Liberals for wealth redistribution

[RetiredGySgt]

Check out this thread and note how many Liberal Democrats SUPPORT the concept of the US Government STEALING private citizens wealth. Yet they insist they are not socialist.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/124697-wealth-inequality-how-it-affects-the-economy.html

Freedom? No not if democrats had their way.

 

[rdean]

Wealth Redistribution already happened.

In the 50s and 60s, a CEO made 30 times the pay of the average worker. Now, they make 300 to 400 times more. And what are they doing? Where are the jobs.

Then Bush and the Republicans passed a 2.4 trillion dollar tax cut that had ZERO offset in spending. 52% of the 2.4 trillion went to the top 1% of Americans. How did it help the economy? More wealth redistribution.

Warren Buffet didn't even try for any tax breaks:

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent.

Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary - Times Online

More Redistribution of wealth.

Since Ronald Reagan, Republicans have worked tirelessly to create the most massive redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the very rich. It's not like they have tried to hide it. In fact, with Joe Barton apology, it's apparent that Republicans feel the rich are entitled to a free pass, even when they cause the disaster.

No one is better at getting Republicans to vote against their own self interests. We are paying the least amount of taxes in 50 years, and Republicans are screaming they are being over taxed. It's pathetic. They're pathetic.

 

[Jon]

Warren Buffett only pays his secretary $60,000 a year? What a dick.

 

[Jon]

Don't get me wrong. As an accountant, knowing the tax rates many people pay infuriates me. But knowing what the Democrats want to do with the tax dollars, I'd rather the rich people hold on to them. Until we are SPENDING our tax dollars appropriately, I don't support taking in more.

 

[rdean]

Warren Buffett only pays his secretary $60,000 a year? What a dick.

She's a secretary. What should he pay her? Rich people aren't obligated to pay the people that work for them "extra". In fact, I suspect Republicans squeeze the people that work for them the way they do the middle class.

Wanna bet she gets full dental, vision and health care?

 

[R.C. Christian]

The wealthy should pay their share. The tax burden on the wealthy is much less than that of the middle class. And that is just about as liberal as I get.

 

[Jon]

Warren Buffett only pays his secretary $60,000 a year? What a dick.

She's a secretary. What should he pay her? Rich people aren't obligated to pay the people that work for them "extra". In fact, I suspect Republicans squeeze the people that work for them the way they do the middle class.

Wanna bet she gets full dental, vision and health care?

This is the richest man in the world, and he can't pay his secretary accordingly. Yet, you like what he says because it jives with your fucked views. That's not a surprise.

And the reason Buffett didn't have to "try" for tax breaks is because most of his income was from dividends, which are already taxed at a lower rate. He didn't try, because his income was already structured to reduce tax from the beginning. Don't let his words fool you. Of course, it's clear words are enough to fool you. You supported Obama.

 

[Jon]

The wealthy should pay their share. The tax burden on the wealthy is much less than that of the middle class. And that is just about as liberal as I get.

I agree. But until spending is under control, I don't care what the wealthy do with their money. I don't support redistribution of wealth, and that's what this administration has in mind. If they want to tax ALL Americans to pay off the debt, I'm all for it. But taxing the rich to give handouts to those unwilling to work? No thanks.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Jon, I don't live but 22 miles from you and there is no way in hell an a stupid adminitrative assistant should make that kind of change.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Missed your last post. Paying off the national debt is impossible. It shouldn't even be worthy of discussion.

 

[Luissa]

Check out this thread and note how many Liberal Democrats SUPPORT the concept of the US Government STEALING private citizens wealth. Yet they insist they are not socialist.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/124697-wealth-inequality-how-it-affects-the-economy.html

Freedom? No not if democrats had their way.

Corporations need to pay people a proper wage, and need to stop sending jobs overseas. If they don't I say tax them. This system isn't working, and if you think it is, well you are just a sheep.

