Author Topic: Get ready Mitt! They will attempt to disembowel you to cover their evil agenda!  (Read 13038 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11159
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0

If you tax the rich, they will continue to consume as much as always.
They will buy less stock and bonds. And the economy will NOT suffer.

Oh yeah....it's better for the economy
to take money from the productive
and send it to the unproductive in Washington
where they spend it soooooo wisely....LOL
rather than building homes, buying boats,
buying furniture, being a consumer of goods right here at home.

Yep I bet the blue collar folks working in furniture
stores would rather me send my money to the corrupt
Washington thieves that can send it to our enemies
in the Gaza and in Pakistan rather than come into their
furniture store and buy stuff where they would get
commission/salary/jobs.

People dont buy stocks and bonds in North Korea
either....we see how well your anti-business
model works.

Stocks and bonds create capital and wealth
that is used and spent in the economy
which is better than what Washington
can do with it.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2011, 05:24:55 PM by Christians4LessGvt »
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11159
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Besides taxing the rich wont work.....

The U.S. national debt is rising, on average, by $3.95 billion per day since September 28, 2007.

If Warren Buffett were to offer his estimated $47 billion to the I.R.S. the federal government
would use the Buffett fortune up in about 12 days.

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
If you tax the rich, they will continue to consume as much as always. They will buy less stock and bonds. And the economy will NOT suffer. They are the ones who have benefited most from the increased productivity in the last 20 years, so it is only fair to tax them more. They have more and are increasing their share of the national wealth. It is too bad that the ratbag right cannot understand this. It really is rather logical and easy to understand.

One fatal flaw to that plan.....not enough of your despised "1%" to even dent the debt.   And as the left tries to raise taxes even higher on "the rich", when they realize the debt isn't coming down by any appreciable amount, those higher taxes then go into a futher degradation of both the job market ("the rich" not expanding), and in products purchased ("the rich" not purchasing as much) --> a decrease in payroll, income and sales tax revenue

Your definition of fairness is so mutated, its a wonder you were allowed to teach anything related to language.
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11159
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
WSJ shows taxing the rich won't cover the bill

Consider the Internal Revenue Service's income tax statistics for 2008.

The top 1% of taxpayers those with salaries, dividends and capital gains roughly above about $380,000 paid 38% of taxes. But assume that tax policy confiscated all the taxable income of all the "millionaires and billionaires" Mr. Obama singled out. That yields merely about $938 billion, which is sand on the beach amid the $4 trillion Obama White House budget, a $1.65 trillion deficit, and spending at 25% as a share of the economy, a post-World War II record.

Say we take it up to the top 10% of taxpayers, or everyone with income over $114,000, including joint filers. That's five times Mr. Obama's 2% promise. The IRS data are broken down at $100,000, yet taxing all income above that level throws up only $3.4 trillion. And remember, the top 10% already pay 69% of all total income taxes, while the top 5% pay more than all of the other 95%.

In 2005 the top 5% earned over $145,000. If you took all the income of people over $200,000, it would yield about $1.89 trillion, enough revenue to cover the 2012 bill for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, but not the same bill in 2016, as the costs of those entitlements are expected to grow rapidly. The rich, in short, aren't nearly rich enough to finance Mr. Obama's entitlement state ambitions' even before his health-care plan kicks in.

In other words, a soak-the-rich policy won't work, in part because there isn't enough rich to soak, and in part because the bill is just too high. 
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
The Wall Street Journal is on the side of the rich? Horrors!

They should tax their sorry asses anyway.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
They should tax their sorry asses anyway.

and FINALLY......a little honesty.  Has prescious little to do with "fairness" or bringing down the debt.  This really boils down to punishment.  Damn those "rich folks" for daring to be successful, and earning more of what someone else believes they should have. 
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
it is fair to tax their sorry asses because they have glommed nearly all of the increase in productivity in the last 20 years.
 
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11159
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
it is fair to tax their sorry asses because they have glommed nearly all of the increase in productivity in the last 20 years.

No, it's NOT fair, since
- they ALREADY are taxed higher than everyone else
- raising their taxes alone will NOT bring the debt down in any substantial way
- raising their taxes even more will lead to DECREASED income, sales, and payroll tax $$$'s

But yea, let's tax their sorry asses anyway     :o
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
it is fair to tax their sorry asses because they have glommed nearly all of the increase in productivity in the last 20 years.

How much are these guys responsible for increase in productivity?

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
If you tax the poor, who already spend all their income, it will result in them not spending the money you have taken away by taxing them. With less money in the system, the economy will not suffer.

If you tax the rich, they will continue to consume as much as always. They will buy less stock and bonds. And the economy will NOT suffer. They are the ones who have benefited most from the increased productivity in the last 20 years, so it is only fair to tax them more. They have more and are increasing their share of the national wealth. It is too bad that the ratbag right cannot understand this. It really is rather logical and easy to understand.

What would be fair is to let the Bush tax Cuts expire. Those who are in the lower quintiles would pay what they paid under Clinton. And surely Clinton would not have saddled the poor with a draconian tax burden.

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
How much are these guys responsible for increase in productivity?


They are surely more responsible that the CEO who simply agreed to buy the technology.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
 
I have an epiphany!

Eliminating all tax on anyone who is earning more than half a million honest money per anum would cause an huge increase in tax revenue!


     In Ireland money you earn from art, singing , painting , writing , dancing-- is tax exempt, result, Ireland attracts and keeps artists who know how to earn with art.

      Almost everyone who earns half a million or more (without committing crime) is an employer.  If we make these activities tax exempt we will attract and keep a significant fraction of the worlds employers.

     These guys will naturally hire people and spend money, this is taxable in its second generation, by allowing the cash to escape the net once, the harvest will be greater as the money multiplies.

      It is like catching more fish next season by allowing more breeding fish to survive this season, or perhaps even more it would be like catching more fish over all by exempting successfull breeding fish from the catch.


      By the way the waters off of Maine might loose its fishing fleet because tighter restrictions on codfishing are being considered.
      Tough on the fishermen and boat owners to have their catch restricted , but even tougher for Cod to become extinct.

      Taxation is like that.

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
There is a truly dumb idea. Subsidizing fatcats on the theory that somehow they serve as an inspiration. Louis XIV could not have come up with a sillier idea. It would be impossible to ever get a foolish idea like this through Congress. That is a good thing. Of course the taxes the fatcats did not pay would cause your taxes to rise.
================

Ireland does not exempt businessmen. It exempts artists. Most of those artists are English, and if they live in Ireland, they will enhance the appreciation of the English intellectuals of Ireland and things Irish, at the same time depriving the British of the taxes they otherwise would be paid to the UK government.

So Ireland gets to annoy the English and get a lot of free positive publicity in the English-speaking world as well.

It is pretty close to the deal given to a lot of German intellectuals by the East German government. Bertold Brecht got a deal like that from the East Germans, and left NYC for E. Germany.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
  That you think it dumb reccomends it all the more!


   What a great idea it is , it would increase tax recipts tenfold!

     I know that you would hate it even if it worked better than I think it would , and you would love reduction of business fortunes even if the net effect was bankruptcy.

      I feel this is a safe assumption , getting out of debt is not the point of taxation, the saatisfaction of  jelosy is.

      Human nature does keep us from doing many things we should , letting people keep what they have earned is not "subsidy" it is fairness.

       If you ran fisherys the way you want to run taxation the oceans would be barren.


           (The oceans growing barren is a real risk we run , because we do run fisherys the way we run taxation. We ought to preservde the most fertile fish, we ought to allow our most productive persons to produce.)