Taxing the Rich

[maintenanceguy]

Taxing the rich is a popular idea. Mostly because those of us who aren't rich have a bit of resentment for those that are and we want to see them "get theirs" and also because we figure it's better to take their money than to take ours.


The rich will spend their money. They can spend it by investing in business or turning it over to the government. Either way that money will eventually trickle down into the hands of the working class. It can do so through businesses in the form of paychecks or through the government in the form of welfare. But since businesses produce something with value (widgets) and governents don't; we're much better off if it trickles down through businesses.

Tax increases on the Rich hurt all of us because they remove money from the economy that would have eventually reached our paychecks, forcing more people out of work so that same money can be distrubuted to those same people but this time with less widgets for everyone.

Abraham Lincoln is quoted as saying "You can not build up the wage earner by tearing down the wage payer." or something very similar to that.

[acmanko]

What do you consider as being rich?

[bb]

Kerry thinks anyone making over $200,000 should be taxed more.

This includes a Lot of company owners. I think it is a mistake to tax these people more because they will tighten down on what they have left over.

Now I would agree if Kerry was only talking about CEO's and others who make Millions a year,like his wife.

[acmanko]

You don't know much about Bush and Cheney do you, or any other senators and rep's

[infwsdm]

good post guy.

I agree with that assessment.

People would rather reduce 'the rich' to being poor rather than doing what it takes to get rich.

Some people are born rich, like the Hilton chicks. BUT, it was their parents and grandparents that busted their asses to get to where they are. Why would anyone begrudge the Hilton girls for having what they have?

Then their are the newly self made rich people who busted their asses to get to where they are and may choose to pass the wealth on to their grandchildren.

People who get rich off of someone elses demise can burn in hell. And I can understand the resentment

[snipe70e]

Originally posted by infwsdm
good post guy.

I agree with that assessment.
People would rather reduce 'the rich' to being poor rather than doing what it takes to get rich.

Then their are the newly self made rich people who busted their asses to get to where they are and may choose to pass the wealth on to their grandchildren.




My observation is that the Democrats in power Kerry, Kennedy and friends do not mind taxing the rich because they want it to be an exclusive club. By using the tax system and other regulations against others who would bust their asses and take risks from joining their club. Dont ever think that they are like you or me or they care about you or me, they are all about maintaining the status quoe and their power. They will give us enough crumbs to keep us happy, that is why they are pro labor.

Now the Republicins on the other hand think that if you are willing to take the chance, welcome to the club. But if you are not willing to take the chance get out of the way and you get what you deserve. Therefore the anti-labor attitude.

Now the question who do you vote fore? I have a hard time remembering voting for a canidate. Generally I vote against a canidate.
Len

[i_got_ideas]

What pissed me off last year was that Bush said he gave a $1000 higher child tax credit. I didn't qualify because I made $63 too much.......damn my luck. I made $63 but lost $939 :rolleyes:

[bootlen]

Originally posted by acmanko
What do you consider as being rich?

================================================== =========

Dems/libs think it's anybody who has ANY disposable cash. As in...you own a boat = you're rich; you eat out at anyplace other than Mickey D's = you're rich; you have aspare bedroom = you're rich; you own your own business = you're rich; your POV is less than 2 years old = you're rich; etc., etc., etc.

Why is it K made over $7 million last year and only paid 11% taxes? It's not because he should have paid more...it's because he thinks he's above his own policies.

[acmanko]

I found it and already spent it.

[mtushmoo]

"tax the rich, feed the poor. 'Till there are no rich no more."

Then everybody can live in a tar paper shack and not have a job or anybody to go to work for.

It boils down to a difference of perspectives. The Dems think equality means everyone gets the same outcome regardless of their abilities or ambition.

The republicans think equality means everyone gets the same OPPORTUNITIES and the results are up to the individual.

By default, that means that the society the Dems envision has one of two outcomes - either EVERYONE is reduced to the least common denominator and everyone has to live their life as a drooling slob slouching on the couch watching al bundy drool on himself on his couch on TV - OR we let a few peole achieve some success, and then STEAL some of that success to redistribute to others who lack the brains/ambition/education to achieve more.

That's why the soft bigotry of low expectations in education is SO harmful. As soon as there are more uneducated people in society, it increases the number of couch droolers.

Since some people DO get educated, and achieve some greatness, that means we're in scenario number two. More couch droolers means more people to vote for re-distribution. More couch droolers getting redistribution checks means more democrats in office. More democrats in office means restrictions on school choice. The Democrats are opposed to school choice because "It would cause an exodus of kids from the 'struggling' schools and hurt them more." It's OK to let kids continue to not be educated in the broken school, though, BECAUSE the couch droolers kids are FORCED to go to the same POS school that spawned their folks - which means ANOTHER GENERATION of couch drooling Democrat voters.

Truoble is, sooner or later the couch droolers out number the productive folks. Then the tax rates go up, and there's no longer any incentive for the productive folks to be productive - so they sit on the couch and pretend to drool while they cash their check - because it makes more sense.

Then suddenly, there's no productive people left to tax. Once there's nothing left to redistribute, society as we know it fails, and anarchy occurs.

So.......

Bush '04.

Eric K

[bootlen]

Originally posted by mtushmoo
"tax the rich, feed the poor. 'Till there are no rich no more."

Then everybody can live in a tar paper shack and not have a job or anybody to go to work for.

It boils down to a difference of perspectives. The Dems think equality means everyone gets the same outcome regardless of their abilities or ambition.

