Posted on 09/29/2010 4:44:29 PM PDT by Sneakyuser
Snip...
Columbia University Professor Marc Lamont Hill tells me, "Those who have more should pay more."
But is there a point where they stop producing wealth or leave altogether?
"The rich have always cried wolf like that," Hill says.
But the wolf is here. Maryland created a special tax on rich people that was supposed to bring in $106 million. Instead, the state lost $257 million"
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
It is depressing to continue to read this stuff after more than 200 years of Americans providing the evidence that socialism and centralized government control is much less successful than simply letting individuals pursue their own desires.
If you want a quick, clear comment to those who think taxes should be raised on the “wealthy” snap back that no one is proposing to raise taxes on the “wealthy”. Socialists want to raise taxes on “earners”—higher earners maybe but earners and not the wealthy. Many people are wealthy but earn little (Warren Buffet is one). Income taxes are taken from people who EARN the money each year. If you worked and studied for decades before becoming a high earning citizen, you will be taxed just as though you had always made a large income. Some occupations, such as medicine or other educated occupations, require a lot of years of low or no pay to reach a decent, and uncertain, income. Where is the credit for that? If you inherited your wealth—you don’t have to pay. Income taxes are the burden of the worker.
And for that matter, what is wrong with a tax system that rewards hard study and work leading to a good occupation? How about a standard tax rate for everyone that gets REDUCED when you receive an education in the applied sciences or medicine? How about decreasing tax rates with each year of work? How about tax cuts for life accomplishments? What do you think would become of the economic state of a country that practices these principles? I would be interested to know what others think.
You are all missing the point. It is because no one is supposed to have more.
This is, of course, a major reason behind the push for world government. People will have nowhere to flee to.
No one besides Obama, Pelosi & government libs are supposed to be rich. Period. - Or as they apparently think, “all for me, but none for thee”. So, they want to tax the producers of wealth into oblivion and mouth slogans and platitudes. You know, like “hopey-changey”. That’ll do it.
Why?
The rich have more to lose than I do.
Most of my income goes to necessities. I have very little discretionary mad money, except what I add to my credit card balances.
The rich have more reason to keep the system going. If the Red Chinese came marching down Main Street and nobody has anything, well, join the club.
If they bash my head in with a shovel, well, I did not have anything much in the way of assets to parcel out anyway.
Remember that Ten Years After song, “I’d Love to Change the World”? The lyrics really were prescient of the modern leftist:
Tax the rich, feed the poor
Till there are no rich no more
NOTE the lyics and the implication: tax until there aren’t any rich. Not until there aren’t any poor, or there aren’t any hungry. No, until there aren’t any rich. There’ll still be hungry and poor people, but at least there won’t be any rich.
Progressivism is about tearing down the successful, not building up the less successful.
Tax-free municipals are NOT tax-free. Instead of paying 5% and being taxed down to 3%-3.5%, they just pay 3%-3.5% tax-free. It makes the "rich" seem like they pay less in taxes than they actually pay.
Not really true. The rates were dropped dramatically, and the tax shelters that the people used to avoid the obscene rates were eliminated. In the end, people payed about the same percent of GDP, but because the incentive was to earn rather than hide income, the economy expanded greatly. Not the libtards want to go back to obscene rates, and provide tax dodges (green energy, social investments, etc.) to their friends and supporters.
Saw that. It was a good show today.
I wonder if these tax and spend libs will ever get a clue. The parasites always eat the host. The host dies. So, what are they gonna do when they have bled the haves, halfway halves, little bit haves, and the “I’m working my butt off so that I can be a have someday” completely dry?
Sometimes politicians, journalists and the liberal left exclaim;
“It’s just a tax cut for the rich!” and it is just
accepted to be fact.
But what does that really mean?
Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, I hope the
following will help. Please read it carefully.
Let’s put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the bill for
all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do.
The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite
happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m
going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20.” Dinner for
the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so
the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free.
But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could
they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair
share?’
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the
sixth man would each end up being paid to eat their meal.
So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce
each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and! he proceeded to
work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four
continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men
began to compare their savings.
“I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man,” but he got $10!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only
saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than me!”
“That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he
get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison.
“We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for dinner, so the nine
sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill,
they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money
between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how
our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the
most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them
for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
In fact, they might start eating overseas where
the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
Yes, and that is why the final commandment is about not coveting. It seems to be the most socially acceptable sin.
They have been leaving NJ and NY City for a few years now.
I know many that have come the Colorado.
It takes a real Marxist idiot to think they have rich people by the short-n-curlies and can tax whatever they want out of them. On top of it all, the rich can donate to campaigns of people running against such Marxist idiots.
I LOVE the Fair Tax!!!
Just 100%? Can't they squeeze out more? Tax their heirs maybe? Hmm, isn't that better described as 'theft'? Provide them the service they need? What - put them up in public housing and 'provide' them public assistance? Basically take all they have and them provide them a small allowance to live on? I'm LOL at his logic. Except when I remember that there are those who read and agree with him. Mugabe's constituents know of this government 'right'.
So the high earners can spend all their money outside the country to avoid the 30% sales tax ?
The top 1% of earners spend $2T a year in the US today. The FairTax expects to collect over $400B a year on that spending. If just that 1% goes expat and spends their money outside the US instead, that $400B is going to cause a pretty big hole in the “revenue neutral” FairTax calcs, don’t you think ?
The FairTax is a pretty blatant attempt to shift the taxes — including shoring up SS/M —onto the high earner-spender, while untaxing the low earners even more than they are now.
“And for that matter, what is wrong with a tax system that rewards hard study and work leading to a good occupation? How about a standard tax rate for everyone that gets REDUCED when you receive an education in the applied sciences or medicine? How about decreasing tax rates with each year of work? How about tax cuts for life accomplishments? What do you think would become of the economic state of a country that practices these principles? I would be interested to know what others think.”
Wow. You really want government deciding what occupations and life accomplishments are deserving of tax breaks ?? You’d end up with government workers and union members and college professors being taxed at zero and the actual productive workers paying double.
[It makes the “rich” seem like they pay less in taxes than they actually pay. ]
Or, put another way, it makes municipal governments look like they cost less than they really do, because their interest rates on borrowing are lower than they otherwise would be.
During slavery the Southern plantation owners provided their slaves with a shack in which to live, ragged cloths and food. For this the slaves worked daylight to dusk.
Today the government provides many of it’s citizens with subsidized housing, a government check they can use to buy cloths and food stamps to buy food. The only difference is today the government doesn’t want them to work because they just might become too independent.
The ultimate know-nothing affirmative action “pundit”, Marc Lamont Hill, weighs in.
John is exactly correct, of course, but he gets timid with those last four words. Democrats don't "spend" their stolen loot "on others" - - use that stolen loot to buy votes. The rats put a lot of time and effort into maximizing their "bang for the buck" when it comes to buying votes. There is nothing willy-nilly about it. ...And certainly nothing charitable, lol.
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.