Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"The Richest 1%"

Posted on 01/12/2003 11:13:54 AM PST by StoneColdTaxHater

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-111 next last
To: freeper12
Spending will NEVER be reduced. Take what you can get in cuts now...
61 posted on 01/12/2003 5:09:37 PM PST by Axenolith (Hey!, Whats this gooey liquid?! Mmmm smells good, feels li... IT BURNS!! AAAHHHGGGG!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Blue Jays
Good Evening All-

It's complete oversimplification, but the reasoning behind trickle-down Reagonomics is that when you reward a successful manufacturer (for example) with favorable tax structures, they will expand their businesses and create even more good, high-paying factory jobs. Many would benefit.

If you gave these same tax credits (in the form of $100 bills) to the wino down the alley, he would purchase booze, fur coats, prostitutes, and a couple of fancy cars. Before long, he would be penniless and sleeping in the gutter again. Nobody would benefit.

The point is that American businesses have exhibited leadership and we as a society wish to encourage this leadership so that it will help a large number of people. It isn't "cruel" that we're providing incentives to brilliant citizens who will likely provide opportunities to hundreds, if not thousands, of other Americans.

Sincerely,

~ Blue Jays ~

62 posted on 01/12/2003 5:38:40 PM PST by Blue Jays (Rock hard, ride free....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Chemnitz
You stated:

"How many homeless people have given you a job?

Your answer was much clearer and more succinct than my longwinded explanation in the post above! Excellent.

~ Blue Jays ~

63 posted on 01/12/2003 5:46:36 PM PST by Blue Jays
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: StoneColdTaxHater
The top 27 wealthiest men in the 107th Congress were all Democrats. (Source: WSJ)
64 posted on 01/12/2003 5:52:01 PM PST by pfflier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Axenolith
>>Spending will NEVER be reduced. Take what you can get in cuts now...


That to me is giving up and II refuse to accept it. Giving up on getting spending under control is giving up on the country...because it is unsustainable to continually borrow in order to meet current consumption...you can get away with it for a while, but not forever.

"Saying that spending will never decrease, and give me my damn tax refund" is a fairly short-sighted, and might I say selfish attitude. All you are doing is passing the buck to another generation to fix; your kids, grandkids, or great-grand kids..you simply cannot continue to spend more than you make without someone paying it back...somebody needs to pay it back.

(and this is not directed nor meant to offend anyone in particular...beleive me I understand the frustration)
65 posted on 01/12/2003 5:58:04 PM PST by freeper12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: tortoise
The Democrats consider the richest 1% to be anybody making over $16,000 a year.

This isn't their belief, it is their GOAL

You have it wrong. Anyone who brings home a paycheck regardless of salary is considered rich by the Dems. LOL
66 posted on 01/12/2003 6:39:27 PM PST by Mfkmmof4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: MarkM
Beyond helping those who can't help themselves the government should not "give" money to anyone

Your sentence is faulty. I've fixed it for you. Don't thank me, it's just something I do.

The government should not "give" money to anyone.

67 posted on 01/12/2003 7:06:16 PM PST by DAnconia55 (Now it's morally correct.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: StoneColdTaxHater
The sad thing is that many Americans fall for it every time... like it or not a good portion of the electorate are ignorant sheep

Keep going with that idea, and you'll quickly see why liberals believe we need animal husbandry programs for human beings, of the sort that liberals are always setting up. It takes a strong, powerful state to keep those ignoramuses from setting fire to themselves, ya know. Freedom sounds OK in principle, but the people out there are just too stupid to handle it. Right?


68 posted on 01/12/2003 7:09:10 PM PST by Nick Danger (I've got friends in wrong places)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freeper12
oh, and just for the record, I'd love to see 50% across the board tax cuts for everyone...but I, and I am apparently in the monority around here, would like to see the spending reduced first

As President, my goal will be : Defense, Courts and State, and no other expenditures of Federal Dollars. Ending all welfare and regulatory agencies that do not serve Defense, Courts and State.

National Sales Tax, at a rate that would fill these needs. Probably around 3%.

69 posted on 01/12/2003 7:11:46 PM PST by DAnconia55 (Forming my PAC now :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: cherry
You're on the wrong website.

Peoplewhoenvytherich.com -or-
Iamaloserwhoneedstoattackotherswhodobetterthanme.com -or-
karlmarxlives.com -or-
cnn.com

Any of these sites might serve you better.

70 posted on 01/12/2003 7:15:15 PM PST by DAnconia55 (I have enough to do dealing with the economic ignorance from people who CAN find their shift key...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: freeper12
Perhaps, but even with reagans tax cuts, revenues increased, but spending increased even faster

A little historical research is in order, here.

