranting against conservatives. My own party, LBJ with a Democratic congress started the raid on SS in 1965, and it never stopped.

The "weathly" don't have exclusive rights to making money! They don't spend their money like the normal American while they are trying to get to being wealthy!! They also make good decisions on investments of their TIME and RESOURCES.

That brings us to an interesting point. Not everyone can do what Joe the Plumber wants to do. There simply is not enough material and economic resources for that to happen. Who are the lucky few that can? By definition half of people are below average intelligence. The nature of capitalism is to leave some out in the cold. What are the morals of the situation? What do the smart ones owe to the dumb ones? Democrats and Republicans generally have quite different answers and are very adamant about it.

Our economy is now highly dependent on consumerism. We used to be tops in manufacturing. But now most of our discretionary purchases are for foreign made products.

An important part of our macroeconomic cycle is this:

Ship stuff from overseas made by cheap labor.
Go through warehousing, wholesaling, retailing and shipping,
with mark-ups that support these businesses in America.
Consumers use the products, then throw them into the landfill
when they are broken or obsolete.
Repeat cycle.​

Many laughed at Bush when one of his responses to 9/11 was to "go shopping". But there was an amount of wisdom because he understood that when America stops buying, America will be in trouble. That is happening now and we are loosing, large retailers such as Linens and Things, Circuit City, Starbucks, etc., not to mention the auto companies.

When the vast lower and middle class is no longer able to consume, the upper class will suffer too and all of America will suffer. Give the lower class a break, and it will trickle up to the upper class.

 

[Dr.Who]

Seriously, all power to them. However, the lower classes don't have the businesses nor discretionary income in which to invest. The average household debt is $22,000 for the family of three -- not counting mortgages. (Yes, some are idiots for not being able to control their spending impulses.)

That is a generalization that leads you to a wrong conclusion. Just about everyone has something they can capitalize on. They have money to invest or time to invest or brilliance to invest or good looks or humor or just perseverence or whatever talent they may have. Yes they have less of one particular quality, but just about everyone can make the American dream their own one way or another. There are and have been plenty of millionaires who got that way despite large obstacles. Being dependent on government handouts is one more obstacle.

Yes. This is called a progressive tax structure. Sales taxes are regressive because they are equal for rich or poor.

A progressive tax is one that increases as income increases. A regressive tax is one that decreases as income increases. If the tax neither increases nor decreases then it would called - FAIR.

"A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases.[1][2][3][4][5]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_tax​

They are more of a burden to the many who make low wages and live hand to mouth. Social Security tax is super regressive because the lower working classes are hit with a substantial part of their income. For example, a person with a $1,000,000 income today pays $20,545 or 2.1% in Social Security taxes and everyone under $97,500 pays 7.65%. Yet the surplus SS tax every year is put into the general fund and spent. Since 1965, $6 Trillion of social security tax was taken out of the trust fund and spent!! So, as far as SS is concerned, the poor are subsidizing the rich. In 2014, the baby boomers will start to see IOU's that the government can ill afford to fund.

The lower income earners do pay more as a percentage in social security taxes but they also are not subject to the limits on what they withdrawal later. The rich may contribute the maximum but will only be allowed to withdrawal the same amount as a person who contributed a smaller amount.

Social security is a tax, especially in light of your observation that gov uses it for whatever it wants. But it is supposed to be more like a purchase where one pays in premiums and then collects a payout. Calling social security a regressive tax is kind of like saying that when the rich guy and the poor guy both by the same case of diet coke at the same price that the purchase was regressive.

That brings us to an interesting point. Not everyone can do what Joe the Plumber wants to do. There simply is not enough material and economic resources for that to happen. Who are the lucky few that can?

You are assuming that wealth is a zero sum game. That there is a limited amount of it to go around. But that is not true. Wealth is being created all the time. Compared to the middle ages there is far more wealth in existence than there ever was. 500 years ago a toilet would have been worth so much that every king would have paid dearly just to own one. Now every single American owns one or more. The value of the stock market rises and lowers daily and that is all money being created not just moved around.

