"The rich" paying more taxes than ever, bottom 50% pay less than 3%

[Little-Acorn]

Same old story, accompanied by the same old politicians yelling the same old thing: "We have to soak the rich even more, and cut taxes for the poor!"

We are nearly at the point where half of all Ameircans pay no income taxes at all. Once we pass that point, you can be sure of a majority that will NEVER vote for another tax cut, but will vote for all the "soak the rich" tax increases that come down the pike.

Once outright theft becomes legal and accepted, is there any reason not to engage in it more and more?

------------------------------------------------

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121659695380368965.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Their Fair Share

July 21, 2008; Page A12

Washington is teeing up "the rich" for a big tax hike next year, as a way to make them "pay their fair share." Well, the latest IRS data have arrived on who paid what share of income taxes in 2006, and it's going to be hard for the rich to pay any more than they already do. The data show that the 2003 Bush tax cuts caused what may be the biggest increase in tax payments by the rich in American history.

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AH901_3taxri_20080720202013.gif

The nearby chart shows that the top 1% of taxpayers, those who earn above $388,806, paid 40% of all income taxes in 2006, the highest share in at least 40 years. The top 10% in income, those earning more than $108,904, paid 71%. Barack Obama says he's going to cut taxes for those at the bottom, but that's also going to be a challenge because Americans with an income below the median paid a record low 2.9% of all income taxes, while the top 50% paid 97.1%. Perhaps he thinks half the country should pay all the taxes to support the other half.

Aha, we are told: The rich paid more taxes because they made a greater share of the money. That is true. The top 1% earned 22% of all reported income. But they also paid a share of taxes not far from double their share of income. In other words, the tax code is already steeply progressive.

We also know from income mobility data that a very large percentage in the top 1% are "new rich," not inheritors of fortunes. There is rapid turnover in the ranks of the highest income earners, so much so that people who started in the top 1% of income in the 1980s and 1990s suffered the largest declines in earnings of any income group over the subsequent decade, according to Treasury Department studies of actual tax returns. It's hard to stay king of the hill in America for long.

The most amazing part of this story is the leap in the number of Americans who declared adjusted gross income of more than $1 million from 2003 to 2006. The ranks of U.S. millionaires nearly doubled to 354,000 from 181,000 in a mere three years after the tax cuts.

This is precisely what supply-siders predicted would happen with lower tax rates on capital gains, dividends and income. The economy and earnings would grow faster, which they did; investors would declare more capital gains and companies would pay out more dividends, which they did; the rich would invest less in tax shelters at lower tax rates, so their tax payments would rise, which did happen.

The idea that this has been a giveaway to the rich is a figment of the left's imagination. Taxes paid by millionaire households more than doubled to $274 billion in 2006 from $136 billion in 2003. No President has ever plied more money from the rich than George W. Bush did with his 2003 tax cuts. These tax payments from the rich explain the very rapid reduction in the budget deficit to 1.9% of GDP in 2006 from 3.5% in 2003.

This year, thanks to the credit mess and slower growth, taxes paid by the rich may fall and the deficit will rise. (The nonstimulating tax rebates will also hurt the deficit.) Mr. Obama proposes to close this deficit by raising tax rates on the rich to their highest levels since the late 1970s. The very groups like the Congressional Budget Office and Tax Policy Center that wrongly predicted that the 2003 investment tax cuts would cost about $1 trillion in lost revenue are now saying that repealing those tax cuts would gain similar amounts. We'll wager it'd gain a lot less.

If Mr. Obama does succeed in raising tax rates on the rich, we'd also wager that the rich share of tax payments would fall. The last time tax rates were as high as the Senator wants them -- the Carter years -- the rich paid only 19% of all income taxes, half of the 40% share they pay today. Why? Because they either worked less, earned less, or they found ways to shelter income from taxes so it was never reported to the IRS as income.

The way to soak the rich is with low tax rates, and last week's IRS data provide more powerful validation of that proposition.

[Trigg]

and these are the guys getting a free ride. Lazy people who depend on the rest of us to pay their way.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92592545

[red states rule]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3255/2695880461_4d78ebf950.jpg?v=0

[retiredman]

the tax code has been WAY more steeply progressive in earlier administrations than it is in this one or that it will be in an Obama administration. Throughout those times, the wealthy in America were still able to live lives of opulence and leisure. A marginal increase back to the rates in place during the halcyon days of the Clinton Administration when lots of folks were rich and getting richer will not be a burden on the wealthy. They'll still have plenty of cash to do whatever they please.

[darin]

the tax code has been WAY more steeply progressive in earlier administrations than it is in this one or that it will be in an Obama administration. Throughout those times, the wealthy in America were still able to live lives of opulence and leisure. A marginal increase back to the rates in place during the halcyon days of the Clinton Administration when lots of folks were rich and getting richer will not be a burden on the wealthy. They'll still have plenty of cash to do whatever they please.

What other forms of Theft are you okay with? Do you eat grapes from the grocery store? Do you shoplift? Afterall, Winn Dixie can AFFORD you eating it's grapes w/o paying. And WalMart can EASILY afford you stealing a few hundred dollars of merchindise.

The rich living their lifestyle - based on their HARD WORK - is irrelevant to the level of 'theft' the government performs upon them via "taxes". Where is the motivation to GET rich, if you are coerced into giving your hard earned money to poor lazy folk.

