War on The Rich: Dumbest Idea in History of Man

[Moonglow]

No, I just get tired of sociopathic douchebags criticizing people who help people besides themselves.

Could you occasionally "help" the needy with your own resources instead of taking from others by force to give to those you feel are more deserving?

Just as soon as bailouts for the rich come from the rich only. I will agree...

Wgat bailouts for the rich are you talking about?

Ronnie's S&L crisis, Clinton's Latin American/Asian debt crisis and Dubya's subprime crisis!


To name just a few

Chrysler, twice, airlines, what bailouts, with whose tax money. They got the gold mine, we get the shaft...

 

[Dad2three]

Inheritance is wealth. We have fairly high taxes on it.

35%-40% ON ESTATES ABOVE ALMOST $5.5 MILLION IS 'HIGH'?

 

[Dad2three]

Inheritance is wealth. We have fairly high taxes on it.

There are ways to avoid that tax.

Some can, not all

Why not make it so they can't? Oh right conservatives (both GOP/Dems) don't want to! Hmm wonder why?

 

[Dad2three]

How is readjusting the tax code so that it no longer favors the rich, a "war on the rich"?

A flat tax doesn't favor anyone.

I have yet to see a flat tax proposal that does not result in a significant cut in taxes for the wealthy

SO?

All that illustrates is that some people pay far beyond their fair share.

Why should anyone pay a higher share than anyone else.

It creates an Aristocracy? Something our Founders wanted to get away from?

 

[Dad2three]

Had President Romney been in charge and implemented exactly the same program you and all the other Republicans would lauded it as a triumph of free market capitalism.

Uh, given Republicans criticized Romney for Romneycare that's an unfounded statement. Actually an outright lie.

You're probably right about that because Republicans in Washington never would have done anything about health care to begin with.

And we all would have been better off that way.
Next.

Who's we? There seems to be some difference of opinion on that depending on your level of income.

About 60% of people say they are worse off under Obamacare, about 20% say they're better. Do the math.

LINK?

 

[Dad2three]

Inheritance is wealth. We have fairly high taxes on it.

There's a fairly high setting to when those taxes are applied, too. Funny how that part isn't mentioned

That's sort of irrelevant. Unless you think $5,000 is great wealth.

$5,000? lol

Add a few zero's there Bubba, Estates taxes kick in this year at nearly $5.5 million for husband/wife. Half that for individuals.

 

[Political Junky]

If $100 were distributed in the US among 100 people

Where did the money come from?

Was it taken from another party by force?
Was it donated for nothing in return?

Who is stopping any one of those hands from making more money?

IOW your example is meaningless

Why aren't you extremely wealthy?

 

[Dad2three]

Looks to me like the class war is over, the rich won.

That be true! The Oracle of Omaha has said on more than one occasion; that, there is Class Warfare going on in the United States; and, our Side is Winning! End of Discussion!

Please link to where he has said that

Warren Buffet said it perfectly when he said "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."

And when he said "there’s been class warfare going on for the last 20 years, and my class has won."

And when he said "if this is a war – I wouldn’t call it a war, I’d call it a struggle – but, if this is a war, my side has had the nuclear bomb. We’ve got K-Street, we’ve got lobbyists, we’ve got money on our side".

Warren Buffet is very smart and observant.

 

[Contumacious]

Nothing wrong with being rich as long as you contribute to the society that supports you

The rich people contribute the most to society of any of us. Every product or service we value, and are willing to pay for, is a contribution to society. If all the rich left, we'd be in ruins.

I beg to differ, an economy is much better served by 1000 millionaires than one billionaire. The mega-rich only buy so many houses, cars and jet-skis. Increasingly concentrated wealth in a nation where wages really do not move up is a drag on the economy not a boon. People only think we need the mega-rich because they own everything worth owning.

The nation's economy would be doing just fine under the old tax structure. Put an end to off shore tax havens, force billionaires to either invest in the US economy or pay a heavy tax penalty. They all used to pay much higher tax rates than they do now and they did just fine, they all made lots of money any way.

How about abolishing the welfare/warfare state? How about the federal government spending money ONLY on those items SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED in the Constitution?


