See What Tax Cuts For The Wealthy Has Caused:

[Sundial]

Taxes are too high - most of them, anyway. Property taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes - all too high.

The only tax that's not too high is the income tax on the rich. The tax rate on the richest Americans has declined to the lowest rate on record - 17% - if memory serves.

Taxes on capital gains need to be raised to the same level as taxes on earned income. Taxes on the richest Americans need to be raised - immediately.

Taxes on everyone else should be cut. Especially payroll taxes. Payroll taxes are a tax on work. We need more people working, and taking home more of their paychecks - now, more than ever.

Why should taxes on capital gains be raises to the same level as earned income? WHy don't we lower the tax on earned income to the same level as cap gains?

Lower taxes? You may as well be speaking a foreign language. Leftists don't think it's possible to lower taxes.

Me: we should lower taxes.

Daveman: "Leftists don't think it's possible to lower taxes."


Caveman, I'm a leftist. And I just said we should lower taxes. In the post you quoted.

 

[bripat9643]

Who built the Caterpillar?

Guys in a big factory that cost billions of dollars that the 1% paid for built the Caterpiller. There is no product on the planet that was manufactured without capital. The idea that workers deserve 100% of the revenue from the sale of a product is simply absurd.

And

Where do profits come from, if not from people doing work?

Profits come from entrepreneurs who purchase the capital and hire the workers and then combine them.

You don't even know what a profit is, so it's hilarious to watch you claiming that labor creates them.

 

[thereisnospoon]

51% of Americans pay NO income tax and 99% of them are NOT wealthy.
They are the ones that do not pay their fair share.
They DO NOT PAY ANY SHARE.
Slash entitlements immediately.
End Section 8 housing yesterday, cut food stamps in half, end the free lunch program at schools and let the states do it, do a total review of SS disability where half the recipients CAN WORK, end government unions yesterday, end the Dept. of education, vouchers for Medicare and Medicaid.
Do all that and next year we have a surplus.
Taxes now ARE TOO HIGH. Spending has and always be THE PROBLEM.

Taxes are too high - most of them, anyway. Property taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes - all too high.

The only tax that's not too high is the income tax on the rich. The tax rate on the richest Americans has declined to the lowest rate on record - 17% - if memory serves.

Taxes on capital gains need to be raised to the same level as taxes on earned income. Taxes on the richest Americans need to be raised - immediately.

Taxes on everyone else should be cut. Especially payroll taxes. Payroll taxes are a tax on work. We need more people working, and taking home more of their paychecks - now, more than ever.

Why? What good would these increases in taxes do?
Nations throughout modern history, no matter what has been tried, cannot tax themselves into prosperity.
No nation has ever been successful in improving their economy by over taxing the producers. Sooner or later the producers, builders and investors stop spending and stop investing.
Your side has made the wealthiest people, those that produce and create jobs, the enemy of the State.

 

[Sundial]

the concentration of wealth will kill democracy AND capitalism

That is the kicker that the Cons just can't seem to figure out. They actually believe it is better for the country and themselves to have more and more of the wealth concentrated among a very small percentage of the population. It is just absolutely mind boggling that they can't see how this is such a big problem and where it will eventually lead us. And then they have the nerve to cry class warfare when in fact the class war has already been won by the very few at the top, with the help of the idiots at the bottom.

Unfortunately, once the masses figure out how badly they have been duped, then the class warfare will truly begin and the richest of the rich will see their stripped from them. Unfortunately, that will not be good for anyone either, but it will eventually happen if corrections are not made soon.

It is those on YOUR SIDE that started class war with your constant carping and moaning about how 'unfair' life in the US allegedly is...

Nope. You're the ones who can't stop moaning about paying your taxes.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Most of the people who receive checks from the government are SS and retired military.

Which of those two groups would you cut off?

The super rich now pay taxes at a lower rate than the rest of us.

Is that fair?

The super rich do not pay a lower tate than the rest of us.
Why do you make up lies like that. They pay 35%.
Get real. Quit repeating the Obama lies.
The income tax on the wealthy is double what you pay.
And why should it be anyway? When you go in and buy a gallon of milk should they have to pay double what you do?
Income taxes are punishment for working hard.

no they don't , Warren Buffet released his tax info and he paid somewhere around 16%.