[retiredman]

What other forms of Theft are you okay with? Do you eat grapes from the grocery store? Do you shoplift? Afterall, Winn Dixie can AFFORD you eating it's grapes w/o paying. And WalMart can EASILY afford you stealing a few hundred dollars of merchindise.

The rich living their lifestyle - based on their HARD WORK - is irrelevant to the level of 'theft' the government performs upon them via "taxes". Where is the motivation to GET rich, if you are coerced into giving your hard earned money to poor lazy folk.


like I said, we've had a progressive tax code for nearly a century. don't blame ME.

Where was the motivation to get rich 60 years ago? Do you think no one GOT rich 60 years ago because of a high marginal tax rate - MUCH higher than today?

[MtnBiker]

For what it is worth, not all people with low income and low tax burden are lazy or to lazy to earn more.

And a weathly person's lifestyle should be of no concern for a governments need to collect tax revenue.

[darin]

and these are the guys getting a free ride. Lazy people who depend on the rest of us to pay their way.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92592545

Holy LORD

http://media.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2008/july/ohio/nunez540.jpg

If they stopped shoving fist-after-fist of food into their bodies, they could afford their car!

[Yurt]

What other forms of Theft are you okay with? Do you eat grapes from the grocery store? Do you shoplift? Afterall, Winn Dixie can AFFORD you eating it's grapes w/o paying. And WalMart can EASILY afford you stealing a few hundred dollars of merchindise.

The rich living their lifestyle - based on their HARD WORK - is irrelevant to the level of 'theft' the government performs upon them via "taxes". Where is the motivation to GET rich, if you are coerced into giving your hard earned money to poor lazy folk.

very good point and analogy. it is irrelevent to the discussion whether to blame any one person, the question really is, where do we draw the line at 'theft' as you call it and i agree with the term. it is also irrelevent whether someone prospered before during high taxes. that is like saying, walmart prospered during the years of heavy shoplifting losses.

[Trigg]

Holy LORD

http://media.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2008/july/ohio/nunez540.jpg

If they stopped shoving fist-after-fist of food into their bodies, they could afford their car!

This particular condition is called Hand-to-Mouth Disease.

[5stringJeff]

the tax code has been WAY more steeply progressive in earlier administrations than it is in this one or that it will be in an Obama administration. Throughout those times, the wealthy in America were still able to live lives of opulence and leisure. A marginal increase back to the rates in place during the halcyon days of the Clinton Administration when lots of folks were rich and getting richer will not be a burden on the wealthy. They'll still have plenty of cash to do whatever they please.

Whether they would still be able to survive or not is beyond the point. The government should not make it a policy to tax some people at a higher percentage than others just because "they have enough."

[Little-Acorn]

Whether they would still be able to survive or not is beyond the point. Teh government should not make it a policy to tax some people at a higher percentage than others just because "they have enough."

A famous bank robber was once asked why he kept robbing banks. He replied, "Because that's where the money is!"

The philosophy of government raising taxes to "soak the rich" is identical to that robber's... as is the level of morality. Only the honesty is different between the two. The bank robber never tried to claim the ones he robbed, *deserved* to have their money taken away.

[red states rule]

Whether they would still be able to survive or not is beyond the point. Teh government should not make it a policy to tax some people at a higher percentage than others just because "they have enough."

Those facts do not matter to the left. It is not obscene what anyone makes. What is obscene is what the government takes away from them in ever increasing taxes

When you add up all the tax increases Obama wants to pass, the top tax rate will be well over 60%

Even retired people who spent their entire lives paying taxes, will see a tax increase

[retiredman]

Whether they would still be able to survive or not is beyond the point. The government should not make it a policy to tax some people at a higher percentage than others just because "they have enough."

oddly enough, elected officials of the united states government for the past nearly on e hundred years who have all signed on to a progressive income tax program would disagree with you. I love you like a brother Jeff, but I would disagree with you too.

[Yurt]

so because all these elected official believe taxing is ok, thats makes it ok. hmmm, maybe slavery should have been abolished or attempted to be abolished, afterall, all those elected officials back then were for it. the tide changed, people had enough, the people (we the people) changed the government and the elected officials of course followed.

same here. change is needed. income tax (federal) and other taxes were not always apart of our government. they outlawed alcohol for 12 years, all those officials agreed.....we know what happened to that law...

[Yurt]

very good point and analogy. it is irrelevent to the discussion whether to blame any one person, the question really is, where do we draw the line at 'theft' as you call it and i agree with the term. it is also irrelevent whether someone prospered before during high taxes. that is like saying, walmart prospered during the years of heavy shoplifting losses.

dmp, noticed your question and my follow have both gone unanswered ;)

[Hobbit]

oddly enough, elected officials of the united states government for the past nearly on e hundred years who have all signed on to a progressive income tax program would disagree with you. I love you like a brother Jeff, but I would disagree with you too.