Just like the standard of living has increased dramatically since the middle ages it can continue to increase almost infinitely. It is theoretically possible for all people to live a George Jetson life where everyone works for five minutes per day and all needs can be met with the push of a button.

Today that is not the case. There is not enough things to go around. So how will we decide who gets it. The fairest method is to first dispense resources based on merit. Those who work for what they want get it. After that families and friends and community can share socialistically as much as they want to and no one is stopping them.

By definition half of people are below average intelligence. The nature of capitalism is to leave some out in the cold. What are the morals of the situation? What do the smart ones owe to the dumb ones? Democrats and Republicans generally have quite different answers and are very adamant about it.

Intelligence is not the only criteria determining success. There are plenty of not so smart people who are rich and plenty of smart people who are poor. Each person brings to the table a whole complement of skills. Dumb supermodels can bring their looks to the table, Drew Carrey can bring his wits, Michael Jordan his talent at basketball, etc.

After one looks at all the things one might bring to the table most people have enough things that they could make it. The fact that some do not is usually a matter of personal choice.

So are there some people who do not have enough to bring to the table at all? Sure, look at any home for the developmentally disabled. And see also how well they are being taken care of.

Here is your challenge. Find a story, with details, of any one person in all of the United states who either has nothing to bring to the table and is abandoned by society who has not made the choice to be abandoned or of any one person in all of the US who has something to bring to the table who is left behind unjustly and has not made that choice for themself.

When we listen to the democrats talk it is as if there are tons of these people and they are without choices. They make it out to be like they are nothing more than victims of the rich. And it is just a myth. There are times when rich people victimize poor people and surely they should be arrested. There are also times when rich victimize rich or poor victimize poor or rich. We should not make this a false class war. If there is injustice then it is the job of government to stop it. If they can't even stop injustice then why should we trust them with any more responsibility?

The idea that capitalism leaves some people behind is another myth. Capitalism allows for trades between people but it in no way disallows compassion. America is one of the most giving countries in the world. Do you see a person with a problem - Go help them!

Socialism claims to help these people but any quick glance at a socialistic country will show you that they still have poor people. Socialism has done nothing to help any more than capitalism has done - but it has made them less free.

Our economy is now highly dependent on consumerism. We used to be tops in manufacturing. But now most of our discretionary purchases are for foreign made products.

An important part of our macroeconomic cycle is this:

Ship stuff from overseas made by cheap labor.
Go through warehousing, wholesaling, retailing and shipping,
with mark-ups that support these businesses in America.
Consumers use the products, then throw them into the landfill
when they are broken or obsolete.
Repeat cycle.​

Yep, that's true.

Many laughed at Bush when one of his responses to 9/11 was to "go shopping". But there was an amount of wisdom because he understood that when America stops buying, America will be in trouble. That is happening now and we are loosing, large retailers such as Linens and Things, Circuit City, Starbucks, etc., not to mention the auto companies.

Yep that's true too. Cycles change. Alway have always will. Adaptation is a much more important skill set to bring to the table than any other.

When the vast lower and middle class is no longer able to consume, the upper class will suffer too and all of America will suffer. Give the lower class a break, and it will trickle up to the upper class.

I hear people talk about trickle down. Maybe I don't understand it but it seems stupid on the race of it. Likewise, trickle up is stupid on the face of it too.

The correct way for money to move from one hand to another is not for it to come from one class to another but from any person to any other based on the trades they want to make with each other. The market will determine which deals and which products are most in demand. If some beuacrat tries to force manufacturing to be the preferred market it will hurt the economy. If some crat tries to force the market to favor the rich or the poor or the blonde it will hurt the economy. The most efficient market is the free one. The one where YOU are free to trade with others as you see fit.

 

[Unite Our Nation]

I hear people talk about trickle down. Maybe I don't understand it but it seems stupid on the race of it. Likewise, trickle up is stupid on the face of it too.

