As evidenced by living in the DC area, $250,000 is NOT RICH! Its one thing to say that people who make $500,000 for 1 Million per year are rich, that would apply to every metro area in the country, but to live within easy commuting distance to your job in the DC area you have to pay a minimum of $500,000. If my household clears $250,000 how are we rich when compared to those living in less expensive areas?? $250,000 may very well be considered well off in other parts of the country, but it is certainty not rich when you live in one of the most expensive.

Every American must have there taxes reduced. That will allow for more spending in the private sector. The money is earned by citizens and it is not the Federal governments money to decide whom to give it to. The marxists hate capitalism and hates what successful individuals represent. They only believe that they had to have abused the workers to earn more than most. This is an evil mentally ill view of life. That is what we normal Americans who work hard would call a lie.
Very simple, cut federal spending lower taxes for all and tax revenue will go up and bills will be paid. Marxists turn a blind eye to the facts that have been proven with history and is why President Obama and the un-American Marxists in his administration need to be pushed out of American politics.
We can't have people who influence others to push hatred and jealousy upon Americans for political gains.
In Liberty,

Proposing laws that only apply to those who make more money is class warfare. The rhetoric of making the rich "pay their fair share" when they are already paying the vast majority of income tax revenues while nearly half the population pays nothing is disengenuous. Everyone should pay something, even if its a fraction of a percent of their income. Likewise, when congress votes a tax hike, everyone's taxes should go up proportionatly. This would ensure that all voters "have skin in the game." We are approaching a dangerous point when those who do not pay into the system will get to vote tax increases upon those who do. This becomes a tyranny of the majority.

I salute you Shig.
In Liberty,

I agree with Shig. One more point: raising taxes on people with higher incomes DOESN'T WORK. All it does is take $ from people who otherwise spend it on investment or hiring or consumer goods. History tells us that when the government raises taxes, revenues to the government decrease. Government doesn't produce wealth--it takes it away from people who do.

M.Ellsworth,
I'm glad that there are many like minded people. We need to stick together and fight socialism any way we can. Volunteer to help.
In Liberty,

The taxes are high and the roadways are in horrible disrepair throughout Fairfax County. We pay personal property tax annually on two vehicles while in my community we have lots of Maryland tags who probably here not paying their fair taxes.. We worked hard for our money through education and prosperous decisions with risk to have the money we have. And we are being penalized through taxation while many are riding through life on my roads I help pay to maintain when they do fill the occasional pot hole. Tax everyone across the board FLAT TAX…and fix these sorry roads in “The Wealthiest County in the Nation”
More boloney !!

Elayne,
Your right. What we need to get rid of is the leftist Chairwoman of Fairfax County. The Board of Supervisors must flip into the hands of people who value individual liberty. We need to eliminate the wasteful spending that the socialist Chairwomen pushes onto the backs of the tax payers. Then we can fix our own roads.
In Liberty,

When the Bush tax cuts were installed it was with the understanding that they were to be temporary. They were to have expired at the end of 2010. It was argued at the time they were installed that they would pay for themselves by stimulating the economy. That did not happen. Instead they accelerated the nation's deficit and increased the disparity between rich and poor. We now have the lowest federal income tax rates since the 1920's and the least progessivity since the Reagan era. With the economic collapse of 2007 succesfully argued that the tax cuts should remain in place for the time being. At this point with a ballooning deficit we need to start removing these tax cuts first on those earning more than $250K per year.

If one more person talks about "fair" share I'll scream. It's childish envy--besides the obvious arguments that (1) someone who works hard and makes money should be able to keep some of his money & use it according to his own choice and (2) at what percentage does the whiner think it's a "fair" share? 100% of the rich guy's income? Why is it "fair" for half of the population not to pay any income tax at all? They get the services etc. from the government. And to forestall the talking point: EVERYONE pays all the other taxe--sales, payroll etc. But most important is that hitting the people with disposable income doesn't make anyone else richer; Peter's tax money doesn't go to directly to Paul. It goes to a non-productive, unwieldly government with the business acumen of say, a Solyndra executive. Emotional arguments ("fairness") really don't fix anything. Let's be practical, look at history, and see what has worked in the past--lower tax rates increase revenue--always. Higher tax rates do not. It's not a really difficult concept.

