"GOP: No tax hikes -- except for the poor"

reply to post by ararisq


Rich is like pornography....you'll know it when you see it. How many Bentley automobles do you see in the drive through at the fast food joint?

Originally posted by darkest4
So tired of hearing this "trickle down" myth brainwashing being spouted in this thread. Trickle down economics has been PROVEN not to work as advertised. The gap between the rich and poor has only INCREASED since its inception and unemployment sure as hell isn't gone after years and years of catering to the rich. Rich people are not some altruistic heros who want to save the poor people. When 99% of rich people get more money what do they do? They hoard it or use it make more money with personal investments (stocks, etc). They don't just all go use it to go help the little guy and hire people and whatever other nonsense trickle down idiots propose.

Companies hire people, not rich people, a company can be just as able to hire new people if their profits aren't thrust 95% into the hands of the CEOs/owners (rather than into hiring more people.. for example just think of how many low wage people you can hire if that asshole ceo wasn't getting his multimillion dollar bonus every year on top of all the other money/stock incentive he gets,, thats the wages of like dozens of new grunt workers..) like they are now or if those CEOs/owners etc are taxed more and their personal wealth decreases slightly. Its been statistically proven trickle down economics doesn't work as claimed, go do the research and stop making bull# claims.

Also, how the hell can all the rich sympathizers in this thread expect people who can barely even SURVIVE, you can barely put food on the table making minimum/low wages in this modern world forget about living comfortably, to pay taxes or more taxes...? If the rich are taxed more it doesn't effect their quality of life AT ALL. They will still ride around in their ferraris, live in lavish mansions, eat like kings etc, meanwhile taxing the poor can literally mean the difference between having a safe roof over your head or not or feeding your kids properly or not. Disgusting.

edit on 23-8-2011 by darkest4 because: (no reason given)

Trickle down means that they are pissing on you.

Originally posted by beezzer
Maybe I missed the post, maybe no-one knows, but WHAT republicans are stated as going for this? What republicans (is there a list?) are on record as saying that they are for this.
Names.
I would like names please.
Anyone?
Beuller?
Ferris Beuller?

This is just another typical statement that can not be backed up. Another attempt, a poor one at that, to attack the right while they go down in the 'blaze of glory' with their current administration. I have a better announcement.

"Ron Burgundy: Ladies and gentlemen, can I please have your attention. I've just been handed an urgent and horrifying news story. I need all of you, to stop what you're doing and listen."

"Ron Burgundy: Cannonball! "

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by inforeal

 

You are so off base here it isn't even funny.

The "rich" are the only ones paying any taxes!

I am far from rich and I pay all kinds of taxes on a daily basis.

And what happens to you when you file your taxes? Do you get money back? I'm 100% confident you do. Of course it doesn't cover state sales tax, gas tax, cigarette tax, but that isn't what Dems are referring to when they say tax the rich. They are referring to income tax. I'm not talking about overpaying your taxes either, I'm talking about all the tax credits the govt provides. I'm fine with those, I don't want anyone to take away the EIC, child tax credits, mortage interest, etc. I just don't want everyone shouting the answer is to tax the hell out of the top 25% of US wage earners who already pay 86% of all federal income taxes.

The answer is for the govt to spend less however possible.

reply to post by romanmel


What kind of rich? There's a few differences in types. There's Bill Gates rich, more or less defined by this picture.
rob.nu...

Such individuals, at least I think, should be perhaps not taxed, but asked to put their moneys forwarding the nation that let him get so rich. Perhaps some sort of deal, like JP Morgan back in the Panic of 1907.

Then there is stuck up mofo rich, like BP oil, or other corporate..."persons"...(God, I hate that term). Such things do not do much, and keep all their wealth for their own benefit. These, I can understand taxing more.

Then of course there is the the average rich. This person is not actually rich. They have a lot of money, and they have a $250,000 income, but the have a business to attend to, workers to pay, and 2-4 kids to put through college, along with other things, like that grandma with a stroke or cancer in need of treatment, or other such things. Such individuals should not be taxed. They are the primary drivers of higher economies like cars, computers, and universities. They are more accurately middle class. Ideally, they would make up, at a minimum, 25% of the country.


