Summations Only

Well, a couple of things.#1) You are talking about income tax, and that's not the only form of tax. Social Security taxes should also be taken into effect.If someone makes 10k a year and are taxed 10% for income and another 15% for various payroll taxes, they are losing 25% of their income.If someone makes 1 million a year, they are taxed 10% for income and only 1.5% for various payroll taxes because those top out at ~100k. They are losing 11.5% of their income.This makes it extremely hard for the person making very little money to save or invest. Meanwhile, the person making a lot of money has even more additional money to build wealth.#2) Such a system would need to void all tax shelters and loop holes. If we were to institute it without any changes, the rich would be paying basically nothing in taxes. Instead of having the shelter 25-30% of their income, they could merely shelter 10%.#3) It would result in a radical decrease in revenues for the government. Such a proposal would require extremely deep cuts in the military, SS and medicare/medicaid.#4) The number of people who become wealthy as a result of their own initiative is small compared to the people who become wealthy by having someone simply give them a lot of money.Trump, for example, got money from his dad. Lost it. Got more. Lost it. Got more and was successful.A tax system which rewards the pooling of wealth in the hands of the few will result in the few gaining more and more wealth while the working class loses out.That may sound "fair" to you, but when the working class gets hungry enough and sees that the top 1% has all the food - they are going to eat the rich.A flat tax sounds simple which is why it appeals to people in the Tea Party. To them "complicated" mean "bad" because only "a college boy could understand it". Education and Conservativism don't exactly play well together.

That's a fun statement, unfortunately for you it's utter bullshit.We currently have an "unfair" tax system in your opinion where rich people pay a higher percentage in taxes, yet over the last decade more and more of the money has ended up in their hands.How's the economy doing?The economy is in the shitter right now BECAUSE all the money was in the hands of the rich.Their gaming of the economy lost 20% of the world's wealth overnight.AND, they are blaming it on the fact that the working class is making basically the same salary they earned 30 years ago while the median price of homes has gone up 10X.Big surprise that working people found themselves in over their head on mortgages.The rich are rich because they either had money handed to them or because they love to earn money. If Bill Gates had to pay 10% more in taxes than he is paying right now, it would change absolutely nothing about his output.If Warren Buffet had to pay 10% more, it would change NOTHING about what he does.If Paris Hilton had to pay 10% more, it would change NOTHING about what she doesn't do for her money.This idea that it's a disinsentive for billionaires to give up a little bit more money is just plain silly. You don't strive to become a billionaire because the tax rate fits some narrow margin of value. You strive to become a bilionaire because you are mentally unstable and have some serious issues you are projecting on your bank account.

Well Bill Gates is a bad example, but he's the go-to name for rich people.If I said something like "Walter Stein" and no one knew who he was, it wouldn't really mean anything.Bill actually did quit. He's giving away most of his money.My point is a more generalized one. It takes a special kind of asshole to have 100million dollars in the bank and strive to get another 100million.Remember, we're not talking about who can run the fastest, or who plays guitar really well.Every dollar that Trump hordes is a dollar that someone else doesn't have.If it's cool for him to horde 100 million, is it cool for him to horde 200 million? 500? 60 billion? 5 trillion?At a certain point the entire rest of the economy shuts down because a few assholes have piled all the money in a big heap.Economies work because money moves. We wouldn't be in any trouble right now if people were spending money.However, since the lower 90% of the population is struggling to get their bills paid, they've cut down on all excess spending. And since the top 10% has half the money in America locked away, we're in year 3 of a recession.And the recommendation from Republican? Give that 10% the other half of the money too.

