Let's TAX the Rich

[Bucks]

Obomba and democrats (like our Rioting Democrat) want to tax the rich. Yeah, let's stick it to the rich JUST LIKE JIMMY CARTER did when he was in office.

Does the most merciful Oboma REALLY want to tax the rich?

IF he gets in, we are in for a DISASTROUS 4 years.

(QUOTE)
Even when taxes are carefully crafted to only include the real rich, there can be a nasty surprise for the middle class and the nation as happened with the Carter Administration's tax on yachts.

After whipping up the publics' emotions with their usual class warfare rhetoric (remember Carter's campaign against the so-called three martini lunch deduction?) President Carter and his Democrat controlled Congress enacted a stiff tax on the purchase of yachts.

Given that only the super rich can afford a yacht, this should have been the ideal tax on the rich. But the Carter Administration overlooked two things.

First, the rich, like everyone else, hates to waste money. Second, and more important, while only the rich buy yachts, it is middle class workers who build yachts. As a result of the tax, most rich people did one of two things in that they either made do with last year's yacht or purchased a new one abroad where the tax did not apply.

In doing so, the small American yacht industry was destroyed (one New Jersey town whose economy was totally dependent on yacht building faced economic disaster) and associated jobs and income tax revenues (unemployed people generally pay little or no income tax) were lost.

This little episode only served to further weaken the nation's economy which, as a result of the misguided Keynesian taxing and spending policies of the Nixon and Carter administrations, was struggling under the dual burden of double digit inflation AND double digit unemployment.
(/QUOTE)

Liberals either don't know history or just ignore history and repeat history.

Problems with Taxing the Rich

.

[Susanna]

Yeah, I remember that fiasco. A repetition of that will send this country into recession, and possibly even depression - plus backing out of the War on Terror will bring disaster to our country.

[RedKoolAid]

Bucks check this out buddy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/bu...em&oref=slogin

[Registered_Democrat]

Originally Posted by RedKoolAid

Bucks check this out buddy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/bu...em&oref=slogin

Don't bother, usually anything from the NYT, the LA Times, CNN, NBC, ABC, or any such "lefty" news source is rejected out of hand around here.

One time they didn't want to believe a Mike Huckabee quote cause it came from MSNBC.

Try Fox News or Rush Limbaugh's blog.

[RedKoolAid]

lol i guess actual numbers from recorded U.S. data doesn't matter oh well....

[Bucks]

Originally Posted by RedKoolAid

lol i guess actual numbers from recorded U.S. data doesn't matter oh well....

Likely you did not read the entire article and associated links.

But nice try to ignore the disaster under Jimmy Cater and Obomba is the second comming of Jimmy Carter.
.

[snoluver]

Taxing the rich isnt the answer. Taxing anyone more isnt the answer.
How about cutting taxes. I dont want to pay for all the beaurocrats and the pork and spending. People are tired of it.
Frankly I'm saddened of our debt and even that I will have to help pay for this war anymore. We did our job, now get out and let the Iraquis take over. It's THEIR country and we got rid of Hussein. I own a gun, we spend plenty on the military. Time to CUT CUT CUT.

[Susanna]

Originally Posted by snoluver

Taxing the rich isnt the answer. Taxing anyone more isnt the answer.
How about cutting taxes. I dont want to pay for all the beaurocrats and the pork and spending. People are tired of it.
Frankly I'm saddened of our debt and even that I will have to help pay for this war anymore. We did our job, now get out and let the Iraquis take over. It's THEIR country and we got rid of Hussein. I own a gun, we spend plenty on the military. Time to CUT CUT CUT.

We must not cut our support of the military. And we must not cut and run from Iraq. However, there are many domestic programs - some absolutely useless that could be eliminated immediately, others phased out while the private sector gradually takes over their functions. When I was in high school, the highest percentage of federal spending went to support the military, and only a small fraction went to domestic programs. Few people were collecting Social Security then, and only the really desperate were on Public Aid.

[Elmira Viking]

Originally Posted by RedKoolAid

Bucks check this out buddy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/bu...em&oref=slogin

By all means check that article out. Please also keep in mind who it was written by:

Alan S. Blinder is a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton and former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve. He has advised many Democratic politicians.

[Newman]

....now now.....if Obama is'nt talking about taxing air, and retreating from Iraq all we'd hear from him would be........









.....*crickets*.......

[Scorpius]

I wonder, why is there so much discussion over who's going to lower taxes, or who is going to raise taxes, or what is the proper proportion income to tax?