So you see, along with those, there are others. You cannot tax a person solely on their possessions, nor their income. It's a combination of many factors, and many derivatives. And if you go only based off how much they make, or only based off how much they have, you will punish many people who are living on the derivative, and if you push them over, they will lose everything.

reply to post by Red Cloak


Maybe it could have worked pre globalization. But now you're absolutely right. The rich call taxes on them class warfare. So taxing the poor should be labeled as something nicer.... Paying their fair share? Or maybe redistribution of wealth? Ahh taxing the poor is socialism! I won't stand for it! Haha I'm sorry. I'm immature

reply to post by Gorman91


I agree with most of what you say.

$250,000 a year in Indiana is a whole lot more than $250,000 in NYC.

The REAL walfare whores are Corporate in nature such as Big Oil and GE.

reply to post by inforeal

I see all you did was supply the quotes you needed for your rant,typical.

I read the Slate artical and even though it supports your rant it also gives pertinent info on the whole picture like when the non paying people shot to 47%(2009).I liked there way of discribing the people you no doubt are ranting for "ever expanding class of moochers".well put,don't you think?

This whole argument is about the Dem voter base,you know the 47% that don't pay tax.I mean if the GOP takes that away all the Dems have is illigal imigrents as a voter base.

I doubt the sheep that follow the Dem agenda have any idea how they are being filled with "double seek" and lies.

Would you like it better if the FICA limits were removed so the rich would also absorb this horrable 2%(est) and why should anybody who lives in this country be exempt from contributing to it?

Originally posted by romanmel

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by romanmel
We are told by FOX News that we must not tax the rich because they won't hire any new employees if they have to pay more tax. This was the line used back several months ago when the Bush tax cuts on the rich was set to expire. Obama agreed to extend their tax cuts. So, how many jobs have been produced since then???

anyone...

anyone...

Well, Jobs have been created...just over in China...gotta think globally as hedge fund style economics is a bit bigger than some trivial new country on the edge of the western world.

Thanks for the info...

Guess I'll have to tell my grandson he needs to move to China to get a job at the standard eightty cents an hour rate. Jobs are available. You just have to be willing to move.

Won't help

I tried to point out a fun fact awhile back in a thread
The good news, our jobs are currently outsourced to low wage workers...the bad news...,

Long story short, that 80 cents an hour was too expensive. the largest electronics manufacturing industry that makes all our beloved products (Ipad, etc) outsourced to china...however, they found that they could save even more money replacing workers with robots..so have ordered a million robots to displace the 3.5 million workers.

So ya..unless your kid can compete with a robot (work 24/7 with no breaks/food/sleep/etc) then he may be out of luck...
Its one thing to compete with a slave, its another to compete with a robot.

reply to post by Battleline


No offense, but die hard followers of either political party are sheep. Neither have the average Americans' best interests at heart. If they did, we wouldn't be in this mess. And things like the bill granting health care to 9/11 responders would cover cancer. The bill was touted as a compromise by the parties and it passed with a clause specifically denying coverage for cancer treatment. So who is looking out for average peoples' best interest? Most likely no one in D.C.

reply to post by romanmel


Indeed.

I mean lets be honest. If you want to call your corporation a person, then that gives the federal government the right to take 30%-10% of your earnings. It's only fair.

Thanks for the replies. Saturn, appreciate the name as well.
But this isn't even a bill, is it? All we have is some (a few) GOP who think everyone should pay their fair share.

Against those who just want to tax the wealthy.

Okay.

I've got a clearer picture now.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by burdman30ott6

 

Maybe my reading comprehension sucks, but where does it talk about the Social Security payroll tax? The whole article is talking about the income tax, hence the term "income tax" appearing 10 times in the article, and "social security" and "payroll" appearing zero times.

Just want to add that the 505 who do not pay taxes, do indeed pay the social security and medicaire payroll tax.

It's okay, since a lot of the poor are exempt from paying taxes, or so I've heard.

It is AMAZING to me what useful idiots TeaBags are. At least liberals realize we've been had by Obama.

Or...in the immortal words of George Carlin...

Offsite Video

Originally posted by Scytherius
It is AMAZING to me what useful idiots TeaBags are. At least liberals realize we've been had by Obama.

Here's one better: A LOT of us knew we were going to get had by Obama BEFORE the election. That's why we didn't vote for him. Don't you remember all the people warning about him and what his real motivations and intentions were? Did you all forget about that? Hope and change hope and change hope and change.