The republicans think equality means everyone gets the same OPPORTUNITIES and the results are up to the individual.

By default, that means that the society the Dems envision has one of two outcomes - either EVERYONE is reduced to the least common denominator and everyone has to live their life as a drooling slob slouching on the couch watching al bundy drool on himself on his couch on TV - OR we let a few peole achieve some success, and then STEAL some of that success to redistribute to others who lack the brains/ambition/education to achieve more.

That's why the soft bigotry of low expectations in education is SO harmful. As soon as there are more uneducated people in society, it increases the number of couch droolers.

Since some people DO get educated, and achieve some greatness, that means we're in scenario number two. More couch droolers means more people to vote for re-distribution. More couch droolers getting redistribution checks means more democrats in office. More democrats in office means restrictions on school choice. The Democrats are opposed to school choice because "It would cause an exodus of kids from the 'struggling' schools and hurt them more." It's OK to let kids continue to not be educated in the broken school, though, BECAUSE the couch droolers kids are FORCED to go to the same POS school that spawned their folks - which means ANOTHER GENERATION of couch drooling Democrat voters.

Truoble is, sooner or later the couch droolers out number the productive folks. Then the tax rates go up, and there's no longer any incentive for the productive folks to be productive - so they sit on the couch and pretend to drool while they cash their check - because it makes more sense.

Then suddenly, there's no productive people left to tax. Once there's nothing left to redistribute, society as we know it fails, and anarchy occurs.

So.......

Bush '04.

Eric K

================================================== =========

Exactly right, Eric. That has been tried before and it was called the Soviet Union.

Yeah you freakin'libs. Let's do that again. Just do it somewhere else.

[infwsdm]

Originally posted by i_got_ideas
What pissed me off last year was that Bush said he gave a $1000 higher child tax credit. I didn't qualify because I made $63 too much.......damn my luck. I made $63 but lost $939 :rolleyes:

you better get a new accountant!

[mtushmoo]

Brian's right -

If you couldn't find $63 more worth of deductions, he should have been fired.

That's those two garbge bags full of old clothes you dumped off at goodwill.

Eric K

[acmanko]

For 50.00 bucks a week you can call me son, It will get you another exemption.

[MadeinUSA]

Originally posted by i_got_ideas
What pissed me off last year was that Bush said he gave a $1000 higher child tax credit. I didn't qualify because I made $63 too much.......damn my luck. I made $63 but lost $939 :rolleyes: If you would have slapped your boss around and been getting paid what you were worth, you would have made a whole lot more than the $939 you lost, and it wouldn’t be a factor here. But hey, let’s blame it on Bush and not on your laziness to get paid what you are worth, right?

When you decide to become a business owner one day, you will come over to the REAL side and understand economics, financing and what factors in society effect business. When this day comes, and you change from being a SHEEP and become a SHEPARD, you will have a total different outlook.

By the way, I thought you said you weren’t allowing yourself in here anymore.

Oh I see, you still want to learn how to get to the RIGHT side, well welcome back, I hope you learn something……-).

[cehs]

Originally posted by acmanko
What do you consider as being rich?

Almost anybody will tell you that a rich person is one who makes more money than THEY do...

[infwsdm]

Originally posted by madeinusa

Originally posted by i_got_ideas
What pissed me off last year was that Bush said he gave a $1000 higher child tax credit. I didn't qualify because I made $63 too much.......damn my luck. I made $63 but lost $939 :rolleyes: If you would have slapped your boss around and been getting paid what you were worth, you would have made a whole lot more than the $939 you lost, and it wouldn’t be a factor here. But hey, let’s blame it on Bush and not on your laziness to get paid what you are worth, right?

When you decide to become a business owner one day, you will come over to the REAL side and understand economics, financing and what factors in society effect business. When this day comes, and you change from being a SHEEP and become a SHEPARD, you will have a total different outlook.

By the way, I thought you said you weren’t allowing yourself in here anymore.

Oh I see, you still want to learn how to get to the RIGHT side, well welcome back, I hope you learn something……-).




Yeah but it might take him 10-20 years to get his head out of his a$$.

[infwsdm]

Originally posted by mtushmoo
Brian's right -

If you couldn't find $63 more worth of deductions, he should have been fired.

That's those two garbge bags full of old clothes you dumped off at goodwill.

Eric K

He probably did his own taxes to save the 75 bucks he would have had to pay joe tax dude.

[James 3528]

Originally posted by acmanko
What do you consider as being rich?

In your case it would be people that don't buy used furniture from whore houses.

[mtushmoo]

Originally posted by acmanko
What do you consider as being rich?

Depends on whether you're a democrat or a republican, and whether it's before or after the election.

Democrats want to "tax the rich and feed the poor." both before AND after the election.

Before the election, they define "rich" as (paraphrasing J.F. Kerry in the third debate) "the top 0.1 percent of wage earners."

After the election, they quietly change that definition to "anybody with a pot to pee in, or a window to throw it out of."

Republicans don't CARE about the definition of rich. They just want everybody to have an opportunioty to get there, and don't believe it's right to punish a person for their success by making them pay a higher PERCENTAGE of their income.

The progressive income tax is immoral.

If people truly wanted a "fair" tax, then everybody ought to pay the same dollar amount.

Take the federal budget, divide it by the number of taxpayers. Send it in.

There's your new 3 line 1040 form.

Watch the "poor" wail and gnash their teeth on that one.

Eric K

[acmanko]

Pay your taxes and quit *****ing about it.