Skip to comments.Why Not Tax The Rich ???
Posted on 12/08/2012 6:55:13 PM PST by Vinylly
From what I read, most of the very rich are liberal d'RAT's. Most of the politicians in Congress and Senate are multimillionaires. They out number Republicans by large numbers. Even the president is a multi-millionaire. Bill Gates, George Soros, and all those whacky movie-queens are millionaires. Nancy Polcat, Harry Inbreed are millionaires. Donald Trump and Mitt Romney are not liberal d'RAT's but they are a small minority. So, when all these liberal d'RAT's scream, 'Hate the Filthy Rich', all they are doing is screaming, 'Hate our Filthy Butts'. Why not just let them screw themselves? Most Republicans are small property and business owners trying to earn a living and not filthy rich.
Zero’s friends won’t have to pay it. Count on it.
One big reason: They will build in a way out, a way to escape any of the new taxes.
F U and your little pony u rode in on.
We are all the rich to the Dems but I think you know that
Republicans get huge political donations. The money has to be coming from somewhere.
Nickel-and-dimers do not add up to $1 billion in presidential races.
Besides, the Republicans do not want to make Wall Street angry.
The really rich folk have places to hide it and shelter it from taxes.
Which means they’ll be going after a lower definition of the word rich.
Which means goodbye jobs.
Of course not. Anyone who thinks the Congress will not leave large loopholes for themselves and their friends are fools. Fools elected Obama, so these fools believe the rich will be taxed. Its all a part of the Obama plan to seperate Americans.
The rich will stay rich and the Middle class will become the new poor.
“Most Republicans are small property and business owners trying to earn a living and not filthy rich.”
Yeah, and no thanks - we don’t need to pay i either.
I had no idea that currently the Rich are exempt from Taxation. When did that happen?
The very wealthy have gotten their money around the confiscatory tax system. There is currently no tax on wealth, only income. Many of the wealthy are ELITISTS who want the tax system to prevent current earners from becoming wealthy and challenging their elitism.
Generally speaking because it establishes a bar that is then used to raise taxes on the near~rich, the next~to~rich, and the almost~rich.
You’re right that bunches of very wealthy are also dhimmicrats, that the rich-left will easily obtain waivers of one form or another, and that the rich have more resources to pour into buying tax shelters.
So it is the principle of equitable taxation that pubbies promote.
I don’t think the current set up will tax them. the middle class will be taxed, but the really wealthy will get out of it.
Tax loopholes, tax free investments, etc. , etc.
They write the laws so what makes you think the wouldn’t make use of all the gaping holes in the tax code. They don’t like free enterprise or anything they can’t control. That’s what it’s all about.
Yeah, from working people, or people who have spent a lifetime building a business.
Now explain where the democrats get their money. Welfare cards? Food stamp donations? How can the dems rake in millions from a base that has no income (other than what they can get their politicians to steal for them)?
The over $200,000 crowd voted for Obama in 2008.
The rich are pretty liberal and even the republican rich tend to be only conservative on economics.
Kill the Rich, redistribute their money and property to those the Government deems worthy, problem solved.
Because (just for starters) it will further depress the economy and cause even more job losses. And, because we live in Oceania and Big Brother’s Ministry of Truth is working on steroids. Obama’s proposal to “tax billionaires” would, in actual fact, fall mostly on small local businesses like cleaners, diners, quickiemarts, who would have to lay off more workers, raise the prices of everything we buy, or close down . There is in actual truth no proposal to just “tax the rich,” we are being lied to each and every day about obama’s actual proposal. Since there is no real “tax the rich” proposal on offer, your question lacks relevance.
There is no annual wealth tax (’cept property taxes), only income tax.
Around here there was some change in county shapes as Virginia tried to organize to meet population shifts in the post Revolution era, but otherwise all the same places as today.
Oboma refuses to touch their loopholes. He wants to tax income only. The rich liberals have their money stashed away and live off that, or use the loopholes to deduct any income they do get. They won't have to pay a penny after all this is over.
Only those with smaller businesses and paychecks will get hurt by Obomanomics. (Oboma is being very careful not to let anyone touch HIS stash!)
The really wealthy are COUPON CLIPPERS ~ they have no earned income and they pay no income taxes at all ~ unless they really want to!