I agree with LOCALLY INVOLVED and ARCHER JORDAN. This is hardly class warfare on rich people when the tax cuts were supposed to be TEMPORARY. The problem with arguments about "raising" taxes on the wealthy is that it is not a raise in taxes...it is simply restoring them to the levels that have pretty much been in place throughout all of US history, with the distinct exception of the BUSH YEARS. Granted, tax reform is way past due, but that's a different argument entirely which needs to be addressed separately and soon. However, it is ridiculous to think that raising taxes for the wealthy will hinder the economic recovery or paralyze future job growth. Anyone with any understanding of economics knows that the middle class and lower class majority drives demand for products and services, and when those two classes have some sort of recovery, they will be spending their now non-existent disposable income like nobodys' business. Think back to the housing boom of the late 90's. Why was the economy doing so well? In part because the middle class suddenly had money, thanks in part to home equity (loans/lines of credit.) I would concede that spending cuts and making the lower tax pay SOMETHING is fair, but the wealthy are HARDLY struggling to pay their tax bills. They have so many loopholes and ways around paying taxes, it's unbelievable. The rich have the means and the ways to dodge taxes all the way to the bank.

Long Time,
It is ridiculous to ignore facts but that is what liberals do. The 90's was a result of economic policies of the 80's. Reagan reduced taxes on the so called wealthy from 70% to 28% and the boom began. Those who create jobs for the so-called middle class are the wealthy. Since you are a historian then you must know that we didn't have a Federal income tax through out most of our history. The leftist, racist, Democrat Woodrow Wilson began the down fall of growing government and shrinking the private sector.
Reagan only proved you the opposite. The truth can't be ignored. Liberals are professional at it.
In Liberty,

My husband and I are not wealthy by any means, but I don't think it's fair for people who earn a lot more to have to pay more taxes than we do. It's like punishing someone. Those who whine and complain and want those who are wealthy to have to pay more taxes are just plain jealous. I'm sure their viewpoint would change if the roles were reversed.

Did you ever get hired in a job by a poor man. The jobs are from people taking a risk in business a dream. Most people I know who are Entrepreneurs dont mind paying taxes who net .35cents per dollar if they know their taxs are spent worth while.

I keep hearing "We can't tax the job creators." Okay lets give them a tax break when they create jobs. But don't just give them a tax break and hope they'll create jobs. That way hasn't worked so far.

Letting the tax break expire for those families making >$250k will provide about 8 days of spending for the Fed. Is that worth it??? Less disposable income means less spending and investing by the wealthiest. That is certainly not good for the economy. Spending is the problem. Obama has raised the deficit more already than Bush did through 2 terms fighting 2 wars.

to Long Time Loudoner who said "it is ridiculous to think that raising taxes for the wealthy will hinder the economic recovery or paralyze future job growth. Anyone with any understanding of economics knows that the middle class and lower class majority drives demand for products and services." Sorry about my "French", but who the heck do you think HIRES people? Poor people? And how in the heck can middle/lower income (stop with the "class" please) people buy anything if they don't have jobs?

Revenue is not the problem. It never has been. The federal government (not to mention the state and local governments) rake in plenty of dough. Since the government does not have an inherent right to people's labor, taxes should be lowered just on principle. Thanks to inflation, our money doesn't go as far, therefore the government should be taking less of it. Lord knows the government can't spend money as wisely as individuals and families can. The government needs to slash spending and get rid of many of the needless bureaucracies that only cost money and haven't produced anything of value. The Department of Education comes to mind.

Tax rates have been at the Bush tax cut rates for over a decade. To end the Bush tax rates is to effectively raise the tax rates. How many businesses have been started within the past ten years? Those people never had Clinton-era rates. So, let's call it like it is--a major tax hike for many Americans who have done nothing wrong except to be productive and successful.

