It is also rumoured that Obama eats babies ;-)

Hello??? Where's the logic behind that? Who says what is important or not? Important is not an absolute term. Important in order to achieve what? to survive? You're probably right. To motivate, to increase productivity, to get a company going? Probably it's even more important than your first 50k. And the "fairness" argument is just ridiculous. A progressive system is not FAIR. It discriminates against people who are high achievers. That's a fact and I don't think that any socialist in this world would disagree with me.

It still affords us some protections. Additionally, you don't throw a good law out because people ignore it, you start arresting, prosecuting, and harshly punishing those who break it. And you do this until people are too afraid to break the law, or they legally change it.

I'd rather do this once, painfully, and get it out of the way than have a repeat of it again in another ten years. Instead, insolvent businesses will be bailed out, government will expand its control over the market, and the people and businesses who participated in bad business practices don't suffer for what they've done. If you spend more than you bring in and can't keep your head above water, stupid should hurt. If you give loans out to people who have no ability to pay it back, stupid should hurt. If you force a business to give people loans when those people can't pay it back, stupid should hurt.

If BHO nationalizes the health care or banking industry, then I will call him a socialist. If he institutes regulations such that government may as well own them, I will call him a socialist. Now I just call him a redistributionist and a handful of unprintable names.



Like I said, compulsory schooling won't go away. Make them use that on private schools.

I have every faith the the market that gives us better and better cellphones, computers, TV, and a wide variety of foods would have no problem producing an array of quality schools for much cheaper than the federal government does currently. And like I said, public school isn't going away, but we need to find some way to use the private sector to improve the educational system.

Adrian

that's a pretty objective statement to make.

cellphones actually cost more these days because they put more junk in them and as a result, they break more often and need replaced (i.e. rebought) more often. when i think of the old nokia and bt cellnet bricks, they were dirt cheap and you could drop one off a building and it'd come off better than the pavement.

computers have come down i'll give you that, as have tv's but they have much shorter shelf lives.

even ignoring those facts as mike pointed out, your healthcare system isn't exactly the shinign example of capitalism at its finest and i really doubt schools would be any different, more to the point i wouldn't want schools used as a test area for this theory in the 1st place.

Survival is more important than security - quite simple logic. And that second £50k should still be at a lower tax rate to encourage what you lifted. When it comes to yachts, business class travel etc.. These are luxuries. The money used to pay these is not as vital and therefore not worth as much.

Eg: If someone who was poor dropped a pound coin in a crowded place they'd be more likely to pick it up than someone who was earning a packet.

Why do you think the more wealthy eat at more expensive restaurants? Because £80 for a nice meal to them may be the equivalent of a McDonalds.

How does it discrimate?

As you become more wealthy, it is easier to get wealthier. If you earn £250k and lost lets say 30% of this in tax. You are left with £175k. You are hardly putting that person through hard times. Especially when that person can put so much more in tax free savings, diverse share portfolios, properties,even interest earning savings accounts. Each is still a lot easier to increase your wealth and you are still achieving much reward for your success. And creating far more wealth.

If you earn £30k and pay the same tax rate you are left with £21k. Just enough to pay the mortgage, car, and probably not a lot else.

And people earning £30k are probably not lay abouts.

But the people and businesses that participated in the bad practices wouldn't be punished with or without the bailout.

Going through pain now will not stop the problem going away - it is just as likely to happen again in ten years with or without the bailout.

That's why the people responsible should be prosecuted, however the ordinary people / employees should be protected.

Bush is a redistributionist. So is McCain. Sarah Palin took money off the oil companies that drilled in Alaska and gave it back to the people who apparently owned the land (I think that is bordering on socialist).



Schooling isn't a commodity or product though. Privatised institutions (i.e. public transport in the UK tend to be sloppy) - but I do support private intervention in public services on the whole.

i had to make a point of refraining from mentioning the buses and trains in my previous post cos it would skew my point too much in my favour :D

Actually it came out of Biden's mouth wisearse! :P


Perhaps someone should fill Biden in on the "official plan." It seems he may have missed that meeting!


"What we're saying is, that $87 billion tax break doesn't need to go to people making an average of $1.4 million," Biden said.

"It should go to middle-class people, people who make $150,000 a year."

Actually, Barack Obama has promised to cut taxes on households earning less than $200,000 a year while raising taxes on those who make more than $250,000 annually.

Where's the contradiction between Biden and Obama? Isn't $150,000 less than $200,000?


Ponrauil

Sorry, I should have posted the entire article! Their definition of "middle-class" does not match up.


Gaffe-prone Joe Biden put his foot in his mouth again yesterday, mistakenly excluding millions of Americans from his running mate's tax-cut proposal.
The Delaware senator's latest blunder came while discussing Republican tax policies during a television interview in his hometown of Scranton, Pa.



"What we're saying is, that $87 billion tax break doesn't need to go to people making an average of $1.4 million," Biden said.
"It should go to middle-class people, people who make $150,000 a year."
Actually, Barack Obama has promised to cut taxes on households earning less than $200,000 a year while raising taxes on those who make more than $250,000 annually.



John McCain quickly cashed in on the slip.
During a rally in Hershey, Pa., McCain told supporters the gaffe revealed the Democrats' true tax-and-spend intentions.
"It's interesting how their definition of 'rich' has a way of creeping down," McCain said.
"Senator Obama has made a lot of promises. First, he said people making less than $250,000 would benefit from his plan.
"Then, this weekend, he announced in an ad that if you're a family making less than $200,000 you'll benefit - but yesterday right here in Pennsylvania, Senator Biden said tax relief should only go to 'middle-class people' - people making under $150,000 a year.
"At this rate, it won't be long before Senator Obama is right back to his vote that Americans making just $42,000 a year should get a tax increase.