Originally posted by TheSkipperdems will raise my middle class taxes too. And we are fighting a war, Bill was not. "they can afford it", so 50%, 60% in taxes, whatever is fine, lets penalize wealthy people because they have been sucessful. Income re-distribution is un-american.
{sigh}
What? You want lower taxes no matter how it hurts the country? If our debt continues to grow it will begin to hurt our international standing considerably. As our debt begins to eclipse a higher and higher percentage of our GDP our credit risk become higher and higher which could result in the loss of our AAA credt rating around the world. This ...[text shortened]... will tax the rich to get it done, but they can afford it and the middle class right now cannot.
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenWe are fighting a war against an ideology in which we blamed a country for possessing and
And we are fighting a war, Bill was not.
harboring that which they did not, namely WMD and terrorists. This war has benefited only one
group of people, the special interests (who supported Bush's office) who are 'rebuilding' Iraq, of
course without milestones.
This war is a concoction of Bush's poor global policy, his irrational fear of the Middle East,
his grubby oil interests, and aiding those highly rich few who propelled him into office.
To appeal to the war as a justification for Bush's inordinate spending is really a poor choice.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenSweet Jesus, you kind of are a simpleton (your word, not mine) aren't you?
dems will raise my middle class taxes too. And we are fighting a war, Bill was not. "they can afford it", so 50%, 60% in taxes, whatever is fine, lets penalize wealthy people because they have been sucessful. Income re-distribution is un-american.
Neither democratic candidate has a fiscal plan that involves raising taxes on the middle class, so you can relax. We are not penalizing wealthy people by increasing their tax burden to pay down the national debt, we are refusing to penalize the middle class.
Increasing taxes on the middle class effects where they live, how they eat, where they send thier kids to college, what they drive...it effects every facet of their lives. Increasing taxes on the richest Americans effects how much more they can grow the masses of money they already have. This is why a flat tax, while it may seem fair on the surface, is not actually fair at all because 10% of a 40k income has far more real-world impact than 10% on a 500k income. I'm sure, however, you won't take my word for it, but then again neither will you research the issue for yourself.
If income re-distribution is so "un-american", I assume you are against inheritance, right?
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterIf Romney had run for reelection, he would have surely lost. His Lt.Govenor (Kerry Healy) ran and was soundly trounced. Being a resident of the state, I might have a tad more insight than you.
Just so you don't get caught up in your own revisionist fantasy, Romney resigned his position as governor so he could run for President. In other words, Deval Patrick wasn't swept into office "...to clean up Romney's mess." Indeed, Romney did a pretty good job while governor of one of the most liberal states in the union:
(From Romney's own We ...[text shortened]... ention programs for failing schools and English immersion for foreign-speaking students.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterSo, a $500 dividend isn't income but a $500 paycheck is?
Capital gains and dividends aren't the same as "income." Also, there are over 100 million Americans with capital gains and dividends, since many workers receive stock options, 401(k)s and IRA's through work. Half are considered Middle Class. A more important question, then, would seem to be: Why do Hillary and Obama want to harm the Middle Class ...[text shortened]... e rich unless you're in government. Which then begs the question: Why do you support this?
I'm not really interested in your partisan raving; I'm interested in the fundamental question of why one type of income is taxed at a lower rate than the most common type of income. Could it be because the wealthy receive an inordinate percentage of such income?
The numbers make it clear that the lower tax rates on dividend and capital gain income as compared to salary income is a ridiculous scam favoring the wealthy:
The proportion of those with incomes under $100,000 who receive any capital gains or dividend income is quite small. According to the Tax Policy Center, in 2005, only 12.5 percent of the households earning less than $100,000 received dividend income, and only 6.6 percent received any capital gains income.
Further, focusing on the number of households claiming capital gains and dividend income does not tell the full story; it is much more important to look at the amount of capital gains and dividend income collected by various income groups. Tax Policy Center data for 2005 indicate that the bulk of income from dividends and capital gains flows to high-income households.
Over half — 54 percent — of all capital gains and dividend income flows to the 0.2 percent of households with annual incomes over $1 million. More than three-quarters — 78 percent — of this income goes to those households with income over $200,000, which account for about 3 percent of all households.