The important question is - why do we pay income tax at all? Yeah, yeah, the 16th amendment. This nation operated for over 120 years without income tax. What was the catalyst that instituted the change? These are the probing questions that should be asked, and more importantly - answered. 1913 was a heck of year in our country's history.

[Bucks]

Originally Posted by Elmira Viking

By all means check that article out. Please also keep in mind who it was written by:

Alan S. Blinder is a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton and former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve. He has advised many Democratic politicians.

Yes, he champions the soviet model of taking from the successful and give to the "unsuccessful".

Where do we hear that, oh yes in our "public schools". Our great public schools teach students it is "not" necessary to become successful because there will always be successful people who we can tax to give to the unsuccessful.

Now why would people want to work hard if the government will punish them to provide less of a "gap in income" with the unsuccessful.?

Most successful people actually give to charity and provide JOBS while becoming successful. Hmmm........why do democrats leave that little fact out of the conversation?????

Could it be that most elected democrats have never been successful in business or even been in business ?????

Or is it just a good election time gimmick (class warfare) to get votes???

.

[Newman]

I wonder how many Democrats are "unsuccessful" business owners?....

[snoluver]

"We must not cut our support of the military. And we must not cut and run from Iraq."

We must not over fund it either. Our military has more than enough volunteers and is the best in the world. Dumping more and more money on it isnt going to make a great difference. It's great now. I'm for cutting all useless programs and for trimming down all budgets. And telling the Iraquis to step up and quit being scared.

[Susanna]

Originally Posted by snoluver

"We must not cut our support of the military. And we must not cut and run from Iraq."

We must not over fund it either. Our military has more than enough volunteers and is the best in the world. Dumping more and more money on it isnt going to make a great difference. It's great now. I'm for cutting all useless programs and for trimming down all budgets. And telling the Iraquis to step up and quit being scared.

We should be cutting domestic programs; too many people are dependent on the government. The military is one of the few things our founding fathers expected the government to handle.

Just telling the Iraqis to step up and quit being scared isn't going to accomplish anything. They have lived in an atmosphere of fear for decades, and it won't go away with a snap of the fingers. They need to learn confidence, and that takes time - and experience.

[Newman]

Originally Posted by Susanna

We should be cutting domestic programs; too many people are dependent on the government. The military is one of the few things our founding fathers expected the government to handle..

ditto.....as William F. Buckley said....."Starvation is a powerful motivator".....

[Scorpius]

Originally Posted by Bucks

Obomba and democrats (like our Rioting Democrat) want to tax the rich. Yeah, let's stick it to the rich JUST LIKE JIMMY CARTER did when he was in office.

Does the most merciful Oboma REALLY want to tax the rich?

IF he gets in, we are in for a DISASTROUS 4 years.

(QUOTE)
Even when taxes are carefully crafted to only include the real rich, there can be a nasty surprise for the middle class and the nation as happened with the Carter Administration's tax on yachts.

After whipping up the publics' emotions with their usual class warfare rhetoric (remember Carter's campaign against the so-called three martini lunch deduction?) President Carter and his Democrat controlled Congress enacted a stiff tax on the purchase of yachts.

Given that only the super rich can afford a yacht, this should have been the ideal tax on the rich. But the Carter Administration overlooked two things.

First, the rich, like everyone else, hates to waste money. Second, and more important, while only the rich buy yachts, it is middle class workers who build yachts. As a result of the tax, most rich people did one of two things in that they either made do with last year's yacht or purchased a new one abroad where the tax did not apply.

In doing so, the small American yacht industry was destroyed (one New Jersey town whose economy was totally dependent on yacht building faced economic disaster) and associated jobs and income tax revenues (unemployed people generally pay little or no income tax) were lost.

This little episode only served to further weaken the nation's economy which, as a result of the misguided Keynesian taxing and spending policies of the Nixon and Carter administrations, was struggling under the dual burden of double digit inflation AND double digit unemployment.
(/QUOTE)

Liberals either don't know history or just ignore history and repeat history.

Problems with Taxing the Rich

.

Here's something worthy of a little examination:



Here are some facts:

Since the Neo-Conservative movement has become the dominant force in the Republican Party the national debt has grown and continues to grow at an unsustainable rate, by any measure you care to use.

The only time we have seen national debt reduction in the past 60 years was when Democrats were totally in charge of our government or when one party was in the White House and another ran Congress.

