Should We Favor Tax Cuts For The Rich

Should someone like Paris Hilton be included as a jobs provider, therefore excluded from a tax hike?

There is a difference in my book, between an actual on going business enterprise and a trust fund babe or dude.

This current argument over the expiring Bush tax cuts, has been too superficial in it's thinking. What's wrong with taxing the idle rich, while the true job creators keep the tax break?

It isn't a matter of who makes above $250,000 a year. It's really a matter of how that $250,000 is made by that person.

Outside of a staff of domestic servants does Paris Hilton employ anyone as she spends the Hilton fortune? Her father is definitely entitled to the tax break as Hilton hotels employs thousands of people.

It's the sons and daughters of the tycoons, who spend their time figuring out which drunken party to attend next, who should feel the tax chop. Think of the cocaine that would go unpurchased, that market might collapse.

I say define the job production the wealthy produce, exclude make-up artist, butler, swimming pool cleaner, chauffeur, personal shopper and so on from the list as qualifiers, then set the tax rates.

To lump the corner drug store Mom and Pop operation, in with Hollywood stars who employ only personal service types who's sole purpose is to attend to the personal comfort needs of his employer is elitism injustice. The tax code should exclude those type of "employee expenses" and not qualify these high income types as "job" producers. To simply draw an arbitrary line at $250,000 or claim anyone that makes six figures as a job creator, shows the short sightedness that is going into solving the economic crisis we have in America.

Steve