Tax the rich!!!!!!!!

[AVG-JOE]

Fair and simple taxes, public budgets that are balanced by law and transparency in all things politics. Then, build an economy that your kids can drive to the stars.

It ain't rocket science, y'all.

 

[Sallow]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-0lAhnoDlU]Aerosmith - Eat The Rich - YouTube[/ame]

 

[AVG-JOE]

Also, the middle class and small business creates more jobs than the rich.

To be precise, small business hires up to 2/3 of the work force every year.

So again, we keep flinging the "rich" term around without assigning it value. I can promise you that many think that someone starting a small business is "rich".

It doesn't matter what kind of ideas, resources or products an entrepreneur has, without a marketplace with money, not a single job will be created.

 

[Votto]

Fair and simple taxes, public budgets that are balanced by law and transparency in all things politics. Then, build an economy that your kids can drive to the stars.

It ain't rocket science, y'all.

Fair and simple taxes? What does that look like? Most would say that fair taxes should be progressive and be mostly for the "rich". Would you agree? If so, who are the "rich"?

As far as balancing budget, I hate to say it but you just earned the title extremist teabagger.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

For those on the left, and those in the middle and those really confused on the right, why do you want to see taxes increased, especially on the rich?

1. I am concerned with the rising debt.

2. I am concerned that entitlements may have to be cut.

3. I hate rich people.

4. I don't think we are paying our fair share.

Any others?

Fiscal responsibility.

As I've already said, last year the unfunded debt for both social security and Medicare exceed $7 trillion and is more wealth than all of the 1% of the wealthy in the US.

Would you then propose scaling back the entitlements and increase taxes on the rich to balance the books year by year?

Be more specific.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Apparently O has classified you as rich if you make more than 200K a year. In the end though, it's all about the left's self gratification of making someone else pay.

The number used to be $250,000 and is falling by the day.

Again, I ask Obama supporters, who are the "rich"? I've yet to get an answer.

Its still 250k for married couples and 200k for single individuals and has been for over 4 years.

 

[BallsBrunswick]

I honestly don't understand why we don't have a flat percentage tax on income or sales in the marketplace instead of ******* around with all this idiocy. That way everyone is getting hit evenly.

 

[Votto]

It doesn't matter what kind of ideas, resources or products an entrepreneur has, without a marketplace with money, not a single job will be created.

Are you suggesting that the government should then extract money from the "rich" and force feed the economy? If so, who are the "rich"?

 

[Votto]

I honestly don't understand why we don't have a flat percentage tax on income or sales in the marketplace instead of ******* around with all this idiocy. That way everyone is getting hit evenly.

If the government treated everyone as equals, then what interest and support would they generate?

 

[akelch]

Fair and simple taxes, public budgets that are balanced by law and transparency in all things politics. Then, build an economy that your kids can drive to the stars.

It ain't rocket science, y'all.

Fair and simple taxes? What does that look like? Most would say that fair taxes should be progressive and be mostly for the "rich". Would you agree? If so, who are the "rich"?

As far as balancing budget, I hate to say it but you just earned the title extremist teabagger.

It is called HR 25. Consumption tax. It is a bill waited to be voted on and would remove all those tax breaks that the "Rich" get from Washington.

 

[akelch]

Are you suggesting that the government should then extract money from the "rich" and force feed the economy? If so, who are the "rich"?

Better question...who decides who gets the money and why?

 

[Votto]

Be more specific.

Be more specific? Read the article from the Wall Street Journal I provided if you are wondering about the numbers. All I'm saying is, are you willing to reduce entitlements even after bleeding those whom you just labeled "rich" for everything they own, or would you be in favor of continuing deficits or even taxing those below those income levels to maintain the current entitlement state? It is either one or the other.

 

[akelch]

I honestly don't understand why we don't have a flat percentage tax on income or sales in the marketplace instead of ******* around with all this idiocy. That way everyone is getting hit evenly.