Exxon made record profits last year and paid ZERO in federal taxes.

If Warren Buffet is so worried about miniscule tax burden, why then does he instruct his tax accountants to find every possible tax loophole possible?
Why did Buffet simply tell his tax accountants to take no deductions?
I will tell you....he's full of SHIT that's why. Buffet is a typical liberal elitist who sees the people as the great unwashed masses that need to be controlled.
Yoiu lefities HATE anyone who is successful.
You people are always whining about jobs. Yet you scream to government to confiscate a much higher percentage of income form the very same people that produce jobs.
If Buffet is so worried about the federal government, let him write a fucking check for a few billion. Buffet is so wealthy, he could saddle the tax burden of a few thousand Americans for the next 20 years and still have billions left over.
What's the fucking point here...

 

[Sundial]

Who built the Caterpillar?

Guys in a big factory that cost billions of dollars that the 1% paid for built the Caterpiller. There is no product on the planet that was manufactured without capital. The idea that workers deserve 100% of the revenue from the sale of a product is simply absurd.

And

Where do profits come from, if not from people doing work?

Profits come from entrepreneurs who purchase the capital and hire the workers and then combine them.

You don't even know what a profit is, so it's hilarious to watch you claiming that labor creates them.

You're confusing things with the people who own them. A factory is not an extension of the person who owns it. A factory may be used in the process of production. But the person who owns it, merely by owning it, produces nothing.

Of course, he could very well manage the factory, as well as own it. But in that case he's a worker as well as an owner. The two are not mutually exclusive. Millions of people own businesses, as well as work there. They're called small business owners.

Ownership and work are two different things. They may overlap, but one is not the other. To take an extreme example, suppose it was possible to own the air, as well as the land and the water. Would you say the owner of the air was "providing" something to workers, by letting them breathe?

 

[FactFinder]

See What Tax Cuts For The Wealthy Has Caused:

Certainly nothing good, cause now they think they are somehow above the fray and deserve something more than anyone else.

The resources of the nation belong to the nation. Unless someone is extrarodinarily contributing to the nation they have no more rights to the national resources than anyone. Most of the "placed" individuals have contributed squat diddley.

 

[thereisnospoon]

It began with Reagan's trillion's in cuts but look closely at the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 and it's not rocket science....the wealthy no longer pay their fair share:

Their kids don't go 10,000 miles across the globe to fight and die in the wars they start either

What a bunch of bullshit.
Increasing productivity and reducing cost is a good thing.
Labor is a commodity. Labor is the largest cost of doing business. With profits being squeezed by an increasingly globalized marketplace and increased competition, labor is the first thing to be looked at for cost reductions.
For example....The CEO of American Airlines, one the legacy carriers saddled with very high labor costs due to labor unions told of a situation where the security of hangars was modified to reduce labor costs.
First the theft of tools and materials was deemed out of control. So the company placed security people. With the reduced thefts, the word was obviously out that it was unwise to steal. They reduced the number of people used for security.
Then the company brought in guard dogs and replaced the security people.
Then with even fewer thefts, they reduced the number of guard dogs then reduced the number of hours the dogs were present.
The cost of security went from thousands of dollars per week, to a few hundred. I call that good business.
Confiscating more money for government to spend has nothing to do with this.
Private and public sector expenses are mutually exclusive.

Labor is not a commodity. Labor is people doing work. Labor includes CEOs and accountants and janitors and every other person who contributes something toward the production of goods and services.

Owners consider labor a "cost", because the income created by the workers is divided between them and the owners. The less that goes to salaries, the more more there is for profits. Their goal, therefore, is to get as much work as possible out of workers, while paying them as little as as they can. If they could reduce the income of ordinary Americans to the level of Chinese factory workers, that would be an advantage (to them).

So labor is a "cost", but only if you look at it purely from the point of view of people who own things, but don't work themselves.

When you look at it from the perspective of the interest of the country as a whole - rather than strictly from the perspective of the rich - a country with a healthy middle class is better than one where a tiny minority consume more and more, while the people who actually do the work struggle harder and harder for less and less.