.

 

[Boss]

Weird, YOU ARE SAYING INSTITUTING THE BUFFET RULE, MIN 30% TAX ON $1,000,00+ INCOMES, WILL NOT 'MATTER' TO THE RICH? Why are they and the GOP fighting it so hard then?

Because it ***** commerce, it ***** potential economic growth and prosperity and it ***** people who are trying to become rich. It does not help the poor or middle class any at all, in fact, it ***** them too. Less economic growth and prosperity and less commerce equals less jobs and lower average pay.

You are firing your cannon into the hull of your ship again, in a fit of mad rage against the rich, who you can't touch with income taxation because rich people don't need to earn incomes, they are already rich! Why is this SO hard for you people to understand?

Do you honestly not want people to try and become rich? Is THAT the objective? We should not aspire to become rich, we should all remain poor or barely get by as middle class? Because THAT is what your policies are doing and promoting. You're not stopping rich people from being rich or obtaining more wealth by raising income tax rates. You are preventing middle class people from moving up, you are preventing poor people from becoming middle class.... the wealthy remain virtually untouched and unaffected. Every graph and every statistic you post from your own Marxist propagandists, shows this is the dynamic of what is happening. Yet you all continue to run around like mindless drones, believing some fallacy to the contrary because some Marxist on a blog told you what to think.

 

[Dad2three]

A 90% tax that only applies to 1% of the gross yields less than a 10% that hits 90% of it.

You might think that but a 90% tax on the top one percent of the population will yield significantly more than a 10% tax on the lower 90% but you would be wrong

Actually, a 10% tax on the wealthy would yield more

You democrats sell tax exemptions that shield 99% of the income of the wealth of the 1%

It's all about corruption - it always was.

Tax credits and exemptions are the currency of the democratic party. Take away direct taxation, and you take away most of the democrats sell in return for bribes.

How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich

The inside story of how the Republicans abandoned the poor and the middle class to pursue their relentless agenda of tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent


Modern-day Republicans have become, quite simply, the Party of the One Percent – the Party of the Rich.

"The Republican Party has totally abdicated its job in our democracy, which is to act as the guardian of fiscal discipline and responsibility," says David Stockman, who served as budget director under Reagan. "They're on an anti-tax jihad – one that benefits the prosperous classes."


How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich Rolling Stone

 

[rightwinger]

Nothing wrong with being rich as long as you contribute to the society that supports you

The rich people contribute the most to society of any of us. Every product or service we value, and are willing to pay for, is a contribution to society. If all the rich left, we'd be in ruins.

I beg to differ, an economy is much better served by 1000 millionaires than one billionaire. The mega-rich only buy so many houses, cars and jet-skis. Increasingly concentrated wealth in a nation where wages really do not move up is a drag on the economy not a boon. People only think we need the mega-rich because they own everything worth owning.

The nation's economy would be doing just fine under the old tax structure. Put an end to off shore tax havens, force billionaires to either invest in the US economy or pay a heavy tax penalty. They all used to pay much higher tax rates than they do now and they did just fine, they all made lots of money any way.

How about abolishing the welfare/warfare state? How about the federal government spending money ONLY on those items SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED in the Constitution?


.

How bout we only spend money on horses and buggies?

 

[Dad2three]

Weird, YOU ARE SAYING INSTITUTING THE BUFFET RULE, MIN 30% TAX ON $1,000,00+ INCOMES, WILL NOT 'MATTER' TO THE RICH? Why are they and the GOP fighting it so hard then?

Because it ***** commerce, it ***** potential economic growth and prosperity and it ***** people who are trying to become rich. It does not help the poor or middle class any at all, in fact, it ***** them too. Less economic growth and prosperity and less commerce equals less jobs and lower average pay.

You are firing your cannon into the hull of your ship again, in a fit of mad rage against the rich, who you can't touch with income taxation because rich people don't need to earn incomes, they are already rich! Why is this SO hard for you people to understand?