In contrast, only 11 percent of capital gains and dividend income goes to the 86 percent of households with incomes of less than $100,000. Only 4 percent of this income flows to the 64 percent of households that have income of less than $50,000.
Not only is income from capital gains and dividends heavily concentrated at the top of the income spectrum, but it also represents a larger portion of income for these very well-off households than it does for those of more modest means. New IRS income tax data for 2003 show that income from capital gains and dividends increases steadily as a percentage of total income as household income rises (see Figure 1). For those making less than $100,000, capital gains and dividend income makes up an average of 1.4 percent of total income. For those making over $100,000, this income accounts for 12.2 percent of total income on average; for those making over $1 million, the share rises to an average of 31.4 percent. Thus, the IRS data show that while capital gains and dividend income accounts for nearly one-third of all income for millionaires, it represents a tiny fraction of income for most families.
Finally, it is worth noting that data from the Congressional Budget Office indicate that taxable income from stocks and other capital assets have become increasingly more concentrated over time. The data show that in 2003 the top one percent of the income spectrum received 57.5 percent of taxable capital income — which includes income from capital gains, dividends, interest, and rents — the largest share in the years examined by CBO, which has data going back to 1979.[6]
http://www.cbpp.org/1-30-06tax2.htm
Originally posted by NemesioWhy Bush went along with Clinton's invasion plans is a mystery to me.
We are fighting a war against an ideology in which we blamed a country for possessing and
harboring that which they did not, namely WMD and terrorists. This war has benefited only one
group of people, the special interests (who supported Bush's office) who are 'rebuilding' Iraq, of
course without milestones.
This war is a concoction of Bush's poor g ...[text shortened]... e war as a justification for Bush's inordinate spending is really a poor choice.
Nemesio
GRANNY.
Originally posted by NemesioWere that you only as obsessessed with liberty and freedom as you are with race. Blacks, Latinos, women and immigrants constitute a very large share of the total number of entrepreneurs and small business owners in America. This is a good thing. Also, apparently unlike you, I've always supported the idea of expanding the number of H1-B visas that allow highly qualified people -- entrepreneurs who want to start companies, doctors who want to save lives, scientists who want to explore the frontiers of knowledge, etc. -- enter our country legally. In the over regulated, high-tax world you and other liberals pine for, minorities, women and the poor immigrant would never have a chance to achieve the American dream; instead, they'd be relegated to living on the government plantation, dependent on handouts from people Hillary Clinton and B. Hussein Obama. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
...Why do you choose the former over the latter? Because they're white, I suspect.
Nemesio
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterInteresting that you don't actually answer the question but instead pretend I espouse a position
Were that you only as obsessessed with liberty and freedom as you are with race. Blacks, Latinos, women and immigrants constitute a very large share of the total number of entrepreneurs and small business owners in America. This is a good thing. Also, apparently unlike you, I've always supported the idea of expanding the number of H1-B visas that ...[text shortened]... tation, dependent on handouts from people Hillary Clinton and B. Hussein Obama. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
that I've explicitly rejected in this thread and dozens of times previously.
Why do you support corporate welfare and not social welfare? Why don't you espouse a free
economy free from governmental interference like a good American?
Nemesio
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterWell, if the renowned Pete du Pont {gasp!!} said it, it MUST be Gospel truth!!😀
Should B. Hussein Obama become America's 44th president, we can expect higher taxes, more regulation, less trade and less opportunity, says Pete du Pont:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120864685698828937.html?mod=opinion_journal_political_diary
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterWhat do you think of the poem The New Colossus by Emma Lazarus that's engraved on a plaque inside the pedestal of the Statue?
Were that you only as obsessessed with liberty and freedom as you are with race. Blacks, Latinos, women and immigrants constitute a very large share of the total number of entrepreneurs and small business owners in America. This is a good thing. Also, apparently unlike you, I've always supported the idea of expanding the number of H1-B visas that ...[text shortened]... tation, dependent on handouts from people Hillary Clinton and B. Hussein Obama. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"