Posted by Plaubel at 11/30/2010 10:23 p.m.

Spot on. This is a serious struggle for a lot of good Americans. The tin pot Tea Party types are paper tigers, all that big talk goes away immediately if they get laid off. Lets talk about how the Republicans were shown the door in California in the last election and the two thirds requirement to raise taxes was repealed because people have had enough there. We will see what our dim future here holds but these adults need jobs.

Posted by kurt98033 at 11/30/2010 10:31 p.m.

Unemployment compensation should be extended and paid for with the unspent stimulus money. The money should be put in the hands of consumers where it should have gone in the first place.

If the inheritance tax is reinstated my Family business of 50 years will cease to exist putting many out of work. This is a fact. I can only imagine how many other small business owners face this same reality.

Posted by Ardor at 11/30/2010 10:31 p.m.

So... If you are rich you:
go to jail for killing somebody. Same length of time as a poor person
still pay sales tax. Same amount as a poor person
you still only get 1 vote at the booth. Same as a poor person.

SO... when did we decide that we're all created equal and are to be equally treated, except where taxes are concerned? I'm not a rich person. My wife and I struggle to pay our bills. But If they're an equal citizen I don't want them paying a higher percentage than me.

TREAT'EM ALL EQUAL OR DONT

Posted by Valentijn78 at 11/30/2010 11:00 p.m.

Ardor: equal treatment has an unequal impact on the rich versus the poor. The most "equal" tax would be everyone paying X dollars regardless of income. Obviously that would cripple poorer people while being a completely insignificant amount for the wealthy. A flat percentage across the board has a similar impact, though to a lesser degree. Even if everyone is paying 20%, that can be enough to make life very hard for some people while having no impact on the quality of life of others. Increasing tax rates for increasing income place a higher burden on those who are the best able to handle it without having to choose between going without food, shelter, medical care, or higher education, etc.

Posted by Cogito, Sum at 11/30/2010 11:04 p.m.

So poor people now get additional votes via:

Their corporate manifestation?

Their corporate sponsorship of elected officials?

Their good old buddy network at the golf course or club?

Their wealth and its influence upon local government?

Their ownership of newspapers, radio, broadcast and other media?

Through the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine?

Their influence peddlers such as lobbyists?

A repackaged SCOTUS? ...

Posted by icklekins at 11/30/2010 11:24 p.m.

"So... If you are rich you: go to jail for killing somebody. Same length of time as a poor person still pay sales tax. Same amount as a poor person you still only get 1 vote at the booth. Same as a poor person. "

People who are wealthy enough to have never had to choose between paying next month's rent and going to the grocery store are NOT equal to those of us who have had to make that choice.

Regardless of the differences between "those who can afford" and "the rest of us," the issue here are ineffective tax cuts.

The changes to taxes were implemented as an effort to spur growth in the economic markets, as an attempt to correct a problem that eventually led to the collapse of our economy. Obviously, the tax cuts did not work, and really, only served to deepen the issues that were already present - a taxation rift between the wealthy and everyone else.

The issues are complex, but to understate and oversimplfy for brevity, the wealth of this nation is turned on its head, like an upside-down block pyramid. The weight of wealth is on the very top where the least number of blocks should sit, and the base has the least amount of blocks. When you take away blocks from this bottom (aka tax), and do not take away any blocks from the top, you further whittle away your fragile base; anyone who has built a tower of blocks knows that this model always leads to the blocks tumbling over.

I am not suggesting that blocks should only be removed from the top of the pyramid, nor am I saying that blocks be taken from the top of the pyramid and put at the bottom. What I am saying is, if something is not done to change our system, our pyramid (aka economy) will collapse like a flan in a cupboard.

Posted by greenlantern at 11/30/2010 11:24 p.m.

I could always join in with how the Republicans hate America so much they would have the country fail to assume power. This time I want to vent my frustration with Obama. He is a wussy boy for failing to take on the Republicans in a political fight. To use a basketball analogy...he doesn't have the chops to take it to the hoop.

