"NO ONE EARNING UNDER 250 THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR WILL SEE THEIR TAXES RISE A SINGLE DIME"
I make under $30k a year. Next year, after the Bush tax cuts have expired my tax liability will rise (as an average) $756 dollars. Divide that number by the number of paychecks I'll receive (26), and that's a gross loss of 29 dollars each paycheck. Doesn't sound like a lot does it? I should be the patriotic trooper and happily accept this increase, and be thankful for a government that cares about me. Right? I'd rather a government that balanced its budget like I must do. I'd rather my government stop promising me boons it has neither right nor guarantee to make. I'd rather my government care about the things it's constitutionally bound to care about. And nothing more.
Don't promise me Social Security; not when you're making me and every other taxpayer bleed to support it in the now, for no promise of return for ourselves in the future. In other words, stop stabbing my eyes out while promising to provide me a seeing-eye dog 20 years down the road. Stop promising me "free" health care while raking my wallet (and my broke ass) over the coals. Stop calling me a racist for defending my border against invaders. Give me a government that knows its place and stays there. Give me politicians that recognize that their duty is to the constitution first, and to me second-- their own political and financial ambitions only after these first two are met.
"But," you say, "the evil rich will pay their fair share!" How is a tax INCREASE of $101,587 fair? Is it fair because they can AFFORD to pay that much? Or is it a genuinely equitable increase? The top 1% of income earners already pay 39% of all income taxes, which is a 2% increase from 2000, BEFORE Bush took office. The so-called rich paid MORE in income taxes under Bush than under Clinton. So, basically, all you stupid folk calling for the rich to pay their fair share, to do away with the Bush tax "cuts" really want the rich to go back to pre-Bush, lower tax rates while the rest of us in the middle and lower classes pay more to make up the short fall? You people are sick.
I don't pretend to understand all the math in this [I'm certain the new host of tax increases levied by Obama and Co. will play a substantial role]. I've looked at the tax documents and various reports from both liberal and conservative perspectives and the numbers are the same- the only difference is interpretation or, rather, the spin. The numbers don't change, but the spin does. But the simple truth is, I will lose, as an average, approximately 30 dollars gross from each paycheck. My most recent raise, by the way, only netted me a 28 dollar increase each paycheck.
Where's MY hope and change? On the lying lips of men like president Barack Obama.
Hmmm...If you make $10,000, your taxes will increase 7%. If you make a million, your tax increase will be over 10%. How is that fair?
ReplyDeleteBTW, Eric. Wealth is relative. To me, $100,000 is wealth. To Bill Gates, it's chump change.
Are we supposed to hate the wealthy? At what point is our class envy supposed to evolve into outright hate for "rich people"?
You say you make less than 30,000 a year. I make less than 20,000 a year. Aren't I supposed to hate you because you are richer than me?
I wonder how much more Liberal Jim makes than me. By Liberals standards, that makes one more reason why I should hate him. George Soros is a billionaire. I guess I really should hate him. Does Jim hate him?
Folks, you see how stupid the concept of "the evil Rich" is?
"Next year, after the Bush tax cuts have expired". Only if the Republicans make it so.
ReplyDeleteMan, this is one of you more nonsensical comments, Mark.
"Are we supposed to hate the wealthy?". No. Why is a progressive tax system equivalent to "hating the rich"?
"By Liberals standards, that makes one more reason why I should hate him." More nonsense. Why should you hate me at all, much less for possibly being wealthier than you. No I don't hate Soros, Gates, Buffet or anybody else.
It's a ridiculous suggestion. "Evil rich" is a concoction of wing-nuttia. Or Frank Luntz.
Where do I begin?
ReplyDelete"Next year, after the Bush tax cuts have expired". Only if the Republicans make it so.
What are you talking about? That makes no sense. Only if Republicans make what so? Oh, and Jim? I didn't say that. That was a statement in Eric's post. So, if you want to object to something in the post itself, address your comment to Eric.
I did not equate the tax system with class envy. Perhaps I should have spelled "BTW" out, so you would understand it stands for "By the way". That means I changed subjects, Genius.
It's SOP for Liberals to moan about the rich. It's so common among Liberals, in fact, that there is a name for the malady: It's called class envy. As if having wealth is evil. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to realize Liberals hate anyone richer than them. You know it. I know it. All God's children know it, so stop pretending class envy doesn't exist. In fact, I recall a comment you made one time complaining that I only write the things I do because I am so much richer than you. Well, now you know I am as poor as a church mouse. Not that it matters, of course. Rich or poor, common sense is common sense. It's a pity you are impoverished in common sense.
For the record, I don't dislike you because you are richer than me. I dislike you because you're an idiot. That's my problem. I just don't like stupid people.
The question was a simple one: How is taxing some people more than other people a fair system? If you really want fairness, what's wrong with a system that taxes everyone an equal percentage of their income?
No, of course you don't hate Gates, Buffet or Soros. They are all Liberals.