The reason elected officials have signed on to this progressive system is not because it's superior to other systems. In fact, the income tax is crippling our economy by stiffing people before they can even touch their money and driving companies to greener pastures. They have signed onto it because it's easy to convince poor people that the rich deserve to be stiffed, which then leads to the poor voting for people who promise to stick it to the rich. There are more poor people than rich people. But that only scratches the surface. With a progressive tax system, they can add all kinds of exemptions and deductions to grant favors to people who will contribute to their campaigns. The current tax system was not designed to serve any normal citizen and is certainly not designed around the idea of generating an optimal level of funding for the functions of government. It is a system designed by politicians with the express purpose of granting those politicians political power. It is also a system that was ruled unconstitutional twice before the passage of the 16th amendment and is directly contradictory to the founding principles of the country, principles like liberty and limited government power.

While I'm on this, I'm sick and tired of seeing politicians who promise to alter the tax code in some way. Even when a bold plan was proposed to greatly simplify the tax code, it took only 2 years to make it worse than it ever was. Democrats promise to increase the rate on 'the rich.' Seeing as how we're on the upper half of the Laffer Curve, this is completely counterproductive to the end of raising revenue, and only serves to win the Democrats votes from gullible poor people who have bought into their load of class warfare rhetoric. The Republicans promise to lower the rates across the board, which is a step in the right direction, but a complete dodging of the problem. The problem is that billions of dollars are wasted every year and TRILLIONS of dollars are sitting in offshore accounts because we have been subjected to a backward, overly complicated tax system that serves only to empower politicians who are only interested in furthering their own political power.

Governments should not have the power to tax different people at different rates, and our founding fathers saw fit to deny the federal government to tax individuals at all, only to be overturned by a constitutional amendment proposed by (who else) the Democrats and passed with the empty promise that only the rich would ever have to pay a dime in income tax. Then came the sham known as withdrawal, the idea that the government gets the FIRST bite of your paycheck, which eventually led to the modern congress' idea that your money belongs to the government until they decide to release it to you. Even when it passed, everyone knew it was a bad idea. The Democrats (yes, them again) tried everything from false flag patriotism ('withdrawal will ensure that the military gets the money it needs faster!' yeah, right) to a, get this, Donald Duck cartoon. They only passed it by tricking the American people into thinking forgiving them of the previous year's taxes was a deal. Think about it, folks. If the old code had stood, the tax bill would have come due in May. With the new code, it started getting paid the first week of January. Some deal, huh?

Most egregious of all, though, is the use of the income tax as a method of somehow 'evening out' the rich and poor. The rich are taxed higher than the poor, yet the poor receive more benefits from the government. This is a government and tax system that believes it is a good idea to seize money from people who have earned it to give it to people who have not out of some sense of fairness and which grants the largest benefit to those who run that system, a system that used to be called communism and was seen as the greatest threat to liberty since the rise of fascism. A government which has expanded its concerns beyond the defense of its citizens and the facilitation of interaction with foreign powers is a government which should be ended. Much like the Roman senators before them, our so-called 'representatives' have concerned themselves so much with the advancement of their own power that they have forgotten that, ultimately, we hold the keys to the power they wish to wield.

[red states rule]

To show the lack of knowledge of economics the messiah, known as Obama has - showed this liberal rule of fairness during the Philly debate

When it was pointed out that eveytime the capital gains tax was raised, revenues to the government fell, the messaih fell back on the fairness BS

What is fair about having more then half of your income taken away from you by the government?

Do you call it fair that the people who use government services the least - pay the most in taxes?

Do you call it fair that the people who use government services the most, pay the least in taxes?

[retiredman]

so because all these elected official believe taxing is ok, thats makes it ok. hmmm, maybe slavery should have been abolished or attempted to be abolished, afterall, all those elected officials back then were for it. the tide changed, people had enough, the people (we the people) changed the government and the elected officials of course followed.

same here. change is needed. income tax (federal) and other taxes were not always apart of our government. they outlawed alcohol for 12 years, all those officials agreed.....we know what happened to that law...


because all these elected officials of both parties believe that a progressive tax system is ok...that means that, apparently, the overwhelming majority of Americans for the last century have also believed that a progressive tax system is ok too, or they wouldn't keep voting for them. Time and again, republican presidential candidates - like Forbes, for example - run on eliminating the IRS's progressive tax system, and time and again, they never gain any traction with voters. I would think that if you republicans were serious about eliminating the progressive income tax system, you would spend less time arguing about it with democrats, who disagree with you, and spend more time nominating candidates to congress and the presidency that are pledged to do away with it. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense for you all to bitch at democrats when your own party officals have never done DICK to change the fundamental progressive nature of the income tax system that has been in place since 1913.

and it also doesn't really make much sense to suggest that a marginal increase of the tax rates back to Clinton administration levels will CRIPPLE the wealthy of America and cause them to STOP INVESTING as RSR has suggested or in any other way stop trying to continue to allow their money to make more money when the rich have had their money in our economy when the tax rates were MUCH higher than they are today and they STILL got richer.

[red states rule]

because all these elected officials of both parties believe that a progressive tax system is ok...that means that, apparently, the overwhelming majority of Americans for the last century have also believed that a progressive tax system is ok too, or they wouldn't keep voting for them. Time and again, republican presidential candidates - like Forbes, for example - run on eliminating the IRS's progressive tax system, and time and again, they never gain any traction with voters. I would think that if you republicans were serious about eliminating the progressive income tax system, you would spend less time arguing about it with democrats, who disagree with you, and spend more time nominating candidates to congress and the presidency that are pledged to do away with it. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense for you all to bitch at democrats when your own party officals have never done DICK to change the fundamental progressive nature of the income tax system that has been in place since 1913.

and it also doesn't really make much sense to suggest that a marginal increase of the tax rates back to Clinton administration levels will CRIPPLE the wealthy of America and cause them to STOP INVESTING as RSR has suggested or in any other way stop trying to continue to allow their money to make more money when the rich have had their money in our economy when the tax rates were MUCH higher than they are today and they STILL got richer.