Oh yes it is....Labor is a tool. It is subject to market forces just like any other product.
Business does not desire labor. It only requires it because the owners do not wish or because of practical reasons cannot do the work themselves.
Labor market rates are dictated by supply and demand and of course the level of pay is determined by the type of task, level of skill and amount of experience of the individual worker.
That business maximizes productivity is economy 101.
It is not done for the reasons the class envy crowd believes.
If a business has high labor costs it cannot control, the business makes less money and therefore will decrease the number of workers. Simple stuff.

 

[FactFinder]

What a bunch of bullshit.
Increasing productivity and reducing cost is a good thing.
Labor is a commodity. Labor is the largest cost of doing business. With profits being squeezed by an increasingly globalized marketplace and increased competition, labor is the first thing to be looked at for cost reductions.
For example....The CEO of American Airlines, one the legacy carriers saddled with very high labor costs due to labor unions told of a situation where the security of hangars was modified to reduce labor costs.
First the theft of tools and materials was deemed out of control. So the company placed security people. With the reduced thefts, the word was obviously out that it was unwise to steal. They reduced the number of people used for security.
Then the company brought in guard dogs and replaced the security people.
Then with even fewer thefts, they reduced the number of guard dogs then reduced the number of hours the dogs were present.
The cost of security went from thousands of dollars per week, to a few hundred. I call that good business.
Confiscating more money for government to spend has nothing to do with this.
Private and public sector expenses are mutually exclusive.

Labor is not a commodity. Labor is people doing work. Labor includes CEOs and accountants and janitors and every other person who contributes something toward the production of goods and services.

Owners consider labor a "cost", because the income created by the workers is divided between them and the owners. The less that goes to salaries, the more more there is for profits. Their goal, therefore, is to get as much work as possible out of workers, while paying them as little as as they can. If they could reduce the income of ordinary Americans to the level of Chinese factory workers, that would be an advantage (to them).

So labor is a "cost", but only if you look at it purely from the point of view of people who own things, but don't work themselves.

When you look at it from the perspective of the interest of the country as a whole - rather than strictly from the perspective of the rich - a country with a healthy middle class is better than one where a tiny minority consume more and more, while the people who actually do the work struggle harder and harder for less and less.

Oh yes it is....Labor is a tool. It is subject to market forces just like any other product.
Business does not desire labor. It only requires it because the owners do not wish or because of practical reasons cannot do the work themselves.
Labor market rates are dictated by supply and demand and of course the level of pay is determined by the type of task, level of skill and amount of experience of the individual worker.
That business maximizes productivity is economy 101.
It is not done for the reasons the class envy crowd believes.
If a business has high labor costs it cannot control, the business makes less money and therefore will decrease the number of workers. Simple stuff.

Ah but the business does shit if the people say that business sucks!

 

[Sundial]

51% of Americans pay NO income tax and 99% of them are NOT wealthy.
They are the ones that do not pay their fair share.
They DO NOT PAY ANY SHARE.
Slash entitlements immediately.
End Section 8 housing yesterday, cut food stamps in half, end the free lunch program at schools and let the states do it, do a total review of SS disability where half the recipients CAN WORK, end government unions yesterday, end the Dept. of education, vouchers for Medicare and Medicaid.
Do all that and next year we have a surplus.
Taxes now ARE TOO HIGH. Spending has and always be THE PROBLEM.

Taxes are too high - most of them, anyway. Property taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes - all too high.

The only tax that's not too high is the income tax on the rich. The tax rate on the richest Americans has declined to the lowest rate on record - 17% - if memory serves.

Taxes on capital gains need to be raised to the same level as taxes on earned income. Taxes on the richest Americans need to be raised - immediately.

Taxes on everyone else should be cut. Especially payroll taxes. Payroll taxes are a tax on work. We need more people working, and taking home more of their paychecks - now, more than ever.

Why? What good would these increases in taxes do?
Nations throughout modern history, no matter what has been tried, cannot tax themselves into prosperity.
No nation has ever been successful in improving their economy by over taxing the producers. Sooner or later the producers, builders and investors stop spending and stop investing.
Your side has made the wealthiest people, those that produce and create jobs, the enemy of the State.

What makes you think the rich are automatically productive?

Of course, some of them were productive, before they became rich. And stopped being productive after. (What's the point of being rich, if you have to go to work?) Others were never productive in the first place. Some inherit their money. Others accumulate wealth by actively destroying economic value. Joseph Cassano, for example, received over $300 million for his work selling credit default swaps for AIG - until they bankrupted the company. Even then, he got a contract for $1 million a month for "consulting".

