Also,
If you choose to use Wikipedia as a source, they also say:
"... if the tax cuts are allowed to expire. The non-partisan Tax Policy Center has estimated that for 83% of households in the U.S. there would be an average tax increase of $3,701 and The Heritage Foundation stated that those impacted by the tax cut expiry are primarily in the middle- and low-income groups, with its research finding that families would experience an average tax increase of $4,138.

actually its such a silly statement, nobody is bothering to dispute it

Mr. Mallin,
one point of dispute for your argument is "What are the profit takers doing with their money"? Unless they are just piling it up in their living room and rolling in it they're SPENDING it or INVESTING it. This means more jobs for the businesses that produce what they're buying or more employees for those they invest in. They may not put the capital into their own business but it winds up going to other businesses none the less. If it goes to the government it does not go to the waiter at their favorite restaurant or into the pocket of their car salesman. So "low taxes on the highest incomes is a JOB-CREATOR."

Mr. Mallin,
Second Point. Your theory of reinvesting profits seems to indicate that a business exists primarily to benefit its employees. Businesses exist to make a profit for its owner/shareholders and to serve their customers, not necessarily to compensate their employees at the highest level possible.

I agree this blog reveals a lack of understanding of how business decisions are made.

On one hand, he says:
" If the rate of tax on PROFIT is HIGH, the business owners have an incentive to re-invest in the business and hire more employees, since the owners will pay more taxes on money that is not re-invested."
WHAT? If they pay more taxes, there will be less money to invest - so fewer new employees. That means FEWER jobs.

On the other hand, he says:
" If the rate of tax on PROFIT is LOW, the business owners have LESS incentive to re-invest and create jobs, because they can take the profits or dividends as personal income and pay less tax."
Just what do you think the wealthier do with their cash - take it home and roll around in it on their bed? No! They want to see it grow! How? By investing it. So, those profits will go for expanded operations or new ventures. Why would ANY person of wealth want to withdraw funds from a company to create personal taxable income? They would not! They would keep investing it to create more money. What wealthy person do you know that stopped making money with one good year?

I think Mr. Mallin is a little confused about the discussion, as when he says:
"Business revenues that are reinvested in the business to hire more employees and buy more equipment and rent bigger facilities, are NOT TAXED. These are EXPENSES..."
Yes, salary costs are expenses.That's not the issue - the issue is less tax means more money left to hire people.

I fully remember...Barney wanted everyone to be able to own a home. A ridiculous notion. THAT is where it all started. Lets face it, not all are financially able, but the GOVERNMENT decided, beginning under Clinton, that this should be. I am not a Clinton hater, in fact I like some things he did. But, the seeds to what happened when W. was in office were planted under him. And even, what if he had taken care of getting rid of Osama before he left office, then maybe no 9/11?
But this is all another topic.

I am tired of people not taking personal responsibility. If they took out a home loan, they should know what they could afford. And, quit blaming the bank by saying they should never have lent them the money. The government should never have forced the banks to lend people money who had poor credit or change the guidelines just so everyone could own a home.

Mr. Mallin's blog is about doing away with the 2001/2003 tax changes and Obama's extension of same. And, he is forgetting that the effects of doing this will be felt greatest by middle America.

Assuming I accept your argument, when should I expect to "see this all change?" I just want to make sure I don't have unreasonable expectations.

Wait, Lyn, isn't a large part of the American Dream to own your own home?

MLBR-
Dream, yes.
Reality, no.
And I would hope you agree with that. Just because someone walks in a bank and says they want a loan should not mean they are approved for one. But Barney et al were of a different mind set when they wanted to see that dream come true for the masses.

MLBR: The American dream is simply that, a dream. If you want to achieve in this great nation it also requires hard work, ingenuity, creativity, and perseverance. Nothing is free; someone always picks up the check.

That is why “spreading the wealth around” is such a bad idea. If you took all the money from every millionaire and billionaire in the world and spread it around equally, in a short amount of time the rich would be rich again, and the poor would be poor again. Just look at lottery winners, or the professional athletes that make 10s of millions of dollars only to end up bankrupt.

Throughout the history of mankind there have always been the haves, and the have nots. There is no government program that can change this. The only thing we can do is to try and impact people on a personal level. There are many private organizations that attempt to do this with many success stories. Real, genuine help comes from the heart, not from a government handout or program.

Thanks, Bill, I appreciate the compliment.

Why should we need a tax for technology education? Please explain.

MZ-
I can answer that.
Fred wants the government to take care of our every needs.

Fred-
NOT so wise.
Rather disjointed.
In his rush to blame the rich and offer a solution, he forgot that he would be hurting the wallets of middle Americans worse.

No lyn,
Fred wants to "BE" the government that takes care of our every need. He wants the power to smother us with "governmental LOVE".

To repeat what Curtis said above:

"It is a ridiculous notion, as you suggest, that a business person would hire people, purchase equipment, build factories, etc., simply to pay fewer taxes. Have you no understanding of demand, overhead, labor costs to cite only a few examples?"

Red Hat Linux is a version of a computer operating system.

To suggest it somehow replaced "your local travel agent" seems silly.

Garry .... have you ever watched terminator

This is simply the natural progression of business. No job or industry is safe for ever and employees need to be willing to adapt. There are still plenty of high paying jobs in technology and humans will be needed to design, install, and service the computers, robots, systems, etc... There is no guarantee that the job or career that you have today won't be outdated tomorrow.

At one point in time there was an operator who made connections every time you made a phone call. Being a blacksmith at one point was a lucrative and high paying career.