Reagan put forth his plan to cut taxes, and made a deal with the Congressional Demonkrats to cut spending.
The astute student will need no foreshadowing.

Guess what happened? The Demons lied. They did not keep their agreements and reduce spending. In fact they INCREASED spending.

You can find all the relevant details online, I'm sure.

71 posted on 01/12/2003 7:17:56 PM PST by DAnconia55 (I've provided all this data dozens of times. Too lazy to do it again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: weikel
I favor taking over Saudi and using the Opecer princes accounts to pay the debt... but most people don't see things like way.

Oh... now, I don't know. I figure the Arabian oilfields constitutes a fair payment for 2 of the most valuable buildings on Earth, plus pain and suffering.

72 posted on 01/12/2003 7:19:36 PM PST by DAnconia55 (We'd better keep the oil this time... If it's going to BE an Empire, at least ACT LIKE IT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: cynicom
If we only knew the cost of government.

I once considered calculating it.

Pick a starting point. Say, 1914.
Count all tax revenues in terms of current dollars.
Count all the compliance and regulatory costs.
Add in all the market distortions created by the government. All the businesses NOT created, all the inventions NOT developed, etc...

Then you'd need some way to account for all the foregone opportunity that those dollars could have created over the last 100 years... The dynamics of wealth upon wealth over generations.

I'd say we've pissed away colonies on the moon and Mars at a minimum. Wide scale fusion power? Interstellar travel? A cure for Cancer?

Who knows. But I know this :

The US Government is the most vast waste of wealth in human history.

73 posted on 01/12/2003 7:24:12 PM PST by DAnconia55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: DAnconia55
Waste....

Retired from government service, I know something about waste.

74 posted on 01/12/2003 7:27:56 PM PST by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: StoneColdTaxHater
Here is where the republicans are the dumbest. What made clinton the "best used car salesman" (washington-ese for politician) in the country is that he beat them at their own game. The game of rhetoric. If the lowest 50% of the income earners only pay 3.91% of the taxes the Republicans would be better off saying that the lowest 50% of the income earners pay NO taxes. The DUMMICRATS (that should be the DEMS) would have nothing to complain about. And the Republicans might start to win some people over.
75 posted on 01/12/2003 7:28:56 PM PST by LandofLincoln
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StoneColdTaxHater
the 5 inheritors of sam wal-mart will save almost $180,000,000 each, or collectively, nearly a billion dollars from the tax cuts.

whata work ethic!

76 posted on 01/12/2003 7:30:32 PM PST by koax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LandofLincoln
Except then they'd be even more immoral than they are.

You're preacing Marxism. Graduated income taxes.

In actuality, the POOR should pay more taxes, since they use more government services. If we tax them enough, maybe they'd stop it!!!

Or we could go with a head tax. I pay $500. You pay $500. Bill Gates pays $500.

That'd be fair.

77 posted on 01/12/2003 7:39:31 PM PST by DAnconia55 (Justice is a virtue. Or so I'm told....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: StoneColdTaxHater
Has anyone considered that both tax increases AND tax cuts are structured so that the tax system becomes more progressive? It seems like the inevitable conclusion to all this is a system where thows above a certain threshold pay ALL the taxes.
78 posted on 01/12/2003 7:41:23 PM PST by Scutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cherry
...admit it or not...when you got the bucks, you get most of all the tax breaks....you get to deduct tons of special vehicles, special transportation, special eating and entertainment outings. you get to deduct vacation homes and boats because you entertain " business partners" there......

That's funny.

As a physician in the villified 1% group, I do not get to deduct any, let alone "tons of", "special vehicles", "special transportation", "special eating" (I eat with the hospital techs, transcriptionists and housekeepers in the hospital cafeteria every day), "vacation homes" or my $16,000 sailboat.

I do get told by my CPA every year that I do not qualify for this deduction or that deduction because my income is too high. Last year, I ended up paying over $100,000 in taxes to the IRS and I will pay over $100,000 to the IRS again this year.

When you speak of these people who have "got the bucks" and "get most of all the tax breaks", are you referring to real people in the real world or characters in a Hollywood movie?

In the real world, if I tried to deduct my sailboat because I "entertained business partners" on it, the IRS would be on me like pitbulls on a pork chop.

79 posted on 01/12/2003 7:53:17 PM PST by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Blue Jays
Thanks. I heard it on the Sean Hannity radio program. He is one of my favorites on TV and radio.

Here is another one: "I don't want to overthrow the ruling class. I want to join it."

When I prosper I do such things as order printing of books that I write, advertize those books, FedEx those books, etc. I think that helps a few people.
80 posted on 01/12/2003 8:24:32 PM PST by Chemnitz (Protect the weakest of the weak - the unborn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-111 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson