Agree or not: The rich benefit the most from tax money?

[uscitizen]

Back to the topic.
The tax cuts hedge fund managers alone got equaled federal funding for CHIPS.
So you tell me who benefitted the most?

 

[Vast LWC]

What among anything that I said indicates that I "despise" people for being wealthy?

Or want to "punish" them in some manner for that matter?

All I said was that people need to pay taxes in proportion to the resources they make use of.

You all need to stop being so hyperbolic and seriously need to stop playing the victim. Nobody despises you for being rich.

And just think:

If you were living in the middle of the last century the top tax brackets were in the 80-90% range. They must have REALLY hated the rich back then.

From wikipedia:

"Congress enacted an income tax in October 1913 as part of the Revenue Act of 1913, levying a 1% tax on net personal incomes above $3,000, with a 6% surtax on incomes above $500,000. By 1918, the top rate of the income tax was increased to 77% (on income over $1,000,000) to finance World War I. The top marginal tax rate was reduced to 58% in 1922, to 25% in 1925 and finally to 24% in 1929. In 1932 the top marginal tax rate was increased to 63% during the Great Depression and steadily increased, reaching 94% (on all income over $200,000) in 1945. Top marginal tax rates stayed near or above 90% until 1964 when the top marginal tax rate was lowered to 70%. The top marginal tax rate was lowered to 50% in 1982 and eventually to 28% in 1988. During World War II, Congress introduced payroll withholding and quarterly tax payments."

The higher rates were due to wartime. full blown wartime. Why they were kept so high until the 60s is confusing. also a 200k income in 1945 is like a 2.5M income today. interestingly the 3k income in 1913 was $65,000.00 and 500k was $10.9M in todays money.

And read democratic underground, they have plenty of people who despise rich people. Hell the poster on Kos use the wealthy as thier class war whipping boys(and girls)

Well those people are in fact foolish. However, folks that try to paint all poor, out of work people as "lazy frauds who are just trying to suck the rich dry" are in fact behaving in the same manner.

 

[Vast LWC]

Well I was responding to CG who has received a LOT of grief from those on the Left who do seem to think that she owes them something because she isn't poor, and I have gone toe to toe with several members on the Left who have been pretty specific that they think very few of the rich got rich without doing something unethical or without getting more than their fair share of whatever.

But it is not us who is playing the victim Sir, but it sure SOUNDS like playing the victim when you continually accuse the rich of owing more than anybody else because they are perceived to have benefitted more or because they use more.

Those who produce more do tend to use more of available resources, but in the process they also are providing much opportunity for others to have jobs, to borrow, to save, to increase their options to increase their own prosperity. Also it is the rich who make it possible for many benevolent charities to exist, who provide the foundation and grant monies, who provide venture capital, who contribute hospital wings, museum exhibits, new libraries, new education buildings, support the arts, etc. etc. etc.

And that is the fallacy that the rich someone owe more than anybody else. Without them, everybody else would be a whole lot worse off.

Without the poor, the rich would have no workers to make their products, construction workers to build their routes of transportation, and military to protect their trade.

And your premise from prior folks that "Every American has a chance to better their position" is entirely dependent on a social safety net being in place to begin with.

Homeless, starving families have little to no chance to move up in the world with no social safety net.

 

[Foxfyre]

Back to the topic.
The tax cuts hedge fund managers alone got equaled federal funding for CHIPS.
So you tell me who benefitted the most?

But even if you are right about that, what does that have to do with whether the rich or poor benefit most from tax money? There is the CEO of General Electric who probably stands to benefit a whole lot if Cap & Trade passes. But since he probably already has all the money he will spend on himself in this lifetime, will he benefit more than the family that depends wholly on government benefits for all of its essential income?

Who benefits more? The independently wealthy guy who gets a $50,000 credit for installing solar panels and other energy saving equipment on his mansion, or the guy who is able to feed his family and make his mortgage payments for several months because he had the job installing them?

I think it has to be measured by some different standard than simply the dollar amount or some stupid policy that rewards somebody for bad behavior.

 

[Vast LWC]

The rich provide jobs and more jobs. I wish everybody was rich. As the question goes, "when is the last time a poor man/woman gave you a job?

The rich do provide jobs, that is true.

They provide people with the opportunity to work for them and make them more money.

It's not exactly a "gift". It's not like the rich aren't benefitting from the labor of their workers, now is it.

