The Most Professionally Crafted Tax Lie in History

edthecynic

Censored for Cynicism
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Messages
39,518
Reaction score
5,066
Points
1,130
Any fool can tell the truth, but it requires a man of some sense to know how to lie well.
Samuel Butler

April 7, 2010
RUSH: What are they so afraid of, why do they have to wipe out Reaganism? Top marginal tax rate in 1981, Reagan takes office, 70%. Total take to the Treasury then, $500 billion. Reagan leaves office in 1989. Top marginal tax rate, 28%, dropped from 70. Total take to the Treasury, almost a trillion dollars. Cutting tax rates from 70%, that was a top marginal rate at the time, down to 28% doubled revenues. We know how to increase revenue. That's not their objective with taxation. The regime doesn't care about raising revenue with taxation. No, no, no.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2002/12/~/media/Images/Reports/B_1544_Chart_1lg_4/taxcuts2002.ashx



EDTHECYNIC: As the extremist right wing Heritage Foundation chart shows, revenue declines as a result of Reagan's tax cuts leading to the Reagan Recession of 1982 1983. Reagan followed his one tax cut with 8 tax increases in 6 years and revenue grows substantially!!!

If you notice, the professional CON$ervative liars always leave out Reagan's 8 tax increases as well as the decline in revenue AFTER Reagan's tax cut and BEFORE Reagan's 8 tax increases. And what is carefully left out shows premeditation and the intent to deceive.

This is one of the most professionally crafted lies in history. It is a perfect example of the CON$ervative technique of lying to your level of ignorance.

The best liar is he who makes the smallest amount of lying go the longest way.
Samuel Butler
 
OP
edthecynic

edthecynic

Censored for Cynicism
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Messages
39,518
Reaction score
5,066
Points
1,130
Crickets!
 

Skull Pilot

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2007
Messages
45,446
Reaction score
6,138
Points
1,830
I personally don't give a flying fuck if government revenues go up or down.

I want to keep more of my own money so i can secure my and my family's financial future. The best way to do that is to surgically remove government from our lives as much as possible.
 
OP
edthecynic

edthecynic

Censored for Cynicism
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Messages
39,518
Reaction score
5,066
Points
1,130
Crickets!
maybe there's a support group for people like you who are obsessed with fat assholes on the radio. check your yellow pages, i guess.

:eusa_shhh:
Actually, the original source of that professionally crafted lie is the extremist Heritage Foundation think tank. Stuttering LimpTard is merely parroting his GOP script. You could go to any CON$ervoFascist source and find the exact same lie repeated ad nauseam.
 

G.T.

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
73,949
Reaction score
10,190
Points
2,030
I personally don't give a flying fuck if government revenues go up or down.

I want to keep more of my own money so i can secure my and my family's financial future. The best way to do that is to surgically remove government from our lives as much as possible.
The bigger picture is that Reagan preached this same removal of Government from our lives, and gassed up his peoples, yet he grew the Government and also raised taxes. Facts are a bitch. All politicians are scummy.
 
Last edited:

Skull Pilot

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2007
Messages
45,446
Reaction score
6,138
Points
1,830
I personally don't give a flying fuck if government revenues go up or down.

I want to keep more of my own money so i can secure my and my family's financial future. The best way to do that is to surgically remove government from our lives as much as possible.
The bigger picture is that Reagan preached this same removal of Government from our lives, and gassed up his peoples, yet he grew the Government and also raised taxes. Facts are a bitch. All politicians are scummy.
Haven't I been saying this all along?

We are on the insanity plan:

We do the same thing over and over (electing Dimocrats and Repudlicans) and yet we expect a result other than bigger, more expensive more intrusive government.

Insane.
 

PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
17,416
Reaction score
3,063
Points
183
Location
America's Home Town
I was totally expecting this to be an expose on how the Bush tax cuts actually helped out the poor, as a percentage of income, the most.

Poor Ed, your smart but way to wound up about certain things and it clouds your judgement and logic.
 

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
99,123
Reaction score
32,971
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Crickets!
I hope you will reveal how much Mr. Limbaugh pays you to keep his name in the spotlight...

And as for the larger point...