Income is about how much you can consume. It is not a measure of how much you produce.

 

[Sundial]

What a bunch of bullshit.
Increasing productivity and reducing cost is a good thing.
Labor is a commodity. Labor is the largest cost of doing business. With profits being squeezed by an increasingly globalized marketplace and increased competition, labor is the first thing to be looked at for cost reductions.
For example....The CEO of American Airlines, one the legacy carriers saddled with very high labor costs due to labor unions told of a situation where the security of hangars was modified to reduce labor costs.
First the theft of tools and materials was deemed out of control. So the company placed security people. With the reduced thefts, the word was obviously out that it was unwise to steal. They reduced the number of people used for security.
Then the company brought in guard dogs and replaced the security people.
Then with even fewer thefts, they reduced the number of guard dogs then reduced the number of hours the dogs were present.
The cost of security went from thousands of dollars per week, to a few hundred. I call that good business.
Confiscating more money for government to spend has nothing to do with this.
Private and public sector expenses are mutually exclusive.

Labor is not a commodity. Labor is people doing work. Labor includes CEOs and accountants and janitors and every other person who contributes something toward the production of goods and services.

Owners consider labor a "cost", because the income created by the workers is divided between them and the owners. The less that goes to salaries, the more more there is for profits. Their goal, therefore, is to get as much work as possible out of workers, while paying them as little as as they can. If they could reduce the income of ordinary Americans to the level of Chinese factory workers, that would be an advantage (to them).

So labor is a "cost", but only if you look at it purely from the point of view of people who own things, but don't work themselves.

When you look at it from the perspective of the interest of the country as a whole - rather than strictly from the perspective of the rich - a country with a healthy middle class is better than one where a tiny minority consume more and more, while the people who actually do the work struggle harder and harder for less and less.

Oh yes it is....Labor is a tool. It is subject to market forces just like any other product.
Business does not desire labor. It only requires it because the owners do not wish or because of practical reasons cannot do the work themselves.
Labor market rates are dictated by supply and demand and of course the level of pay is determined by the type of task, level of skill and amount of experience of the individual worker.
That business maximizes productivity is economy 101.
It is not done for the reasons the class envy crowd believes.
If a business has high labor costs it cannot control, the business makes less money and therefore will decrease the number of workers. Simple stuff.

Humans are not tools. (Well, except for you, of course.) Sometimes capital can be tools, and tools are certainly capital. But human beings are never tools.

 

[FactFinder]

Labor is not a commodity. Labor is people doing work. Labor includes CEOs and accountants and janitors and every other person who contributes something toward the production of goods and services.

Owners consider labor a "cost", because the income created by the workers is divided between them and the owners. The less that goes to salaries, the more more there is for profits. Their goal, therefore, is to get as much work as possible out of workers, while paying them as little as as they can. If they could reduce the income of ordinary Americans to the level of Chinese factory workers, that would be an advantage (to them).

So labor is a "cost", but only if you look at it purely from the point of view of people who own things, but don't work themselves.

When you look at it from the perspective of the interest of the country as a whole - rather than strictly from the perspective of the rich - a country with a healthy middle class is better than one where a tiny minority consume more and more, while the people who actually do the work struggle harder and harder for less and less.

Oh yes it is....Labor is a tool. It is subject to market forces just like any other product.
Business does not desire labor. It only requires it because the owners do not wish or because of practical reasons cannot do the work themselves.
Labor market rates are dictated by supply and demand and of course the level of pay is determined by the type of task, level of skill and amount of experience of the individual worker.
That business maximizes productivity is economy 101.
It is not done for the reasons the class envy crowd believes.
If a business has high labor costs it cannot control, the business makes less money and therefore will decrease the number of workers. Simple stuff.

Humans are not tools. (Well, except for you, of course.) Sometimes capital can be tools, and tools are certainly capital. But human beings are never tools.

and....any business that sucks people will reject.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Labor is not a commodity. Labor is people doing work. Labor includes CEOs and accountants and janitors and every other person who contributes something toward the production of goods and services.