The idea that the tax cuts should be considered temporary is the heart of the problem here. This is OUR money we are talking about here. Make the tax cuts permanent - the government can adjust its budgets and spending based on that level of taxation and then we can move on. I am not advocating for eliminating any Federal departments or agencies - they were created for a reason. What I am advocating for is a reduction in spending for programs that do not provide a direct benefit to the American public. This president threatened us by saying that if Congress did not act, Social Security checks might not be sent and other benefits might be cut. I never heard him say that foreign aid would be cut; that subsidies for foreign interests would be jeopardized. The president has also managed to spend more money in his first two years of office than George Bush spent in 8 years, plus the debt of every other US president combined! These threats are disingenuous and this level of spending offer further proof that the government is reckless and irresponsible in the way it handles OUR money, so they should not get another nickle of it from anyone beyond the rates they pay now - and everyone's rates should be reduced!

Bingo Pete, stop Foreign aid I want my Taxes spent on our AID here at home. The AMATEUR who is inept in the management and governance will leave us bankrupt.

Summary of ObamaCare Taxes
1. Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals
2. Codification of the “economic substance doctrine
3. “Black liquor” tax hike
4. Tax on Innovator Drug Companies
5. Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike
6. Tax on Indoor Tanning Services
7. Medicine Cabinet Tax
8. HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike
9. Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2
10. Surtax on Investment Income

11. Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax
12. Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers
13. Raise "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10%
14. Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka “Special Needs Kids Tax”
15. Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D
16. $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives
17. Individual Mandate Excise Tax
18. Employer Mandate Tax (Jan 2014):
19. Tax on Health Insurers:
20. Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans

Read more: http://atr.org/full-list-obamacare-tax-hikes-a6996#ixzz1zIM4LtF3

Oh, brother!

The idea that cutting taxes (or keeping them extremely low) for wealthy individuals and big businesses simply doesn't work. What I've been seeing is that big businesses are reducing their workforces and taking advantage of the weak economy and requiring their remaining workers to take on an extra load. Those workers are afraid to protest or leave, because they might not be able to find another job. Think about it - wealthy people are wealthy because they save way more than they spend. They don't care about spending more to help others less fortunate than themselves. They send jobs overseas because it is cheaper, and they don't spend at home. I don't see any reason to extend the tax cuts to them, because they will just hang onto it for themselves. On the contrary, extending tax cuts to the lower and middle classes results in increased revenue for everyone. They will spend money to buy goods, which will end up benefiting businesses overall.

This is the old, much debated, theory of 'trickle down' economics. As stated before, economically, this theory has been debunked. The proposal begin put forth by the president would tax incomes over $250k. This means, if you make $300k, your first $250k remains at the lower, temporarily extended rates and only $50k would be taxed at roughly less 1% (for a $300k salary). Take it at 1% for this example. 1% of $50k is $500, or $42 a month. Hardly a hardship. If you're living that close to the margin on a $300k a year income, you've got other issues.

Also, as stated earlier, ending the temporary tax cuts for incomes of $250k is not the cure for the deficit. But then, no one said it was. There is no singular action. Only a combination of revenue growth and spending restraints. Under the present administration, federal spending has increased at an annualized rate of 1.4% versus the previous administration where it grew 8.1% (see article on Politifact http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/23/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/).

The reason why America has remained strong is because of a strong middle class. As Sandra points out, the lower and middle classes use their dollars to buy staples - business needs to say thank you. Exending cuts to highest income brackets will not result in greater consumer demand. Consumer demand creates the jobs.

PS: Before I get called a fascist/socialist/marxist yet again, I would like to point out that I have spent 30+years as a capitalist leading some of our country's largest companies. Every time one of my customers bought one of my services or products I said 'thank you'. The customer paid my salary and allowed me to pay my employees their salaries and benefits, and finally, delivered profits to my shareholders. The customer has always been first, which is why I and my firms have remained successful.

Paying a slightly higher tax rate does not impede my ability to continue to hire and serve my customers and shareholders.

Locally involved is correct. Trickle down economics has not worked. The very wealthy often have a lower tax rate because their income comes from investments and tax sheltered stock options. Capital gains tax rates are lower than income taxes on salaries. That is part of the reason why CEO salaries are taxed at a lower rate then the average worker. It is disappointing to see the right wing extremists paint anyone who disagrees with them as a socialist or marxist. The inability to compromise and take the best ideas from both sides is hurting the recovery and damaging the credibility of our political process.