The correct way for money to move from one hand to another is not for it to come from one class to another but from any person to any other based on the trades they want to make with each other. The market will determine which deals and which products are most in demand. If some beuacrat tries to force manufacturing to be the preferred market it will hurt the economy. If some crat tries to force the market to favor the rich or the poor or the blonde it will hurt the economy. The most efficient market is the free one. The one where YOU are free to trade with others as you see fit.

I applaud your concise explanation of a complicated system! History has proven you correct many times over!

 

[Lagboltz]

Just about everyone has something they can capitalize on. They have money to invest or time to invest or brilliance to invest or good looks or humor or just perseverence or whatever talent they may have.

Have you ever seen inner-city Washington DC or Detroit. Those are ones I am familiar with. There are vast stretches of slum housing and apartments with downtown sections boarded up. A full 60% don't graduate from high school. Do the people have skills? Yes: selling drugs, prostitution, shoplifting, breaking and entering, pimping. Should the wealthy support them? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Can you tell me how anyone can change their spirit of this vast population?

A progressive tax is one that increases as income increases. A regressive tax is one that decreases as income increases.

Some call flat taxes regressive. I am willing to abide by whoever wrote the wiki entry.

Social security....

You don't understand the nature of Social Security. Your diet coke example is totally wrong as a metaphor.

You are assuming that wealth is a zero sum game.......

The GDP has been positive for decades. I am definitely not assuming zero-sum economics. Also, you don't want to confuse positive-sum economics with living standards. You are also confusing stock with money. When stock goes up or down like it just has, there is no money gained or lost. It was never there in the first place. A change in stock value means the perceived value changed, namely the money you would get if you actually sold it.

Intelligence is not the only criteria determining success. etc....

Right. I should not have used the word intelligence to characterize what I was saying. I might substitute the phrase "personal opportunity potential" or whatever.

When we listen to the democrats talk it is as if there are tons of these people and they are without choices. They make it out to be like they are nothing more than victims of the rich. .....
The idea that capitalism leaves some people behind is another myth. ......
Socialism claims to help these people ......

Do not generalize Democrats and assume that I think that way. I don't.

The correct way for money to move from one hand to another is not for it to come from one class to another but from any person to any other based on the trades they want to make with each other. The market will determine which deals and which products are most in demand. If some beuacrat tries to force manufacturing to be the preferred market it will hurt the economy. If some crat tries to force the market to favor the rich or the poor or the blonde it will hurt the economy. The most efficient market is the free one. The one where YOU are free to trade with others as you see fit.

As with Unite Our Nation, I agree with you in principle. However, the problems the US has is too complicated for simple principles anymore.

Here is the bottom line of what I'm worried about. In light of the large sub-culture of prostitutes, drug dealers, etc. in America, how will this country proceed? You probably have read that the prison population of the US is constantly increasing. In 2007 there were 1 out of 130 people in prison - 2,299,116 inmates. It has quadrupled since 1980. I have not heard a Democrat nor Republican politician mention this.

Your challenge to "find a story" to me becomes academic. Through their own upbringing or culture these people are a seriously negative-sum segment. We can argue the principles of whether they have the opportunities of Joe the Plumber or not, but that's not going to solve the problem. What I find discouraging on this forum are the bandying about of principles, both right and left. These problems are not going to be solved by taking from the wealthy and giving to the subculture. They will just use it to buy more crack or whatever. We need a better solution.

 

[Dr.Who]

Have you ever seen inner-city Washington DC or Detroit. Those are ones I am familiar with. There are vast stretches of slum housing and apartments with downtown sections boarded up. A full 60% don't graduate from high school. Do the people have skills? Yes: selling drugs, prostitution, shoplifting, breaking and entering, pimping. Should the wealthy support them? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Can you tell me how anyone can change their spirit of this vast population?

Before I respond further to any of what you have said let me just say that it has become obvious that you are not one of the small minded people that cannot see the big picture. Sometimes with them I will debate every detail with the hope that at least it will remove some ammunition. You can see the big picture so even if we disagree on any detail we can look beyond that.

