Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even more

Little-Acorn

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
2,444
Location
San Diego, CA
Xavier Becerra (D-CA), Chairman of the House Democrat Caucus, repeated on Fox News Sunday today the leftist mantra that Americans don't pay enough taxes, and need to pay more. In particular, he tried to demonize even further the highest 2% of income earners and job creators. Though this 2% already pay almost 50% of the country's Federal income taxes already, he insisted that they pay even more.

Things like this are what got so many of these Democrats kicked out of office in Nov. 2010. Strangely, those who remain are still clinging to their vision of eternally expanding government, expanding taxes, and expanding spending.

Apparently they didn't take the hint. Well, there's another November coming, and we'll just have to keep kicking out Democrats until they do get it or none of them are left.

The good news is, Republicans are so far sticking absolutely to their guns, and insisting that there wil be no tax increases, period. I'm pleasantly surprised by this - many of them did not have this attitude in previous years. Sounds like they got a lot more learnin' out of the Nov. 2010 elections, than their comrades of the southpaw persuasion.

Of course, Republican are still very much on probation. Their wild spending of 2001-2009 has not been forgotten. And any of them that even think about going back to those habits, can expect to get kicked out so fast they'll jam in the door with Democrats going the same way.
 
Werbung:
Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even

STOP THE INSANITY (on both sides of the aisle)!
 
Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2908

Top 1 Percent of Americans Reaped Two-Thirds of Income Gains in Last Economic Expansion
Income Concentration in 2007 Was at Highest Level Since 1928, New Analysis Shows

http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/9-9-09poverty-f2.jpg
9-9-09poverty-f2.jpg
 
Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even

Looks like little POS is continuing his long career of making pointless posts in reply to important issues.
 
Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even

Looks like little POS is continuing his long career of making pointless posts in reply to important issues.

Why returning to insults?

Isn't enough enough?

POS makes an excellent argument. And the fact that 2% of people making about 80% of all money doesn't tell me that asking them to pay more tax is unfair!

How much money do those 2top % take home after tax?

How much does the average middle class person take home after tax?

This is enough to convince me that the taxation system is indeed not fair. . .it is to lenient towards the very wealthy.
 
Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even

Over the past 30 years the middle class has not had a pay raise. The wealthy have had humongous pay raises.

Since the wealthy reaped the benefits, why not expect them to pay the costs? Where is the unfairness in that?
 
Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even

Looks like little POS is continuing his long career of making pointless posts in reply to important issues.

Here we go again. The leftists are back to pointing fingers and crying foul, because they believe this Little-Acorn posting is an "insult".

Little-Acorn is expressing his opinion about PFOS's posting "career", which I fully agree with. PFOS's posting "career" is identical to the posting "career" of "Openmind" and "ProudLefty", in my opinion.

Making pointless posts is not an "insult", it is an astute and valid observation, and it is an OPINION.

Quit crying and sniveling, leftists, and try to defend your "pointless posts".

Good luck!
 
Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even

Here we go again. The leftists are back to pointing fingers and crying foul, because they believe this Little-Acorn posting is an "insult".

Little-Acorn is expressing his opinion about PFOS's posting "career", which I fully agree with. PFOS's posting "career" is identical to the posting "career" of "Openmind" and "ProudLefty", in my opinion.

Making pointless posts is not an "insult", it is an astute and valid observation, and it is an OPINION.

Quit crying and sniveling, leftists, and try to defend your "pointless posts".

Good luck!


Can we get back on track (again!) and stop the belly aching and finger pointing?
Thanks.
 
Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even

If your neighbor has more than you do, is it OK to take it from him?

If he brings home a new laptop computer for his son at school, and another for the family at home, is there anything wrong with your walking into his house and taking one of them?

If he designs a new light bulb that uses less electricity but doesn't have weird colors like today's CFLs, and makes a lot of money selling them, and buys all new clothes for his family and trades in their two 10-year-old clunkers for two new econocars, should there be any problem with you walking in, taking half the new clothes, and taking away one of his new cars for yourself? Why shouldn't you be allowed to do this?

If he hired a contractor to build a new swimming pool in his backyard, would THAT make it OK for you to walk off with his clothes and car, and maybe lift his ATM card and take 1/3 of his bank account?

It wasn't that long ago when any of these actions by you, would be correctly labelled "theft", and you would wind up in jail for doing any of them. And your acquaintances would regard your fate as just and right, and wouldn't lift a finger to help you. Including the acquaintances who had no more than you did.