Again you are ignoring the facts

Marginal tax rates are only one of the taxes Dems want to jack up. they want to raise capital gaines taxes, dividend taxes, corporate income tax, take the cap off SS wages, and now the gas tax

These tax increases will reduce investment, will cost jobs, and hurt the people Dems claim they care about

It not about fairness. It is about greed. Dems want as much money as possible to expand the size of government and get more people dependent on a government handout

[retiredman]

Again you are ignoring the facts

Marginal tax rates are only one of the taxes Dems want to jack up. they want to raise capital gaines taxes, dividend taxes, corporate income tax, take the cap off SS wages, and now the gas tax

These tax increases will reduce investment, will cost jobs, and hurt the people Dems claim they care about

It not about fairness. It is about greed. Dems want as much money as possible to expand the size of government and get more people dependent on a government handout


and again, you are ignoring my point.

I would think that if you republicans were serious about eliminating the progressive income tax system, you would spend less time arguing about it with democrats, who disagree with you, and spend more time nominating candidates to congress and the presidency that are pledged to do away with it.

when every repubican in congress is submitting legislation to do away with the IRS... when you nominate presidential candidates that run on that...when you change your party's platform to reflect that, then you can start arguing with the democrats as to why they don't join in. not until.

[red states rule]

and again, you are ignoring my point.

I would think that if you republicans were serious about eliminating the progressive income tax system, you would spend less time arguing about it with democrats, who disagree with you, and spend more time nominating candidates to congress and the presidency that are pledged to do away with it.

when every repubican in congress is submitting legislation to do away with the IRS... when you nominate presidential candidates that run on that...when you change your party's platform to reflect that, then you can start arguing with the democrats as to why they don't join in. not until.

Some have tried. Both Republicans and Dems are hooked on pissing through our money like drug users on crack. Republcians were fired in 06, yet Dems have stepped up the pace on spending and pork

It all about greed. You proved when I asked you how much you wanted the rich to pay in taxes.

Your reply was "As much as we can squeeze out of them"

Dems do not see as our money. they see it as their money

[retiredman]

Some have tried. Both Republicans and Dems are hooked on pissing through our money like drug users on crack. Republcians were fired in 06, yet Dems have stepped up the pace on spending and pork

It all about greed. You proved when I asked you how much you wanted the rich to pay in taxes.

Your reply was "As much as we can squeeze out of them"

Dems do not see as our money. they see it as their money


"some"????:laugh2:

my point was: until you can convince your own party that the progressive tax structure should be abolished, don't come crying to me. I DON'T think it should be abolished.

[red states rule]

"some"????:laugh2:

my point was: until you can convince your own party that the progressive tax structure should be abolished, don't come crying to me. I DON'T think it should be abolished.

Contine your rant, ignore the facts, and do address the facts about higher taxes harm the economy

All you care about is your party and expanding the size of government

Remember this. Dems say they want the "rich" to pay more in taxes. Well they are paying more in taxes - after the Bush tax cuts

[retiredman]

Contine your rant, ignore the facts, and do address the facts about higher taxes harm the economy

All you care about is your party and expanding the size of government

Remember this. Dems say they want the "rich" to pay more in taxes. Well they are paying more in taxes - after the Bush tax cuts


continue ignoring my point: until you can convince your own party that the progressive tax structure should be abolished, don't come crying to me.:lol:

[red states rule]

continue ignoring my point: until you can convince your own party that the progressive tax structure should be abolished, don't come crying to me.:lol:

Facts never did mean anything to you. Like your messiah, you refuse to admit when you are proven worng, and continue with your approved talking points

[5stringJeff]

oddly enough, elected officials of the united states government for the past nearly on e hundred years who have all signed on to a progressive income tax program would disagree with you. I love you like a brother Jeff, but I would disagree with you too.

And I disagree with them, and you, because I see the progressive income tax as inherently unfair. I think Hobbit made a great point: we have gone from the viewpoint that income is inherently ours, with the government getting a portion after the fact, to income being the government's, receiving whatever is leftover after they decide they've taxed us enough. I reject the latter viewpoint and embrace the former.

[5stringJeff]

and again, you are ignoring my point.

I would think that if you republicans were serious about eliminating the progressive income tax system, you would spend less time arguing about it with democrats, who disagree with you, and spend more time nominating candidates to congress and the presidency that are pledged to do away with it.

when every repubican in congress is submitting legislation to do away with the IRS... when you nominate presidential candidates that run on that...when you change your party's platform to reflect that, then you can start arguing with the democrats as to why they don't join in. not until.

Unfortunately, the GOP has failed the citizens of the US in that sense. There are very few elected officials who want to substantially reform the tax code. Many of them are supported by the Club for Growth, which is the only PAC I give money to.