Yes, I remember filling up my tank. The hairs on the back of my neck were standing up and there were multiple bullet holes in all the signs to my right and left. I will never again try to go straight through on the highway rather than taking the longer trip around.

As with Unite Our Nation, I agree with you in principle. However, the problems the US has is too complicated for simple principles anymore.

Free market capitalism is as practical as it can get. It still exists within every other economy. It is the default that underlies whatever else may be happening. It is proven to work. It does have flaws. It does permit (for a time only) people to take advantage of one another. But that is the role (the only legitimate role) of government; to stop people from harming each other.

Here is the bottom line of what I'm worried about. In light of the large sub-culture of prostitutes, drug dealers, etc. in America, how will this country proceed? You probably have read that the prison population of the US is constantly increasing. In 2007 there were 1 out of 130 people in prison - 2,299,116 inmates. It has quadrupled since 1980. I have not heard a Democrat nor Republican politician mention this.

Yes we do have problems. I bet you and I could do a lot more to solve any of these problems than any two politicians, all other things being equal.

Your challenge to "find a story" to me becomes academic. Through their own upbringing or culture these people are a seriously negative-sum segment. We can argue the principles of whether they have the opportunities of Joe the Plumber or not, but that's not going to solve the problem. What I find discouraging on this forum are the bandying about of principles, both right and left. These problems are not going to be solved by taking from the wealthy and giving to the subculture. They will just use it to buy more crack or whatever. We need a better solution.

I agree that we need a better solution. Rather than throwing away the principles I would combine them with the pragmatic.

I also think that for every problem there is, it is usually created or made worse by government intervention rather than better - not always, but often.

I used to give to (back when I rubbed shoulders with them) homeless people but I made sure that I did not include large sums of money that could be used for liquor etc. Granola and fast food gift certificates, directions to a shelter, maybe a ride, but not cash. Public Aid cannot operate this way but I did. These days I don't have the same opportunity out here in the rurals but I do have a large food pantry nearby that usually needs donations (right now they are fuller than they have ever been).

The problems that people have are better handled through personal responsibility, family, friends, friendly acquaintances, strangers, charities, churches, community organizations, and basically just about any person or group that helps rather than enables. Individual persons or groups can be flexible and creative. They can take a personal interest and actually show love while helping rather than just mail a check or refer one to a social worker.

I concede that there is a place for local governments to have a role as a safety net. It cannot take the place of real compassion but be available when it is absent. But there is no legitimate role for the federal government at taxpayer expense.

 

[Lagboltz]

Before I respond further to any of what you have said let me just say that it has become obvious that you are not one of the small minded people that cannot see the big picture. Sometimes with them I will debate every detail with the hope that at least it will remove some ammunition. You can see the big picture so even if we disagree on any detail we can look beyond that.

Thank you. I can say the same about you.

Free market capitalism is as practical as it can get. It still exists within every other economy. It is the default that underlies whatever else may be happening. It is proven to work. It does have flaws. It does permit (for a time only) people to take advantage of one another. But that is the role (the only legitimate role) of government; to stop people from harming each other.

I prefer more regulation than we have now. There is a spread in how free mkt capitalism is defined, from laissez-faire to what we have now. Where the ideal point is on the spectrum is one large area of disagreement between parties.

Yes we do have problems. I bet you and I could do a lot more to solve any of these problems than any two politicians, all other things being equal.

Probably so, but abject poverty is only one of the major problems of the American dream and what is wrong with the country.

I agree that we need a better solution. Rather than throwing away the principles I would combine them with the pragmatic.

I also think that for every problem there is, it is usually created or made worse by government intervention rather than better - not always, but often.

Yes, and what we need is the right kind of intervention, but nobody trusts government to have the wisdom to figure it out.

I used to give to (back when I rubbed shoulders with them) homeless people but I made sure that I did not include large sums of money that could be used for liquor etc. Granola and fast food gift certificates, directions to a shelter, maybe a ride, but not cash. Public Aid cannot operate this way but I did. These days I don't have the same opportunity out here in the rurals but I do have a large food pantry nearby that usually needs donations (right now they are fuller than they have ever been).