Do you honestly not want people to try and become rich? Is THAT the objective? We should not aspire to become rich, we should all remain poor or barely get by as middle class? Because THAT is what your policies are doing and promoting. You're not stopping rich people from being rich or obtaining more wealth by raising income tax rates. You are preventing middle class people from moving up, you are preventing poor people from becoming middle class.... the wealthy remain virtually untouched and unaffected. Every graph and every statistic you post from your own Marxist propagandists, shows this is the dynamic of what is happening. Yet you all continue to run around like mindless drones, believing some fallacy to the contrary because some Marxist on a blog told you what to think.

Weird, EVERYTHING you posit is STILL garbage proven by HISTORY



STUDY: These Charts Show There's Almost No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP

These Charts Show There s Probably No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP - Business Insider


Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth (or not)

If you read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal (or surf around the nether regions of Forbes.com), you may come to the conclusion that no aspect of tax policy is more important for economic growth than the way we tax capital gains. You’d be wrong

Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth or not - Forbes

 

[The Rabbi]

Inheritance is wealth. We have fairly high taxes on it.

and how much of inherited wealth is exempt from taxes?

and what percentage of people actually inherit enough wealth to pay inheritance taxes.

it's my understanding that there are six families behind the fight against inheritance taxes. one of them is the hilton family.

Most people don't pay inheritance tax. It's not meant to generate much revenue. It's meant for social engineering. I believe that it was originally implemented because people thought it would discourage aristocracy.

I believe that most Western countries do not have an estate tax. Canada does not.

Yes, there was a time that practically no one disagreed with a high inheritance tax, of course that was the days that America had company towns galore and was personally familiar with the despair that came when some asshole controlled the local economy for his own benefit. America has become one giant company town and somehow we have forgotten why we used to hate multi-generational wealth.

What fantasy have you been reading?
The inheritance tax probably costs more to collect, and costs the economy more than it brings in. No reason to keep it other than to "stick it" to rich people. Which is the the reason for being for most leftists.

I suppose the anti-aristocracy sentiment is all but gone from conservative politics, you people deserve a plutocracy but not everyone is such a shameless ******* toady to the establishment wealthy.

If you would pluck your head out of your ass every once and a while you might undertstand that society is not oriented into the the "have nots" and the "screw you overs."

 

[Dad2three]

Nothing wrong with being rich as long as you contribute to the society that supports you

The rich people contribute the most to society of any of us. Every product or service we value, and are willing to pay for, is a contribution to society. If all the rich left, we'd be in ruins.

I beg to differ, an economy is much better served by 1000 millionaires than one billionaire. The mega-rich only buy so many houses, cars and jet-skis. Increasingly concentrated wealth in a nation where wages really do not move up is a drag on the economy not a boon. People only think we need the mega-rich because they own everything worth owning.

The nation's economy would be doing just fine under the old tax structure. Put an end to off shore tax havens, force billionaires to either invest in the US economy or pay a heavy tax penalty. They all used to pay much higher tax rates than they do now and they did just fine, they all made lots of money any way.

How about abolishing the welfare/warfare state? How about the federal government spending money ONLY on those items SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED in the Constitution?


.

Yes

Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution

• The Air Force
• Congressional Districts
• The Electoral College
• Executive Order
• Executive Privilege
• Freedom of Expression
• (Absolute) Freedom of Speech and Press
• "From each according to his ability..."
• God
• Immigration
• Impeachment means removal from office
• Innocent until proven guilty
• It's a free country
• Judicial Review
• Jury of Peers
• "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"
• Marriage
• Martial Law
• No taxation without representation
• Number of Justices in the Supreme Court
• "Of the people, by the people, for the people"
• Paper Money
• Political Parties
• Primary Elections
• Qualifications for Judges
• The right to privacy
• The right to travel
• The right to vote
• The separation of church and state
• The Separation of Powers Clause
• Slavery
• "We hold these truths to be self-evident"

Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

 

[The Rabbi]

No, I just get tired of sociopathic douchebags criticizing people who help people besides themselves.

Could you occasionally "help" the needy with your own resources instead of taking from others by force to give to those you feel are more deserving?

Just as soon as bailouts for the rich come from the rich only. I will agree...

Wgat bailouts for the rich are you talking about?