1. As President Warren Harding's secretary of the treasury, Andrew Mellon, a Pittsburgh multimillionaire, molded the relationship between government and business during the 1920s, a relationship that influenced politics throughout the decade. Committed to retrenchment and economy in government, Secretary of the Treasury Mellon reduced federal spending vigorously. He consistently opposed the veterans' bonus bill and the McNary-Haugen farm bills. But even more central to Mellon's financial vision than spending reduction was tax reduction, especially for the rich. Mellon rejected the progressive philosophy of taxation that insisted those Americans most able to pay should pay more taxes. Instead the he articulated a philosophy later known as "trickle-down economics." Taxing the rich, Mellon argued, inhibited their investment ability, thus impeding job growth and the entire economy. Without a heavy tax burden, the wealthy would invest, create jobs, and ultimately all participants in the economy would become beneficiaries of investors' tax-free profits as prosperity filtered down to workers and farmers, Mellon argued. Republicans eagerly returned America to a peacetime budget, dramatically reducing government spending that had grown substantially during World War I. Congress did, however, approve substantial tax cuts in 1921. This was the first of many tax reductions enacted during the decade at Mellon's instigation, as he was reappointed secretary of the treasury during both Coolidge's and Hoover's administrations. Mellon, Andrew W. 1855-1937 ? FREE Mellon, Andrew W. 1855-1937 information | Encyclopedia.com: Find Mellon, Andrew W. 1855-1937 research
a. Oprah only lives in her Ca. mansion for the requisite number of days so that she doesn’t have to pay Ca. resident taxes.
b. U2 moved their company hq to Netherlands when Ireland raised income tax
c. Michael Moore got a tax credit from Michigan for filming in that state.

2. As tax rates rise, taxpayers reduce taxable income by working less, retiring earlier, scaling back plans to start or expand businesses, moving activities to the underground economy, restructuring companies, and spending more time and money on accountants to minimize taxes. Tax rate cuts reduce such distortions and cause the tax base to expand as tax avoidance falls and the economy grows.

A review of tax data for high-income earners in the 1920s shows that as top tax rates were cut, tax revenues and the share of taxes paid by high-income taxpayers soared. Secretary Mellon knew that high tax rates caused the tax base to contract and that lower rates would boost economic growth. In 1924, Mellon noted: "The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business." He received strong support from President Coolidge, who argued that "the wise and correct course to follow in taxation and all other economic legislation is not to destroy those who have already secured success but to create conditions under which every one will have a better chance to be successful."

Internal Revenue Service data show that the across-the-board rate cuts of the early 1920s-including large cuts at the top end-resulted in greater tax payments and a larger tax share paid by those with high incomes. As tax rates were cut in the mid-1920s, total tax revenues initially fell. But as the economy responded and began growing quickly, revenues soared as incomes rose. By 1928, revenues had surpassed the 1920 level even though tax rates had been dramatically cut. 1920s Income Tax Cuts Sparked Economic Growth and Raised Federal Revenues | Veronique de Rugy | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary

3. The criticism that the tax payments of the rich would fall under ERTA was based on a static conception of human behavior. As a 1982 JEC study pointed out,[1] similar across-the-board tax cuts had been implemented in the 1920s as the Mellon tax cuts, and in the 1960s as the Kennedy tax cuts. In both cases the reduction of high marginal tax rates actually increased tax payments by "the rich," also increasing their share of total individual income taxes paid. Unfortunately, estimates of ERTA by the Democrat-controlled CBO continued to show falling tax payment by upper income taxpayers, even after actual IRS data had become available showing a surge of income tax payments by affluent taxpayers.
The 1993 Clinton tax increase appears to having the opposite effect on the willingness of wealthy taxpayers to expose income to taxation. According to IRS data, the income generated by the top one percent of income earners actually declined in 1993. This decline is especially significant since the retroactivity of the Clinton tax increase in that year limited the ability of taxpayers to deploy tax avoidance strategies, temporarily resulting in an increase in their tax burden. The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform

4. Laffer Curve: What Does Laffer Curve Mean?
Invented by Arthur Laffer, this curve shows the relationship between tax rates and tax revenue collected by governments. The chart below shows the Laffer Curve:
The curve suggests that, as taxes increase from low levels, tax revenue collected by the government also increases. It also shows that tax rates increasing after a certain point (T*) would cause people not to work as hard or not at all, thereby reducing tax revenue. Eventually, if tax rates reached 100% (the far right of the curve), then all people would choose not to work because everything they earned would go to the government. Laffer Curve

5. One study of the United States between 1959 and 1991 placed the revenue-maximizing tax rate (the point at which another marginal tax rate increase would decrease tax revenue) between 32.67% and 35.21% Hsing, Y. (1996), "Estimating the Laffer curve and policy implications", Journal of Socio-Economics 25 (3): 395–401, doi:10.1016/S1053-5357(96)90013-X, ScienceDirect - Journal of Socio-Economics : Estimating the laffer curve and policy implications*1, retrieved 2009-04-21

6. [We wish] a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, but shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement. Thomas Jeffeson.
 
OP
edthecynic

edthecynic

Censored for Cynicism
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Messages
39,518
Reaction score
5,066
Points
1,130
Crickets!
I hope you will reveal how much Mr. Limbaugh pays you to keep his name in the spotlight...

And as for the larger point...

1. As President Warren Harding's secretary of the treasury, Andrew Mellon, a Pittsburgh multimillionaire, molded the relationship between government and business during the 1920s, a relationship that influenced politics throughout the decade. Committed to retrenchment and economy in government, Secretary of the Treasury Mellon reduced federal spending vigorously. He consistently opposed the veterans' bonus bill and the McNary-Haugen farm bills. But even more central to Mellon's financial vision than spending reduction was tax reduction, especially for the rich. Mellon rejected the progressive philosophy of taxation that insisted those Americans most able to pay should pay more taxes. Instead the he articulated a philosophy later known as "trickle-down economics."...

a. Oprah only lives in her Ca. mansion for the requisite number of days so that she doesn’t have to pay Ca. resident taxes.
b. U2 moved their company hq to Netherlands when Ireland raised income tax
c. Michael Moore got a tax credit from Michigan for filming in that state.
Interesting that you cite Mellon and then attack others for their tax manuvers! Mellon along with the Rockefellers, DuPonts, etc., is part of the 60 Families who set up phony charities to dodge their taxes, whose boards are packed with family members. They donate the controlling interests of their monopolies to the charities they head, essentially donating to themselves and getting a tax deduction for it. When one of them dies, the next immediate family member becomes head of the "charity" and inherits CONTROL of the family fortune without paying a penny in "death" taxes.

Mellon and the other 60 Families made sure the law was changed so you or I can't set up a phony charity controlled by our immediate family and avoid taxes like they do, but Pat Robertson has found a loophole for ministries. The government can't tell a ministry who can and can't sit on their board.

There are two excellent books, both out of print but used copies are available on Amazon, "The 60 Families" and "The Rich and The Super-Rich" both by Ferdinand Lundberg which explains how the 60 Families, AKA The Establishment, control their empires through their "charities," in the case of the Mellon family their banking empire. You will probably avoid them so you can maintain your delusions.

In any case you can't possibly be gullible enough expect any of the 60 Families to tell the WHOLE truth about taxes.
 

del

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
52,099
Reaction score
10,832
Points
2,030
Location
on a one way cul-de-sac
Crickets!
maybe there's a support group for people like you who are obsessed with fat assholes on the radio. check your yellow pages, i guess.

:eusa_shhh:
Actually, the original source of that professionally crafted lie is the extremist Heritage Foundation think tank. Stuttering LimpTard is merely parroting his GOP script. You could go to any CON$ervoFascist source and find the exact same lie repeated ad nauseam.
enjoy yourself
 

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
99,123
Reaction score
32,971
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Crickets!
I hope you will reveal how much Mr. Limbaugh pays you to keep his name in the spotlight...

And as for the larger point...

