so...people that have government jobs are bad in your book?
Only those working for private employers (and think like you) are A-OK?

No, what I'm saying is this, and this comes from personal experience having a government tech job as well as a job that I actually have to work at ...

Just because you "have a job" does not mean you work hard. There are many people who seem to think it's their god given right to have a 6-figure job just because they show up to work every day. It's the mentality purveyed by unions, etc, that just showing up to collect a paycheck is enough. I have had roughly the same job he is speaking of, albeit with a state agency, and you are going to be very hard-pressed to convince me that working for a university requires even as much effort as my old job with the state of wyoming ... Government jobs, as best as I can tell, pretty well amount to welfare, at least the vast majority of them. It doesn't matter how hard you work, boom, here's your annual %1 raise, or how big of a complete fuckoff you are, boom, here's your annual %1 raise. You have quite literally got to kill somone to get fired from a government job. They are not hard, and they do _NOT_ require that much effort. They also don't pay very well, but to quite a few people, they pay adequatley for the amount and type of work required.

Now, let us examine typically what these government jobs pay ... they, at least in my experience, are like %10-15 less than what the average market value for the position is, depending on what your education and experience are. In other words, they are not the best paying jobs out there, but they also aren't really trying to attract the most ambitious people either ... let's face it, there's truth to the saying "good enough for government work" ..

Now, I will admit that I am forming a hypothesis based on my take on the subject here, but I would be willing to bet that if you did a study on what the average income levels are of most "typical" government employees are, state, federal, local, whatever ... the counterpart in the private sector, on average, is going to be more. There would be a lot of leeway here depending on what type of job you are talking about, but I think that generally this is true ...

So, why would anyone wanna work for the government if the private sector was gonna pay you %20+ more to do the same, or similar job?

It's pretty simple ... you really don't have to work that hard at all when you work for the government.

So, what I'm getting at here, is the "well since I'm not rich and Obama is only going to tax the rich let's hang those suckers" mentality is complete bullshit, because those of us who are in the upper tax brackets didn't get there by just showing up to collect a paycheck. I don't know a single person making over $100,000 a year working for the government, and the people I know making that much have been there 20+ years.

On the flip side, I don't know a single person making over $250,000 a year that doesn't work their fingers to the bone for it. So why in the FUCK should they effectivley be punished for being successful and working hard to get that money they're making? They are choosing to actually work for their money as opposed to just showing up to collect a paycheck, and you are dead wrong if you think the number of jobs out there that pay that well are just "show up and collect a paycheck" job. I don't care how much money your fathers cousins sisters brothers former room mate made selling flourescent thimbles on eBay, that type of shit is the anomaly. Not the norm.

This horse shit of "taxing the rich" is nothign but a bullshit political scam to scrape the bottom of the barrell for votes, which is primarily what the Democrats have been good at doing for the last 30+ years. And let's try to look at the math on this. If the top %1 of "wage earners" in the us are over $250,000 a year, how much money are you REALLY going to gain by taxing them? How much money, really, is in that top %1 when compared to the other %99 of that is below $250k? I would be willing to bet the split isn't near as much as they claim it is, but it's enough to get people to vote for them....which is what the whole "tax the rich" bullshit is all about anyways.

As best as I can tell, Obama's tax proposal is a direct swipe at the success that people working in the oil and gas industry have had in the Rocky Mountain region especially, but everywhere else as well, Texas, Alaska, basically every part of the country that isn't Union. Go figure. I'm sure that this isn't the only portion of the US economy where people would effectivley be punished for being successful, but it's the one I'm most familiiar with, so I use that as my example.

I dunno, I mean I guess if I was content in life to do nothing but show up and collect a paycheck and "work" a 40-hour week for average pay I wouldn't really have a preference, but for those of us with more ambition to be successful in life than that electing a socialist like Obama is a death sentence.

you couldn't be more wrong.
at least in how you think my particular job operates.

Wow, actually a good post there.

I disagree that the vast majority of state jobs are "easy." Certainly the typical service areas, similar to those in the private sector, are more lax than the job of say...a professor or engineer. Others though tend to equate reasonably well in the pay-to-difficulty ratio.
I think the draw of state jobs leads itself more towards the benefits (medical/vision/dental insurance, leave days, etc.), not necessarily the lack of hard work as you'd put it.

But yes, it is quite obvious that similar jobs in the private sector (in a fair majority of cases) will pay more than their public sector counterparts.
But again: higher pay doesn't = the best benefits.