Owners consider labor a "cost", because the income created by the workers is divided between them and the owners. The less that goes to salaries, the more more there is for profits. Their goal, therefore, is to get as much work as possible out of workers, while paying them as little as as they can. If they could reduce the income of ordinary Americans to the level of Chinese factory workers, that would be an advantage (to them).

So labor is a "cost", but only if you look at it purely from the point of view of people who own things, but don't work themselves.

When you look at it from the perspective of the interest of the country as a whole - rather than strictly from the perspective of the rich - a country with a healthy middle class is better than one where a tiny minority consume more and more, while the people who actually do the work struggle harder and harder for less and less.

You are a gross ignoramus.
Labor is a commodity. Just like raw materials. If owners can lower their cost of raw materials, they will and save money. If they can lower their cost of labor, they will. US workers make more than CHinese workers not because owners were somehow more beneficient but because they are more productive. Low wages equate universally with low productivity.

American workers make more not only because we're more productive, but because the US has better and fairer laws.

Plus, we have unions.

Workers are not "just like raw materials". Raw materials don't do anything. They just sit there. They don't create, or build, or manufacture. Raw materials are more like the leisure class.

Except that raw materials don't have families. And they're not people.

Umm..Only 7% of the total US workforce is unionized...
Looking at western European nations, overall about 25% of the labor force is unionized.
Trade unions across Europe.
Your claim that unions are a reason for higher wages is at best a minor reason.
Here's the issue. When labor is defined as a commodity, you people react as though the person stating that has stated that human beings are a commodity. Not so. Untrue.
Labor is like a raw material. It has a cost. The cost is not fixed. It is liquid. The price of private sector labor is set by the marketplace.
The above are indicators that labor is indeed a commodity.

 

[FactFinder]

You are a gross ignoramus.
Labor is a commodity. Just like raw materials. If owners can lower their cost of raw materials, they will and save money. If they can lower their cost of labor, they will. US workers make more than CHinese workers not because owners were somehow more beneficient but because they are more productive. Low wages equate universally with low productivity.

American workers make more not only because we're more productive, but because the US has better and fairer laws.

Plus, we have unions.

Workers are not "just like raw materials". Raw materials don't do anything. They just sit there. They don't create, or build, or manufacture. Raw materials are more like the leisure class.

Except that raw materials don't have families. And they're not people.

Umm..Only 7% of the total US workforce is unionized...
Looking at western European nations, overall about 25% of the labor force is unionized.
Trade unions across Europe.
Your claim that unions are a reason for higher wages is at best a minor reason.
Here's the issue. When labor is defined as a commodity, you people react as though the person stating that has stated that human beings are a commodity. Not so. Untrue.
Labor is like a raw material. It has a cost. The cost is not fixed. It is liquid. The price of private sector labor is set by the marketplace.
The above are indicators that labor is indeed a commodity.

When a business or entity is defined as 'sucks' they are all done.

 

[FactFinder]

American workers make more not only because we're more productive, but because the US has better and fairer laws.

Plus, we have unions.

Workers are not "just like raw materials". Raw materials don't do anything. They just sit there. They don't create, or build, or manufacture. Raw materials are more like the leisure class.

Except that raw materials don't have families. And they're not people.

Umm..Only 7% of the total US workforce is unionized...
Looking at western European nations, overall about 25% of the labor force is unionized.
Trade unions across Europe.
Your claim that unions are a reason for higher wages is at best a minor reason.
Here's the issue. When labor is defined as a commodity, you people react as though the person stating that has stated that human beings are a commodity. Not so. Untrue.
Labor is like a raw material. It has a cost. The cost is not fixed. It is liquid. The price of private sector labor is set by the marketplace.
The above are indicators that labor is indeed a commodity.

When a business or entity is defined as 'sucks' they are all done.

bac as exhibit one.

 

[g5000]

Wealth redistribution runs both ways. Government policy can enact legislation which takes money from the rich and redistributes it to the poor, or the government can enact legislation which has the consequence of money concentrating into the hands of a few.

Neither are good policy, but we are currently under the latter legislative regime. Legislation exists which is concentrating wealth into the hands of a few.

Our founding fathers warned of the dangers of such a system. Thomas Jefferson saw it first-hand during his ambassadorship in France as he witnessed the extreme poverty of the majority co-existing alongside the extreme wealth of the aristocracy. He put his mind to devising a solution to such a travesty.