Wow

Regarding the comment -- " I think some of you may have a rather narrow education in economics." I have a degree in finance and have worked in the financial field for over 30 years. I have personally seen tax loopholes worked to avoid paying taxes by CEO's and companies. We want our businesses to be successful. However, the excessive salaries and tax breaks for the highest paid executives and the corruption in some industries that knowingly packaged bad investments is wrong. Some things should be non profit, but we need to make sure that they are run as efficiently as possible. There should be medical research financed by the government, not just by the drug companies. If there are no regulations, some companies and people behave badly. However, the regulations should be smart, not excessive. I direct your attention to the recent situation where a CEO worked one day and received a $44 million dollar payout. That would have paid for a lot of jobs.

Thank you, Soccer Mom. I have sat on boards and consulted to many of the Tysons area small-medium sized businesses. I have seen these CEO's drive their organizations into the ground, pocket their small business incentives while laying off half their employees and forcing the remained to take 1/3 cut in salaries to keep their jobs - all the while, giving themselves raises. Efficiency is not what these CEO's were about. We have seen the average CEO salaries in the US rise to 475x that of the average worker's salary. There is being rewarded for our efforts as executives and then there is just plain 'robber baron'. These CEOs have not created jobs with their lowest tax rates in decades. They have pocketed it and whined.Be grateful for the blessings of your teams and the rewards they have returned to you. My companies and my financial status is due to the hard work of my employees and our dedication to the customer. I did not start out rich, in fact, there is no CEO I know that started out rich. We started out at the bottom with a great idea and developed a sustainable management style. Without the 'idea' there would be nothing. Sadly, I must admit, among my ranks, I know of no great CEO ideas, just how to enrich themselves. To my colleagues, I say, stop whining. No one's taking away your money or deriding your efforts. An additional 2 or 3 pts tax increase will hurt, if it does, you've got other problems.

You just made my case, Locally. Your words still indicate that you believe wealthy people are somehow less worthy, and really not very nice (except you, of course). You're the one painting with a broad brush. A thought: does one bad mother mean all mothers are bad? Why then do the (admittedly extreme) Occupy W.S. keep talking about corporate greed as though all corporations are the same? And you KNOW why corporations & banks are holding onto their profits rather than investing. They want to save their business--as more & more regulations & taxes rain down it's all they can do to stay afloat (I LOVE puns)--it's stupid to spend money on investing & hiring if you think you'll need it to feed the government. You likely get the W. Post--did you read the 5 Myths column today. I'd recommend it. oh, btw, I'm low income, self-employed, and overeducated.

Locally, you are to be congratulated for your achievements and excess wealth. I don't agree that it is OK for over 50% of the population to pay no tax at all and don't believe that the current ills of the nation is because of the "greedy" wealthy. However, as you state your case that more tax never hurt anyone, it would seem appropriate that as a mega millionaire yourself you would be willing to voluntarily send the government an annual check of between 50 to 75 percernt of your businesses gross income to show everyone that job growth really does come from the bottom up and that one really can run an effective business with employees and continue to hire more employees at any level of taxation. Once you have done that then some of your spiel that more taxes never hurt anyone might be creditable.

@Burke Resident: Perhaps you did not read through all of my comments above. In response to the article above, the proposed extension of taxes would apply to those making above $250k. That means, if you make $1MM, then $750k would be taxes. For the majority of those of us living in Fairfax Country, there would be no tax increases.

My comment is that for those that make $250,000.01, there would be an incremental increase in their taxes. And, for those that make above that amount, the incremental dollars would not hurt, and, if they did hurt - then those HH have other issues and taxes is not one of them.

For AGI of $500k, the incremental dollars may equate to about $42 a month. If you're living that close to the fringe on an AGI of $500k, taxes are not your problem - your ability to manage your finances is the problem.

92% of small businesses (those less than 50 employees) do not have a business AGI exceeding $250k. There would be no tax increase. Small, independent business should have no issue.

PS: I said I was wealthy - not a mega millionaire. Business succeeds because their customers succeed - not because shareholders do. Business cannot succeed if their customers can't afford to buy their services/goods. The more money my customers have, the more money they have to buy my goods/services. It's a win-win.