When he talks about how he wants to have common ground with the Republicans, and work with them....I want to vomit. He has an issue to fight over, and if he fails to rise to the occasion and take the Republicans on he will be a one term President. This would be a failure of leadership, and he would only have himself to blame.

Posted by mmfeelgood at 11/30/2010 11:44 p.m.

my comment? I think Ms. Stephanie Stiles is full of crap...but then, that's just my opinion.Obviously, she's never been unemployed for a lengthy time, because her family has wealth...what does she know of reality?

Posted by Ardor at 11/30/2010 11:52 p.m.

Well... this should be fun...

"People who are wealthy enough to have never had to choose between paying next month's rent and going to the grocery store are NOT equal to those of us who have had to make that choice."

so... you're better than them? Because maybe they started their own business and worked 100 hour weeks for 3 years to get it off the ground? Because they ate only white rice and spam with water and a multi vitamin to supplement for several years? Because you didn't have the constant fear of worrying about where your next dollar was gonna come from? I've seen people I know do this. They're "rich" now. So after working so hard they get to pay extra?

I understand that they have more. But once we start taking from people who have, to give to those who have not, where does it end?

"So poor people now get additional votes via:

Their corporate manifestation? ( Not all rich people are corporate. Most are self made millionaires)

Their corporate sponsorship of elected officials? (Few give and serious amount of money to election coffers)

Their good old buddy network at the golf course or club?
(Rich or poor we all have a good old buddy network. Maybe theirs is more affluent?)
Their wealth and its influence upon local government? (We're trying to bilk them for lots of money, they represent a lot of a local economy based on how and where they spend, and how well they run their businesses)

Their ownership of newspapers, radio, broadcast and other media?
( yes because every rich person owns one of the above)
Through the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine?

Their influence peddlers such as lobbyists?
(ya cause all people making more than 250k a year have personal lobbyists)

A repackaged SCOTUS? ..."

I'm not saying that the division of wealth isn't assinine, it is. I'm certainly not saying that all rich people play by the rules but you can say the same about the poor too.

"Ardor: equal treatment has an unequal impact on the rich versus the poor. The most "equal" tax would be everyone paying X dollars regardless of income. Obviously that would cripple poorer people while being a completely insignificant amount for the wealthy. A flat percentage across the board has a similar impact, though to a lesser degree. Even if everyone is paying 20%, that can be enough to make life very hard for some people while having no impact on the quality of life of others. Increasing tax rates for increasing income place a higher burden on those who are the best able to handle it without having to choose between going without food, shelter, medical care, or higher education, etc."

So a corporate CEO shouldn't go to jail as long as an unskilled person because it will have a larger affect on more people if the company gets driven into the ground by fill in right? Cause that's unequal impact...

You can not pick and choose how people are equal. Either people get treated equal or they don't. I'm not a republican or a democrat I just don't get the arguement on this one. Either people get treated the same or they don't. You can't call it equality when you're treating a certain group differently.

Posted by 1 Gidget at 12/1/2010 12:16 a.m.

Ms Stiles, obviously you have never had to be on unemployment for a long period of time and had to make due with what is provided by unemployment money instead of a salary. I would like to address a couple of your comments specifically:

First, your comment “in reality only a tad over 800,000 people nationwide will lose those benefits. This is less than 1% of the total population of the U.S.!” While you are correct that this is less than 1% of the nation’s population, it is still over 800,000 human beings. A vast majority of those people have children and their unemployment insurance is the only thing keeping a roof over their heads. Without that money coming in, the roof over their heads may become the nearest freeway overpass or tent.

