Well then let's just tax the "RICH" into oblivion and we'll all be just fine!
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-33 next last
To: sirchtruth
Congressional Research Service -- the non-partisan research office for CongressJust how "non-partisan" is the CRS?
2 posted on
09/17/2012 4:30:15 PM PDT by
sirchtruth
(Freedom is not free.)
To: sirchtruth
Where to begin................
3 posted on
09/17/2012 4:30:38 PM PDT by
gdzla
To: sirchtruth
Yes, despite all common sense and historical precedent, this must be true.
4 posted on
09/17/2012 4:30:53 PM PDT by
FoxInSocks
("Hope is not a course of action." -- M. O'Neal, USMC)
To: sirchtruth
Non partisan - what a crock
5 posted on
09/17/2012 4:31:49 PM PDT by
svcw
(If one living cell on another planet is life, why isn't it life in the womb?)
To: sirchtruth
we could also tax the poor out of poverty while we’re at it.
To: sirchtruth
In fact, the study found that higher tax rates for the wealthy are statistically associated with higher levels of growth.Good grief.
7 posted on
09/17/2012 4:32:55 PM PDT by
jwalsh07
(.)
To: sirchtruth
” A study from the Congressional Research Service — the non-partisan research office for Congress “
ROTFLMFAO
8 posted on
09/17/2012 4:33:17 PM PDT by
stephenjohnbanker
(God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
To: sirchtruth
History proves otherwise. Tax cuts for corporations and businesses allows them to reinvest in capital and grow the entire economy. Production=growth=something these hacks obviously have no concept of.
9 posted on
09/17/2012 4:33:17 PM PDT by
NoobRep
To: sirchtruth
The CRS study looked at tax rates and economic growth since 1945. The top tax rate in 1945 was above 90 percent, and fell to 70 percent in the 1960s and to a low of 28 percent in 1986.How about between 1776 and 1913? No doubt growth was much better with 0% income tax rates than it is today.
10 posted on
09/17/2012 4:34:35 PM PDT by
Sooth2222
("Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But I repeat myself." M.Twain)
To: sirchtruth
Start with Hollywood 95% tax on all income over 250K
and let’s make it retroactive to say 2009. They won’t mind Eva Longoria says she wants to pay more so I say ye shall.
It’s for the Children
12 posted on
09/17/2012 4:35:38 PM PDT by
funfan
To: sirchtruth
This study is silly.
First off, it would be ridiculous to expect tax cuts for the rich to spur BOTH productivity and investment. Indeed, if investment increased (i.e. new factories, facilities, etc.), then you would expect non-technology-related productivity to go down, because more people are being hired, instead of the same smaller number of people being expected to shoulder more and more of an increasing workload (which is what “increased productivity” is often a euphemism for).
13 posted on
09/17/2012 4:36:02 PM PDT by
Yashcheritsiy
(You can wish in one hand and spit in the other and see which gets filled first.)
To: sirchtruth
You could ask John F Kennedy
14 posted on
09/17/2012 4:37:05 PM PDT by
mo
(If you understand, no explanation is needed. If you don't understand, no explanation is possible.)
To: sirchtruth
It has long (since the 14th Century) been understood that raising taxes on the rich does not increase revenue.
It should be known that at the beginning of a dynasty, taxation yields a large revenue from small assessments. At the end of the dynasty, taxation yields a small revenue from large assessments.
‘Abd-ar-Rah.mân Abû Zayd ibn Khaldûn (1332-1406)’
More recent, See Hauser’s Law
15 posted on
09/17/2012 4:37:41 PM PDT by
griswold3
(Big Government does not tolerate rivals.)
To: sirchtruth
16 posted on
09/17/2012 4:37:58 PM PDT by
Fledermaus
(Democrats are dangerous and evil. Republicans are just useful idiots.)
To: sirchtruth
<>Cutting taxes for the wealthy does not generate faster economic growth, according to a new report. But those cuts may widen the income gap between the rich and the rest, according to a new report.
Since when is it the purpose of taxation to narrow the gap between the rich and the not? This is where the Marxists always fall flat and show their true colors.
Is the purpose of the tax code to raise revenue or is it to steal from the more well off? Obviously the left believes that latter. And therefore it is unjust (theft) by the very purpose as stated by the leftards
18 posted on
09/17/2012 4:39:01 PM PDT by
Ouderkirk
(Democrats...the party of Slavery, Segregation, Sodomy, and Sedition)
To: sirchtruth
This analogy has been used many times, but it's still appropriate. In the story of the three little pigs, the left would take the house made by the industrious hard-working pig, and give it to the lazy pigs who did nothing to help themselves. I honestly feel as though I've wasted my life to this point by working as many hours as I have. What was the point?
To: sirchtruth
ok, so let me get this straight... according to liberals, taxing cigarettes reduces smoking, taxing gasoline reduces driving, taxing carbon will save the earth but raising income and capital gains taxes has no economic effect ?
20 posted on
09/17/2012 4:39:22 PM PDT by
Reverend Wright
(you voted for Obama to prove you're not racist, now vote against him to prove you're not stupid...)
To: sirchtruth
If you tax ALL income (not just that of the rich) at 100%, we still have a gaping deficit. If taxing everybody at 100% does not solve the problem, taxing the rich at 100% does even less to solve the problem.
A heavily-graduated income tax is plank #2 of the Communist Manifesto, but don't you DARE call them COMMUNISTS.
|
The Ten Planks of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto (and How Statists Implement Them) |
- Abolition of private property rights (via high property taxes, restrictive zoning laws, "fair housing" edicts, environmental and "wetlands" regulations, UN Agenda 21, etc.)
- Institution of a heavily graduated income tax (by calling it "taxing the rich")
- Abolition of all rights of inheritance (through a confiscatory estate tax on "the rich")
- Confiscation of the property of enemies of the state (through lawless application of asset forfeiture and eminent domain)
- Centralization of credit into the hands of the state (Federal Reserve, Federal Trade Commission, TARP, etc.)
- Centralization of the means of communication and transportation into the hands of the state (FCC, DOT, FEMA, etc.).
- Consolidation and subjugation of all major industries to central government control (FDA, EPA, OSHA, ICC, NLRB, EEOC, etc.)
- Mandatory labor union membership (public-sector unions, unionization of 21-million Obamacare health care workers, automatic withholding of forced union dues, "card check," etc.)
- Equitable redistribution of all wealth (TANF, SSI, EITC, SNAP, etc.)
- Free public education (and food and health care and cell phones and Internet access, etc.)
|
|
23 posted on
09/17/2012 4:42:31 PM PDT by
E. Pluribus Unum
(Government is the religion of the sociopath.)
To: sirchtruth
...but...but...Why aren't we all rich like we should be if taxes cause wealth.?
We should be pretty well off by now, don't you think?
24 posted on
09/17/2012 4:42:43 PM PDT by
Aevery_Freeman
(All Y'all White Peoples is racist!)
To: sirchtruth
Tax cuts for the rich probably don’t spur growth as much as many would like to believe......HOWEVER, that doesn’t mean they’re bad.
If you really want to spur growth, combine those same tax cuts with the elimination of the tax on manufacturing, eliminate the ridiculous regulation on the same, produce cheap energy for industry, pass right to work laws.
Tax cuts for the rich just gives them money to invest elsewhere and who can blame them. Give them a reason to invest in America.
25 posted on
09/17/2012 4:42:56 PM PDT by
cripplecreek
(What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-33 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson