Nearly half of U.S. pays no federal income tax

[Ugmo]

Are you poor ?

No, are you?

[thejuggernaut]

Are you poor ?

No, are you?

You're taking up for them.

[Ugmo]

Are you poor ?

No, are you?

You're taking up for them.

No I'm not. The gap between the rich and the middle class and lower classes is widening at a record pace. Why should the majority of the wealth be concentrated within a tiny percentage of the population (and if you're going to argue that they work harder than everyone else, nobody wants to hear it)?

[thejuggernaut]

No, are you?

You're taking up for them.

No I'm not. The gap between the rich and the middle class and lower classes is widening at a record pace. Why should the majority of the wealth be concentrated within a tiny percentage of the population (and if you're going to argue that they work harder than everyone else, nobody wants to hear it)?

Lower class/poor. Whatever, same thing. You're taking up for them and you're not one of them.

[Ugmo]

Again, no I'm not. I'm taking up for the middle class, of which I am a part.

I mean, this is hypothetical anyway, since I don't even pay taxes in the U.S. and income in Austria is most definitely more fairly distributed than in the States.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

Lower class/poor. Whatever, same thing. You're taking up for them and you're not one of them.

So what?

[Ugmo]

Lower class/poor. Whatever, same thing. You're taking up for them and you're not one of them.

So what?

Yeah, I don't get it. The top 1 percen of earners hold 25 percent of the wealth and have the deck stacked in their favor. They don't need anyway to take up the case for them, because they're already working the system!

[thejuggernaut]

Again, no I'm not. I'm taking up for the middle class, of which I am a part.

I mean, this is hypothetical anyway, since I don't even pay taxes in the U.S. and income in Austria is most definitely more fairly distributed than in the States.

And you can't figure out why people who are not in the top %1, but want to get there (and probably won't but maybe they can make a nice loft for themselves somewhere up the ladder) are opposed to a progressive tax system that will increasingly ding them with each rung they climb ?

Time and again, the people of the United States have shown their capacity for charitable actions/donations. Human beings, by their nature, do not like to be told what they have to give their money to and, when it's taken from them, it minimizes the likelihood they'll make meaningful contributions.

If you remove the requirement to contribute, the amount of resentment will vanish and it will increase contributions. Those who make contributions on top of their taxes simply for write off purposes, will be more inclined to donate because they'll be able to donate to something of their choice. It won't be everyone, but it will be more money from more people.

And while someone might refuse to give to one cause because of a personal view, there are enough well to do people in the world who will approve of the cause and donate to it.

At the end of the day, nobody should ever be taxed half their income. It's insane.

[SkyDog112046]

that some people feel shouldn't be able to have that kind of money

There you go again. It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with making sure that the government has enough money to pay for the services it provides the population, and that the tax system is fair from top to bottom so that you don't have a huge proportion of the wealth flowing to a small percentage of the population.

It will forever be a mystery to me why people who are nowhere near the top 1 percent of earners are so willing to take up the cause for them.

If anyone here is actually in that bracket, then you get a pass because you're looking out for number one. Fair enough.

Fair means taking money from people equitably, and taking 90% of someone's money just because they have been fortunate enough to earn it is unfair. Again for the people who made their money crookedly like Madoff lets fix the laws so we can take every last penny they have and force them into hard labor until they drop dead. But for the people who made the money honestly lets just close off some of the loopholes and let them pay their 35% on more of their earnings and realize that they are paying more than their fair share.

If someone is making $1M a year for themselves then their business is pulling in a lot more than that. They are providing jobs with benefits for people, supporting their vendors, keeping shipping companies going, etc... And they are most likely active in their communities at some level whether it's because they are decent people or just want the positive publicity. They pay property and excise taxes on their business holdings and personal property. And if the loopholes are closed off they'll pay something like $350k in federal, $55k in state, and another $15k in local & property taxes. I would say that someone paying $420k in personal taxes on top of what they already paid through their business before they paid themselves is more than fair considering that they personally are less likely to use the services that money is going towards. And they benefit people from their personal wealth as well for the big ticket purchases they are likely to make - the contractor who build their house, the people at the high-end car dealership who sell and maintain their vehicles, the marina where they buy and house their boat, and all the other places that sell expensive toys they buy.