The problem with modern conservative thought in this area is that they basically deify the rich, acting as if no-one else in society is important, because the rich magically gift people with jobs.

 

[Vast LWC]

The Poor Business person has aspirations of being Rich.

Obamanomics is destroying that opportunity.

How, specifically?

Please feel free to go into detail.

 

[Vast LWC]

The issue is that Al Gore wishes to "transform" our economy so that others do not have the same opportunities to improve their lots in life that he has enjoyed.

(There is also the aspect that much of his wealth accumulation has been do to political cronyism, not productive work.)

Strange then that Google is just about completely "Carbon Neutral".

I guess it's not affecting their profits too much, is it?

 

[saveliberty]

A rich person's tax dollar is going to lose adminstration costs to the government and a higher contract price for the project than private industry. Therefore, the rich person would have a greater return for the dollar having kept said dollar.

 

[Avatar4321]

If the rich benefit the most from tax money, why aren't you out there trying to cut spending and lower taxes so that the rich dont exploit the people?

In reality, no one benefits from over taxation and over spending.

 

[edthecynic]

Progressives. Statists.

As opposed to Regressives. Hateists.

Progressive and Statist are not derogatory. They describe an Ideal I don't subscribe to. They are not insulting.

Conservatism is not based on regression, but original intent, there are actions that find harmony with original intent and there are constructions that are incompatible with original intent.

Hateists? Where do you even get that? Seems like Negative Profiling, to me Edth. A bit left wing extremist. Who are you trying to fire up?

There is no CON$ervative on the face of the Earth who considers "progressive and statist" as compliments. They always use them in a derogatory manner.

And only CON$ are "mind-readers" enough to know the "intents" of others.
Just ask them.

 

[Avatar4321]

There is no CON$ervative on the face of the Earth who considers "progressive and statist" as compliments. They always use them in a derogatory manner.

And only CON$ are "mind-readers" enough to know the "intents" of others.
Just ask them.

What exactly is good about progressing past freedom to totalitarian government?

And we don't have to read minds. We are just observant enough to read what you actually say and watch what you actually do and make simply conclusions based on your actions. Do you honestly think that you don't tell everyone what you are thinking by what you say and how you say it?

 

[Gunny]

Back to the topic.
The tax cuts hedge fund managers alone got equaled federal funding for CHIPS.
So you tell me who benefitted the most?

Who cares? They make a deal to earn what they earn. Just because some of you leftists want to steal what others earn doesn't make them wrong.

 

[Gunny]

As opposed to Regressives. Hateists.

Progressive and Statist are not derogatory. They describe an Ideal I don't subscribe to. They are not insulting.

Conservatism is not based on regression, but original intent, there are actions that find harmony with original intent and there are constructions that are incompatible with original intent.

Hateists? Where do you even get that? Seems like Negative Profiling, to me Edth. A bit left wing extremist. Who are you trying to fire up?

There is no CON$ervative on the face of the Earth who considers "progressive and statist" as compliments. They always use them in a derogatory manner.

And only CON$ are "mind-readers" enough to know the "intents" of others.
Just ask them.

They are used in a derogatory manor because progressives and statists suck. They're pussies that want to be molly-coddled cradle to grave.

Try earning what you have.

 

[Big Fitz]

Since the top 5% of all wage earners pay 90% or more of the tax burden, I say why not let them benefit the most.

Who doesn't need to benefit, the bottom 45% who pay no taxes and actually get back more than what they paid in.

 

[edthecynic]

Progressive and Statist are not derogatory. They describe an Ideal I don't subscribe to. They are not insulting.

Conservatism is not based on regression, but original intent, there are actions that find harmony with original intent and there are constructions that are incompatible with original intent.

Hateists? Where do you even get that? Seems like Negative Profiling, to me Edth. A bit left wing extremist. Who are you trying to fire up?

There is no CON$ervative on the face of the Earth who considers "progressive and statist" as compliments. They always use them in a derogatory manner.

And only CON$ are "mind-readers" enough to know the "intents" of others.
Just ask them.

They are used in a derogatory manor because progressives and statists suck. They're pussies that want to be molly-coddled cradle to grave.

Try earning what you have.

Obvious projection!

You do know that on the average Libs earn more than CON$, don't you?

 

[gautama]

Seems to me that the 47% that doesn't pay any Federal Income tax would benefit the most.

Yeah, living in poverty is wonderful. The rich got their riches thanks in part to our government, infrastructure, and stability, which is what my point was.