One of the most ominous signs of how thoroughly infected our country has become with the socialist disease, is the degree to which the above actions have become acceptable in recent years, at least if we use government to do them instead of using a tow truck and a purloined ATM card. Look in this very thread, for the number of people who have blithely assumed that people who earn more than they do, should be forced to pay more than they do. Some are even snarling with delight at the effects of these actions, as though it was the people who earned the money who deserve punishment rather than the people stepping in to take it away. It has gotten to the point where many of these people simply assume that those with more income, are themselves wrong or evil or some other state that makes them legitimate targets for losing the rights to what they have earned - a punishment formerly reserved for rapists, thieves, and murderers.

Would it be a good idea for people who have more, to pay more? Of course it would. And so they do - inevitably, every time, completely aside from the resources taken away from them by the takers. How many jobs did your wealthy neighbor support - and pay for, quite directly - on a computer assembly line when he bought two new computers? Compare that to how many you supported, who have not bought a new computer in years. How many seamstresses and clothing designers did he support - and directly pay for - especially considering that he made sure that the clothes he bought had "Made in the USA" labels on every piece, and paid higher prices for them as a result? Compared to you, who last bought a package of Hanes at Wal-mart three years ago? How much of his money did he put in a 401K fund, or even leave in his savings account... to be borrowed by someone else to by a car or pay a college tuition? Did more of his money go into that, than did your money? How many car assembly lines have YOU supported by buying a new car recently? Or house builders? How many job have YOU created by starting a new business or expanding an old one?

Probably the single most insidious and destructive effect of the "get the rich" mantra being pushed so zealously by those on the left in this country, is the discouragement and removal of the property rights our ancestors fought for. All the spending, and investing, and genuine transfers of wealth described above, depend absolutely on people knowing their rising incomes are theirs to keep... because then they never keep them. Every last dollar is ALWAYS spent, or lent, or invested, or otherwise returned to circulation. Every last one. No one stuffs a mattress or lights cigars with $100 bills... despite the cartoons penned by those who want us to believe it were so.

Next time you hear some whining simp shout that "the wealthy should pay in proportion to what they earn", remember that they are ignoring the fact that the wealthy already do... and the simps want that to change. They actually want the wealthy to be STOLEN FROM in proportion to what they earn. How much of the above genuine transfers of wealth, will no longer take place if the shouters and takers get what they are demanding from the rest of us?

A look at the shape of our present economy, will answer that question for you. But you may not like the answer you get.
 
Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even

Here we go again. The leftists are back to pointing fingers and crying foul, because they believe this Little-Acorn posting is an "insult".

Little-Acorn is expressing his opinion about PFOS's posting "career", which I fully agree with. PFOS's posting "career" is identical to the posting "career" of "Openmind" and "ProudLefty", in my opinion.

Making pointless posts is not an "insult", it is an astute and valid observation, and it is an OPINION.

Quit crying and sniveling, leftists, and try to defend your "pointless posts".

Good luck!

I have no idea what you are saying with that post. This is a discussion forum, right? It is not a contest to see who will "win", whatever that means in an Internet setting.

None of us are going to have our minds changed because of a brilliant post or some amazing new fact. None of us. We are all stubborn people who have reached our conclusions about politics for good and bad reasons.

What I look for in a forum like this is a chance to meet "them" and get to know "them" better, and in the process come to accept the idea that "them" is us. Their different ideas don't make them horrible "thems" who must be driven from the village for the safety of the children and goats. Although... in a few cases I do believe the sheep may be in danger.

The world already has way too many "us v. them" situations. Its time for all of us to band together because we know the other-world terrestrials are on the way, and we will have to be together and focused or we will become their cattle.
 
Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even

If your neighbor has more than you do, is it OK to take it from him?

If he brings home a new laptop computer for his son at school, and another for the family at home, is there anything wrong with your walking into his house and taking one of them?

If he designs a new light bulb that uses less electricity but doesn't have weird colors like today's CFLs, and makes a lot of money selling them, and buys all new clothes for his family and trades in their two 10-year-old clunkers for two new econocars, should there be any problem with you walking in, taking half the new clothes, and taking away one of his new cars for yourself? Why shouldn't you be allowed to do this?

If he hired a contractor to build a new swimming pool in his backyard, would THAT make it OK for you to walk off with his clothes and car, and maybe lift his ATM card and take 1/3 of his bank account?

It wasn't that long ago when any of these actions by you, would be correctly labelled "theft", and you would wind up in jail for doing any of them. And your acquaintances would regard your fate as just and right, and wouldn't lift a finger to help you. Including the acquaintances who had no more than you did.