You are able to give them a "fish", but in the city we're in no position to "teach them how to fish", to use an old saying. Unfortunately most don't want to learn. An interesting book is Ghetto Nation, (I forgot the author). She says ghetto thinking is becoming mainstream and is too often admired and emulated.

It was much later in life that I recognized my family had a happy life despite living in poverty. Four brothers in one bedroom. Maybe twice a week lunch was clear corn syrup poured on white bread. While one of my friends was blown up by a hand grenade and another of my friends stabbed his pregnant wife and killed her and the baby, and others were breaking into grocery stores, I and all my brothers were able to get graduate degrees by working summers and part time jobs during school. We realized the American Dream. I realized that poverty was not a state of finances, it was a state of mind.

The problems that people have are better handled through personal responsibility, family, friends, friendly acquaintances, strangers, charities, churches, community organizations, and basically just about any person or group that helps rather than enables. Individual persons or groups can be flexible and creative. They can take a personal interest and actually show love while helping rather than just mail a check or refer one to a social worker.

Yes, this sounds like the "real Americans" that Palin was referring to. If you look at the latest red state - blue state map you will find the blue states are largely along the urban coastlines. The red states are in the vast central rural areas -- the areas that you are referring to. What you are talking about can work where you are.

I concede that there is a place for local governments to have a role as a safety net. It cannot take the place of real compassion but be available when it is absent. But there is no legitimate role for the federal government at taxpayer expense.

Half of Americans live in the city where compassion is hard to come by. You can't change the state of the ghetto mind directly with charity or money. That is why I am a Democrat. Controlled social programs, better mentoring, and better schooling and scholarships would help more than the simple concept of allowing them to practice free market enterprise or just giving them food stamps.

So, one aspect of the great divide between parties involves how to allocate financial resources.
Another is differences concerning religion. Other aspects involve the deficit and the relation of the US with the rest of this world, but this post is already too long to get into all that.

 

[Andy]

I guess there is no work involved running a company, how silly of me to think so.

Apparently less work than is put into Shamans posted responses.

 

[Andy]

I prefer more regulation than we have now. There is a spread in how free mkt capitalism is defined, from laissez-faire to what we have now. Where the ideal point is on the spectrum is one large area of disagreement between parties.

Half of Americans live in the city where compassion is hard to come by. You can't change the state of the ghetto mind directly with charity or money. That is why I am a Democrat. Controlled social programs, better mentoring, and better schooling and scholarships would help more than the simple concept of allowing them to practice free market enterprise or just giving them food stamps.

So, one aspect of the great divide between parties involves how to allocate financial resources.
Another is differences concerning religion. Other aspects involve the deficit and the relation of the US with the rest of this world, but this post is already too long to get into all that.

This touches on everything! I can't fairly well respond to it all.

That said, I would argue that regulation never really helps. I would point to the CRA which I detailed in the thread that responded to your question, as an example of how regulation screwed everything up, not fixed the inequality as it was intended.

As to compassion, I would have to disagree. I have worked at the Mid-Ohio food bank, and I served dinner at Faith Mission in down town Columbus. I have donated money to Pacific Garden Mission in Chicago. I'm not saying this to do some stupid "yay me". I am pointing out that these organizations exist, and PGM and Faith Mission both are not supported by the government. Not sure about Mid-Ohio. My parents church has a fund specifically for the poor and many families are willing to put people up for a time till they get back on their feet. Many churches have similar programs, but no one uses them because they are "evil religious fanatics".

Point is, there is compassion for those who seek it. We fed ANYONE that made it to Faith Mission. The problem isn't that their is not compassion for people, it's that they don't want to have to get it. They want a free check in the mail, and a artificially low rent, and food stamps to get the food they want, not what others provide free.

The great divide in parties on allocation of financial resources is that one group believes it's their money to control, while the other believes in the rights of the people. As in, the money the people earn, is theirs, not governments to allocate. Show me an example of a nation where the government thought all money was theirs to control, and I'll show you a nation of poverty.

