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.
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).
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.