[retiredman]

Facts never did mean anything to you. Like your messiah, you refuse to admit when you are proven worng, and continue with your approved talking points


keep running away from the FACT that republican administrations and republican congresses for the past century have enacted and supported a progressive income tax. If you want to change that tax system...if you think it is inherently unfair to ask wealthy people to pay a marginally greater percentage of their income to help run the country that allowed them to flourish, then you will need to convince YOUR party to get behind that change. When you get all the republicans on board, then you can try to get them all elected so that they can effect that change.

Can you ADDRESS that point? yes or no?

[red states rule]

keep running away from the FACT that republican administrations and republican congresses for the past century have enacted and supported a progressive income tax. If you want to change that tax system...if you think it is inherently unfair to ask wealthy people to pay a marginally greater percentage of their income to help run the country that allowed them to flourish, then you will need to convince YOUR party to get behind that change. When you get all the republicans on board, then you can try to get them all elected so that they can effect that change.

Can you ADDRESS that point? yes or no?

Fact - Dems always oppose tax cuts saying the fgovernment can't affor it

Fact - When taxes are cut revenues increase to the government

Fact - With a slow economy tax increases will make the eoconomy worse off

Fact - Obama and his followers are lying when they say ONLY those earning over $200,000 will pay higher taxes

Fact - Whe taxes are increased, it slows economic growth and revenue to the government

Fact - You will ignore these facts as you always do

[Kathianne]

And I disagree with them, and you, because I see the progressive income tax as inherently unfair. I think Hobbit made a great point: we have gone from the viewpoint that income is inherently ours, with the government getting a portion after the fact, to income being the government's, receiving whatever is leftover after they decide they've taxed us enough. I reject the latter viewpoint and embrace the former.

While not there yet, I'm moving towards your pov. ;)

[retiredman]

keep running away from the FACT that republican administrations and republican congresses for the past century have enacted and supported a progressive income tax. If you want to change that tax system...if you think it is inherently unfair to ask wealthy people to pay a marginally greater percentage of their income to help run the country that allowed them to flourish, then you will need to convince YOUR party to get behind that change. When you get all the republicans on board, then you can try to get them all elected so that they can effect that change.

Can you ADDRESS that point? yes or no?

I say again:

can you address that point? yes or no?

[red states rule]

While not there yet, I'm moving towards your pov. ;)

Dems are addicted to higher taxes, more redistribution of wealth, bigger government, and more people chained into a cycle of dependence

[5stringJeff]

Dems are addicted to higher taxes, more redistribution of wealth, bigger government, and more people chained into a cycle of dependence

Unfortunately, more Republicans are becoming the same way.

[KitchenKitten99]

I posted this article over at DU... wonder how long it will take to either be deleted?

[red states rule]

Unfortunately, more Republicans are becoming the same way.

Which is why they were fired in 2006. Dems are outspending and out porking the previous Congress - while demanding we hand over more of our money

[red states rule]

I posted this article over at DU... wonder how long it will take to either be deleted?

I would say within one hour. I was banned from the site in less then 20 minutes

[5stringJeff]

Which is why they were fired in 2006. Dems are outspending and out porking the previous Congress - while demanding we hand over more of our money

The GOP is still full of big-government believers - almost as full as the Democrats are.

[red states rule]

The GOP is still full of big-government believers - almost as full as the Democrats are.

Repuiblicans left behind the principals of Reagan conservatism that took them to the dance in 1994

They need to get back to them, or find new candidates who will embrace them

[5stringJeff]

Repuiblicans left behind the principals of Reagan conservatism that took them to the dance in 1994

They need to get back to them, or find new candidates who will embrace them

Or leave the GOP and join a party that states, as its fundamental principle, that government should be drastically smaller in both size and scope.

[red states rule]

Or leave the GOP and join a party that states, as its fundamental principle, that government should be drastically smaller in both size and scope.

Why leave when you can change it? Should Obama get in, the country will be in the same shape as it was under Carter

The Republican party has several good Reagan conservatives who caould strp up and fix the mess Obama will put us in

[Kathianne]

Why leave when you can change it? Should Obama get in, the country will be in the same shape as it was under Carter

The Republican party has several good Reagan conservatives who caould strp up and fix the mess Obama will put us in

I know I'm repeating myself for the umpteenth time. I haven't a doubt that when the people pay attention and make their will known, the politicians jump. We've seen numerous examples of this over the years, yet it takes 'headlines' to get the people's attention and the media just has jumped the ship in carrying out their mission.

I actually have hope that what was the alternative media is shaping up to replace the MSM.

[red states rule]

I know I'm repeating myself for the umpteenth time. I haven't a doubt that when the people pay attention and make their will known, the politicians jump. We've seen numerous examples of this over the years, yet it takes 'headlines' to get the people's attention and the media just has jumped the ship in carrying out their mission.

I actually have hope that what was the alternative media is shaping up to replace the MSM.

Look at McCain/Kennedy. Without talk radio and the blogs the illegals would have had everything handed to them on a silver platter at our expense

With Obama Kathianne, the liberal media will defend him, and find someone else to balme when we have a replay of the Carter economy. It may take 4 years of this idiot to teach an new generation that higher taxes, bigger government, and over a trillion in new government spending is not the way to improve Amercia

[Kathianne]

Look at McCain/Kennedy. Without talk radio and the blogs the illegals would have had everything handed to them on a silver platter at our expense

With Obama Kathianne, the liberal media will defend him, and find someone else to balme when we have a replay of the Carter economy. It may take 4 years of this idiot to teach an new generation that higher taxes, bigger government, and over a trillion in new government spending is not the way to improve Amercia

I KNOW what's wrong RSR, I'm addressing what happens with issues that do garner public opinion, such as the ports deal, illegal immigration reform, and more recently drilling in US. In each case, the drive was led by alternative news, only making it to the MSM as was driven by calls to representatives and letters to the editor. The MSM is losing it's vice grip, which is probably one of the biggest stories in the past half decade.

