And the question I never really hear asked of these idiots...
Why?
Today Glenn Beck was the best show I’ve ever seen. I must admit I don’t watch it that much. But obama’s daddy wrote an article saying the government has the right to tax the wealthy at 100% as long as the government provides them with the service they need.
Are people just too stupid to understand that when you don’t make money on your investments you stop investing?
Those with enough brains and energy will always find a way to pay less or to avoid paying more. Even the left-wing jackasses who have billions are very adept at avoiding taxes while urging others to pay more. Ask the Kennedys about the various family trusts and tax dodges (note: Old Joe made enough money for the slackers and morons that followed him to hire energy and brains).
Those who have more already do pay more, Professor Hill.
"The rich have always cried wolf like that," Hill says.
That's not what he said. He said, "Thosewhohavemoreshouldpaymore." and "Therichhavealwayscriedwolflikethat."
Ping
Yeah and once they leave, the vultures pick the bones of the next guys down until there is nothing left to pick....then chaos happens.
Economics Bookmark.
I have always wondered why taxing people for different amounts (rich-poor, etc.) was not in contrast to the principle of equal treatment under the law.
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.
This is, of course, a major reason behind the push for world government. People will have nowhere to flee to.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Columbia professor Marc Hill should lead the way.
Hey bud, send in 100% of your income.
How’s that going to work for you, ya doofus.
Some goofball thinktank did a study back in the 90’s.
They figured out just how much money the feds would take in if everyone was on a 100% tax rate.
Then they projected what that income would be going out for the next 10 years.
What they didn’t consider was that NO ONE would go to work in year number 2.
These idiots are educated WAY beyond their intelligence.
But is there a point where they stop producing wealth or leave altogether?
"The rich have always cried wolf like that," Hill says.
This is the logic of the bully who beats up the kid with glasses on the way to school for his lunch money. If the kid with glasses takes a different way to school or moves to a different school, the bully considers himself victimized.
They now move to Switzerland.