1. As President Warren Harding's secretary of the treasury, Andrew Mellon, a Pittsburgh multimillionaire, molded the relationship between government and business during the 1920s, a relationship that influenced politics throughout the decade. Committed to retrenchment and economy in government, Secretary of the Treasury Mellon reduced federal spending vigorously. He consistently opposed the veterans' bonus bill and the McNary-Haugen farm bills. But even more central to Mellon's financial vision than spending reduction was tax reduction, especially for the rich. Mellon rejected the progressive philosophy of taxation that insisted those Americans most able to pay should pay more taxes. Instead the he articulated a philosophy later known as "trickle-down economics."...

a. Oprah only lives in her Ca. mansion for the requisite number of days so that she doesn’t have to pay Ca. resident taxes.
b. U2 moved their company hq to Netherlands when Ireland raised income tax
c. Michael Moore got a tax credit from Michigan for filming in that state.
Interesting that you cite Mellon and then attack others for their tax manuvers! Mellon along with the Rockefellers, DuPonts, etc., is part of the 60 Families who set up phony charities to dodge their taxes, whose boards are packed with family members. They donate the controlling interests of their monopolies to the charities they head, essentially donating to themselves and getting a tax deduction for it. When one of them dies, the next immediate family member becomes head of the "charity" and inherits CONTROL of the family fortune without paying a penny in "death" taxes.

Mellon and the other 60 Families made sure the law was changed so you or I can't set up a phony charity controlled by our immediate family and avoid taxes like they do, but Pat Robertson has found a loophole for ministries. The government can't tell a ministry who can and can't sit on their board.

There are two excellent books, both out of print but used copies are available on Amazon, "The 60 Families" and "The Rich and The Super-Rich" both by Ferdinand Lundberg which explains how the 60 Families, AKA The Establishment, control their empires through their "charities," in the case of the Mellon family their banking empire. You will probably avoid them so you can maintain your delusions.

In any case you can't possibly be gullible enough expect any of the 60 Families to tell the WHOLE truth about taxes.
1. "Interesting that you cite Mellon and then attack others for their tax manuvers!.."
Either you miss the point, or I was remiss in giving a simpler explanation.

The concept is that the left is totally misinformed as to human nature, and motivations based on same.

Folks will adjust their behavior, financial and otherwise, based on government tax policies. Nor am I finding fault with this kind of self-serving behavior.
Clear enough?

Had you read the other examples that I gave, carefully listed in numerical order, you would see that point made conclusively, that is tha tax policy will change individual fiscal policy.

Unless you didn't want to see that point made...


2. "They donate the controlling interests of their monopolies to the charities they head, essentially donating to themselves and getting a tax deduction for it. When one of them dies, the next immediate family member becomes head of the "charity" and inherits CONTROL of the family fortune without paying a penny in "death" taxes."

Interesting that you bring in the idea of 'charity,' so alien to the left, and implying that charity and the deductions thereof are unavailable to the public at large...

a. Not true, even though the anti-Limbaugh (I inserted that to make you feel that you were doing your duty) is anti-charity.

b. Both the President and Vice-President are famous for their parsimony when it comes to chartiy.

c. It is well known that Conservatives are far better at charitable giving than liberals.: "Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone's tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don't provide them with enough money." Frank Brieaddy writes for The Post-Standard of Syracuse, N.Y.


d. Do you know how much Americans gave in charity...
"Last year Americans gave $300 billion to charity. "https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2010&month=01

Possibly you might ponder as to why we Americans give so copiously.
Hint: the tax deductions are peripheral.
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
114,603
Reaction score
26,706
Points
2,220
Location
Location, location
Ed,

Please tell the Dems to run on a "Tax Increases Grow Revenues" platform.

Please!

You can show them your "Analysis" of how Reagan Tax Increases spurred gubbamint revenues.
 
R

rdean

Guest
Bush and the Republicans cut taxes to the tune of 2.5 trillion dollars with more than 52% going to just the top 5% of taxpayers. When he entered office, the Dow topped 11,000, when he left office, it was barely above 6,000. This is a leading indicator of the health of the economy. How did that "tax thing" work out?

In the 50/s and 60's, the tax rate for the richest Americans was 75 to 90% and yet, they still lived in mansions and had yachts.

Republicans say, "Hey, if you can squeeze American workers for every cent you can get, then good for you, that's capitalism". To me, capitalism is making and selling some type of goods or supplying a service. How is Wall Street selling worthless mortgages to unsuspecting buyers overseas a "good thing"? You can thank Republican deregulation for that.