ReplyDeleteI'm really enjoying the stupid "Republicans holding middle-class tax cuts hostage" crap. Here's an idea, do it the way the right wants it and then OBAMA and his idiot comrades won't be holding the middle-class tax cuts hostage. The cuts already exist. They are the current tax law but are temporary. The right wants them to exist on a more permanent basis. Because the left is too stupid to understand the impact of raising any taxes during an economic slump, they are willing to hold not just the middle-class hostage, but also those who were added to that group of low income people who were not required to pay income taxes under the Bush plan. Obama is willing to screw all these people in order to soak the people with the money to produce the jobs we were promised by this idiot. And what will we get for it? We'll get more paybacks for his supporters. We won't get jobs. In fact, we'll likely lose more. The right ain't holding ANYONE's cuts hostage. Barry and the bozos are.
ReplyDelete"Because the left is too stupid to understand the impact of raising any taxes during an economic slump"
ReplyDeleteNaturally you've bought into this Republican BS. There will be no taxes raised that will have an impact on the economic slump. 97% of small businesses will not be impacted by letting the top rate cuts expire. Most of the remaining 3% is "small business" income from sole proprietorships, partners in law firms, etc. These people don't have employees and they're not going to hire employees. They have plenty of money to spend to impact the economy already and anything more they get will most likely be saved and not spent.
The Republicans in Congress know this and the rest of the right is too stupid to know they are being jobbed.
Many small business owners take their profits as income which will be taxed at a higher rate. They don't all take salaries.
ReplyDeleteBut the really sick part of your Dem brainwashing is the idea that you think you should have any concern for how anyone else spends their money, or that you have any right to demand more from another than you're willing to give yourself. You also don't have the sense to understand that if someone decides to save his money, he is likely doing so in a manner far different than stuffing his mattresses. He's putting in anything from a basic passbook savings account to any number of other mutual funds or similar accounts. When doing this, that money is going back into the private sector being invested and loaned to other people who will use it to stimulate the economy in a manner that actually does some real stimulating. Besides, you have absolutely no idea just how another person you don't even know will handle his own money. It's none of your f**kin' business. How dare you suppose you have any right to even consider what others will do with their own money, you sorry, envious and covetous loser.
But you are too stupid to understand this. So why don't you explain just how the rest of us get "jobbed" by allowing the wealthy (by whatever definition the left is using these days) to keep more of their own money.
"Many small business owners take their profits as income which will be taxed at a higher rate."
ReplyDeleteNot so. Income is income unless it's capital gain.
"you think you should have any concern for how anyone else spends their money"
I don't care how they spend it. We have a progressive tax system; pretty much been that way since income taxes were implemented. It was during the Eisenhower administration that top rates were elevated to the 90 percent range.
If you don't like the progressive tax system, that's fine with me. Vote for people who will change it. If they don't win, you're stuck with it. That's the way democracy works.
I under stand financial systems. I understand investing. I understand lending.
Part of the problem is that financial institutions are NOT lending. Sometimes the government needs to implement policies that will incent private companies to do what's in the best interest of the country. Vote for the people you want to implement policy. When the Republicans win, they decide what that policy is. When the Democrats win, they decide. That's the way democracy works.
"you sorry, envious and covetous loser."
I covet nothing you sorry, stupid, selfish, arrogant loser.
"Not so. Income is income unless it's capital gain."
ReplyDeleteIt is so. I've heard small business owners say as much. Not all take salaries that are separate from the profits of the business. They take those profits and after paying their expenses, including their employees' pay, they live on what's left over. Some take a few years to actually have any money to pay themselves. So that profit is their salary and is taxable as such. If their taxes go up, because the gross is over that 250K threshold, the result might be cutting staff or their hours.
"I don't care how they spend it."
Yet you use their spending habits (or saving habits) to justify a call for increased taxation. Liar.
I do vote for people who wish to eliminate the progressive tax code in favor of a flat tax. But even if I never see the day, that doesn't mean that increasing the tax percentage of the other people is something I won't fight against. The progressive tax system is not a matter of determining who should pay what. It is an excuse to soak those with money to pay for programs that should never have been implemented in the first place.
"Part of the problem is that financial institutions are NOT lending."
So deal with the reasons for this. Don't use this as an excuse to soak other people of their hard earned money.
"Sometimes the government needs to implement policies that will incent private companies to do what's in the best interest of the country."
No. All the time, the government needs to get the hell out of the way and let the market do what it will do when not dealing with government interference. It isn't the gov't's job to tell private enterprises what to do. The very fact that there are private enterprises is itself good for the country and it benefits the country best when allowed to proceed with its business. What YOU'RE looking for is for the government to force companies to provide for you what you should be providing for yourself. The only thing that should be of concern to you is what YOU do with YOUR income; how you spend, save, budget, etc. THAT is what keeps your sorry ass from suffering from any economic downturn.
The story of the grasshopper and the ant is not a new story. How many people live their lives by this simple morality tale? It is the rejection of simple concepts like this that has led to so much economic turmoil in the lives of so many individuals. But people like YOU want the gov't to protect people against their own stupidity. Then you'll bitch about costs when those costs are a result of those government protections. Stick it.
"let the market do what it will do when not dealing with government interference."
ReplyDeleteLike producing salmonella-infected eggs?