[red states rule]

I KNOW what's wrong RSR, I'm addressing what happens with issues that do garner public opinion, such as the ports deal, illegal immigration reform, and more recently drilling in US. In each case, the drive was led by alternative news, only making it to the MSM as was driven by calls to representatives and letters to the editor. The MSM is losing it's vice grip, which is probably one of the biggest stories in the past half decade.

Sorry about that misunderstanding Kathianne

What will be interesting to watch, should Obama win, is how the liberal media will spin a tanking economy, pissed off voters, and how the war on terror is going

The liberal media did what they could to try and save Peanut Carter but could not convince voters all was fine with an all liberal government

Today Dems are still blocking off shore drilling against the will of the voters. perhaps there is still time for the Dems to snatch defeat fromt he jaws of victory :laugh2:

[Yurt]

i think it is the height of ignorance that one would put forth an argument that one should not "argue" (i prefer discuss) the matter of taxes with the "other" party. that we should not waste our time doing so and instead simply convince one/our party. when major change has occurred in US history (legislatively) it took MORE than one party. in america's early years, you know before the internet, people argued/discussed things in taverns and i highly doubt they only spoke with people of their own party. real change takes effect when more than just one party is involved.

what is the point of being american if you can't argue with the other party? are we limited to solely discussing things with like minds? of course not. then again such a person would also advocate a chilling of speech when it comes to discussing presidential candidates. as if we can't discuss the likely next president and if we do we are obsessed and have irrational hatred.

[red states rule]

i think it is the height of ignorance that one would put forth an argument that one should not "argue" (i prefer discuss) the matter of taxes with the "other" party. that we should not waste our time doing so and instead simply convince one/our party. when major change has occurred in US history (legislatively) it took MORE than one party. in america's early years, you know before the internet, people argued/discussed things in taverns and i highly doubt they only spoke with people of their own party. real change takes effect when more than just one party is involved.

what is the point of being american if you can't argue with the other party? are we limited to solely discussing things with like minds? of course not. then again such a person would also advocate a chilling of speech when it comes to discussing presidential candidates. as if we can't discuss the likely next president and if we do we are obsessed and have irrational hatred.

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

This is what some do when they can't offer up anything to counter facts.

History has shown how tax increase harm the economy, and revenues to the government decline

To those on the left compromise means you gree with the liberal agenda. Lies means you disagree with them politically. Racism means anyone who disagrees with them. Unconstitutional means liberals do not like it

Most on the left sings from the same sheet

[5stringJeff]

Why leave when you can change it? Should Obama get in, the country will be in the same shape as it was under Carter

The Republican party has several good Reagan conservatives who caould strp up and fix the mess Obama will put us in

It has nothing to do with Obama. It has everything to do with the Republicans who run the show today, and who will continue to run the show now that John McCain is the "face" of the GOP. The current GOP leadership (and the majority in today's GOP) wants nothing to do with any Reagan-conservatives or small-government advocates. That's why staying in the GOP is futile.

[retiredman]

i think it is the height of ignorance that one would put forth an argument that one should not "argue" (i prefer discuss) the matter of taxes with the "other" party. that we should not waste our time doing so and instead simply convince one/our party. when major change has occurred in US history (legislatively) it took MORE than one party. in america's early years, you know before the internet, people argued/discussed things in taverns and i highly doubt they only spoke with people of their own party. real change takes effect when more than just one party is involved.

what is the point of being american if you can't argue with the other party? are we limited to solely discussing things with like minds? of course not. then again such a person would also advocate a chilling of speech when it comes to discussing presidential candidates. as if we can't discuss the likely next president and if we do we are obsessed and have irrational hatred.

my point is: the republicans on here act as if progressive taxation is an evil that has been foisted upon the American public by the Democratic party... that it is the Democrats who are stealing from the rich to give to the poor. That is incorrect. As I said, from its very inception in 1913, the federal income tax has had a progressive rate structure and the republican party is every bit as much to "blame" for that being the case. Republicans on here act as if progressive taxation would miraculously go away if republicans won control of the congress and retained control of the white house. Clearly, republicans throughout the last century have supported, and continue to support, taxing the income of rich people at a rate higher than they tax poor people. If republicans want to try and convince the country that progressive taxation is the fault of the Democrats, they ought to make sure that their own ranks are filled with flat tax proponents. Until then, pointing a finger at the Democrats is a tad hypocritical.

and suggesting that, if taxes are marginally raised to Clinton administration levels, the rich will STOP investing is patently ridiculous. Did they NOT invest in the American economy during the 50's when the top marginal rate was nearly three TIMES as high as it is today when Ike was president???

