|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jan 3, 2011 12:27:41 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jan 3, 2011 13:57:57 GMT -8
Well, it is an opinion piece. For myself I fear for the future of our great country when the richest engage in class warfare against the rest of us.
|
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Jan 3, 2011 14:11:48 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jan 3, 2011 15:14:38 GMT -8
Which shows, to a certain extent, how the tax liability in this country has been shifted to the middle class. The comparison has nothing at all to do with the thread subject. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Jan 3, 2011 16:27:01 GMT -8
Which shows, to a certain extent, how the tax liability in this country has been shifted to the middle class. The comparison has nothing at all to do with the thread subject. =Bob Rather, it shows that income levels for lower and middle class are about the same given the entitlement glut. Besides the fact that we are going broke with those policies, it is also true that no amount of "taxing the rich" (who have many economic options rather than just sitting there and getting plucked) will solve that, ergo, the middle class will always bear the brunt of paying for a socialist "utopia". |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jan 3, 2011 22:31:28 GMT -8
Which shows, to a certain extent, how the tax liability in this country has been shifted to the middle class. The comparison has nothing at all to do with the thread subject. =Bob Rather, it shows that income levels for lower and middle class are about the same given the entitlement glut. Besides the fact that we are going broke with those policies, it is also true that no amount of "taxing the rich" (who have many economic options rather than just sitting there and getting plucked) will solve that, ergo, the middle class will always bear the brunt of paying for a socialist "utopia". Your conclusion is that we should let the rich rape our economy, and thus our country, because if we don't let them they will take their money and go away? Really? |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jan 3, 2011 22:46:56 GMT -8
I would support a flat tax and very much curtailed federal spending. But if one really wants to soak the rich, raising the income tax, for reasons that I'll bet most readers here already understand, will not really get the job done. If you want to soak the rich, how about proposing a "wealth surtax"? Look, people like Buffet, Gates, etc., have hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars of net worth. Do they need all that money to live very well? Or course not! (Yes, yes, I know. . . it's not the government's job to decide how much someone needs. Or IS it?  ) Surely one, even if he has a very, very large family, can live in luxury with a net worth of one or two hundred million dollars, don't you think? Okay, progressives (that terms just slays me! ;D), have the courage of your convictions. Propose a wealth surtax, let's say confiscation of all net worth over a certain "generous" amount. How about confiscation of all net worth over one hundred million dollars? No, is that too draconian for you? Well, all right, if you must wimp out, I guess you must. Here's an alternative. A tax of 10% a year on all net worth over one hundred million. Someone with, as an example, 800 million in net worth (Ketchup Lady) would have to pay 70 million dollars in surtax. That would leave the poor dear with a mere 730 million, barely enough to keep body and soul together! The next year she would have just 560 million, and so on. At that rate, she would be down to her last $101,000.00 in jut SIXTY-TWO years! ! ! (Remember, in this plan we are letting her keep his first 100 million to sock away for a rainy day.) Now, that doesn't sound unfair, does it? Think what we could do in the cause of social justice if we levied this modest wealth tax on the super rich! Or, if that does not strike your fancy, how about capping yearly income at some generous figure. How about $500,000.00? Virtually anyone could live on that, right? What's the big deal, progressives? Let's get with it and REALLY sock it to the rich! Well, I'll tell you why the Democrats will not really stand up for their progressive ideals. Too many Democrats actually make well over half a million a year and/or have a net worth above 100 million! Enough Lefties would have their own oxes gored by such a "progressive" plan, so there is zero chance that it would be enacted. Better to use "soak the rich" rhetoric as a political weapon than to really do some big time soaking! Anyway, you could confiscate ALL wealth over 100 million dollars and it still would not balance the books the way the Left is going. The dirty little secret is that given a few years more of this and we will look much like Greece and France and all the other countries in which the people riot when their governments finally realize that they have run out of other peoples' money! AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jan 4, 2011 8:14:42 GMT -8