In the past 60 years when Republicans were in control of the presidency and both Houses of Congress, government spending was never reduced. The last time a Republican Congress reduced the national debt was in 1947, under Truman’s leadership.

The last time the debt was reduced was in 1961 during President Kennedy’s first year in office. It has been almost a half century, 46 years, since this nation has paid down any of its exponentially increasing debt.

This is not some rank partisan BS, this is just something that seems a little too scarce these days - truth.

Other ways to look at this:



There is always more than one way to skin a mule, especially a gov't mule. However, the easy solution here is for congress to stop raising the debt ceiling and only spend what they take in - barring a crisis or catastrophe. Quite simply, we need a pay-as-you-go system, and both parties need to stick with it, regardless of who controls what. It is way past time to stop the partisan bickering, grand standing and posturing and do what is right for the country for a change.

Another measure I think would be wise - line item veto.

Or how about this radical concept - one bill, one line item. No more adding pork to bribe votes. Vote up down on each bill and its' own merits.

[Dreamer]

I think the line-item veto gives the executive branch way too much power. While it could help cut down on pork, it would also take away a lot of power from Congress.

Originally Posted by Bucks

Yes, he champions the soviet model of taking from the successful and give to the "unsuccessful".

.

Hm. That sounds eerily familiar...where have I heard that before?

Oh yes- Robin Hood! That evil communist maniac....

Hm. The left must be infiltrating the children's storybooks industry...

What's wrong with tax cuts for the middle class and poor? I'm afraid I don't really understand how liberals are snobbish, out-of-touch elites and conservatives represent the everyman, when conservatives support tax cuts for the rich, and scoff at tax breaks for the poor. Enlighten me?

[Bucks]

Originally Posted by Dreamer

I think the line-item veto gives the executive branch way too much power. While it could help cut down on pork, it would also take away a lot of power from Congress.


Hm. That sounds eerily familiar...where have I heard that before?

Oh yes- Robin Hood! That evil communist maniac....

Hm. The left must be infiltrating the children's storybooks industry...

Actually you are correct, but I'll leave that for some one else to explain to you (childrens story books).

What's wrong with tax cuts for the middle class and poor?

The poor don't pay taxes, in fact about 40% to 60% of the population does not pay income taxes (Bush removed a number from the tax rolls). Bush also reduced taxes on the middle class.

I'm afraid I don't really understand how liberals are snobbish, out-of-touch elites and conservatives represent the everyman, when conservatives support tax cuts for the rich, and scoff at tax breaks for the poor. Enlighten me?

Yes a concept hard for liberals to understand without some actual experience.
Consider that leftist liberal George McGovern;

Still George McGovern

Q: Someone mentioned to me that you tried to open up a bed-and-breakfast, and you ran into a lot of rules and regulations that made being a small businessman difficult. Can you talk about that?

A: I had a 140-room hotel in Stamford, Connecticut, for about three years, and it just didn't work. You know, the hotel business may be the most difficult place in the world to make a living unless you happen to own the Waldorf-Astoria. It was not a success.

I got sued a couple times by people who had accidents, one out in the parking lot of the hotel and one leaving the restaurant. I saw all the difficulties -- record-keeping, keeping track of the tax applications, paying the help. It gave me a new appreciation for the problems of small businesses.

Q: Someone like me would argue that many of those problems are a result of too many government rules, regulations, mandates.

A: It's possible that small business should be exempted from some of those things. Who can be against anything called the Occupational Safety and Health Administration? But maybe some of the requirements should be eased off a little bit. http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pitt.../s_204920.html

Perhaps a few courses in business administration AND actually working in business would help you understand.

The more taxes a business must pay the LESS money is left to pay EMPLOYEES. Less jobs = less employees = higher unemployment.

I know this must be hard for you to understand, but this is the flaw in liberal thinking.
.

[Bucks]

Originally Posted by Scorpius
Here's something worthy of a little examination:

You'll notice how Carter left office with the economy going down hill at an accelerating pace. Reagan had quite a mess to clean up while dealing with democrats controlling one or both houses of congress and at the same time trying to rebuild our department of defense. Bush #1 was.......well, NOT a conservative.

Clinton came to office Jan 1993 and increased taxes. Republicans took over congress Jan 1995, therefore reducing spending.

Bush #2 came to office (also not very conservative) and had 9/11 to deal with and many conservatives left office while "so called moderate(liberal) republicans" took over and acted like democrats.

Thanks for the chart.
.