One of the most ominous signs of how thoroughly infected our country has become with the socialist disease, is the degree to which the above actions have become acceptable in recent years, at least if we use government to do them instead of using a tow truck and a purloined ATM card. Look in this very thread, for the number of people who have blithely assumed that people who earn more than they do, should be forced to pay more than they do. Some are even snarling with delight at the effects of these actions, as though it was the people who earned the money who deserve punishment rather than the people stepping in to take it away. It has gotten to the point where many of these people simply assume that those with more income, are themselves wrong or evil or some other state that makes them legitimate targets for losing the rights to what they have earned - a punishment formerly reserved for rapists, thieves, and murderers.

Would it be a good idea for people who have more, to pay more? Of course it would. And so they do - inevitably, every time, completely aside from the resources taken away from them by the takers. How many jobs did your wealthy neighbor support - and pay for, quite directly - on a computer assembly line when he bought two new computers? Compare that to how many you supported, who have not bought a new computer in years. How many seamstresses and clothing designers did he support - and directly pay for - especially considering that he made sure that the clothes he bought had "Made in the USA" labels on every piece, and paid higher prices for them as a result? Compared to you, who last bought a package of Hanes at Wal-mart three years ago? How much of his money did he put in a 401K fund, or even leave in his savings account... to be borrowed by someone else to by a car or pay a college tuition? Did more of his money go into that, than did your money? How many car assembly lines have YOU supported by buying a new car recently? Or house builders? How many job have YOU created by starting a new business or expanding an old one?

Probably the single most insidious and destructive effect of the "get the rich" mantra being pushed so zealously by those on the left in this country, is the discouragement and removal of the property rights our ancestors fought for. All the spending, and investing, and genuine transfers of wealth described above, depend absolutely on people knowing their rising incomes are theirs to keep... because then they never keep them. Every last dollar is ALWAYS spent, or lent, or invested, or otherwise returned to circulation. Every last one. No one stuffs a mattress or lights cigars with $100 bills... despite the cartoons penned by those who want us to believe it were so.

Next time you hear some whining simp shout that "the wealthy should pay in proportion to what they earn", remember that they are ignoring the fact that the wealthy already do... and the simps want that to change. They actually want the wealthy to be STOLEN FROM in proportion to what they earn. How much of the above genuine transfers of wealth, will no longer take place if the shouters and takers get what they are demanding from the rest of us?

A look at the shape of our present economy, will answer that question for you. But you may not like the answer you get.


I am not advocating that everyone should have the same income, regardless of their intelligence, their contribution to society, or their willingness to work hard.

So most of your exemple do not relate to what my position is on taxation.

Basically I am looking at two items:

One would be how far do you think the current trend (wealthiest getting wealthier, poor and middle class getting poorer) is sustainable? The fact is that, when the poor or the middle class have enough money to spend, the wealthiest, who own most of the production outlets benefit from the middle class spending.

There is no problem with a difference in income. What is the problem is what we have seen: about 15 years ago, the average CEO would make about 200 to 250X more than the average worker in any specific industry. Today, that gap has increased to over 500X! It is the excessive disparity in income that is not healthy nor fair, not the disparity in itself. It is the EXCESSIVE disparity in income that is not sustainable, not the disparity in itself.

Second: Imagine a middle class person making $100,000 a year, paying his FICA taxes (that leaves about $86,500 per year), then his income tax after the deductions for his 2 children and his wife (about $20,000 year in Federal taxes). He is left with about $65,000 a year to pay for his housing, to raise his family, to save for vacation, college tuition, and "catastrophic" illnesses or accidents. Depending on where that person lives, he is considered far above the middle income, and yet, I can assure you that he has a little trouble putting aside additional money in his 401K toward retirement (so he doesn't get the tax break for contribution to 401K), and his basic expenses (health insurance, car payment, car maintenance, gas, utilities) are about the same as the person making $1 million a year. By the way, to make that much money ($100,000) this man is obviously fully employed and is a good worker.

Now let's take the person who makes $1 million a year. He/she gets the same FICA taxes (about $13.500 a year), the same deductions for his/her 2 children and spouse, and is paying a little more tax because income above the $250,000 level will be taxed at a higher rate (currently 34.5 %). However, that person, if you consider the same basic deductions, and the same basic taxes, brings home over $850,000 a year. Plenty to increase his spending power (mostly trips overseas, luxury items, maybe even a tax free new condo in the Bahamas or Costa Rica). This still leaves plenty of money to invest. . .thus he builts up wealth, in addition to income (which the previous middle class person couldn't do, or at a MUCH lower level). That wealth is not taxed at all from year to year. The return on investment is taxed at a LOWER tax than the first person's federal tax (15% instead of 20%). In addition, the $1 million earner benefits from a slew of tax shelters, and takes every tax loopholes he can get.