(I had a link to a letter written by Thomas Jefferson here, but this site says I can't post urls until I have made 15 posts. Hmmm. Guess you will have to take my word for it the words which follow are authentic. If you google "university of chicago Thomas Jefferson to James Madison v1ch15" it will take you to the letter. I encourage you to read all of it.)

I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind.

"Legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property".

Right there. It does not get more clear than that. It is the government's duty to prevent the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few.

Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.

Jefferson is clearly talking about a progressive tax system here, with those below a certain income level to pay no taxes.

The apologists for the concentration of wealth need to read this next bit very closely:

Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right.

"Natural right". That is John Locke's influence right there. And the concentration of wealth is a violation of natural rights. Mull over that.


It is my opinion that the current concentration of wealth is not entirely caused by the rich being taxed too lightly. Taxing the rich more punishes the innocent and guilty alike.

Raising taxes should only be used as a means to bring down our national debt, not as some kind of punishment or means of wealth redistribution.

There are far larger factors causing this concentration of wealth.

Preventing wealth concentration is not the same thing as "wealth redistribution". But Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and others promoted a progressive tax system as one means to prevent the concentration of wealth. Thomase Paine even recommended a government stipend for people who earned below a defined poverty level.

Another means of preventing the concentration of wealth that was been codified into law was the elimination of primogeniture.

And then there are the antitrust laws.

And the laws banning insider trading.

I'm sure all of you can think of other laws intended to prevent an unfair or unlevel playing field.

But in the last decade or more, the laws preventing wealth concentration and an unlevel playing field have been repealed, circumvented, or are not being enforced. So we are creating a new American aristocracy on one side, and a nation of working poor on the other. Wealth is being tranferred from the bottom of the scale to the top.

Money is being stolen from your pocket, and some of you don't even know it. If you did, you would not be defending the current setup. You are rubes. You are the goose that lays the golden eggs, being fed just enough chicken feed in your 401-k or retirement pension to keep you happily clucking and producing product for the thieves stealing from you.

For those who obsess about "the rich" and want to tax them more to put things right, higher taxes and wealth concentration must be de-linked in your mind. Higher taxes won't stop you from being robbed.

If a thief came into your house every day and helped himself to the contents of your home and your wallet, and the police did nothing to stop him, would taxing all of his neighbors more fix the problem?

No, of course not.

You are looking at the wrong legislation. The "Bush tax cuts" are contributing to our national debt, not to our national income redistribution up the ladder.

 

[Againsheila]

Who determines the "fair share"?
The 51% that now receive a govenrment check?
Alexis de Toqueville predicted THIS shortly after this country was founded.
I remember as a kid one of the neighbors had a Rolls Royce. This man had a hardware store, investments in the stock market and rental houses. When he used to drive down the road my Dad would say "There goes Mr. Parker. He is a hard working man. When you grow up you need to try to be like him. He is a good role model"
Now the tax and spend moocher class says "There goes Mr. Parker. He stole all his money from others and is greedy. He does not care about anyone and is selfish because he has more than anyone else. He does not need that Rolls Royce. He does not need all of those investments and rental houses. He does not pay his fair share in taxes. I DEMAND MORE OF HIS WEALTH AND I DEMAND GOVERNMENT TAKE IT FROM HIM AND GIVE IT TO ME AND OTHERS."

I doubt Mr Parker is one of the 1%, unless you were living in a mansion when you were growing up.

I'll bet Mr Parker paid taxes on those rental homes and the income from those rental homes. In fact, he probably paid a bigger share of his income in taxes then than the top 10% do today.

 

[auditor0007]

Who determines the "fair share"?
The 51% that now receive a govenrment check?
Alexis de Toqueville predicted THIS shortly after this country was founded.
I remember as a kid one of the neighbors had a Rolls Royce. This man had a hardware store, investments in the stock market and rental houses. When he used to drive down the road my Dad would say "There goes Mr. Parker. He is a hard working man. When you grow up you need to try to be like him. He is a good role model"
Now the tax and spend moocher class says "There goes Mr. Parker. He stole all his money from others and is greedy. He does not care about anyone and is selfish because he has more than anyone else. He does not need that Rolls Royce. He does not need all of those investments and rental houses. He does not pay his fair share in taxes. I DEMAND MORE OF HIS WEALTH AND I DEMAND GOVERNMENT TAKE IT FROM HIM AND GIVE IT TO ME AND OTHERS."