But this says what you really are getting at:

so that you don't have a huge proportion of the wealth flowing to a small percentage of the population.

You are talking about redistribution of wealth. Social engineering - bleeding the successful people dry to pay for services for the bottom feeders. And since there aren't enough people in that upper 1% you are proposing that we hammer the top 10%-12% to get the revenues necessary to pay for everything. How about cutting programs to fit to a reasonable budget?

I am not under any delusion that I'll one day be in the upper 1%. But I do have my eyes on getting near that 10-15% part of the population, the part of the earnings bracket that the liberals want to hammer. I would think that anyone with drive and determination would set that as their goal. And people who are working towards that goal who ultimately don't end up making it there will most likely carve out a decent life for themselves, support their communities, and pay more than their fair share of taxes. Someone with that mentality wants to be able to hold on to what they have achieved, and not have to give most of it away to lazy unmotivated slugs with their hands out.

[Ugmo]

And you can't figure out why people who are not in the top %1, but want to get there (and probably won't but maybe they can make a nice loft for themselves somewhere up the ladder) are opposed to a progressive tax system that will increasingly ding them with each rung they climb ?

Oh, I can figure it out: it's because they're delusional. Rather than defending the right of the 1 percent to keep getting richer, people should defend their own right to have more of the wealth spread to the rest of the country. You and Lickety are NEVER going to be among the 1 percent. Neither am I. The difference is you two are happy to stand there and watch (nay, encourage) them to keep stuffing their pockets as the money rolls by while you go empty-handed.

Consider this:

In 2005, 21.2 percent of U.S. national income accrued to just 1 percent of earners. Contrast 1968, when the CEO of General Motors took home, in pay and benefits, about sixty-six times the amount paid to a typical GM worker. Today the CEO of Wal-Mart earns nine hundred times the wages of his average employee. Indeed, the wealth of the Wal-Mart founder’s family in 2005 was estimated at about the same ($90 billion) as that of the bottom 40 percent of the U.S. population: 120 million people.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archive ... -the-land/

On what planet is this a good idea? It isn't. The system is broken.

[thejuggernaut]

And you can't figure out why people who are not in the top %1, but want to get there (and probably won't but maybe they can make a nice loft for themselves somewhere up the ladder) are opposed to a progressive tax system that will increasingly ding them with each rung they climb ?

Oh, I can figure it out: it's because they're delusional. Rather than defending the right of the 1 percent to keep getting richer, people should defend their own right to have more of the wealth spread to the rest of the country. You and Lickety are NEVER going to be among the 1 percent. Neither am I. The difference is you two are happy to stand there and watch (nay, encourage) them to keep stuffing their pockets as the money rolls by while you go empty-handed.

Consider this:

In 2005, 21.2 percent of U.S. national income accrued to just 1 percent of earners. Contrast 1968, when the CEO of General Motors took home, in pay and benefits, about sixty-six times the amount paid to a typical GM worker. Today the CEO of Wal-Mart earns nine hundred times the wages of his average employee. Indeed, the wealth of the Wal-Mart founder’s family in 2005 was estimated at about the same ($90 billion) as that of the bottom 40 percent of the U.S. population: 120 million people.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archive ... -the-land/

On what planet is this a good idea? It isn't. The system is broken.

Even with a cut job you still missed it.

No wonder you're so miserable and hate your life.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

You are talking about redistribution of wealth. Social engineering - bleeding the successful people dry to pay for services for the bottom feeders.

Don't forget about this form of wealth redistribution:

http://www.progress.org/2004/corpw37.htm
http://www.citizen.org/congress/welfare/index.cfm

Each year, U.S. taxpayers subsidize U.S. businesses to the tune of almost $125 billion, the equivalent of all the income tax paid by 60 million individuals and families. These corporations receive a wide range of favors: special corporate tax breaks; direct government subsidies to pay for advertising, research and training costs; and incentives to pursue overseas production and sales. While Congress institutes dramatic cuts in funding for traditional support programs for individuals and families, corporate giants continue to live off the dole. Each dollar spent on these "aid for dependent corporations" welfare programs means one dollar less for environmental programs, support for education, assistance to those in need, tax breaks for families, or deficit reduction. Public Citizen is helping to lead a major push to reduce corporate welfare.