I replaced "it" or "they" with the actual subject being discussed. I put it in parenthesis as is standard practice for clarity. You'll see the same thing done in every newspaper, magazine and internet news site.If that's a huge problem for you, write with more clarity so that I can quote you in context without having to include both your post and my previous post just to allow someone else to know the subject. That's a big if. Do you have evidence that the money is being "uneffectively" managed by our government? Can you demonstrate a system in which the money has been more effectively managed by some other government?It's fun to make up stories about how horrible the government is at things, but look at medicare vs HMOs.You would THINK that a for profit business would have the least amount of overhead in order to maximize results and that the government with it's imaginary inefficiencies would be just awful.Check the numbers. Because she was given the money. You think she's going to refuse to take the money that was given to her because she's pay slightly more taxes on it?And, he has said so. Multiple times. Well, you're wrong.This is the scenario.Richie Rich sells bread and pulls in 500 million dollars a year doing it. He pays 100 million in taxes currently and has only 400 mlllion dollars left to live on.The government changes the tax code so that Richie Rich pays 150 million instead, leaving him with just 350 million dollars left.Richie Rich, realizing that 350 million dollars isn't nearly enough upon which to survive, decides to "pass the cost of these taxes to the consumer" so he raises the prices on his bread.Paulie Poor doesn't want to pay more for the same bread, so he goes and buys the bread the competitor makes.If you HONESTLY believe that Richie Rich is going to say "I can't live on 350 Million" and so he'll completely shut down his bread company entirely and instead earn 0 dollars, then there's really nothing to discuss. You don't have a firm grasp on reality.

He pays all the taxes he owes.You are accusing him of a criminal act. Do you have evidence that he has done anything criminal? No.He uses the current tax code to his advantage. He acknowledges that the system is broken and recommends that it be fixed. However, since the system is what it is, he does what he can.No illegal.

The transition from analog to digital was a necessary change to manage bandwidth.As a result, many americans who had not upgraded their TVs would have lost one of their primary sources of information.This allows the government to broadly stimulate the economy in multiple regions while ensuring that the Americans who were unable to keep up with the changing technology on their own wouldn't be left with radio as their only source of information.Hardly a mismanagement. While I am not a fan of ATVs, keeping them from "off roading" protects important natural resources. Additionally, ATVs are the frequent vehicle of choice for non-helicopter rescues within national parks.Also, this is 25 million that goes directly into the pockets of hard working Americans who are hired to build and maintain these trails which are in rural areas where investment is specifically needed. You are complaining that people who don't make enough money to survive aren't paying more in taxes? REALLY? Tell me, how much should someone who makes 10k a year pay in income tax? Hrmmm, funding an administration which is charged with developing the economy in order to help develop the economy. Yeah, I can see why you would be against that.How reckless of our government to spend the money doing exactly what the money was meant to be spent doing. Rail is the most fuel efficient and best way to move things across country. Period. We spend WAY more money subsidizing the highways, the oil imports, the car and truck manufacturing - all of which pale in comparison to what rail is able to do.If anything, a $1 billion investment in rail is 1/10th of what we should be spending. Yes, considered non-essential by you because you don't have the first clue what you are talking about.That's why you don't get to make the decisions. Then CUT DEFENSE! And I would point out that the post office is a Constitutionally mandated service which is NOT publicly funded. It provides door to door delivery to virtually everyone in the US at costs that everyone can afford.FedEx and UPS do not. Ah, I see. So, we shouldn't tax the rich because they will engage in criminal price fixing.Kleptocracy much? First of all, I'm doing extremely well.
Second, if I wanted more money than I have, I could get more money. I don't need it. I don't want it. I can afford to buy whatever I want whenever I want. I just don't happen to want 50ft yachts and private jets.My issue is not that person A has more money than me. It's that person A is hording the money so persons B through Z are out of work. If person A were spending the money, then B through Z would have access to it.Instead the money sits in a Swiss Bank Account gathering interest., $1 billion to subsidize Amtrak.

Does the government make mistakes with it's spending? Sure.
However, many of the things that Conservatives point to as "wasteful" actually are fairly important and reasonable expenditures.Further, they never seem to take into account the amount being spent.For example, I remember during one of the recent campaigns a number of the GOP candidates were complaining about government spending on fruit fly research.First of all, compared to the total budget, the amount was vanishingly small. Even compared to individual projects within the defense department, it was a tiny program.More importantly, though - fruit fly research is the corner stone of genetic research. Genetic research and the advanced medical treatments which result from this work relies extremely heavily of fruit fly research.AND, it's worth mentioning that both California and Florida have ENORMOUS fruit harvests. It actually represents a sizable amount of money. Fruit flies are among the biggest threat to those harvests.NOT doing fruit fly research is like NOT doing "corn blight" research, or not researching some bacteria that could destroy the soy, wheat or oat harvest.But, it's FUN for the candidates to go up there and say "2 million dollars for fruit fly research?!?!" and imply that that's wasteful spending.I say 2 million dollars that helps bolster and protect two of Americas BIGGEST income generating fields? Money well spent.