Bullshit! Taxes on corporations and business has declined not increased and corporate welfare has went up.

Mr. Paker pollutes the enviroment with all the wood and tools for his house,cars and tools for his hardware stores(someone has to clean it up). He needs more police to protect his assets and extrta security for alarms that go off if you walk by his stores and homes. He uses the court system to sue anyone he has cheated and refuses to pay for the cheap tools he got from China and Mexico. He uses more electric,fuel and watar for his many houses and stores. I could go on but I think you get my point.

Why should Mr. Parker get a free ride off me?

35% corp tax..That's what the federal government collects. 35 cents on every dollar of gross revenue.
Those with money, investments and small business do not pay enough huh?
The Obama regime wants to raise the top rate to 44%.
There are roughly 390,000 people in the US that earn over one million dollars per year.
80% of those are small business owners. Obama says these people do not pay a "fair share"...Really? How so?
Additionally...The Obama regime wants to take all dividend income that is now taxed at 15% and include that as regular income. At 44%. That money has already been taxed once at 44%...The Obama regime wants a second bite at the apple.
Small business owners will do what they must to void these confiscatory taxes. They will reduce the size of their business which will result in fewer jobs. Combine this with the impending threat of the cost of Obama care and MORE unemployment will be the rule of the day.
You people appear to believe that jobs and wages come from an employment entitlement fairy.....There is no such thing.
Without the people to spend and invest in business, there are no jobs....Except public sector work. Which as we all know does not produce anything. Government only consumes.

You would have an actual beef if anyone paid those rates.

 

[FactFinder]

Who determines the "fair share"?
The 51% that now receive a govenrment check?
Alexis de Toqueville predicted THIS shortly after this country was founded.
I remember as a kid one of the neighbors had a Rolls Royce. This man had a hardware store, investments in the stock market and rental houses. When he used to drive down the road my Dad would say "There goes Mr. Parker. He is a hard working man. When you grow up you need to try to be like him. He is a good role model"
Now the tax and spend moocher class says "There goes Mr. Parker. He stole all his money from others and is greedy. He does not care about anyone and is selfish because he has more than anyone else. He does not need that Rolls Royce. He does not need all of those investments and rental houses. He does not pay his fair share in taxes. I DEMAND MORE OF HIS WEALTH AND I DEMAND GOVERNMENT TAKE IT FROM HIM AND GIVE IT TO ME AND OTHERS."

I doubt Mr Parker is one of the 1%, unless you were living in a mansion when you were growing up.

I'll bet Mr Parker paid taxes on those rental homes and the income from those rental homes. In fact, he probably paid a bigger share of his income in taxes then than the top 10% do today.

All speculation. He may have paid shit except to his tax lawyers. At least they are bettter off, heh?

 

[Sundial]

You are a gross ignoramus.
Labor is a commodity. Just like raw materials. If owners can lower their cost of raw materials, they will and save money. If they can lower their cost of labor, they will. US workers make more than CHinese workers not because owners were somehow more beneficient but because they are more productive. Low wages equate universally with low productivity.

American workers make more not only because we're more productive, but because the US has better and fairer laws.

Plus, we have unions.

Workers are not "just like raw materials". Raw materials don't do anything. They just sit there. They don't create, or build, or manufacture. Raw materials are more like the leisure class.

Except that raw materials don't have families. And they're not people.

Umm..Only 7% of the total US workforce is unionized...
Looking at western European nations, overall about 25% of the labor force is unionized.
Trade unions across Europe.
Your claim that unions are a reason for higher wages is at best a minor reason.
Here's the issue. When labor is defined as a commodity, you people react as though the person stating that has stated that human beings are a commodity. Not so. Untrue.
Labor is like a raw material. It has a cost. The cost is not fixed. It is liquid. The price of private sector labor is set by the marketplace.
The above are indicators that labor is indeed a commodity.

The fact that something has a market price does not make it a commodity.

The larger point is that the country exists to further the interests of all its people, not just the interests of a wealthy few.