PostmodernProphet (08-02-2011)
I don't know if Mark Twain or Ben Franklin were around today, they wouldn't come up with some witty way to describe the liberals political notions of taxation on the wealthy. But in the spirit of these philosophers, I can sum it up thusly; You can't raise tax on the rich, and if you can, it's never enough. Now, as with Franklin or Twain, you have to let that statement sink in a few minutes, and think about what is being said on a philosophical level.
The rich, the opulently wealthy, the billionaires and even some millionaires... most of those people don't currently have very much "earned income" because it has already been earned... they are rich. Whatever amount they earn, is not of great importance to their wealth overall, it's nice... they desire it... they won't turn it down, but they don't depend on earning an income anymore... they are rich. So you can raise income taxes as high as you like, it doesn't really have much of an effect on the opulently rich.
The confusion of the pinheads, is the belief that "rich people" are represented by the top wage earners each year. This is simply a misnomer, and they refuse to acknowledge it. Just because someone reports a high income on their 2011 income tax return, does not mean they are rich. Billions of scenarios exist, where this could be demonstrated. The truth of the matter is, most wealthy estates do report income earnings from dividends, stocks, etc.. and in many cases, it's more income than middle class people make, but this isn't always the case either. Because of the ability to engage in foreign investments, many wealthy people have transitioned their portfolios elsewhere... perhaps in a country which has a low (or no) income tax? Again, many examples of this very thing exists, but the liberals simply ignore reality.
We even see Republicans talking about "revenues" in context of a tax increase on the wealthy. It seems to be a consensus in Washington, that increasing tax rates on the upper wage earners, is going to produce more revenue, when historically it hasn't ever done so. Revenues actually go down, when you increase the tax rates of people who don't really have the need to earn income anymore. It's human nature, and that's not factored in to statistics, trends, CBO reports. The reality is, increasing tax rates on upper wage earners, who are mostly small businesspeople who are trying to BECOME rich... (not there yet) increasing their tax burden will result in loss of jobs and loss of economic growth in the private sector.
Now, this very point was made in 2007, to a campaigning Barack Obama, by a now well-known plumber named Joe... That raising taxes on "the rich" wouldn't produce more revenues..... Obama said, he realized that... it wasn't about increasing the revenue, it was about spreading the wealth. Of course, the Liberals want you to all forget this amazing revelation, and just go along with the talking point that we must raise tax on the rich.
As IF you can ever tax the rich!
PostmodernProphet (08-02-2011)
Why not have the CIA kill the rich and then collect the inheritance tax?
Stallion (07-31-2011)
Historically, the term “tax rate” has meant the average or effective tax rate — that is, taxes as a share of income.
The broadest measure of the tax rate is total federal revenues divided by the gross domestic product.
By this measure, federal taxes are at their lowest level in more than 60 years.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that federal taxes would consume just 14.8 percent of G.D.P. this year.
The last year in which revenues were lower was 1950, according to the Office of Management and Budget.
The postwar annual average is about 18.5 percent of G.D.P.
Revenues averaged 18.2 percent of G.D.P. during Ronald Reagan‘s administration; the lowest percentage during that administration was 17.3 percent of G.D.P. in 1984.
In short, by the broadest measure of the tax rate, the current level is unusually low and has been for some time.
Revenues were 14.9 percent of G.D.P. in both 2009 and 2010.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/fed...te-since-1950/
Don't confuse Dixtard with facts. He is confused already.
It is the responsibility of every American citizen to own a modern military rifle.
Bookmarks