Yes, let’s Eat The Rich, too!! Yum. Yum. (Maybe they can be chopped into steaks and distributed with the “free” foodstamps?)
The Progs may scream about taxing “the rich,” but they will never get the money they want from “the rich.” “The rich” are too few.
I still remember when Reagan got the 28% top rate passed. It looked like such a triumph over envy and stupidity. Look how long it survived the permanent campaign of envy. As long as we have the 16th Amendment, all tax increases will be hailed as victories by the envious, and all tax rate cuts will be demonized as triumphs for the “greedy.”
Sucks to be taken down by the ill-informed "voter", but the uber-wealthy stay that way because they earned their wealth and now take earnings on investments. And they sit on those, because the moment they sell investments, they pay taxes (15% currently).
Notice that Warren Buffett doesn't DARE talk about wealth taxes. Only income tax. Because he only takes a token "salary".
Some times I weep for the stupidity of the "average citizen".
I like the idea of a consumer tax. You want a lot of crap? Fine.
If you want very little, fine - save yourself a bundle!
What I'd like to see the most is everyone sharing the WORK so the wealth can redistribute itself. Then, with a consumer tax, everyone would have some skin in the game. Now THAT would be "social justice".
The way things are now? The middle class, about 50% (or less) of the nation, is being used as a slave force to support everyone else.
No man should be used as another mans slave. No man should have his wages stolen from him to support another who does nothing at all to help support himself.
The whole “tax the reach” meme is just a precedent. One they’ve “paid their fair share,” it’ll be onto the middle class.
...most of the very rich are liberal d'RAT's.Then let the Demagogic Party vote for the tax increase. Republicans who would vote for any such measure should be kicked out of the party the 100% effective way -- by having their fool heads chopped off. I mean that in the nicest possible way of course.
What tax loop holes. Or are you acctuatly talking about legal deductions and credits?
That’s the real reason they call it Soylent “Green”.
Looks like money, smells like money, tastes like money.
I guarantee, if 0bozo ever came up with an asset tax instead of an income tax, Buffet wouldn't be opening his pie-hole begging for increased taxes.
Never said there was. I was being facetious regarding the title of the Thread.
It makes it sound like the Rich aren’t Taxed and they should be.
I guess it’s just me...
Do you really think they are going to "screw themselves?" Of course not, because very rich people can control when and how they report income, and much of their income is not taxed at the ordinary income tax rates the President is proposing to raise. For example, income received from tax free bonds is not taxed at all. So people like Senator Kerry and his wife don't pay any taxes at all - state or federal - on much of their income.
The people that do get "screwed" by the President's plan to raise income tax rates are small business owners, and people who are trying to move up from the middle class. So if you work really hard at your business and have a great year the President's plan will hit you for more taxes.
Of course the people that own small businesses, and who are part of hard working, successful professional or farm families often vote Republican. That is who is going to get "screwed" to use your terminology.
Rich Dems avail themselves of the Geithner/Rangel exception and don’t pay income tax—they cheat on their tax returns. Besides, when you’re already wealthy and employed by Zero what do you care how much your government salary is taxed—it’s all net profit to you anyway. They get all their travel costs paid for and have great retirement and health benefits—all paid for from Zero’s stash.
The republicans allowed the Usurper to be installed. They deserve to be screwed.
I think you are wrong to a degree.
The average donation to the Democratic party has been difficult to find on many fronts for years, while the Republicans cheerfully released theirs, taunting the Rats to do the same, which they didn’t.
Both parties get a lot of non-individual er...”donations”, but where the REST of that money comes from tells a lot more about the Rats than it does the Republicans. And it isn’t flattering to the Rats.
It’s actually relatively simple. Those who have large accumulated wealth, already, don’t receive the bulk of their income as “earned income” which is subject to the highest tax rates (39% under the coming rates), but rather earn their income as “passive” invested income. Tax free municipal bonds, capital gains on stocks, income from investments in foreign countries. During John Kerry’s campaign for President, it was revealed that he and his wealthy wife (who got her wealth from her dead husband) paid an effective tax rate of only 15%. And that was before one considered her hidden income from foreign investments. People who are working hard and building a business, or trying to accumulate wealth, pay the higher tax rates because their income is “earned income”. That’s why its easy to be rich and a liberal. Higher tax rates on earned income don’t apply to you. Most of your income is passive and subject to no tax at all, or lower tax rates. Don’t look for ABCCBSNBCCNNMSNBCPBS to explain this to you. They depend on their funding from the people who don’t pay the higher rates.