LOL As a liberal it cracks me up to hear what William says are my ideas. ;D Delusional is the best I can say. |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Jan 4, 2011 8:20:43 GMT -8
Rather, it shows that income levels for lower and middle class are about the same given the entitlement glut. Besides the fact that we are going broke with those policies, it is also true that no amount of "taxing the rich" (who have many economic options rather than just sitting there and getting plucked) will solve that, ergo, the middle class will always bear the brunt of paying for a socialist "utopia". Your conclusion is that we should let the rich rape our economy, and thus our country, because if we don't let them they will take their money and go away? Really? No, that is your ideologically driven dogma talking. The rich typically have something going for them (a business, a special talent, investments), they are generally smarter than the average bear and they will generally act to protect their interests (just as all the bleeding-heart rich liberals in Hollywood and DC do as they hire tax attorneys to make sure they pay no more to the Gov than they have to ). Cranking up the tax rate will simply drive people's income at the upper brackets off the books or they will transfer the burden onto the middle class and lower class consumers. Real tax revenue will decrease and the overall benefits for the middle class from those tax increases will decrease. If you care one rats a$$ about the middle class, you would seek to reduce government spending and, by consequence, their tax burden. But for Democrats, it seems, it is all about power for the party and the middle class can take a long walk off the short pier. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jan 4, 2011 11:37:10 GMT -8
LOL As a liberal it cracks me up to hear what William says are my ideas. ;D Delusional is the best I can say. Well, then, just stop laughing long enough to tell us what your ideas really are. And whether you would or would not support the kind of "wealth tax" I proposed in my previous post. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jan 4, 2011 17:31:31 GMT -8
Without really jumping in on this thread, just how much initiative would you kill with any confiscation outright of earned wealth. How would capital formation occur?
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jan 5, 2011 9:03:54 GMT -8
Your conclusion is that we should let the rich rape our economy, and thus our country, because if we don't let them they will take their money and go away? Really? No, that is your ideologically driven dogma talking. The rich typically have something going for them (a business, a special talent, investments), they are generally smarter than the average bear and they will generally act to protect their interests (just as all the bleeding-heart rich liberals in Hollywood and DC do as they hire tax attorneys to make sure they pay no more to the Gov than they have to ). Cranking up the tax rate will simply drive people's income at the upper brackets off the books or they will transfer the burden onto the middle class and lower class consumers. Real tax revenue will decrease and the overall benefits for the middle class from those tax increases will decrease. If you care one rats a$$ about the middle class, you would seek to reduce government spending and, by consequence, their tax burden. But for Democrats, it seems, it is all about power for the party and the middle class can take a long walk off the short pier. I think it is your dogma that is talking. I think it is the conservatives that are only interested in power and care little for their country. It is the conservatives that make sure that the wealthy can evade their fair share of taxes. So the rich have businesses and that gives them a special break. You mean like paying for personal expenses through their business? That is also called tax fraud. You all right with that?Special talents? Okay, they still have to earn a living. That is why there is an income tax. Investments? Sure, they can buy munis. Not much of a return on those, but if you have enough capital it is not an issue. Capital gains have a preferred rate. That is sweet deal. I don't agree with it. No reason that capital should be preferred to land or labor. The rich has convinced all the conservatives that the rich should be treated better than the rest. After all, the have the capital. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jan 5, 2011 9:04:57 GMT -8
LOL As a liberal it cracks me up to hear what William says are my ideas. ;D Delusional is the best I can say. Well, then, just stop laughing long enough to tell us what your ideas really are. And whether you would or would not support the kind of "wealth tax" I proposed in my previous post. AzWm It is too much fun laughing at you for me to stop. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jan 5, 2011 9:07:57 GMT -8
William, I have been posting for more than 10 years. If you do not know my views on politics that is your fault, not mine.