There is no question that businesses are doing more with less. This trend will not only continue, but will do so exponentially. We all need to continue to learn, to adapt, and to be prepared for the future. Those that stay complacent will rust.

tom m - I don't see the use in responding to that.

Another example is the self checkout at grocery stores and places like the turnpike. Feed your money into the machine and forget the person, and the job, was every there...

Go get yours. Who is stopping you?

Capitalism is not a zero sum game. When one person succeeds, it doesn't mean that it is at the expense of another. When goods and services are improved, or costs are lowered, the consumers win. If the goods and services are not improved, or costs are too high, the consumers will find other places to spend their money. What system is better than that?

Bye the way, the last time I checked, our free enterprise system in the US is hardly "unchecked". Anyone who has started a business realizes how "checked" our system actually is. Often times these “checks” make the entrance barriers for a business so high and cost prohibitive that startups have great difficulty entering into certain markets. When this occurs the big EVIL corporations have a distinct advantage over the little guys. Those little guys can make a better widget, provide a better service, find an untapped niche, or give up trying.

But why should the government be expected to pick up the tab for this, another expense that each individual should incur themselves. We should be getting away from MORE government in our lives and now you want to add this.

MZ had also asked above -
"Why should we need a tax for technology education? Please explain."

Fred,
you thought wrong. Markets set prices.

1) we are siting on 200 years of Natural Gas Supply. What has obama done in 4 years. Nothing.
2) Keystone pipeline. What has Obama done except block it
3) Gas production on FEDERAL LANDS, or under Obamas control are down.
4) Obama does deal to Import Oill while we Export Oil. DUMB, DUMB, DUMB
5) Gives Jobs to China to produce Solar Panels. DUMB
6) Bankruptcies in Solar are how many BILLIONS, Dumb again.

Obama has not clue and we all we have to pay for his incompetence. Move over Jimmy Carter.

There are literally hundreds of high tech training and engineering programs available. I agree that we don't produce nearly enough technicians and engineers in this country. It is hard and complex work that requires years of dedicated studies. We apparently agree fully on that. The issue I have is using additional taxes to pay for the programs (which we have already) of for the tuition.

When one doesn't have to work for something, and it is given to them, they tend not to care much about it. We have thousands of college kids studying comparatively worthless subjects already. They get themselves in debt, can't find a high enough paying job in women's studies, or sociology, etc... and then complain about the burdens they signed up for. When I graduated with a BS in engineering, nearly 100% of my class had jobs locked up prior to graduation. I had many friends that “wasted” four of five years of their lives to get a degree that wasn’t worth the paper it was printed on. They were either strapped with debt for their poor decisions, or lucky enough to have parents who paid their way. Most if not all eventually found work outside their field of study, such a waste of time and money.

I doubt the one’s that ended up in debt up to their necks with a worthless degree would have gone into engineering if the classes were free. They simply didn’t want to work that hard, study that much, they had other priorities.

OOH FRED,
Yellow Peril.
Chinese workers and robots?

Students on strike? What the what? I thought that was called skipping school or ditching class.

Yeah, that will show 'em!

War on Poverty has been going on since 1964. All democrat driven. Excuse me for saying the democrat party is nothing more than "PERPETUAL POVERTY PIMPS". When are democrats going to admit failure. Never,

We have become a nation of lazy people who want to be taken care of. I see nothing wrong with giving a hand to those who fall on hard times - but that should be to get them over the hump. Not for eternity. Also, for the elderly or handicapped who have no other means of support. But, when it comes to educating, you get 12 years public education. You want more, its on you. How about parents start saving a little from the time the kid is born instead of going for the bigger home or shiny new car? Then there will be a little something for the kids to start with instead of putting the burden on society. PRIORITIES!

You assume that there shouldn't have been 100 new billionaires. Why not 1,000 new millionaires as well. Unless those billionaires are taking money from your pocket, why do you care? You could take all their money by force, tax the billionaires and millionaires at 100% and hand out there money to the poor. It wouldn't matter. Those that aren't willing or capable of working would end up in the same place again.

There are hundreds of programs available and thousands of success stories of people lifting themselves out of poverty (how did they do it, it must be impossible if they weren’t born rich). There are also numerous stories of people being born into a rich family who end up poor, drug addled, dead...

Besides, our poor have AC, big screen TVs, cell phones, NIKEs, etc… They aren’t starving, they have an obesity problem.

If by helping people you mean paying BIG TIME taxes, I help a lot, far more than most.

If by helping people you mean going out and actually helping people, providing them good work, paying for training, volunteering, donating to worthy causes and to individuals who have fallen on rough times, I do that even more.

I would suggest that more people get out and actually reach out and help people personally and not rely on the wasteful government. Too many think “I pay my taxes so therefore I am helping”. I can pay well over $100K in taxes, send them through the government bureaucracy and in the end make very little impact. I can also take the $100K and start a college scholarship program that can impact people directly for years. That same $100K can be used to help families who have lost loved ones overseas, or to drunk driving, or cancer. These donations are direct impacts that are much more cost effective than providing free cell phones with 250 minutes and 250 texts per month for “emergencies” funded by our tax dollars. Every time I hear one of these commercials I want to throw up.

I agree with you totally that we all depend on each other. I just don’t need the government to help people. I can do it on my own quite well. Perhaps if there wasn’t so much waste, fraud, and blatantly stupid things the federal government does with our money I would feel differently.

Ok, then let's tax the wealthiest at higher rates. What would you suggest, 40%? 50%? 90%? If more is good, than most must be better right? If not, what is the ideal rate of addtional money that should be confiscated through the threat of force from those already footing most of the bill?