Actually, @Kathy Keith, not so. Please reference the latest ADP employment report (which has a 95% simple correlation to the BLS numbers) - Small business (those with payrolls less than 50) and Medium businesses (51-500), both sectors have actually continue to leaad with employment increases.

http://www.adpemploymentreport.com/pdf/FINAL_Report_June_12.pdf

Those of us that are driven to build do so because of the passion we have to seeing our visions develop. We overcome challenges because we're innovative and flexible. Never have I ever (and I doubt anyone on this board) met a true business person who said I refuse to grow because I'll be taxes too much.

One of the impacts to a slightly higher tax increase (now, please do remember over 2/3 of large businesses pay NO federal income tax) is it increases efficiencies, it actually regulates growth. As we saw in the first decade of this year, the lack of regulation cause a 'boom' that was unsubstantiated with actual organic growth. The growth in the first decade, as seen in the charts within the link above, was in finance and construction - no real jobs. In fact, there was no stock market gains either.

I am heartened to see that real, organic growth is occuring. I remember under Ike that the taxes upon the 'rich' were something like 91%! As business folk, we grow and build firms because we are driven to do so. No one actually says to themselves I'm going to stop growing because I don't/can't pay taxes. We find a way.

PS: It isn't the ACA that is making healthcare unaffordable, it's the insurers - especially in CA which is really suffering. However, with I have found upon numerous conversations with the major health care insurers, that they are adapting and finding innovative ways to compete. That is America, that is real capitalism.

@Burke - please, stop taking every comment to the extreme. I am not advocating giving all our money to the government. I am saying that a raise of 2-3 points back to their original rates before the crises is not going to hurt anyone. Business will still invest and grow, hiring will continue.

Whether you believe the economy grows from the top down or bottom up is a difference. That is a debate that continues.

I don't think that anyone is advocating that wealthy people give up the majority of their money to the government. However, Locally Involved quoted as an example a $42/month increase in taxes. While a $42/month increase might be catastrophic to a single mother working 2 jobs to make ends meet, that same amount to someone making over $250,000 would probably be a drop in the bucket - maybe giving up a couple of lattes at Starbucks a week. If I had an income over $250K, I would be willing to pay that $42/month extra so that those less fortunate could have access to health care insurance. As for those who are commenting that slightly higher tax rates will result in less jobs - well, I have yet to see jobs increase as a result of tax cuts. What I am seeing is that many large businesses choose to push their workers to produce more, rather than adding in additional workers. I also see a greater number of workers being hired as part-time employees so that employers don't have to offer health care and other benefits. I think it's time that we tried a different approach.

@M Ellsworth 1.7% is what I would expect given this type of economic recession. Not happy about it but then I wasn't happy about the inorganic, unregulated growth of the first decade of this century because of what exactly happened. It will take 10-15 years to restore ourselves. Sorry, really, very sorry. But we put our selves here. It's like weight, goes one quick, comes off slow. But steady and slow isn't such a bad thing - it keeps the weight off or in this case, ensures more stable future growth.

the Great Depression started in 1929 and didn't end until 1945 simply because the US became the world's lender (and most of those loans went unpaid) inorder to rebuild Europe, thereby stimulating our own economy. We looked long term. And, again, let's not forget Ike's 91% tax rate on the richest. But then we seem to gather together as a country better then than now.

BTW, Reagan raised taxes 7 or 8 times and raised the debit ceiling 2x that.

@Mark Carolla - The companies I have worked with made well over $250k a year - I have no problem with increasing their business taxes - since they dont' pay any because they are so loaded with debt (they're continually rolling over high interest loans) and barely alive as is. Such is the cycle of capitalism. If you cannot compete because of (in these cases, but by no means applies to all firms, just the types I am personally famliar with), then so be it. These firms are so poorly managed for the reasons stated they aren't paying any taxes so therefore will not be affected. Of course, if they invested money in R&D and assets back into the company, in most cases these are tax exempt or subject to lower taxes, so this would remain a zero sum game for these firms.

We are luckier than most living in the DC area where right now there are about 1 job opening for each person unemployed (1:1 ratio). I want to see these firms succeed, but they just cannot seem to get out of their own way. What they're looking for is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, It doesn't work that way.

When these firms fail - and make no mistake, they are already failing, an increase in a 2 or 3 pt tax rate isn't the reason since they're not paying any taxes anyway because of their negative balance sheets.