Thats a helluva lotta cash, ain't it?
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8230
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/html/pa592/pa592index.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 08,00.html

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... 4shiob.asp

I guess it's not socialism when the bottom feeders are bled dry by the successful people.

Someone with that mentality wants to be able to hold on to what they have achieved, and not have to give most of it away to lazy unmotivated slugs with their hands out.

Congratulations to the Walton family for holding on to that last dime.
http://www.dsausa.org/lowwage/walmart/2 ... study.html
These fools have the wrong mentality too, that much is obvious.
http://www.allgov.com/ViewNews/Food_Sta ... Rise_90725
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/08/m ... s_082908w/
Enjoy your "champagne wishes and caviar dreams".

[Ugmo]

Even with a cut job you still missed it.

No wonder you're so miserable and hate your life.

LOL. My life is great.

What did I miss? Eh, forget it. I don't really have time for more of your cryptic bs.

[SkyDog112046]

You are talking about redistribution of wealth. Social engineering - bleeding the successful people dry to pay for services for the bottom feeders.

Don't forget about this form of wealth redistribution:

http://www.progress.org/2004/corpw37.htm
http://www.citizen.org/congress/welfare/index.cfm

Each year, U.S. taxpayers subsidize U.S. businesses to the tune of almost $125 billion, the equivalent of all the income tax paid by 60 million individuals and families. These corporations receive a wide range of favors: special corporate tax breaks; direct government subsidies to pay for advertising, research and training costs; and incentives to pursue overseas production and sales. While Congress institutes dramatic cuts in funding for traditional support programs for individuals and families, corporate giants continue to live off the dole. Each dollar spent on these "aid for dependent corporations" welfare programs means one dollar less for environmental programs, support for education, assistance to those in need, tax breaks for families, or deficit reduction. Public Citizen is helping to lead a major push to reduce corporate welfare.

Thats a helluva lotta cash, ain't it?
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8230
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/html/pa592/pa592index.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 08,00.html

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... 4shiob.asp

I guess it's not socialism when the bottom feeders are bled dry by the successful people.

Someone with that mentality wants to be able to hold on to what they have achieved, and not have to give most of it away to lazy unmotivated slugs with their hands out.

Congratulations to the Walton family for holding on to that last dime.
http://www.dsausa.org/lowwage/walmart/2 ... study.html
These fools have the wrong mentality too, that much is obvious.
http://www.allgov.com/ViewNews/Food_Sta ... Rise_90725
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/08/m ... s_082908w/
Enjoy your "champagne wishes and caviar dreams".

Who said I am for corporate welfare? I don't think that anyone who is not truly needy should get any type of handouts. And I am all for closing up loopholes on personal exemptions as well. Don't give handouts to corporations but don't take away everything that someone worked hard to get. I'm for fairness all the way around.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

Who said I am for corporate welfare? I don't think that anyone who is not truly needy should get any type of handouts. And I am all for closing up loopholes on personal exemptions as well. Don't give handouts to corporations but don't take away everything that someone worked hard to get. I'm for fairness all the way around.

With terms like "bottom feeders" and "lazy unmotivated slugs", it's not an unreasonable conclusion.

[SkyDog112046]

Who said I am for corporate welfare? I don't think that anyone who is not truly needy should get any type of handouts. And I am all for closing up loopholes on personal exemptions as well. Don't give handouts to corporations but don't take away everything that someone worked hard to get. I'm for fairness all the way around.

With terms like "bottom feeders" and "lazy unmotivated slugs", it's not an unreasonable conclusion.

But I also mentioned crooks too. Crooks and bottom feeders are one in the same really, they want something for nothing. But the people who work hard, work smart, and do things honestly should keep what they've earned.

[Ugmo]

But I also mentioned crooks too. Crooks and bottom feeders are one in the same really, they want something for nothing. But the people who work hard, work smart, and do things honestly should keep what they've earned.

In a perfect world I would agree with you, but super-low taxes like the U.S. has right now is a recipe for 400 billion dollar deficits even in good economic times, because you can't cut spending enough to make up the difference.

[SkyDog112046]

But I also mentioned crooks too. Crooks and bottom feeders are one in the same really, they want something for nothing. But the people who work hard, work smart, and do things honestly should keep what they've earned.

In a perfect world I would agree with you, but super-low taxes like the U.S. has right now is a recipe for 400 billion dollar deficits even in good economic times, because you can't cut spending enough to make up the difference.