The reason to not “tax the rich” is that the rich (in the sense of people who already have vast net worth like Buffett, Gates, Soros) won’t pay. Once you’re rich you can derive income from tax-sheltered investments (municipal bonds, capital gains, . . .). “Taxing the rich” really taxes people who are becoming rich by actually doing productive work — business start-ups, physicians (though there is a bit of monopoly rents in their pay rate), newly minted MBAs who might actually be providing added value, . . . which is why it’s a drag on the economy.
The-already-rich know this and like rate-based soak-the-rich schemes of the sort Obama’s pushing because it keeps others from becoming rich. If Obama was actually serious about getting the rich to pay more in taxes he’d drop the fetish about tax rates and embrace Romney’s proposal to cap deductions, but that would hurt the already-rich who support Obama, rather than folks still pursuing the American dream.
Personally, I’d favor a more radical version of Romney’s idea: cap the amount of income that can be shielded from taxation at ordinary rates by any combination of exemptions, deductions, tax-exempt sourcing, credits or taxation at lower rates — with the sole exception of charitable deductions (since capping them destroys the non-state civil society and serves the interests of the statists who want all charity to come from the state.) The form to do this would be simpler than the AMT form (which it would replace).
Yeah. And they are organized and cold-blooded on how they want to avoid those taxes, no penny is left to chance. The scum even arranged to avoid having to pay Massachusetts taxes on his yacht by arranging to register it in Rhode Island instead of Massachusetts. (you can read about it here)
Amazing. Liberals have such gall...like Michelle Obama making a stink about what other people eat and drink while the melted butter from her lobster dribbles down her chin.
I think Ann Coulter had it right, when years ago she said in one of her books something along the line that Liberals take a perverse joy in lying and hypocrisy, almost competing laughingly with each other to see who can get away with more.
cut welfare payments 20%. tax the poor they don’t pay their fair share.
My daughter and I went to the ballet tonight and the program listed sponsors. There were large, well-known corporations as well as local businesses and individuals. The “rich” do a lot of great work with the arts and charities. I know a lot is tax-deductible but not all. If the “rich” have to pay higher taxes, won’t that cut into the charitable giving and sponsorship of all sorts of programs? I much rather the “rich” support things than the government.
“Now explain where the democrats get their money.”
From the same place that the Republicans get their money. The dims don’t want to anger Wall Street, either.
“taunting the Rats to do the same, which they didnt.”
From Wall Street. The dims don’t want to anger Wall Street, either
Sadly, Hollywood and Greenwich CT losers will avoid taxes and still vote leftist. That’s how statism works.
Meanwhile, the guy or gal who busted their butt to build the restaurant chain or machine shop with 50 employees, who is also considered “rich,” will wind up paying.
Mind you, if it was up to me, I’d tax all “entertainment” earnings over 5 million a year at 100%.
Since Rosie and Oprah and Katy Perry et al wanted Zero. . . they can pay for him.
But it won’t happen. . .
all good points abut “the rich” living off “unearned income” from their investments, such as dividends
Buffet I believe has set himself up to be paid in dividends, and takes only a token salary - to reduce his income taxes. The Kennedys live off family trusts established to manage their inherited wealth and reduce their taxes. John Edwards established a sub-chapter S corporation to shelter his wealth, and Rahm Emmanuel establishd his family as a nnprofit and the family home as its headquarters so he and wife (the only “emploees”) could write off expenses and shelter wealth
With the right tax lawyers, a lot of people could become “richer”. Paying “income” taxes is for little people
However before conservatives join the pack of baying hounds determined to run down “the rich” who live off “passive” investments, remember that many retired folks who managed to save and invest over a lifetime, putting momey aside onlu after it was already taxed, also depend on investment income when they are no longer able to work. They will also be hunted down as “rich” under any govt laws aggressively targeting investment income
None of the people you mentioned will be paying the increased rates. They will have shelters and loopholes and special deductions and tax credits.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.