Highlights
Features
Class WarfareDanger on Kaua'i
Income Inequality
Insane Cannabis Policy
Iran & ISIS Clarified
Israel: Please Stop
March Madness and Love
Media Manipulation
Political Issues
Stoked on Surfing
Symptoms of Inner Peace
The Theft of Hawai'i
Tribute to Cary Colaianni
HoopCamp
Dividing Those Who Love the Islands
Next Surf Safari
HI
October 21st, 2009 :: Permalink
Aloha ~
I agree with maxcat ... good blog and mahalo for your work on the linked article. In that piece, you wrote, "Lingle deserves credit for standing her ground against almost universal resistance from the political establishment in her effort to get a fair deal for taxpayers, many of whom are struggling with pay cuts and loss of hours in their own jobs."
"Fair deal for taxpayers?" Our most rich are not paying their fair share. This is clear on every level. There is no question tax increases on the middle class would be further recessive. This is why Obama reduced the tax burden on 95% of families.
Yet we are now cutting back take home pay by 8% on thousands of working class families. What Obama gave to workers, the state now takes away. This is also recessive. Do we expect these families to rush out and support other local business?
In crisis times like this, one solution is to run deficits, which is not permitted by the state constitution. A second solution is to demand more sacrifice from the most wealthy. This burden affects 3-5% of the population, and while recessive, the group is smaller and they have more to share.
The most rich likely aren't blogging on these pages so I'm not sure who will speak for them. Our private sector middle class got hit hard and our solution was to put a greater burden on the backs of the public sector middle class. This does not stimulate an economy and create more jobs -- just the opposite.
Aue ... Atlas is getting a kick out of all this (all the way to the bank)!
A*L*O*H*A
FOLLOW UP:
Aloha HItaxpayer ~
You asked, "So what do you condsider the rich's fair share, 90% or 100%?"
The "fair" share is established when we balance the budget. You have no problem demanding that middle class state workers take pay cuts or lose jobs due to the financial crisis. What sacrifice has our rich made to share this pain?
The state has a billion shortfall. You say, "raising taxes on our most fortunate is out of the question."
We still have the same number of Keiki to educate. Your plan puts 100% of the financial burden on working class families. Could the most rich come up with 30-40%? Could they hold off buying a sixth home for a year or two?
This is the difference. I don't dislike wealthy people. We're proud of their success. But in a crisis we shouldn't have to beg those who benefited so greatly during good times to pitch in now and demonstrate some compassion.
A*L*O*H*A
Aloha ~
I agree with maxcat ... good blog and mahalo for your work on the linked article. In that piece, you wrote, "Lingle deserves credit for standing her ground against almost universal resistance from the political establishment in her effort to get a fair deal for taxpayers, many of whom are struggling with pay cuts and loss of hours in their own jobs."
"Fair deal for taxpayers?" Our most rich are not paying their fair share. This is clear on every level. There is no question tax increases on the middle class would be further recessive. This is why Obama reduced the tax burden on 95% of families.
Yet we are now cutting back take home pay by 8% on thousands of working class families. What Obama gave to workers, the state now takes away. This is also recessive. Do we expect these families to rush out and support other local business?
In crisis times like this, one solution is to run deficits, which is not permitted by the state constitution. A second solution is to demand more sacrifice from the most wealthy. This burden affects 3-5% of the population, and while recessive, the group is smaller and they have more to share.
The most rich likely aren't blogging on these pages so I'm not sure who will speak for them. Our private sector middle class got hit hard and our solution was to put a greater burden on the backs of the public sector middle class. This does not stimulate an economy and create more jobs -- just the opposite.
Aue ... Atlas is getting a kick out of all this (all the way to the bank)!
A*L*O*H*A
FOLLOW UP:
Aloha HItaxpayer ~
You asked, "So what do you condsider the rich's fair share, 90% or 100%?"
The "fair" share is established when we balance the budget. You have no problem demanding that middle class state workers take pay cuts or lose jobs due to the financial crisis. What sacrifice has our rich made to share this pain?
The state has a billion shortfall. You say, "raising taxes on our most fortunate is out of the question."
We still have the same number of Keiki to educate. Your plan puts 100% of the financial burden on working class families. Could the most rich come up with 30-40%? Could they hold off buying a sixth home for a year or two?
This is the difference. I don't dislike wealthy people. We're proud of their success. But in a crisis we shouldn't have to beg those who benefited so greatly during good times to pitch in now and demonstrate some compassion.
A*L*O*H*A