Yes, you can cut spending to make up the difference. It's just that gutless politicians who answer to special interest groups on all sides are afraid to make those cuts and lose votes.

[Ugmo]

Yes, you can cut spending to make up the difference. It's just that gutless politicians who answer to special interest groups on all sides are afraid to make those cuts and lose votes.

What would you cut? We've been over this a bunch of times, and nobody can ever seem to come up with a way to cut spending that is actually realistic. People just want to keep cutting taxes and cutting taxes and then they say "Just cut spending", like that's ever going to happen. Probably the one thing you could easily cut in half would be the defense budget, and that would only save 350 billion euros and the conservatives would start bitching about how the military is being gutted.

[SkyDog112046]

Yes, you can cut spending to make up the difference. It's just that gutless politicians who answer to special interest groups on all sides are afraid to make those cuts and lose votes.

What would you cut? We've been over this a bunch of times, and nobody can ever seem to come up with a way to cut spending that is actually realistic. People just want to keep cutting taxes and cutting taxes and then they say "Just cut spending", like that's ever going to happen. Probably the one thing you could easily cut in half would be the defense budget, and that would only save 350 billion euros and the conservatives would start bitching about how the military is being gutted.

There are plenty of places to cut. SSI and Medicare make up 33% of the budget. There are lots of room for cuts there, especially in Medicare. I know they passed something preventing cuts but they could just repeal it and have at it.

Without looking at the budget how about cutting SSI back 10%, Medicare 20%, the military budget 20%, ending all corporate welfare, and closing the loopholes on tax exemptions so people pay more on what they actually earn. There are plenty of places to make cuts, it just takes a little courage to do it.

[Ugmo]

There are plenty of places to cut. SSI and Medicare make up 33% of the budget. There are lots of room for cuts there, especially in Medicare. I know they passed something preventing cuts but they could just repeal it and have at it.

Without looking at the budget how about cutting SSI back 10%, Medicare 20%, the military budget 20%, ending all corporate welfare, and closing the loopholes on tax exemptions so people pay more on what they actually earn. There are plenty of places to make cuts, it just takes a little courage to do it.

Well most of that stuff is automatic spending. I don't know how easy it is to cut it. Presumably it would take an act of Congress, and that would be a complete circus. But more to the point, those programs are very popular. Why should they be cut so a bunch of rich dudes can have low taxes?

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

Yes, you can cut spending to make up the difference. It's just that gutless politicians who answer to special interest groups on all sides are afraid to make those cuts and lose votes.

What would you cut? We've been over this a bunch of times, and nobody can ever seem to come up with a way to cut spending that is actually realistic. People just want to keep cutting taxes and cutting taxes and then they say "Just cut spending", like that's ever going to happen. Probably the one thing you could easily cut in half would be the defense budget, and that would only save 350 billion euros and the conservatives would start bitching about how the military is being gutted.

There are plenty of places to cut. SSI and Medicare make up 33% of the budget. There are lots of room for cuts there, especially in Medicare. I know they passed something preventing cuts but they could just repeal it and have at it.

Without looking at the budget how about cutting SSI back 10%, Medicare 20%, the military budget 20%, ending all corporate welfare, and closing the loopholes on tax exemptions so people pay more on what they actually earn. There are plenty of places to make cuts, it just takes a little courage to do it.

So you're going to tell Grandma and Grandpa to eat cat food and do without insulin and the troops in Iraq to duck more and shoot less so Bill Gates and Dick Cheney can stay a little bit richer? I'm not going to tell people who've been paying into SS for decades to go to hell to satisfy the greed of others and if you really cared to support the troops, you would care to make sure they are well and properly supplied. Those taxes you resent so much put bullets in their guns, surround them with armor and cover them with air support. Courage is not the term I would use to describe putting petty avarice ahead of my country's best interests.

[SkyDog112046]

Well most of that stuff is automatic spending. I don't know how easy it is to cut it. Presumably it would take an act of Congress, and that would be a complete circus. But more to the point, those programs are very popular. Why should they be cut so a bunch of rich dudes can have low taxes?

See, every time someone suggests a cut nobody has the balls to do it because they say the program is popular. Everyone sucking at the teat thinks their teat is great, right?