Yet, this person in real terms, even if he/she pays $150,000 in federal tax, while the first pays "only" $20,000 federal tax, pays proportionally less tax than the little guy because he has paid the SAME amount of FICA taxes, has benefitted from every tax loop holes, and dividend taxes, and everything else that lowered his tax bill, and he has not been taxed on this wealth. Therefore, instead of having to live on about $65,000 a year, he lives on a minimum of $750,000 a year.

And, because he uses all the services provided by the government (corporate welfare for airports, highways, communication, subsidized development, such as luxury golf communities, lake front real estate, and tax discount on his $1 million mortgage (instead of the $125,000 mortgage the first guy has), he is actually getting a lot more out of the government support than the first person.

I believe that the big problem is that we focus on basic mathematic to see what is "more tax" or "less tax," not on what the take home pay really represents. It is not about "how much money I pay in tax," it should be about "how much money I take home and what can I do with that money."
 
Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even

What is the problem is what we have seen: about 15 years ago, the average CEO would make about 200 to 250X more than the average worker in any specific industry. Today, that gap has increased to over 500X! It is the excessive disparity in income that is not healthy nor fair, not the disparity in itself. It is the EXCESSIVE disparity in income that is not sustainable, not the disparity in itself.

It's always a hoot to see someone screaming in fear over the idea that a few people are being paid a whole lot of money, as though there were something wrong or destructive about that.

It's another measure of just how bad the "hate-the-rich" corrosion has progressed in some people's otherwise-healthy minds.
 
Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even

It's always a hoot to see someone screaming in fear over the idea that a few people are being paid a whole lot of money, as though there were something wrong or destructive about that.

It's another measure of just how bad the "hate-the-rich" corrosion has progressed in some people's otherwise-healthy minds.

It isn't clear how you take Openminded's comments as screaming. There certainly is no hyperbole in her remarks.

It does appear though that you see nothing inherently wrong with the theft/extortion by the already wealthy of the new wealth created by the working people?

It is OK with you for the powerful to use their power to step on the neck of the middle class and force the middle class to work for bread crusts while the wealthy steals the wealth created by others?

"Might Makes Right", and "If they don't catch you, its not wrong" ethics of a few of today's very wealthy is in some way OK in your book?


History is pretty good teacher, and we know exactly how that scenario plays out. It plays out in revolution and overthrow. That is not the game the wealthy want. The wealthy, for the most part, understand that there must be a strong and vital middle class for their own well being to be safe and secure.

Its only a few spoiled lil rich boys who are being pigs and believe that because they were born sliding into home that they must therefore have hit a home run and deserve to own it all.
 
Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even

Inevitably, we've heard from the fanatical leftists commenting on the "screaming" part of my reply while carefully ignoring the real point: that there'e nothing wrong with being paid a lot of money for what you do, and that every bit of that money is always returned into common circulation, contrary to the wishful thinking of the leftist fanatics.

Followed, of course, by the de rigeur return to the same class-hatred and oh-those-eeeevil-rich rhetoric as though it hadn't just been debunked. But, I guess they know no other songs to sing. Sometimes I feel sorry for the poor leftist fanatics and their forlorn tales.

Now that we've heard from the Marx/Engels wing of the Dem party, would anyone like to comment on the description I gave of people who have money, how they earned it, and what they typically do with it? It is, of course, a reudiation of the entire driving agenda of the Left - the idea that the wealth owe their wealth to the rest of us, and that it's OK for us to take it from them, whether by govt-sanctioned theft or by the old-fashioned kind.
 
Werbung:
Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even

Inevitably, we've heard from the fanatical leftists commenting on the "screaming" part of my reply while carefully ignoring the real point: that there'e nothing wrong with being paid a lot of money for what you do, and that every bit of that money is always returned into common circulation, contrary to the wishful thinking of the leftist fanatics.

Followed, of course, by the de rigeur return to the same class-hatred and oh-those-eeeevil-rich rhetoric as though it hadn't just been debunked. But, I guess they know no other songs to sing. Sometimes I feel sorry for the poor leftist fanatics and their forlorn tales.

Now that we've heard from the Marx/Engels wing of the Dem party, would anyone like to comment on the description I gave of people who have money, how they earned it, and what they typically do with it? It is, of course, a reudiation of the entire driving agenda of the Left - the idea that the wealth owe their wealth to the rest of us, and that it's OK for us to take it from them, whether by govt-sanctioned theft or by the old-fashioned kind.

Where in my reply did I scream about the looters and their money? All anyone is asking is that they pay a fair share to the country that provided their great good fortunes.

Why is that unreasonable?

(For some reason that is totally mysterious to me, there are people who believe the rich are rich totally on their own befuddles me. Do you believe these very rich people would be very rich if they were born and raised in Somalia? Or Mexico. Or Qatar. Or Finland?
 
Back
Top