[Yurt]

if you go back and read the thread, you will see many republicans (former as well) arguing that it is both parties fault. honestly, i think earlier republicans were more fiscally conservative and the dems did push spending and social programs, where the republicans tended to push spending with the military. let's be honest though, the dems were the original party of spending and raising taxes, much more than the republican party, historically speaking.

i think what happened is the money kept coming in and the republicans saw how easy it is to tax and the power that came with it and foreswore their conservative fiscal platform. this is why the dems will most likely win in nov, the rep party is hemorrhaging. is this a bad thing? i don't know. the repubs have screwed up and either 1) need a wake up call, or 2) we need to get with a new party, or 3) simply morph the republicans back to what they were or morph the party more strongly with the libertarians.

i don't see 3 happening, but i believe history has shown us that this has happened in the 1800s....political history might be fuzzy.

and btw, palm springs is a balmy 105 right now :cheers2:

[Hobbit]

Yes, MFM, the modern income tax scheme IS the Democrats' fault, while the Republicans can only be blamed for not doing EVERYTHING within their power to stop it. When the income tax originally passed, the Republicans made a deal with the Democrats. The Republicans would let the bill for a federal income tax pass through the Congress and stop clogging up the works (the Dems had been clogging up the legislative process for years trying to get it passed), but ONLY if it were put in as a constitutional amendment. Their thought was that there was no way 3/4 of the American people could be so stupid as to accept something so blatantly limiting on freedom, and that's what had to happen to make it pass. Well, the Democrats' plan succeeded. They got the amendment to pass the state vote by campaigning in mostly poor areas and telling the masses that this tax would only ever affect the very rich and that the money would be spent on them. Sound familiar? That's the way it worked, too...at first. At its inception, the income tax had a rate of around 5% and only affected about the top 5% of earners, but that number crept slowly onwards.

Then came FDR. With his charismatic appeal and the first presidential campaign focused around solving everyone's problems, he had no problem winning nearly every state, and began to pass very socialist policies, but he had to fund them somehow, and there was no way anybody was going to accept a major tax hike...unless... That's where withholding comes in. By using arguments later proven to be baseless and played off of patriotism in America's war with the fascists, FDR and the Democrat controlled congress argued to have income taxes removed from everyone's paycheck before they got it, to 'streamline the process' and 'make sure our fighting boys got the money sooner.' Even then, our grandparents were smarter than that, but they didn't do enough math to figure out that forgiving a year's taxes and then starting the new withholding scheme the first week of January the following year wouldn't save them a dime. Since that time, nobody knows how much they actually pay in taxes, and it's been rather easy for the tax rate and the number of people taxed to creep up.

And the politicians KNOW it's a scam. When discussing the idea in the first place, the records show that they discussed the withholding scheme as a measure to use against the American people. The income tax only has a secondary purpose of collecting revenue. If that were its primary purpose, the rate would be flat and they'd be adjusting that rate to hit the peak revenue of the Laffer curve, which is a rate below the current one. No, the primary purpose of the federal income tax is to grant power and votes to politicians. By creating a system that could be continuously gamed in favor of special interests, voting blocks, and certain patterns of behavior that politicians find 'favorable,' the income tax provides Washington not only with enough work to justify their ridiculous pensions, but the ability to buy themselves votes with YOUR money again and again.

[Psychoblues]

The title of the thread is in and of itself a total lie and distortion of fact. There was a time that the filthy rich paid as much as 90% in federal income taxes!!!!!!!!!! And who was it that changed all that?!?!!??!??!??!??!?!?!??!

John Fitzgerald Kennedy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Personally, I believe that the filthy rich require so much more for their business and personal protective expense I would advocate a return to that 90% income tax for them!!!!!!!!!!!!

Have any of you caught on to the "death tax" trap? Anything below 3 million is simply not taxed!!!!!!!!!!!! How many of you vote republican for the fear of the "death tax" and you also understand that $100,000 is the average inheritance? Too complicated? That's why you vote Republican!!!!!!!!!! Simple decision for simple minds!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What is the word for it? Fear is the word for it when you certainly have nothing whatsoever to fear!!!!!!!!!

[PostmodernProphet]

The title of the thread is in and of itself a total lie and distortion of fact. There was a time that the filthy rich paid as much as 90% in federal income taxes!!!!!!!!!! And who was it that changed all that?!?!!??!??!??!??!?!?!??!

John Fitzgerald Kennedy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Personally, I believe that the filthy rich require so much more for their business and personal protective expense I would advocate a return to that 90% income tax for them!!!!!!!!!!!!

Have any of you caught on to the "death tax" trap? Anything below 3 million is simply not taxed!!!!!!!!!!!! How many of you vote republican for the fear of the "death tax" and you also understand that $100,000 is the average inheritance? Too complicated? That's why you vote Republican!!!!!!!!!! Simple decision for simple minds!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What is the word for it? Fear is the word for it when you certainly have nothing whatsoever to fear!!!!!!!!!

depending on your definition of "filthy" rich, they still do....are the top ten percent "filthy"?.....or is only the top five percent filthy and the next five, simply dirty......are you one of the slightly soiled rich?.....if you have a combined household income of over $100k you are in the top 25%.....

[red states rule]

This entire thread can be summed up with this one sentence


Republicans believe every day is 4th of July, but Democrats believe every day is April 15."

