No, the object isn't to going around trying to tax others, and avoid paying taxes yourself. That's immoral, and that's what taxes like this are, immoral.

Your argument hinges on the idea that a flat tax is what is "fair", and that any deviation from that scheme is unfair and thus immoral. I argue that the assumptions that this idea of fairness is based on are false.

I also said that the flat tax should be AFTER you are out of the poverty level. So technically, those with more money will still pay more as a percentage because the standard deduction will have less of an impact.

So you believe in what effect is a progressive tax policy, as the average tax burden as a percent of income increases with income. Why is this fair? Why do those in poverty get off so easily?

people on the left, which hate work in general

Demonstrably false.

The local dry cleaner barely gets by now, how exactly are they going to get by when they have a 10% drop in revenue? It's nice that you can still send your kids to college, but I'd like them to be able to send their two kids as well.

And you're going to achieve that by raising their taxes (via a flat tax)? Interesting. But that's OK, because your wealth will trickle down. Trickle, trickle. Long live supply-side economics.

you approve of stealing. I do not.

Only if we allow you to define the term "stealing" as the use a tax structure other than the one that you have arbitrarily declared to be the only moral and fair one.

And stuff like that doesn't cost the government taking my wages two out of every five days.

1. I seriously doubt your (FICA + Fed + State + Local) taxes / total income is 40%. If so, you need a better accountant.

You are also confusing two debates: How big the federal government should be, and how we distribute the funding for it. They are related, of course, but I've been focusing on the latter.

Once again, and points you continually fail to acknowledge, there's nothing wrong with buying and watching Blue Ray disks. What's wrong is spending all your money on this and then complaining that those who didn't have saved more money.

Talk about a straw man. My complaint is not that others have earned and/or saved more money than me. I'm happy for your success. My complaint is with whiners who think a 40% top marginal tax rate is somehow oppressive.

It should NEVER be that person A who earns more money Person B has less money after taxes.

In the rare cases that that might happen, it's a function of a screwy tax code, not the result of a progressive tax system. You do realize that the you are only taxed at the top rate on the part of your income that exceeds the starting point for that tax bracket, right?

The biggest source of that sort of flip-flop is the gap between capital gains and income tax rates.

Sure let's base every argument on a President who was around 100 years ago.

Ah yes, the "history is irrelevant because it happened in the past" argument. Our DNA didn't change a whole lot in the past 100 years; same rules apply.

hide what you intend to get elected instead of having honest debate.

Hah! First off, it's a $1.75T deficit, not a $1.75T budget. Second, one typical wire headline for the budget is "Obama budget reflects campaign promises". It is the mother of all budgets- no argument there- but it shouldn't have come as that big of a surprise.

C ya.

I love my mini. Parked next to the TV, it's our music server, video server (ripped DVDs, Hulu, Boxee, Netflix, etc.), archiver, and kid mess-around computer. It's quiet, low wattage, low profile, and just works. I suppose I wouldn't mind it being a little shorter, but that's about it.

I don't have cable (except for internet access), but I watch most episodes of Stewart & Colbert online (www.comedycentral.com). I used to subscribe to these shows on iTunes (still cheaper than cable and ad-free); now I suck up the ads and watch for free.

Sure, I'm always a day behind but I don't mind. I wouldn't take basic cable even if free; I don't need more TV in my life. Anything worth watching makes its way to the web, one way or another (legally).

And no one around had a phone/camera that can record video? Shameful.

Talk about a fun trial!

It's one thing to give bonuses to people who were in business units at places like AIG that may have been doing just fine on their own. But it sounds like these guys are *the* guys who wrote all those billions of CDS, etc. that really threatened to implode the global financial system.

Shoot, I have a good academic & professional pedigree and am pretty good with numbers. AIG can hire me and I'll work for nothing, with my total compensation based on whether I am able to lose less money than the guy I replace. And I'll only take, say, $400k if I meet or exceed that goal.