Fascinating

Prosperity sucks. At least according to the LATimes.

How dare folks making lots of money refuse to give a good size chunk of it back to the state!

When doing these articles there is a shift that is always made, first they say that the gap is increasing between the rich and the poor, and the rich aren't paying their 'fair share'.

But when they get down to the numbers they have to make the embarrasing admission that everyone is prospering in the current economy, the rich are getting richer, but the poor are getting richer, too, and likewise for everyone else in between.

So you have one or two sentences about how Pres. Bush has flattened the tax rate, and as it so happens the economy has prospered, and the government has collected more in taxes then ever before, but that's not enough.

Somehow those two facts are completely independent. Had we only taxed those wealthiest of earners at a higher rate, we wouldn't have crippled that prosperity, but instead magically sucked away potential capital for those most likely to invest without actually effecting their investing decisions.

The article is a 'tut-tut' article about some nebulous notion that the rich are getting away with some sort of evil trick by not paying their 'fair share', and of course by 'fair share' the LATimes means a far larger proportion of their income than anyone else.

Clearly the LATimes hopes to stir the rabble into storming the palace and demanding that the rich hand over more of their wealth to pay for more and more social services, cause then and only then will we have justice.

Envy sucks, not prosperity.