I apologize, but I don't see a way to reply to Mr. Corolla's remarks directly soI copied & pasted: He said "I'm trying to be cynical as opposed to uncivil but I'm curious you state "I come from a long line of eminent economists--that doesn't mean I can fix all monetary etc. policy.... oh, btw, I'm low income, self-employed, and overeducated" -Those two statements appear to be contradictory: Do you mean you are not an eminent economist and thus underpaid?... or just underpaid because you are self-employed? [a job-generating small business, right?] . By the way, there is no such thing as being "overeducated" unless one uses income as a measure of the sole value of an education. It's too bad he misread my post--perhaps he'd like to reread, and amend his statement. Let's see: 1) why is being related to economists & having a low income contradictory? 2) I never said "underpaid". 3) And "cynical" is sadly not within his reach .4) self-employed by its nature is not job-generating-- and 5) education is not directly related to income and therefore not defined by it. If Mr. Corolla had argued that education is a continuing process a la Jefferson I would have agreed.

We as a nation are in a quandry. Liberals correctly note that some - the CEO's of many of our industries make salaries and benefits in the millions, even if presiding over failed industries. A lot of these CEO's make millions for heading an entity that, in fact, doesn't produce anything. Such individuals probably don't deserve to have their tax breaks extended. (The Bush tax breaks forced us to put two military campaigns on the national credit card contributing to our deficit big time.) On the other hand, conservatives have a point - if those paying no taxes control the distribution of national revenue we fast will become a Third World Country. We need to find a way ahead like we did under Reagan....I remember his first State of the Union in which he said his first priority was to cut taxes - as he grew wise in office he had to raise taxes I believe seven times. Frankly, I am disturbed that the Republican Party has foresaken its roots in the likes of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt. Eisenhower built the Intersates. Lincoln chartered the Transcontinental Railroad and Teddy builf the Panama Canal, the Great White Fleet, and busted the greedy trusts - Romney says "Amtrak has to go."

I posted this above, but it seems appropriate to place the following at this point, too.

"The fixation on appearance and monetary gain at the expense of doing the right thing is both bad business policy and bad public policy. Yet it persists because of a lack of real character and leadership. Our current crisis may be deemed an economic crisis, but in truth it is a crisis of leadership."

--Larry Doyle, longtime Wall Street executive, writing at Sense on Cents

I want to throw this out to everyone. It is WRONG to keep the tax cuts for the middle to lower class. It has been said taking the cuts away those over the 250,000 mark will not hire or create jobs.

Now my question is they are GETTING the tax breaks and cuts now and have been since BUSH left office. WHERE are the jobs???? WHEN are you going to Hire???? As Business Owners when are you going to stop PASSING on the expenses to your lowley paid workers whom you have FROZEN the pay of and said be glad you have a job? I present these questions to all you well to do CEO's and Vice Presidents who lie and cheat and steal from your own workers. Please tell me I wanna know how keeping your tax cuts HELP's me when you are doing absolutely nothing but hoarding the cuts and savings you have NOW!!!!

If the Bush era tax cuts are necessary for the upper income earners to hire new employees why haven't they been hiring over the last 10 years? Not all the high earners are business owners. Many of them are hedge fund managers who don't do much hiring. Often private equity firms make money when they lay off workers. Besides when a business does new hiring the salery costs that they incur initially reduces income which thus reduces their tax liability.

An uncertain business climate (thank you Congress - on both sides of the aisle) is what is probably contributing most to companies holding onto cash and not hiring.

And we debate endlessly over tax rates and cuts, when the real culprit is likely the rather Byzantine tax code for one... right now it's 'he who can afford the best accountant, wins'. Way too many tax breaks and subsidies are the problem... easy to swap out tax breaks/subsidies for a lower tax rate and the majority of people who aren't bilking the system now win...

These ceilings of $250,000 and $500,000 are nice. They look good to those who make that sort of money. And those of us who make less than $50,000? We should pay more? Somebody is full of their own importance. Phooey! Maybe the 250/500 types should put some of their largesse into the pockets of those who make an unspeakable amount less. And now we have the holes which go way down into nothing earned - a depression? Inflation? Yes - been going up for many years.