Typical response from baseless liberals. Accuse me of doing exactly what your doing. Do numbers matter to you, or is it all about how you feel. What percent of total tax the wealthy pay would you finally say is unfair or crosses into class warfare. Or is it more important just to have that feeling that at any percent the wealthy should always be paying more.
I started the thread. You changed the topic. Now, isn't it ironic that the same rich white guys that have handed the 'Joe Sixpack' talking point down to Sarah Palin vociferously rail against progressive taxation as being class warfare?
Idiocy. The "rich" don't care about income tax rates. That's why Buffet is full of shit. He and the other 1% who own 20% of the assets or whatever only have a tax consideration when they sell an asset or cash a dividend check. High INCOME tax rates are then a benefit to those who're already rich. The folks who're paying taxes on earned income are those who're trying to climb up the ladder. Some of the biggest wage earners in this country are black. Palin tries too hard to play the populist card but she should have made this point when Biden kept bring up McCain's "4b tax cut for big oil": On 41b in income last year Exxon paid 27 billion in taxes! Is there a mysterious Mr. Exxon somewhere out there? No. It's the shareholders who benefit from Exxon's profitability and it's they who shoulder the tax burden. Exxon pays out 8-10b a year in dividends. So if dividend taxes increase and you're a shareholder in XOM what will your post-corporate tax, post dividend tax return on XOM income be? Pretty friggin' low. Leftest assumptions that higher marginal rates will increase revenue-let alone decrease the national debt-are fallacious. No different than the moronic Fed who thought cutting the discount rate a zillion times would support asset prices. Going forward the rich will be earning less and those whose wealth is derived from holdings will just move those assets to more hospitable venues. I've said it here before: Don't just assume that a CSCO or INTC can't move their headquarters to China. Thee is no fiscal or demographic component screaming "America is the place to be."
Thats a fair answer. So lets look for a solution. The problem as you state is the weath gap. What is the cause of this? Education, access to capitol, IQ levels, luck, networking, contacts, regulation, minium wage, small business taxes, unions. I am going the route that the road to wealth is not through earning wages. Aside from Education I don't see where more taxes will do much to change the hope for wealth.
"Forbes entered the Republican primaries for President of the United States in 1996 and 2000, primarily running on a campaign to establish a flat income tax." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Forbes Steve Forbes is not rich? A good point. However, it doesn't relate to my original post. Now, back to the original topic: don't you see the irony?
That is a load of crap. Warren Buffet used the example of his secretary to illustrate that because of dividends he can make billions and pay a lesser percentage of taxes than his secretary. He is also for an inheritance tax (republicans cutely name it the death tax) Trust me, the corporations that are HQed in the US do so not for any egalitarian reasons. CSQO and INTC can't move their HQ to China for the simple reason they could be nationalized some day by "sons of mao". The rule of law in the US is MUCH stronger, and so is confidence in tomorrow.
I was elected as a Forbes delegate in 2000. He'd already dropped out by the Illinois primary. Who ever voted for me really wasted a vote, lol. I don't know that a flat tax would've benefited Forbes. I doubt it. His flat tax proposal was pretty light on write-offs too. But no I see ZERO irony in your OP. Palin policies are 8x closer to favoring working people than Obama policies. I really don't know who the "rich" guys you're referring to? It gets back to MY original point. The untaxed asset heavy elite seem to favor Obama. The working rich favor McCain. Use your friggin head. Who cares about tax rates more, Bill Gates or Phil Mickelson? Gates is still going to be worth a zillion regardless. I'm a case in point. I'm worth exactly 2mil. A bit over half is in RE though. So via Treasury rates I make what a manager at Wendy's is paid. To those less fortunate I'm probably viewed as some fat cat. Instead I'm an unemployable white male (oh I thought whites can get any job they want) and I take market shots to supplement my dividend/interest income. Risky existence. Under neither Obama nor McCain do I or any other self-employed businessmen enjoy a safety net. Think or swim. Knowing that even though I've paid a half mil lifetime in Federal income taxes that I can't get so much as a food stamp if I blow up, how sympathetic do you think I am writing out 30k in checks like I did last year? Me and a lot of middle Americans look upon the Federal government as this huge personal expense that provides little service to us personally commiserate to it's cost. Unless you're employed by government (5% of America) or consuming loads of government-which is more likely on the local level than Federal-the Federal government is an albatross. Particularly at a time when our meager assets are imploding. So yes, Palin is speaking to ME, she's speaking to the machine shop owner who can't afford a bump in payroll taxes, she's speaking to every over strapped by property taxes homeowner who needs MORE for his community but can only afford to give less. Enlarging the federal government is not a solution to those more important issues. Palin understands that. Obama doesn't. What I find "ironic" is for the past 20 years we've had the same Bush-Clinton-Bush administration. Scant changes in policy. ALL Ivy-Leaguers. Now Obama: another academic who thinks he knows something. For a century we've elected elites. Either elites out the military, out of Ivy league universities, rich kids who served in Congress, even Hollywood-in one form or another uncommon. Only Truman was a true accident of history. The move away from common sense and common values has only served to diminish our economic and moral strength. We're a government of insiders. It builds an unhealthy disconnect between political classes. the BIGGEST irony is how the political/economic situation in the U.K. is having the same effect as in the States except it's LABOR paying the price. The Tories will take Parliament and move the British government smaller while with an identical environment we think the answer is going bigger. We really don't get it....
Buffets a tool. Dividends are distributed after corporate taxes are paid on gross earnings. Hence if you buy a stock your post tax return on dividends is about 50% of what your shares on untaxed revenues purchased. It's not like dividends are some free lunch doled out by corporations from the goodness of their hearts. I'm a fiscally conservative Republican and I don't oppose the death tax. I DO oppose confiscatory 55% rates. Would i consider 20% on estates greater than 5mil onerous? Not at all. It's an easy tax to dodge though so it winds up being just another unfairly administrated revenue vehicle. And I'll concede China is a poor example but the Haliburtons etal are the wave of the future.
Why is that republicans have this emotional protest against double taxation. If I gave you a billion dollars as a gift you would pay a tax on it, if you gave what was left after taxes (or large portion of it) to someon else, the recipient would pay a tax as well and so on and so on. The point being the tax would be paid as MANY TIMES AS NECESSARY. I treat the estate tax as a tax on a gift to one's progeny. As I said many times, the discussion needs to start with spending not taxes. US government spends insane amounts of money. Taxes and spending should decrease or increase together. I am fine with dividend tax because it is income to the recipient. In a previous post you mentioned Bill Clinton, Bushes as harvard elites and no difference. Nobody in their right mind would compare a self made Rhodes Scholar, Yale Law Graduate to a silver spoon miserable failure known as george w. bush. W could not find oil in Texas. He has driven several companies into the ground. W would be a homeless junkie if not for his father. It is not Harvard elites that are a problem it is people's criteria that are problem. People thought having someone you can have a beer with was an important criteria in 2000. Big mistake. Palin's folksy crap could carry the day today. Competence and personal achievement have to be primary considerations. That thought needs to be hammered into people's heads until they understand it. P.S After reading your posts for some time I think I know a few sites you may be interested in (or you may be visiting them on a regular basis already) www.stormfront.org www.whitecivilrights.com www.davidduke.com To hell with rednecks!