And for the record I am suggesting cutting off all corporate welfare and reducing the exemptions on well-to-do individuals so they pay their fair share on more of what they are earning to go along with the cuts I'd make to SSI, Medicare, and the military budget.

What we keep coming back to is that this isn't simply about a few "rich dudes". There aren't enough of them to shoulder the load so it's going to end up being spread across the top 10-15% which includes people that may be comfortable but would not be considered rich by any imagination. It's the small business owners that will take the hit. The ones who really keep the economy going and work hard for what they get, and yet you would suggest hammering them for 75% of what they earn.

Put yourself in the shoes of a small business owner who sacrificed everything to build their business and now makes $300k a year for himself working 75-80 hours a week (and don't forget that he has probably 25-30 people working for him that depend on him). Lets' say we apply that 75% formula to everything he makes over $150k and everything under that is at the current 35%, so with state taxes he's paying 80% and 40%. That means he's seeing $120k minus the additional SSI and Medicare taxes he has to pay. (I know that he is paying a little less on the brackets on the way up to the 35% bracket but the self employment taxes balance it out)

It takes on a different perspective when you aren't talking about the handful of people who make $1B a year, doesn't it? You know what the small business owner is going to do under the proposed scenario? He's going to say "fuck this shit" because it's not worth it for him to bust his ass for such little reward. Where is his incentive? And when he scales back or packs it in completely everyone working for him or supplying him is up shit creek without a paddle. And then tax revenues actually go down.

Put another way, ever work around sales people? Ever work around sales people who have a cap on commissions? Ever see what they do once they reach their cap? Once the incentive is gone, people stop caring.

[SkyDog112046]

So you're going to tell Grandma and Grandpa to eat cat food and do without insulin and the troops in Iraq to duck more and shoot less so Bill Gates and Dick Cheney can stay a little bit richer? I'm not going to tell people who've been paying into SS for decades to go to hell to satisfy the greed of others and if you really cared to support the troops, you would care to make sure they are well and properly supplied. Those taxes you resent so much put bullets in their guns, surround them with armor and cover them with air support. Courage is not the term I would use to describe putting petty avarice ahead of my country's best interests.

Nope, I'm going to tell Grandma and Grampa that they aren't getting knee and hip replacements or organ transplants after they retire, and that they are going to have to make do with a small cut in their monthly check so they may have to cut back on bingo and scratch tickets. And I'd scale back military operations from places that weren't willing or able to pay for our services, not take equipment away from our troops.

And go look at the examples I've mentioned numerous times. This won't just hit the Bill Gates of the world, it will end up hitting a lot of small business owners and professionals too.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

So you're going to tell Grandma and Grandpa to eat cat food and do without insulin and the troops in Iraq to duck more and shoot less so Bill Gates and Dick Cheney can stay a little bit richer? I'm not going to tell people who've been paying into SS for decades to go to hell to satisfy the greed of others and if you really cared to support the troops, you would care to make sure they are well and properly supplied. Those taxes you resent so much put bullets in their guns, surround them with armor and cover them with air support. Courage is not the term I would use to describe putting petty avarice ahead of my country's best interests.

Nope, I'm going to tell Grandma and Grampa that they aren't getting knee and hip replacements or organ transplants after they retire, and that they are going to have to make do with a small cut in their monthly check so they may have to cut back on bingo and scratch tickets.

Maybe we can have death panels to help them die with dignity so you can save a few bucks to put in your wallet, ghoul.

And I'd scale back military operations from places that weren't willing or able to pay for our services, not take equipment away from our troops.

To whom will we whore out the services of the US war machine? Will we just put an ad in the mercenary section of Soldier of Fortune?

And go look at the examples I've mentioned numerous times. This won't just hit the Bill Gates of the world, it will end up hitting a lot of small business owners and professionals too.

