Which is why the government needs to be cut back, and all of the wastefull government spending needs to be stopped. 

A Flat tax could work... but we'd need to get rid of completely useless branches of the government to do so.  The government's problem is that it doesn't know how to manage it's money and just throws money everywhere and wastes it because it can, knowing that the Democrats and Neo-Cons are always ready to raise taxes to give it more money to spend.

Look at the VA Health Services.  That's a Government Healthcare program done right.  With similar implemation like that... and a cut to wasteful spending you could have a flat, fair tax.

Also... in your calculations you are ignoring that cost of livivng would be taken out of such a tax.  The rich would still be paying a higher percentage of their income... however they would be paying the same amount when you include the tax credit for cost of living.

Instead of the current system where people are taxed a higher percentage soley because they make more money. (Not even accounting for cost of living a lot of the time.)

First, what government program do we need to get rid of, that is useless?  The FDA?  The FTC? (Edit: it's just like the vide in my sig.)

Stopped reading at the second bolded part.  No more of this thread for me.

Personally, I think inflation is actually a small problem compared to the much worse side effect of youth unemployment ...

For the most part, people who earn the minimum wage (without commissions or tips) are primarily young people between the age of 14 and 24 who have little or no experience; these jobs tend to be quite awful but provide these young people with the necessary experience to get a better job, and quite often provide the income needed to get a higher education. Now, most of these young people are doing jobs which are (realistically) not worth $10 per hour and if the minimum wage is raised many would find themself out of a job.

This can result in the cycle of people being unable to find a job because they have no experience, and being unable to get experience because they can't get a job.

Why do we have to be biased dems? I grew up in the military, but mostly Southern states. When I was old enough to understand things was in the middle of Reagan's regime. I saw unemployed folks, I saw him really dissing minorities and doing nada to help them improve. I'm not talking about handouts, but the average Anglo never had to worry about drive-bys, drugs in their neighborhood or barrios. And then, to top it off, Guilani was shooting fools first and asking questions later when he was Mayor of NY.

Sadly, the GOP convention was a reflection of who they are. They aren't diverse. The Dems really try harder than the GOP to help out the less fortunate. I voted twice for Clinton and I can tell you, I was making as much then as I made just last year. Yeah, sad huh? I had more money in my pocket, gas was cheaper and the GOP was steadily complaining.

The party in power for the last 8 years has had on its watch:

9/11

Financial meltdown not seen since the days of the great depression

Record unemployment

Vast home foreclosures, contributing to the economic plunge

Health care costs that just keep soaring (why am I paying $100 for an inhaler when I can go to Mexico or Canada and get it for $5?!)

And folks are like 'I want to choose my own doctor.' Fine. Do your thing. When I was growing up in the military, everyone got the same service, be it private or full bird colonel. And I so miss it now. We are paying $350 a month for health care, and they are complaining about pre-existing conditions. France, Canada and even the UK have it right with health care.

Something needs to be done. No, it won't happen overnight, but at least Obama is a step in that direction. I don't care if it's an alien or a mule giving me care - as long as they know what they are doing, I could care less about who is giving me care.

8 is enough. There's no need to change tactics if you get elected and your party is in charge. Nope, no reason - just lies. And the next 4 years, they'll harp on change takes time. Syke. Clinton reversed course in his 8 years - and with Clinton folks helping O, he can do the same.

Check the numbers with Bush 2 vs. Clinton's ending numbers. Clinton own3d Bush big time.

"Record unemployment"
The US record for unemployment was in 1933. The unemployment rate was 24.9%. After that crazy blog you posted the other day...I hoped you would learn by now.

I notice some people supporting the minimum wage in here, and I agree it sounds like a good idea. The only problem I have with it, however, is that it prices people out of the labor force leading to higher unemployment.

No I like the FDA and FTC.

I can name a bunch, though the things McCain will stop?

Earmarks, Ethanol Subsidaries and making it harder to raise taxes... meaning things will HAVE to be cut when the government wants to get stuff done.

Other things?  Department of Education, Homeland Security, War on Drugs,  Women's Education Equality Act. (Probably, i'm pretty sure more women go on to higher education then men.), Federal Money to Abstinence Only programs, Faith based initatives, other farm subsidaries....

Open-minded and bigjon should never go in the same sentence unless there is a "not" between them.  Look at his post history.  He is one of the most extreme people on this website.

My largest problem with the argument of government not having the right to tax on an incremental scale depending on wages is simply because how we value certain jobs.

As a teacher I too have worked very hard to get where I am, and I continue to work hard on a daily basis. Is there a huge paycheck waiting for me? Do I need extra tax dollars to help sustain my lifestyle? Certainly not.

I didn't go into teaching for the money as I'm sure there are many people who get paid less (or more for that matter) than myself that didn't go into their careers for the money.

I just don't see the fairness that someone may not be able to afford health care simply for wishing to pursue a certain career path.

I know that it may seem like I'm moreso complaining about free market and capitalism than I am about taxes, but that isn't what I'm trying to get across here. I'm just challenging what it means to be treated equally (I suppose I'm more of an equal opportunity guy rather than an equal treatment one)

I think we can all agree that working hard as a CEO for Nokia is not necessarily any more valuable than working hard as a grade 3 teacher (You can't really put them on the same scale as they require different things from each individual). How hard you work doesn't necessarily determine your outcome. But yet, we a rewarded very differently (don't get me wrong, the rewards of being a teacher, to me, is far more fulfilling to me than any monetary reward).

I see taxes as an attempt to make up for these inequalities. I know, I know, trying to equate an inequality with another inequality doesn't make it right, but it does make it better overall for society as opposed to leaving the capitalist society deem what professions are important or unimportant. At least I think it does.

I think it's necessary for government to regulate this inequality to a certain extent. Don't take this the wrong way, I'm not suggesting communism where wages should be controlled, just some progressive taxing!

Note: Apologies for my poorly written argument. It's far past my bedtime... only half awake *yawn*

My 1,000th post will say!

I Blame Wii Fit!!!

^Ding?