As for the rest of your post: nothing but insults.
-Obama isn't a Socialist or Communist, but that horse has been beaten to death. To me it's the same as calling Bush another Hitler...fun to toss out an insult, but moronic to actually hold it as truth.
-Just because myself and others may support a particular candidate of differing views than your own does NOT mean we are somehow "inferior" in the workplace or any less committed to earning a living.

I'm not trying to insinuate inferiority, I'm trying to make the point that the vast vast vast majority of the people who are in the top tax brackets made the choice to work their way there. They figured out a way to get there, it wasn't just handed to them which is the mentality that this "tax the rich" bravado conveys to people. If you're happy with what you make, fine, but it's complete bullshit expect those who have put the time and effort in making more than you to have to pay for people who refuse to do so, which is what the tax policies the Democrats have been pushing for the last 30+ years amount to.

And, there is a HUGE difference between somone making $250,000,000 a year and $250,000 a year. Obamas tax policy doesn't discriminate at all in this respect.

The "$250,000" is a direct swipe at the affluent upper middle class. Not the "rich". And whats more, I don't even know if you could consider $250,000 "affluent" these days with how expensive everything is .... I'd phrase it more like "not hurting with some financial security and a little bit of disposable income".

Once you get to that $25 mil/year, you are probably incorporated and can write off most of it.

Kennedy's don't pay tax.

Anyone making 250,000 a year is definitely not hurting financially unless they racked up a lot of unnecessary debt

Except for businesses that are incorporated, a companies financials are taxed through its owners... thus if a company has income of 250,000, a small business owner will be taxed as "rich". And 250,000 in a business sense is not the same as personal income.

When I was very little, I got to see East Berlin. It sucked ass......

Which brings me to another political point of mine.

Let's just give all the black people California as a "repartition for slavery", tell them "Look it has the highest GDP of any state in the country, and now it's yours to do with what you will", tell them good luck you're on your own and if we hear any more bitching out of you, we'll enslave you again so shut the fuck up about it already, we just gave you California.

This way, all the black people will be happy and free to move to the black person state of California, where they will control their own destiny, we eliminate California from dictating policy to the rest of the nation, AND we can use all the fuckups that would be sure to happen as a model of what NOT to do when we break the entire eastern seabord off into it's own country so all the eastern liberals can have their own country to fuck up and the eastern US will not dictate politics to the middle of the country.

While there could effectivley be a North American military alliance under one umbrella, we would effectivley make three countries out of the US ... basically a Western US, a Central US, and an eastern US .... that way the people who actually lived in those parts of the country would decide what's best for them and not the other way around.

As a small business owner I see the Obama stance that any business that makes less than $250,000/year is eligible for a tax break as a joke. Most businesses that employ people (stimulating the economy) must make over $250,000/year just to survive (or they're deep in debt).

I thought the point was to get people in jobs and stabilize things? If that's the plan, then give tax credits to companies who make less than $2 million/year or something of that nature. Right now, the credits will only affect very small businesses and freelancers.

The issue of redistribution of wealth is one I would think more Americans would be more adverse to hearing about. Obama's tax plan for this country is extremely aggressive and looks similar to what Hoover did during his presidency and it failed miserably. The point of taxation is to provide essential services to the people. Obama's plan does more than that, essentially taxing Paul to bring Peter up to the same level of "wealth". I am not sure how voters, especially younger voters, do not see a serious problem with this.

Hartmann, my understanding is that Obama's tax plan will roll back the Bush tax cuts for those making above 250k, but not raise their taxes higher than that. Am I misinformed on that?

As far as small business being taxed as individuals, why would those businesses not choose to at least organize as an LLC? It's my understanding that LLC's can be taxed like corporations.

That is my understanding as well. I was talking more about the tax cuts for those small businesses (self-employed) making less than 250k and those making more than that seeing a tax increase.

An S Corp can see a top tax rate of 35% while sole proprietors and general partners see rates at 37.9% (they pay both income and Medicare).

Under Obama the 2011 tax hikes will take place, so a S Corp (which can be an individual) making more than $250k will pay 39.6%, the sole proprietor and general partners will pay 50.3% and there have been whisperings in Congress about making all small businesses, including S Corps, pay the 50.3% rate.

I don't have the exact numbers but I believe around 2/3 of all small businesses would fall under the 50.3% rate category and reading a few economist opinions on this we can expect to see an increase in tax evasion and tax shelters.

The way I understand McCain's plan (which is easier to explain), it would give households/people, even those with small business incomes, a choice between the current code and one that has a top rate of 25% for everything over $100k. For businesses organized as corporations the tax rate would fall from 35% to 25%.

I think that McCain's plan is a better one for the health of the economy and small business.