And the rich are hardly suffering from their higher % of taxes being paid. I don't understand why so many complain about the rich paying so much in taxes when I assume most of the people making those complaints aren't rich themselves.

Every time I come into contact with idiots like Greg the Idiot, it becomes more clear to me why arguing with such blighted nincompoops is a total waste of time.

In essence, this time the idiot and his ilk are advancing the argument that since a millionaire is better off than a homeless person, the homeless person is entitled not only to a tax free ride, but with the implication that this parasite is entitled to be supported by those wealthier than he.

These idiots are actually defending this gibberish.

This type of idiotic thought process leads to profundities such as Jesus Christ is a Socialist, etc......thus it would be wise to have Socialism instead of the Enlightened Capitalistic System that made America the Greatest Country in the History of Mankind for the last 200+ years.

Judging from the enormous number of humans that suffer from the same idiotic thought processes as Greg The Idiot, it doesn't take much thought to conclude that idiots like this are a greater danger to our country than the Al Queda will ever be.

 

[Intense]

As opposed to Regressives. Hateists.

Progressive and Statist are not derogatory. They describe an Ideal I don't subscribe to. They are not insulting.

Conservatism is not based on regression, but original intent, there are actions that find harmony with original intent and there are constructions that are incompatible with original intent.

Hateists? Where do you even get that? Seems like Negative Profiling, to me Edth. A bit left wing extremist. Who are you trying to fire up?

There is no CON$ervative on the face of the Earth who considers "progressive and statist" as compliments. They always use them in a derogatory manner.

And only CON$ are "mind-readers" enough to know the "intents" of others.
Just ask them.

Not derogatory, negative. We see the concepts incompatible with Federalism.

Can you distinguish between Federalism and Nationalism?

 

[saveliberty]

Seems to me that the 47% that doesn't pay any Federal Income tax would benefit the most.

Yeah, living in poverty is wonderful. The rich got their riches thanks in part to our government, infrastructure, and stability, which is what my point was.

And the rich are hardly suffering from their higher % of taxes being paid. I don't understand why so many complain about the rich paying so much in taxes when I assume most of the people making those complaints aren't rich themselves.

Every time I come into contact with idiots like Greg the Idiot, it becomes more clear to me why arguing with such blighted nincompoops is a total waste of time.

In essence, this time the idiot and his ilk are advancing the argument that since a millionaire is better off than a homeless person, the homeless person is entitled not only to a tax free ride, but with the implication that this parasite is entitled to be supported by those wealthier than he.

These idiots are actually defending this gibberish.

This type of idiotic thought process leads to profundities such as Jesus Christ is a Socialist, etc......thus it would be wise to have Socialism instead of the Enlightened Capitalistic System that made America the Greatest Country in the History of Mankind for the last 200+ years.

Judging from the enormous number of humans that suffer from the same idiotic thought processes as Greg The Idiot, it doesn't take much thought to conclude that idiots like this are a greater danger to our country than the Al Queda will ever be.

America didn't become great by socialism. It became great by its citizens hard work, wise investments and charity. A large segment of our population now seem to dispise these very things.

 

[edthecynic]

Progressive and Statist are not derogatory. They describe an Ideal I don't subscribe to. They are not insulting.

Conservatism is not based on regression, but original intent, there are actions that find harmony with original intent and there are constructions that are incompatible with original intent.

Hateists? Where do you even get that? Seems like Negative Profiling, to me Edth. A bit left wing extremist. Who are you trying to fire up?

There is no CON$ervative on the face of the Earth who considers "progressive and statist" as compliments. They always use them in a derogatory manner.

And only CON$ are "mind-readers" enough to know the "intents" of others.
Just ask them.

Not derogatory, negative. We see the concepts incompatible with Federalism.

Can you distinguish between Federalism and Nationalism?

Pure doublespeak!

And "Federalism" is what National Socialists use to rationalize their hate.

 

[Avatar4321]

There is no CON$ervative on the face of the Earth who considers "progressive and statist" as compliments. They always use them in a derogatory manner.

And only CON$ are "mind-readers" enough to know the "intents" of others.
Just ask them.

Not derogatory, negative. We see the concepts incompatible with Federalism.

Can you distinguish between Federalism and Nationalism?

Pure doublespeak!

And "Federalism" is what National Socialists use to rationalize their hate.

And how does federalism rationalize hate? And who the heck are the nazi's advocating it?