[Willing To Listen]

The copy I received of this credited a Professor of Business Law as the author. When I complemented him for his wisdom via e-mail, he said: "I am unaware of the true author's identity, which is unfortunate, since the piece has generated considerable interest. Unfortunately, one of my students sent it along and erroneously contributed the authorship to me."

[Mark]

Sean Hannity has read this several times and said that he was posting it on his site.

[Ramius]

Thanks! As it happens... I was looking for that. It came up in a conversation yesterday.

[zeugma]

I marked this up and posted it on my site yesterday. Wish I could find out who the author is. It's excellent.

[Sgt_Schultze]

Nice

[Ronaldus Magnus Reagan]

This is what is going on in California (especially) right now. The wealthy that live there are really paying the freight big time. No wonder a lot of them are establishing permanent residence in Colorado instead.

[Exeter]

"...most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straightforward logic."

Oh, they understand it alright. But they also know that being fair does not get you re-elected...

[Balata]

Excellent! Thanks for the post.

[Dick Bachert]

IF YOU WANT THIS MAN – AND MEN LIKE HIM – TO REMAIN IN CONTROL OF YOUR ECONOMIC AND PERSONAL DESTINY, CONTINUE TO TOLERATE THE CURRENT MARXIST INCOME TAX SYSTEM.

ONE MORE TIME:

IT’S ABOUT

P O W E R AND C O N T R O L!!

SIGN THE PETITION AT HTTP://WWW.VOTR.ORG. Then find out how you can do more to end America’s peculiar SPRING MADNESS.

[k2blader]

Bump.

[Revolting cat!]

The piece doesn't answer an important question: how did the ten agree to this arrangement in the first place? I'll tell you how - they voted, and the first six cheerfully agreed that the tenth man will pay 59% (later reduced to 52%.) Democracy at work, the best system considering the alternatives, to borrow a cliched phrase. Ebryboddy heppy!

[newgeezer]

then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal.

In "tax language," we call that the Child Tax Credit. Many wage earners currently make money with the Child Tax Credit. Their total income tax is less than zero; at tax time, their refunds are more than what was withheld from their paychecks.

If the Child Tax Credit is increased to $1000/child, even more wage earners will, instead of being taxpayers, become tax recipients.

Will my family benefit from the Child Tax Credit increase? You bet. Is it proper? A flat tax would be more proper.

Today, 96% of income taxes are shouldered by the top 50% of wage earners. Tomorrow? Figure the top 45%, or 40%. Does this sound like the conservative thing to do?

[Senator Pardek]

There are more than a few "populists" at this site who are not Willing To Listen...

[dark_lord]

There was a study done a few years ago that showed some very interesting points.

(1) A who is in the lowest 10th percentile for wealth in any given year (including those persons who are drawing welfare) has less than a 10% chance that they will still be in that situation in 10 years.
Why? See 2.

(2) Most poverty is age related. Most people at the bottom of the income curve are young. Lower class or middle class background, they are poor in their teens and 20's. But as they get older, they work their way up the income curve, acquire property, and do well.

The study found that there were very few "welfare queens" (although of course they exist.) The strongest correlation with wealth was age.

Well, duh!