 

[Jon]

Missed your last post. Paying off the national debt is impossible. It shouldn't even be worthy of discussion.

It was almost done under the Clinton administration, with a combination of high taxes and responsible spending. The Bush administration operated under low taxes and irresponsible spending. This administration operates under mid-ranged taxes and even more irresponsible spending.

 

[Jon]

Corporations need to pay people a proper wage, and need to stop sending jobs overseas. If they don't I say tax them. This system isn't working, and if you think it is, well you are just a sheep.

So, it's the corporations fault? No fault on the government for not knowing how to spend the tax revenues responsibly? Of course not!

 

[R.C. Christian]

Missed your last post. Paying off the national debt is impossible. It shouldn't even be worthy of discussion.

It was almost done under the Clinton administration, with a combination of high taxes and responsible spending. The Bush administration operated under low taxes and irresponsible spending. This administration operates under mid-ranged taxes and even more irresponsible spending.

Wrong. That was the budget deficit.

 

[Jon]

Missed your last post. Paying off the national debt is impossible. It shouldn't even be worthy of discussion.

It was almost done under the Clinton administration, with a combination of high taxes and responsible spending. The Bush administration operated under low taxes and irresponsible spending. This administration operates under mid-ranged taxes and even more irresponsible spending.

Wrong. That was the budget deficit.

Good point. I guess what I meant to say was, "We were on the right track under Clinton."

 

[Modbert]

Good point. I guess what I meant to say was, "We were on the right track under Clinton."

Indeed. We did have a budget surplus under Clinton too.

 

[R.C. Christian]

We were on the right track because the economy was booming under a tech bubble, and the military industrial complex was still scratching it's stupid head wondering who to invade next after the cold war.

 

[Cuyo]

Missed your last post. Paying off the national debt is impossible. It shouldn't even be worthy of discussion.

It was almost done under the Clinton administration, with a combination of high taxes and responsible spending. The Bush administration operated under low taxes and irresponsible spending. This administration operates under mid-ranged taxes and even more irresponsible spending.

Someone will have to point out where this irresponsible spending isolated to this administration is. The massive deficit appears to be primarily due to low receipts and economic stabilizers kicking in; Both in response to a massively crippled economy.

 

[Big Fitz]

The "Right Track" for taxes is a flat rate tax with no exceptions. You still have the inequality of it being a percentage of income and investments, but then everyone pays their fair share.

The truely FAIR tax would be a flat rate for everyone regardless of what they make. Then everyone pays the same. Think of it. if you made the flat rate a thousand dollars, but everyone who has a job or gained wealth from investments paid it. How many people earn an income in the US or at least gain wealth from investments? 150m? 250m? That's suddenly an income tax of 1.5 to 2.5 TRILLION.

Of course there would be no more refunds, and withholding gets really simple 1000/52 weeks.... you get the point. Yes the poor get hit a little harder, but they need work, and now the rich have LOTS of money to invest. No more panicking around tax time, because like union dues, it's already been taken from your check. If someone is out of work and no income... no tax! Crazy!

Of course the income tax code is reduced to like 1 page and you put out thousands of temporary workers around tax season as well as full time personal accountants. But those are acceptable losses. They'll find new work elsewhere.

Even if you did a 10% flat tax on all income (including investments) and nothing else, the rich would be gonzo to pay it, and the poor would no longer be draining the public treasury by gaining more money back than they put in. April 15th would no longer be 'second christmas'. In the process we'd STILL be collecting more money than the current system which packs the taxes on the middle and upper classes like a fat cheerleader at the top of the pyramid.

Fairness in taxation... utter bullshit under progressive models. Redistribution is just evil.

 

[Jon]

Someone will have to point out where this irresponsible spending isolated to this administration is.

Make a game out of it. Buy the poster, buy some darts, and I bet every time you throw a dart, you'll find some irresponsible spending.

Death and Taxes 2011. It's the government, in six square feet.