My feeling is, if you make a hundred million dollars, then your taxes should be higher. What other country can you go to and legally make that kind of money? What is wrong with investing in the country that gave you so much opportunity so others can have that same opportunity. Republicans and greed, they go hand in hand.
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
114,603
Reaction score
26,706
Points
2,220
Location
Location, location
Bush and the Republicans cut taxes to the tune of 2.5 trillion dollars with more than 52% going to just the top 5% of taxpayers. When he entered office, the Dow topped 11,000, when he left office, it was barely above 6,000. This is a leading indicator of the health of the economy. How did that "tax thing" work out?

In the 50/s and 60's, the tax rate for the richest Americans was 75 to 90% and yet, they still lived in mansions and had yachts.

Republicans say, "Hey, if you can squeeze American workers for every cent you can get, then good for you, that's capitalism". To me, capitalism is making and selling some type of goods or supplying a service. How is Wall Street selling worthless mortgages to unsuspecting buyers overseas a "good thing"? You can thank Republican deregulation for that.

My feeling is, if you make a hundred million dollars, then your taxes should be higher. What other country can you go to and legally make that kind of money? What is wrong with investing in the country that gave you so much opportunity so others can have that same opportunity. Republicans and greed, they go hand in hand.
Please call the DNC and tell them to go back to a 90% top federal tax rate

You can show them Ed's "Analysis" to back it up
 
OP
edthecynic

edthecynic

Censored for Cynicism
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Messages
39,518
Reaction score
5,066
Points
1,130
I hope you will reveal how much Mr. Limbaugh pays you to keep his name in the spotlight...

And as for the larger point...

1. As President Warren Harding's secretary of the treasury, Andrew Mellon, a Pittsburgh multimillionaire, molded the relationship between government and business during the 1920s, a relationship that influenced politics throughout the decade. Committed to retrenchment and economy in government, Secretary of the Treasury Mellon reduced federal spending vigorously. He consistently opposed the veterans' bonus bill and the McNary-Haugen farm bills. But even more central to Mellon's financial vision than spending reduction was tax reduction, especially for the rich. Mellon rejected the progressive philosophy of taxation that insisted those Americans most able to pay should pay more taxes. Instead the he articulated a philosophy later known as "trickle-down economics."...

a. Oprah only lives in her Ca. mansion for the requisite number of days so that she doesn’t have to pay Ca. resident taxes.
b. U2 moved their company hq to Netherlands when Ireland raised income tax
c. Michael Moore got a tax credit from Michigan for filming in that state.
Interesting that you cite Mellon and then attack others for their tax manuvers! Mellon along with the Rockefellers, DuPonts, etc., is part of the 60 Families who set up phony charities to dodge their taxes, whose boards are packed with family members. They donate the controlling interests of their monopolies to the charities they head, essentially donating to themselves and getting a tax deduction for it. When one of them dies, the next immediate family member becomes head of the "charity" and inherits CONTROL of the family fortune without paying a penny in "death" taxes.

Mellon and the other 60 Families made sure the law was changed so you or I can't set up a phony charity controlled by our immediate family and avoid taxes like they do, but Pat Robertson has found a loophole for ministries. The government can't tell a ministry who can and can't sit on their board.

There are two excellent books, both out of print but used copies are available on Amazon, "The 60 Families" and "The Rich and The Super-Rich" both by Ferdinand Lundberg which explains how the 60 Families, AKA The Establishment, control their empires through their "charities," in the case of the Mellon family their banking empire. You will probably avoid them so you can maintain your delusions.

In any case you can't possibly be gullible enough expect any of the 60 Families to tell the WHOLE truth about taxes.
1. "Interesting that you cite Mellon and then attack others for their tax manuvers!.."
Either you miss the point, or I was remiss in giving a simpler explanation.

The concept is that the left is totally misinformed as to human nature, and motivations based on same.

Folks will adjust their behavior, financial and otherwise, based on government tax policies. Nor am I finding fault with this kind of self-serving behavior.
Clear enough?

Had you read the other examples that I gave, carefully listed in numerical order, you would see that point made conclusively, that is tha tax policy will change individual fiscal policy.

