Have the "rich" been enslaved by the poor?

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by axeman, Oct 6, 2003.

  1. yes. it is just not the rich, it is anyone who wants a better life and earns more than poverty wages, who have been hijacked by the "do nothings" .

    best,

    surfer
     
  2. Well,

    You will never catch a democrat giving an objective NUMBER
    which defines "rich". But if we look at their policies we
    can infer that it's a pretty damn low number.

    If you are single and make 50K a year in california, I would WAGER that you are a TARGET for democrats in this country
    and are considered rich. 50K a year is NOTHING in california.

    Can anyone find a definition of "rich" by the democrats???
    It's SURPRISINGLY difficult to find a quote anywhere.

    They are VERY careful not to reveal what they consider as "rich",
    or america would wake up and suddenly realize they
    are talking about THEM, even if they aren't driving porches :D



    peace

    axeman
     
  3. okwon

    okwon

    Yep. There are problems with the tax system. I doubt it will get better, probably only worse, especially if we have democrats in office.
     
  4. I read somewhere that medieval serfs were not taxed as highly as people in this country are. I think they only had to turn over a third to the lord of the manor. Our lords want half at least, and then want to instruct you how to spend what's left.

    There is a real policy disconnect when the majority of the country effectively pays nothing in income taxes or so little that it is not a factor to them. Not to mention the hordes of illegal immigrants who mostly exist in the black economy and pay nothing, even as they are big consumers of government services and drive up various other government expenses.

    There was a very good reason the states in colonial times imposed restrictions on voting, typically limiting the franchise to property owners. Those with a stake in the system were rightly regarded as those likely to show the best judgment in running that system. Of course, in those days the federal government didn't even have the authority to impose an income tax. That took a constitutional amendment and supporters assured voters the rate would never get above 3 or 4 percent. Dream on.

    We are often told the europeans pay even more, and for their trouble are rewarded with lavish services in pleasant cities and countrysides. The truth is somewhat more of a mixed picture. Some european countries are very pleasant, even with the high taxes. They are the Norways and Swedens with highly homogeneous populations and no huge underclass to finance. Others such as France have their fair share of problems.

    One thing most people don't realize is that most of the high tax countries only tax their citizens on what they earn in that country. They can go to the middle east, where several countries have no taxes, and earn a tax free salary. There is a booming business in setting up tax haven trusts and companies so that the wealthy can avoid taxes on their investments. The legal opportunities for Americans to do this are virtually nonexistent, except for a provision that allows one to exempt a modest salary earned overseas.
     
  5. No one likes paying the amount of taxes they do. It varies from state to state but if you make $100,000 or more, you will ikely pay at least 40% in taxes Fed, state, local, sales, gasoine, telephone, and the myriad taxes in place, depending on your deductions.

    The biggest bite goes to the Feds. The Federal Budget has ballooned since Bush took office. He has proposed more entitlements (bribes for votes) in the 2004 budget than in any prior budget - inflation adjusted.

    The Republicans control the Executive and the Congress.

    Vote. Change the system.
     


  6. not true.

    best,

    surfer:eek:
     
  7. Of course the rich & middle class are enslaved to the poor.

    Any crack whore can squeeze out a dozen kids, knowing that her loyal slaves, the taxpayers, will provide all their basic needs.

    Any lazy moocher can decide to never do another day's work in his life, knowing he'll be provided with temperature controlled government housing, emergency medical care, and government cheese for dinner. Who pays for all this? Us, of course...
     
  8. okwon

    okwon

    Government cheese is very tasty. I've actually had some before. :)
     
  9. Pabst

    Pabst

    As always AAA you make some great understated points. As the minimum earned income threshold for Federal income tax liability has been increased , public support for tax cuts has decreased. In other words, it's difficult to build consensus for tax cuts, when 40% of workers pay no Federal taxes. I used to believe that a fair code would exempt workers with less than 20k a year earned. But I realize now that everyone should be exposed to the thieving gluttony of the Federal government. Maybe if some of those working poor had to give up a third to the IRS they too would favor across the board tax relief.

    Unfortunately this nation is at a critical balance that is rapidly tilting. On almost any issue (the 2000 election was a microcosm) consensus is evenly split. Basically half the people in the U.S. would like to suck off the other half. People get the government they deserve. Non discretionary spending will not only someday break the U.S. Treasury, but pension obligations will also quickly sink hundreds of municipalities. We have created a ruling class of government workers. From postmen to gym teachers to clerks in the Commerce Dept., the whole country is on the taxpayer dole. I laugh when I hear dimwits say teachers are underpaid. 30k a year for a 23 year old right out of school to work 180 days a year is a darn good job! Hell one would need 3 million dollars in T-Bills to earn what a teaching pension is. And with increased life expectancy more public workers than ever will be spending thirty years alive in retirement picking up those CPI adjusted checks. It's such an unsolvable mess one can only laugh, or you'd go crazy.






     
    #10     Oct 6, 2003