 

[Lagboltz]

I looked at your post on CRA and regulation and responded there.

Oh, well compassion is around and the ideal down-and-out person can truly benefit and be grateful for it. I think that is great.

I wasn't expressing my thoughts clearly when I said "compassion is hard to come by". I am thinking of the type of people that would just as soon stick-up the Faith Mission than gain solace there. I'm thinking of a fellow grad student who lived in public housing near Wayne State in Detroit. His fellow tenants would use elevators as bathrooms, punch holes in the hallway walls for the fun of it, and tear down anything that was the slightest bit movable, even if it had no value to them. That population is growing bigger.

The inflation-adjusted median income is shrinking, while the top 1% is very rapidly growing. As far as people working hard for small wages, reducing taxes will help, but will exacerbate the debt. If we ax out social programs to cut the budget, we ax out them too. It is a real dilemma that will eventually affect all classes.

 

[Dr.Who]

I prefer more regulation than we have now. There is a spread in how free mkt capitalism is defined, from laissez-faire to what we have now. Where the ideal point is on the spectrum is one large area of disagreement between parties.

If you will allow me to, let me suggest something different. Instead of laissez faire capitalism or over regulations how about we have an abundance of the right kind of regulations and none of the wrong kind. This is where a principle can help us to decide which is which. If the law stops someone from hurting somone then let's have it. Does the nasty industrialist want to hire children to work 12 hours per day? Then let's regulate that. Does someone want to kill another? Regulate that. Does a politicians want to stop the largest airline in the country from going bankrupt? The airline that would never have been the largest in the first place if it had not been propped up by government regulation in the first place? NO WAY. We don't need that kind of regulation.

Probably so, but abject poverty is only one of the major problems of the American dream and what is wrong with the country.

I really hate to nitpick with you. But try as I might I am failing this time. There is no abject poverty in the US. Relative poverty - sure. But the poorest here, who try, live like kings of the past.

Yes, and what we need is the right kind of intervention, but nobody trusts government to have the wisdom to figure it out.

Of course we don't trust them. They have proven themselves to be incapable of doing the one job they were given to do - stop people from hurting each other. Now they want to expand their role.

You are able to give them a "fish", but in the city we're in no position to "teach them how to fish", to use an old saying. Unfortunately most don't want to learn. An interesting book is Ghetto Nation, (I forgot the author). She says ghetto thinking is becoming mainstream and is too often admired and emulated.

I went to college in downtown Chicago. That is where I had those experiences.

It was much later in life that I recognized my family had a happy life despite living in poverty. Four brothers in one bedroom. Maybe twice a week lunch was clear corn syrup poured on white bread. While one of my friends was blown up by a hand grenade and another of my friends stabbed his pregnant wife and killed her and the baby, and others were breaking into grocery stores, I and all my brothers were able to get graduate degrees by working summers and part time jobs during school. We realized the American Dream. I realized that poverty was not a state of finances, it was a state of mind.

I am truly glad that you have made it. Do you suppose you could help someone else to make it too?

Half of Americans live in the city where compassion is hard to come by. You can't change the state of the ghetto mind directly with charity or money. That is why I am a Democrat. Controlled social programs, better mentoring, and better schooling and scholarships would help more than the simple concept of allowing them to practice free market enterprise or just giving them food stamps.

I suspect that human nature is pretty much the same in the large urban areas as it is out here.

So, one aspect of the great divide between parties involves how to allocate financial resources.

You are right. So let's let principles decide and not try to find a balance.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

well its about 2 months before he takes office so yeah thats about right, 2-3 weeks after that he will say looking at the situation its more dire than I thought, then he will bush bash and say sorry but...

I hope he raises them really high too
on the middle, the rich and the poor

eventually they will go high but i dont want to wait for it, i want it all right away

how about you guys/lady, put your money where your mouth is? A wager?

I will give you 6 months, and it must be clear what taxes we are taking about.