Second, yes, there are people who sit on their @s$es and collect unemployment instead of finding a job. There are also a majority of people collecting unemployment who are busting their aforementioned @s$es to find work. I know several people including myself who are spending well over 40 hours a week looking for a job. I have friends who own businesses who are hiring. They receive over 500 applications for 1 opening. They don’t even look at the resumes after the first 50 to 100. Whether you are qualified or not, it is a matter of getting your application into the stack that actually gets a quick look and hope that it gets a second review. I have personally applied for over 420 jobs in 12 months; from that I have gotten 4 interviews. Mind you, I am highly skilled and have over 15 years of experience in my field. I have applied for any job I have the skills for, not just what I want to do.

Third, If you can't find a job that covers your cost of living MOVE TO A NEW TOWN WHERE THERE ARE JOBS! Were you aware that moving costs money? Money that comes from unemployment insurance that you want to discontinue? What do you want us to do if one spouse cannot find a job but the other is employed? Leave them to move? Get a divorce so you can move?

Fourth, no one wants to work for you and you claim to pay a decent living wage. I can think of possibly 10 employers in Skagit County where I live that have wages like you posted. No one I know of would turn them down if they were offered a job. If they are turning you down as you say, maybe it is time to look at your companies and find out why.

Unless you have ever had to call your landlord and beg for a week’s reprieve on paying your rent so you can go buy $50 worth of groceries to feed 4 people for a week or praying that your utilities are going to remain on until you can make a payment, please don’t lump all of the unemployed into a single pigeon hole. Guess what, it makes you sound more like one of the “liberal mush brains” than I am.

Posted by pete66616 at 12/1/2010 12:21 a.m.

"You can't call it equality when you're treating a certain group differently."

Oh, give me a break. Since when are the top 1% who hold nearly 25% of the wealth in this country being treated equally in other ways? To claim that wealth doesn't help when it comes to avoiding penalties for crimes, or that sales tax has the same effect on a wealthy person as a poor person, or that the poor person has just as much ability to influence government as a wealthy person, that's just ignorant.

One hopes that at least in the most extreme examples, you can comprehend why tax rates need to be variable. For example, let's make some assumptions:

Minimum income to cover basic necessities: $25K/year

Poor person:
• income: $25K/year
• net after 20% tax: $20K/year

Rich person:
• income: $250K/year
• net after 20% tax: $200K/year

Duh. Applying the same tax rate to both, the poor person is now $5K in the hole. No soup for you! On the other hand, the rich person can easily cover their basic expenses, and still has $175K/year left!

On top of all that, the fact is: no matter how hard you work, you don't get rich by yourself. That wealth comes from the inputs of lots of other people, many of them poor. No rich person works harder than the hardest working poor person. Lots of people work hard, a few get lucky, and they along with lots of people who just got lucky without working hard use their wealth to improve their own situation even more while crushing the poor.

In the end, it will all work out eventually. Because wealth doesn't just appear out of thin air, no matter how much the Federal Reserve and Wall Street would like you to believe, destroying the poor is a sure-fire way to eventually destroy everyone. If the rich don't wise up and start pulling their weight, the whole system will fall apart.

Or has everyone already forgotten what happened to all those other corrupt, wealthy-controlled governments that have collapsed over the years? Think it can't happen here? Think again.

Posted by vit at 12/1/2010 12:21 a.m.

Does anyone remember the French Revolution? It really wasn't pleasant, but it did equalize the rich and the poor very effectively. I would really rather this country come to its senses prior to anything this radical.

Continue the unemployment payments and tax the rich. The poor are now paying more than the rich -- and certainly that is not fair -- but rather like France prior to the Revolution.

Posted by KaseysPlanet at 12/1/2010 12:50 a.m.

Wait till WikiLeaks does the banks.

Posted by adamforest at 12/1/2010 12:52 a.m.

Joel, maybe you could ask your friend P. Murray to take a pay cut and write a few checks to your suffering middle class neighbors, or maybe you could donate some funds yourself courtesy of your own boundless PI bank account.

No?

Well then I think it's time that you stop asking others to give up their own hard-earned money in the name of your classist and arrogant cause.

Posted by Seven Burke at 12/1/2010 1:09 a.m.

oh cry me a river