Only in your fantasy world:

Put yourself in the shoes of a small business owner who sacrificed everything to build their business and now makes $300k a year for himself working 75-80 hours a week (and don't forget that he has probably 25-30 people working for him that depend on him). Lets' say we apply that 75% formula to everything he makes over $150k and everything under that is at the current 35%, so with state taxes he's paying 80% and 40%. That means he's seeing $120k minus the additional SSI and Medicare taxes he has to pay. (I know that he is paying a little less on the brackets on the way up to the 35% bracket but the self employment taxes balance it out)

Let's say we stick to something more reasonable than your hysterically stupid scenario. Here's something a bit more realistic:

2010 Tax Brackets
$0 - $8,375 = 10%
$8,375 - $34,000 = 15%
$34,000 - $82,400 = 25%
$82,400 - $171,850 = 28%
$171,850 - $373,650 = 33%
$373,650 and above = 35%

Under a Progressive Tax System we could lower taxes for EVERYONE making below a million a year if only we would tax the rich according to their wealth.

Some rough ideas on numbers.

1,000,000 + = 43%
2,000,000 + = 45%
5,000,000 + = 45%
10,000,000 + = 47%
20,000,000 + = 49%
50,000,000 + = 53%
100,000,000 + = 60%
1,000,000,000 + = 75%

Admittedly, I am no tax expert, but the facts are on MY side. America had it's strongest, largest middle class back in the late 1950's when the top tax bracket was at 90%. At 75%, my top tax bracket seems more than fair.


Now, I know what you are thinking, which is "How will billionaires ever survive on a mere quarter billion a year after taxes?"
.

My thoughts to those billionaires, "Let them eat cake!"

At $250,000+ per year an individual who faces a 3% tax hike is by no means oppressed. The fact that millionaires and billionaires are supposed to pay the same rate is the thing that should drive the $250k-$999,999 crowd up the wall!

But make no mistake, the $250k-$999,999 crowd are NOT the problem. These people are NOT the private jet and butler crowd. They earn around 5 times the average income, They are NOT the problem.

The problem is the CEO class that makes 500 times the average income. It is the greed that demands bigger and bigger dividends no matter what. These people WILL NOT SUFFER if higher taxes drop their income from 500x the average to 499x or 400x the average income after taxes. These people will NOT suffer if they makes 12 million a year after taxes instead of 13 million.

And maybe, just maybe, the economy would do better if lots of coal miners made a little more and Don Blankenship made a little less. Maybe coal billionaire David Koch can afford a bigger tax cut so Main St. America doesn't shrivel up and starve to death in the winter. It's hard to buy coal energy when you are being kicked out of your home.

In my honest opinion, we need new tax brackets for millionaires and billionaires, and we need them starting YESTERDAY. We need to take away the incentive for the CEO/shareholder class to rob the hell out of the working class for profit. Until we do that, the exploitation of the working class will continue unabated and the death spiral of what used to be the middle class will get worse and worse.

Taxed Enough Already? Though Fox News viewers don't know it, 95% of us got income tax CUTS. I think that is great, but I don't think that is enough. If you REALLY want to take the incentive to rob investors or skirt safety regulations away from the CEO class of the super rich tax them until their freakin eyes bleed. If they are going to scream socialist at you no matter what you do you might as well. It's not like the super rich could freak out any more than they already are. It seems to me that the super rich have WAY too much money to lobby Congress with when they aren't outsourcing your job and pulling down HUGE salaries while crashing the economy into the ground.

I say we give the millionaires something to really cry about, and, knowing how whiny and over-privileged they are, a tax increase of a few percentage points should do just the trick.

And remember, when rich people tell you about Free Trade and Economic Freedom, they mean the better to eat you with.

[MickeyG]

I don't see anywhere where kneelandbobdylan said anything about taxing 300k earners 75%.

He was talking about billionaires. Does Lickety read anything properly on here?

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

SkyDog112046=Licketysplit?

[MickeyG]

SkyDog112046=Licketysplit?

Yep. He was outted ages ago.

[vlad]

SkyDog112046=Licketysplit?

The whole "leaving the old folks out on the ice floe" views should have been your first clue. It's his "I'm uber successful, but resent the old leeches taking my hard earned mega bucks, because I'm so rich and really cut (though headless... ) and also don't like fat women, because I am so trim and awesome" routine.

He's a Nietzschean, in his own mind anyway.

Though we'll see what his views are once he hits retirement and needs that new heart or hip. Hopefully he'll do the right thing and retire quietly to the deep woods to die, so as to not be a burden on his kids.

[Ugmo]

He could be worse, and there are much more selfish conservatives on here. To me it's kind of obvious that Lickety is a New England conservative - less liberal than the Democrats, but not entirely without social empathy either (that is when he's being serious).