Unless you didn't want to see that point made...


2. "They donate the controlling interests of their monopolies to the charities they head, essentially donating to themselves and getting a tax deduction for it. When one of them dies, the next immediate family member becomes head of the "charity" and inherits CONTROL of the family fortune without paying a penny in "death" taxes."

Interesting that you bring in the idea of 'charity,' so alien to the left, and implying that charity and the deductions thereof are unavailable to the public at large...

a. Not true, even though the anti-Limbaugh (I inserted that to make you feel that you were doing your duty) is anti-charity.

b. Both the President and Vice-President are famous for their parsimony when it comes to chartiy.

c. It is well known that Conservatives are far better at charitable giving than liberals.: "Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone's tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don't provide them with enough money." Frank Brieaddy writes for The Post-Standard of Syracuse, N.Y.


d. Do you know how much Americans gave in charity...
"Last year Americans gave $300 billion to charity. "https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2010&month=01

Possibly you might ponder as to why we Americans give so copiously.
Hint: the tax deductions are peripheral.
Both your posts are a perfect example of how CON$ operate. you can't rebut the chart from the radical extremist right-wing Heritage Foundation that shows revenue declined after Reagan's tax cuts and increased after Reagan's tax hikes so you desperately try to change the subject.

I take that as a concession that the claim that cutting taxes increases total tax revenue is a professionally crafted lie.
Thank you.

Now regarding charities. It's easy for CON$ to be "charitable" when they donate money to themselves. But you are right about one thing, the tax deductions are peripheral. Peripheral to controlling their monopolistic empires, that is.

The law prohibits OWNING a monopoly but there is no law against CONTROLLING one. The Establishment spread the OWNERSHIP of their empires across the many "charities" they control, which is how they maintain control of their empire from generation to generation without actually owning anything. The "charity" they control owns it.

For example, when Rockefeller was forced to divest his OWNERSHIP of Standard Oil, on paper he owned only 25%. So a group of shareholders then tried to oust him from the board, but even though he OWNED only 25% of the stock, he VOTED 60% of the proxies. So these "charities" have nothing to do with charity and everything to do with monopoly power.

Even your MessiahRushie admits the Super-Rich pay no taxes, but true to his dishonest form, he tries to pass them off as Dems even though they are mostly Republicans like the Rockefellers, Mellons , DuPonts, etc. Hell the Rockefellers control the GOP, as well as Stuttering LimpTard who they got to shill for Rockefeller Republican McCain in the last election even though Limptard professes to be anti-Rockefeller Republicans.

August 7, 2007
CALLER: And, you know, and the way our tax system works, we have an overly complex system, which in and of itself is a problem, but the way our tax system works and the way the tax laws are written, it's based on a few kind of like hinge numbers like adjusted gross income and taxable income, and while the soak the rich -- or however you choose to describe it -- really doesn't come down that way. It really comes down to much lower income levels.

RUSH: It does, exactly, and here's the dirty little secret if you ever to pull it off. It's hard. This is why most people don't understand the tax-the-rich business. You've got to structure your life so you have no "earned" income. I'm out of time. I'll explain that. There's a category called earned income versus other kinds of income. Earned income is what the income tax rate is on. That's how "the rich" do it. They don't have "earned" income.
END TRANSCRIPT

The Truth About Taxes
August 6, 2007
RUSH: I've told you before: the income tax is designed to keep people like his [Buffett's] secretary from becoming wealthy! There is no "wealth" tax. So this is a big misnomer. ...
But there's no tax on wealth. There is a tax on income, and the tax on income is designed to keep everybody who is not wealthy from getting there.

I'm talking about genuine wealth, not the way Democrats define "rich."

June 14, 2007
RUSH: -- a lot of people, a lot of people wealthy people set up foundations and they do this to keep the government from getting the money.

April 8, 2010
RUSH: Now, the super rich, they're protected by their friends in Congress. The people that are rich with no income. You ever wonder why all these rich Democrats always support tax increases? 'Cause they don't pay them, either, because they don't have earned income. I'm talking about the super rich who inherited a bunch of money or worked for a lot of money and then retired and have that nest egg of gazillions of dollars and it earns investment income.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top