AGREE
http://www.fairtax.org

 

[AVG-JOE]

Apparently O has classified you as rich if you make more than 200K a year. In the end though, it's all about the left's self gratification of making someone else pay.

That's a pretty narrow viewpoint... Do you really see all Americans as either entitled, lazy ***** or pissed off rich republicans?

 

[akelch]

Also, the middle class and small business creates more jobs than the rich.

To be precise, small business hires up to 2/3 of the work force every year.

So again, we keep flinging the "rich" term around without assigning it value. I can promise you that many think that someone starting a small business is "rich".

It doesn't matter what kind of ideas, resources or products an entrepreneur has, without a marketplace with money, not a single job will be created.

A marketplace doesn't create a entrepreneur....a entrepreneur creates a marketplace.

 

[Votto]

Better question...who decides who gets the money and why?

This thread is about who the "rich" are. Only one person has come forward and said that those making over $200,000 are rich. What say you?


Once we have assessed that, we are then free to appeal to the public to extract what we like from them. To this point, the only reasons given are to punish them for their abuses and not creating jobs. Personally, I can think of better punishments.

My guess is, however, that no one wants the government to increase taxes on those below the $200,000 level. In fact, no one in Washington would ever suggest such a thing because you need the masses to support tax increases, and that means picking on a minority. The 1% is a good start.

Of course, that did not stop the government from creating the largest tax hike on the Middle Class in the form of Obamacare, but it took Obama claiming it was not a tax all the way until it was needed to be declared a tax so that SCOTUS would not toss it out as unconstitutional.

Obama was successful in selling a massive tax increase on the middle class to the public, even left wingers bought into it even though corporate America is now in charge of those tax rates. Amazing. It was a masterful sell job, but that is what it takes to extract wealth from people who are the majority or near the majority.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Apparently O has classified you as rich if you make more than 200K a year. In the end though, it's all about the left's self gratification of making someone else pay.

The number used to be $250,000 and is falling by the day.

Again, I ask Obama supporters, who are the "rich"? I've yet to get an answer.

'Cause it's a troll question posed by a master-baiter and you're smart enough to know it.

 

[akelch]

This thread is about who the "rich" are. Only one person has come forward and said that those making over $200,000 are rich. What say you?


Once we have assessed that, we are then free to appeal to the public to extract what we like from them. To this point, the only reasons given are to punish them for their abuses and not creating jobs. Personally, I can think of better punishments.

My guess is, however, that no one wants the government to increase taxes on those below the $200,000 level. In fact, no one in Washington would ever suggest such a thing because you need the masses to support tax increases, and that means picking on a minority. The 1% is a good start.

Of course, that did not stop the government from creating the largest tax hike on the Middle Class in the form of Obamacare, but it took Obama claiming it was not a tax all the way until it was needed to be declared a tax so that SCOTUS would not toss it out as unconstitutional.

Obama was successful in selling a massive tax increase on the middle class to the public, even left wingers and even though corporate America is now in charge of those tax rates. It was a masterful sell job, but that is what it takes to extract wealth from people who are the majority or near the majority.

We are all rich. I am thankful for what I have and try and help others less fortunate. Money has nothing to do with being rich or poor.

 

[AVG-JOE]

If taxes had been fair for the last 40 years, we wouldn't have most of the wealth concentrated into the hands of fewer and fewer people and organizations and a marketplace that can't afford to buy things, leading to things like public debt and job loss.

Still not rocket science...

 

[Votto]

I honestly don't understand why we don't have a flat percentage tax on income or sales in the marketplace instead of ******* around with all this idiocy. That way everyone is getting hit evenly.

AGREE
FairTax Video - Americans For Fair Taxation

Who is interested in a fair tax? Conservatives? LOL.

There are no conservatives in Washington, only progressives.

In the end, people like Romney will continue to pay less in taxes than the average folk, if they pay at all, like Giethner and company.