Ronnie's S&L crisis, Clinton's Latin American/Asian debt crisis and Dubya's subprime crisis!


To name just a few

Chrysler, twice, airlines, what bailouts, with whose tax money. They got the gold mine, we get the shaft...

Chrysler, the airlines, AIG, the banks, are not wealthy people.
So that's a big fail.
btw, Democrats supported those bailouts. Conservatives opposed them.

 

[Dad2three]

so-called consumption taxes cause working people to pay as taxes a greater part of their income than wealthy people who save a greater percentage of their income.

the "flat-tax" is also called the "help steve forbes not pay taxes" tax.

but that wouldn't bother you, no doubt.

Yes, you mindlessly recite leftist memes, no doubt your trainer will give you a treat.

{"I'll be a fair amount higher, 8 or 9 points higher," Buffett said of his own tax rate in an appearance on CNBC Monday. "But the differential between me and the rest of the office, not just my secretary but the rest of the office, was greater than that. It'll be closer, but I'll probably be the lowest paying taxpayer in the office."}

Buffett says he s still paying lower tax rate than his secretary - Mar. 4 2013

Now HOW is that possible? Because Buffet has bought targeted exemptions and credits that ensure he escapes paying taxes. The politicians he has purchased deliver by providing tax shelters.

As usual, you are 180° from correct.

Yeah, capital gains and dividends are 'exemption and credits' *shaking head*

HE SUPPORTS OBAMA'S BUFFET RULE, MIN 30% TAX ON $1,000,000+ INCOME. YOU? lol

 

[Dad2three]

Could you occasionally "help" the needy with your own resources instead of taking from others by force to give to those you feel are more deserving?

Just as soon as bailouts for the rich come from the rich only. I will agree...

Wgat bailouts for the rich are you talking about?

Ronnie's S&L crisis, Clinton's Latin American/Asian debt crisis and Dubya's subprime crisis!


To name just a few

Chrysler, twice, airlines, what bailouts, with whose tax money. They got the gold mine, we get the shaft...

Chrysler, the airlines, AIG, the banks, are not wealthy people.
So that's a big fail.
btw, Democrats supported those bailouts. Conservatives opposed them.

Yes, AFTER Dubya/GOP's great ponzi scheme, he went to Congress and only the Dems were willing to stop US from going into ANOTHER GOOP great depression!

 

[jasonnfree]

How is readjusting the tax code so that it no longer favors the rich, a "war on the rich"?

A flat tax doesn't favor anyone.

I have yet to see a flat tax proposal that does not result in a significant cut in taxes for the wealthy

This is why these working class republicans think it's so great. They'd probably be happier if the wealthy paid no taxes. Go figure.

 

[Boss]

Looks to me like the class war is over, the rich won.

That be true! The Oracle of Omaha has said on more than one occasion; that, there is Class Warfare going on in the United States; and, our Side is Winning! End of Discussion!

Please link to where he has said that

Warren Buffet said it perfectly when he said "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."

And when he said "there’s been class warfare going on for the last 20 years, and my class has won."

And when he said "if this is a war – I wouldn’t call it a war, I’d call it a struggle – but, if this is a war, my side has had the nuclear bomb. We’ve got K-Street, we’ve got lobbyists, we’ve got money on our side".

Warren Buffet is very smart and observant.

And Buffet is right in the sense that you are in a war you cannot win against an enemy you'll never defeat. The more you fire the cannons, the more you discover you've just blown another massive hole in your own ship. You're not affecting the rich people, they are two moves ahead of you at all times, and they always will be.

I come at this from a different perspective. Instead of waging war on the rich, exploit the rich! Encourage them to spend that wealth! Make it easier for them to profit and make more wealth! Open those doors of opportunity up and let them do what they do best, create more wealth! This generates economic prosperity. This creates new jobs, new industries, higher wages. You want to really HURT the rich? Make more rich people to compete with them for the wealth!

What you are doing now is not working and will never work. All you are doing is pushing us into a Marxist system that has consistently FAILED to work, time and time again. You don't want to call it Marxism because it's such an utter and disastrous failure, but that is exactly what it is.