Ronald Reagan

[actsnoblemartin]

I simply dont like the premise of, you die, you get taxed, and id like a link because i thought if you have 1 or 2 million in wealth which is not that much, you get a huge tax


The title of the thread is in and of itself a total lie and distortion of fact. There was a time that the filthy rich paid as much as 90% in federal income taxes!!!!!!!!!! And who was it that changed all that?!?!!??!??!??!??!?!?!??!

John Fitzgerald Kennedy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Personally, I believe that the filthy rich require so much more for their business and personal protective expense I would advocate a return to that 90% income tax for them!!!!!!!!!!!!

Have any of you caught on to the "death tax" trap? Anything below 3 million is simply not taxed!!!!!!!!!!!! How many of you vote republican for the fear of the "death tax" and you also understand that $100,000 is the average inheritance? Too complicated? That's why you vote Republican!!!!!!!!!! Simple decision for simple minds!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What is the word for it? Fear is the word for it when you certainly have nothing whatsoever to fear!!!!!!!!!

[Little-Acorn]

depending on your definition of "filthy" rich, they still do....are the top ten percent "filthy"?.....or is only the top five percent filthy and the next five, simply dirty......are you one of the slightly soiled rich?.....if you have a combined household income of over $100k you are in the top 25%.....


From the Democrat Dictionary of Definitions, Diversions, and Deceit, page 326:
.

"Rich": You have a job.

"Filthy rich": You have two jobs.

"Obscenely rich": You create jobs.

.

[retiredman]

This entire thread can be summed up with this one sentence


Republicans believe every day is 4th of July, but Democrats believe every day is April 15."

Ronald Reagan

I wonder why then, during those times in the last century when the republican party had control of the white house AND congress, did they not do away with federal income taxes? Can you explain that in light of your silly "summary" above?

[retiredman]

I wonder why then, during those times in the last century when the republican party had control of the white house AND congress, did they not do away with federal income taxes? Can you explain that in light of your silly "summary" above?


and rather than answer this simple question like an adult, RSR neg reps me like a little girlieman. Why am I NOT surprised???:lol:

[Silver]

Republicans realize that taxes are a burden we have to live with...no one seriously expects to abolish taxes...a government must have revenue to function and do the work that is expected of it....that is to guard its citizens and build an infrastructure that will help businesses and economy to expand and grow, etc....

What the real bitch is...liberals (Democrats) that use and abuse the tax system to punish successful citizens because....

they deem that citizen to have to much wealth....

they seek to reward those that vote for them, a little something extra, to consolidate their power, at the expense of others

they seek to "redistribute wealth" from those that have earned wealth to those that don't have the talent or will or ambition to earn more(as opposed to charity for the needy, which we all support)...

they seek to tax citizens for their "social engineering" ideas.....

I could go on, but you get the idea I'm sure

[retiredman]

yawn.... progressive taxation - which takes a greater percentage of income from wealthy people than it does from not-so-wealthy people has been around since the very beginning through republican and democratic administrarions and democratic and republican congresses.

[Silver]

and rather than answer this simple question like an adult, RSR neg reps me like a little girlieman. Why am I NOT surprised???:lol:

Neg reps ?????

almost 9000 posts and its safe to assume every one of them sucked to some degree or another.....thats pretty funny...:lol::lol::lol:

[Silver]

yawn.... progressive taxation - which takes a greater percentage of income from wealthy people than it does from not-so-wealthy people has been around since the very beginning through republican and democratic administrarions and democratic and republican congresses.

And is of no great concern to most citizens until its abused in the way the Democrats try to use it...not for needed revenue to fuel a country, but as a punishment to the successful workers that invest and work and as a bribe to segments of the population to by their support....

[retiredman]

And is of no great concern to most citizens until its abused in the way the Democrats try to use it...not for needed revenue to fuel a country, but as a punishment to the successful workers that invest and work and as a bribe to segments of the population to by their support....
bullshit. no one tries to punish anyone for success.
and the marginal tax rate was higher under republican president Eisenhower than it has been under any democrat since.

[Silver]

bullshit. no one tries to punish anyone for success.
and the marginal tax rate was higher under republican president Eisenhower than it has been under any democrat since.

Spare me the strawman bullshit....

Whats a 'windfall profits tax'.....?
****************
8 or 10 % profit on sales is just normal until it reaches what the Democrats think is an excessive number....even when that 'excessive number is still 8 or 10 % of sales....
now its time to pass a punitive tax as punishment....
******************
I tried to make that simple enough so even you would understand....

[Silver]

Example 2


Some lucky man makes a ton of money during his life.....
the lucky man dies and what do the Democrats think is fairness.....
take his fuckin' money so his family don't get it all.....why?...because he has TOO MUCH by their account.....

[Silver]

A word from the wise


As Thomas Jefferson once wrote regarding the "general Welfare" clause:

To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."


Sadly, the Democrats will take apart the country that was the dream of the founders until it is un-recognizable....they are already off to a good start...
brick by fuckin' brick...

[Psychoblues]

Strawman bullshit? Are you having trouble keeping up, Sliver?



Spare me the strawman bullshit....

Whats a 'windfall profits tax'.....?
****************
8 or 10 % profit on sales is just normal until it reaches what the Democrats think is an excessive number....even when that 'excessive number is still 8 or 10 % of sales....
now its time to pass a punitive tax as punishment....
******************
I tried to make that simple enough so even you would understand....

Your simpleness belies your ignorance, sliver!!!!!!!!!!!!!