When we buy a gallon of gas or a TV, don't we pay the same for what we consume, regardless of income? Why should it be different when it comes to our consumption of national defense, highways, and all the other things that we access through the government tax and spend mechanism, rather than market mechanisms?

A lot of things that are paid for by taxes aren't really "consumed" by most people. For example, how much use do you get out of the U.S. Patent Office, the courts that hear patent infringement cases, and all of the enforcement agents who search for and/or impound impound infringing merchandise, etc?

Some people argue that patents benefit everyone, but they don't have an airtight argument and there is plenty of evidence that the patent system is extensively abused. Why should people who don't believe patents are beneficial be forced to pay taxes to support the system?

What services that are presently provided by the government are you willing to do without so that your taxes can decrease?

Isn't the issue one of human rights?

That apparently depends on the political circumstances.

Several years ago, the whole goddamn Republican congress set real business aside to see if they could force the continuation of the life of a woman who had been brain-dead for at least ten years. That woman was Terry Schiavo, and the Republicans spent a lot of time howling about how precious life was and why her life support had to continue, despite the fact that CAT scans clearly showed that she didn't even have a brain anymore.

However, now that campaign contributors' profits are at stake, life suddenly isn't quite as precious anymore.

The first purpose of the rich is to employee people. They do this through spending their money buying stuff that is hopefully made in America.

Where have you been? Building businesses the old-fashioned way is much too slow and doesn't provide enough ROI.

I have a more contemporary example. My employer was "taken private" by a group of billionaires. Ever since, thousands of the company's employees have been laid off and had their jobs sent overseas. I expect to see my own job vanish this way in the very near future.

I'm pretty sure the investors' long-term intention was to create a "new, improved" company that looks more profitable and would turn them a nice profit on a new IPO. If things had gone as planned they'd have turned a tidy profit, paid only the 15% long-term capital gains tax, and permanently destroyed thousands of American jobs.

Things might not be going quite as planned for the investors. I think the economic downturn took them by surprise so they haven't been able to complete the deal yet, however they have managed to destroy the American jobs.

So, why isn't it "selfish greed" for someone to demand that we change the law to guarantee them health care.

Because the healthcare industry has manipulated the law to make themselves the sole judge of what treatments are appropriate, under what circumstances they are available, and how much they will cost.

Think about it: You could be a diabetic who will have to take insulin for the rest of your life, but you can't get that insulin without a doctor's permission. Doctors can charge you whatever they want for the slip of paper you need to buy that insulin.

My father died of cancer. He spent his last months laying in bed drugged out of his mind. He knew that was how he was going to die, but the doctors wouldn't just let him die that way. They first made him submit to major surgery that only slightly delayed his death at enormous cost. The total bill to Medicare was over $300,000 but he died exactly the way he knew he was going to die anyway.

Nonetheless, the fact remains that people who make only a $1/day are not going to be buying many of the high-tech products that all your technical and financial wizards are supposedly creating. How many Cadillac Escalades do you suppose the typical Chinese factory worker can afford?

Companies that think only about next quarter's bottom line aren't thinking about the bigger picture: They money they pay American workers is an investment in their own future. Every dollar they pay to (Chinese, Indian, etc) workers is a dollar that goes out of the American economy and becomes unavailable to buy American products.

Sure, some American companies manage to sell products to those overseas workers, but not enough to balance what is paid for overseas workers and products. It's a net loss for the country, even though it can produce a short-term profit improvement for companies that do it. That net loss has been accumulating for many years, and now it's killing the country.

Plus, I said $300,000 in TAXABLE income.

That doesn't change the glaring misrepresentation of saying that you'd pay the top-bracket 33% on all of the $300,000.

Taxable income is income after types of deductions you listed.

If that is so, then why do you go on to ADD the state income tax to the taxes you claim to be paying on the $300,000?

What happens when a business owner takes too much money out of the business for him or herself?