Instead of posting what you think are liberal views, you just stick to being the house libertarian. That will be laughs enough for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jan 5, 2011 13:47:43 GMT -8
William, I have been posting for more than 10 years. If you do not know my views on politics that is your fault, not mine. Instead of posting what you think are liberal views, you just stick to being the house libertarian. That will be laughs enough for me. I have not been following your posts for 10 years, having first joined AztecTalk.org in '06. Also, I was offering what I though might well be the line taken by Democrats in general, especially those in high positions (office holders, party functionaries, left-leaning academics, famous people who speak out on political issues . . . and who are taken seriously by the media . . . , etc.). I do not know what you personally think of my "wealth surtax" idea and will not know what you think unless you express yourself in ways that do not include laughing out loud. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jan 5, 2011 14:41:34 GMT -8
William, I have been posting for more than 10 years. If you do not know my views on politics that is your fault, not mine. Instead of posting what you think are liberal views, you just stick to being the house libertarian. That will be laughs enough for me. I have not been following your posts for 10 years, having first joined AztecTalk.org in '06. Also, I was offering what I though might well be the line taken by Democrats in general, especially those in high positions (office holders, party functionaries, left-leaning academics, famous people who speak out on political issues . . . and who are taken seriously by the media . . . , etc.). I do not know what you personally think of my "wealth surtax" idea and will not know what you think unless you express yourself in ways that do not include laughing out loud. AzWm Why would you think that "Democrats in general" would think that? Do you follow liberal websites or other media? Can you offer some relevant citations to support your thinking? |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jan 7, 2011 19:17:59 GMT -8
Without really jumping in on this thread, just how much initiative would you kill with any confiscation outright of earned wealth. How would capital formation occur? You have no dog in this fight because all you ever offer is crap. Take your trolls LWSP. Pathetic attempt at a troll - I'm really disappointed you can't do better. I mean really, Pooh, this is beneath you. Have a couple margaritas and come back. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Jan 7, 2011 20:17:34 GMT -8
I believe in total uniformity of Taxes between the masses and classes. As previously postulated Federal Income Tax should be about Fifty percent of all income in excess of $30,000 per indivudual per year.
Instead of all of the marriage penalties built into the Tax code there should be a $5000 credit given to all couples who have been married for the entirety of the year. That way the Federal Government would stop encouraging divorce like it has in the past fifty years.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jan 8, 2011 8:29:15 GMT -8
Without really jumping in on this thread, just how much initiative would you kill with any confiscation outright of earned wealth. How would capital formation occur? You have no dog in this fight because all you ever offer is crap. Take your trolls LWSP. Pathetic attempt at a troll - I'm really disappointed you can't do better. I mean really, Pooh, this is beneath you. Have a couple margaritas and come back. =Bob OK, I had my couple margaritas! Now how would capital formation occur? |
|
|
|
Post by inevitec on Jan 8, 2011 8:36:38 GMT -8
Your conclusion is that we should let the rich rape our economy, and thus our country, because if we don't let them they will take their money and go away? Really? No, that is your ideologically driven dogma talking. The rich typically have something going for them (a business, a special talent, investments), they are generally smarter than the average bear and they will generally act to protect their interests (just as all the bleeding-heart rich liberals in Hollywood and DC do as they hire tax attorneys to make sure they pay no more to the Gov than they have to ). Cranking up the tax rate will simply drive people's income at the upper brackets off the books or they will transfer the burden onto the middle class and lower class consumers. Real tax revenue will decrease and the overall benefits for the middle class from those tax increases will decrease. If you care one rats a$$ about the middle class, you would seek to reduce government spending and, by consequence, their tax burden. But for Democrats, it seems, it is all about power for the party and the middle class can take a long walk off the short pier. I lurk, but I don't post here, because some of the comments I read create the impulse to be personally insulting in response, particularly when reading some of the less emotionally controlled and inflexible posts. And, I would prefer not to post insulting comments. But I will say this to you: I think that there is a connection between high wealth disparity and poor economic performance overall. We have been most prosperous when our disparity in income and wealth was less than it is now. The bifurcation of wealth is currently very large and we are currently less well off. Prosperous nations usually have a wealth disparity that is far less than ours. Failed economies, such as Argentina (historically), usually have high income disparities. Consumer demand accounts for about 70% of our economic activity. If that 70% is less well off, how will the rich help the economy grow on their own? I have seen relatively scant evidence that helping the rich has improved the economy. We have experienced ten years of economic and tax stimulus for the rich and I see no fundamental improvement in our economic position. In fact, we have declined. Please show me how high wealth disparity and assistance to the rich helps the majority of the economy. |
|
)
