Say Anything Blog

I have not yet read the WSJ article you’ve cited, but it seems to me there is an even more basic question to be asked of those who excoriate “tax cuts for the rich” and promise to “help out poorer Americans by making the rich pay their “fair share” of taxes.”

How does it actually help someone else to raise my taxes?  Does increasing the tax burden on those who are successful do anything at all to “help” those who aren’t?  I don’t think so.

This is simply another example of Democrats’ near-congenital class warfare rhetoric the intent of which is to pit one group of Americans against another while casting those on the Left as the mythical heroes of the oppressed and downtrodden.

In other words, more liberal bull shit!

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

The media has convinced most Americans that the last round of tax cuts in 01 (or was it 02) were “for the rich”. Therefore it plays well with their message to call for them to “pay their fair share” regardless of what the facts are.  People think “the rich” are getting all sorts of tax breaks and don’t pay much, when the opposite is the case. 

This also plays into the fact that most of the taxes we are talking about are on people who EARN a lot of money each year (read successful buisness types, Republicans mostly) and aren’t just rich with inheritance (read limosine liberal) so putting more of a tax burden on high income folks isn’t going to affect their ability to get elected.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter
-Winston Churchill

Is this because the Republicans just suck at getting their messages to the people? Yes, I guess we could blame the MSM for blocking or confusing the conservative messages about things like this, but the truth is we don’t have anyone in the Republican Party, either an individual or the GOP that are capable of promulgating the conservative message in a clear, consistent and understandable manner. I don’t like the idea of blaming others, we must take responsibility for our own failures and start getting things done a lot better.

The Democrats are great at leading class warfare, of making it seem as though the wealthy are blood-sucking, ravenous money grubbers that are keeping the poor people poor; and since they are socialists, I admire the fact they know how to stay on message, craft it, massage it and beat the drums about it daily selling the socialist ideology. I just wish the Republican Party and the Conservatives (not always the same thing) would decide who the hell they are, get on message and start engaging the Left with things like class warfare.

Oh, and forget McCain, he couldn’t sell ice water in the desert.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

The definition of “fair” is totally subjective, which is what lefties like.  They hate well-defined words, because it’s harder to manipulate people when the definition is known.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Good point, robert108.

Speaking to several hundred supporters of the U.S. Senator from New York, Buffett revealed his puzzlement that he was taxed at a lower rate than many of the lesser-paid individuals working for his company.

Buffett said he makes $46 million a year in income and is only taxed at a 17.7 percent rate on his federal income taxes. By contrast, those who work for him, and make considerably less, pay on average about 32.9 percent in taxes - with the highest rate being 39.7 percent.

To emphasize his point, Buffett offered $1 million to the audience member who could show that one of the nation’s wealthiest individuals pays a higher tax rate than one of their subordinates.

“I’m willing to bet anyone in this room $1 million that those rates are less than the secretary has to pay,” said Buffett.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/26/news/newsmakers/clinton_buffett/index.htm

Buffett’s challenge is smoke and mirrors… and Warren knows this to be so.  The vast majority of his income is in the form of dividends, which, like capital gains, are taxed at a lower rate than is ordinary W-2 income.  Buffett admitted all this when interviewed several months ago by a crew from CNBC.

Buffett’s W-2 income, approximately $100,000 per year has been reported, is taxed at a higher rate than that of his Omaha receptionist, but his overall income, including dividend and capgains is taxed at a lower rate because of the lower tax rate on both dividends and capital gains.

Incidentally, just to head off any more liberal stupidity regarding the rate cuts on dividends and capital gains (2003), the most recent numbers demonstrate that the revenue raised from each of these taxes since the Bush rate cuts has actually been higher than was forecast by both JCT and CBO before the cuts were passed into law.  Bth tax cuts, in other words, have MORE than paid for themselves!

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

i went to the link at the wsj you provided.
it showed that the top 50% has an 88% income share. wouldn’t fair mean they pay 88% of the taxes? the chart shows they pay 97% of the taxes. that is higher than the income they control.

however, if a single woman, mother of 2, who mops floors for a living wants to see her (insert any elected politician) and bill gates wants to see his, who do you think will get the appointment?

the single mother can’t afford one house, mccain gets to write off 6 houses. who benefits more from their government?

which community would get faster police response time: bel-air or watts?

does the bottom 50% get the same benefits and access to their government that the top 50% get?

so, yeah, i think the tax burden is much fairer than most here think.

it showed that the top 50% has an 88% income share. wouldn’t fair mean they pay 88% of the taxes? the chart shows they pay 97% of the taxes. that is higher than the income they control.

The percentages don’t have to match up because we’re talking about two different totals.

One is total income, the other is total tax revenue.

however, if a single woman, mother of 2, who mops floors for a living wants to see her (insert any elected politician) and bill gates wants to see his, who do you think will get the appointment?

You think that taxing the richest Americans more would change that (if it were even possible to tax them more)?

so, yeah, i think the tax burden is much fairer than most here think.

Until you consider that the vast majority of government spending benefits those who pay the least in taxes through entitlements, welfare, etc.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Study reveals: The top 1% of earners in this country, let the other 99% whine about how they pay most of the taxes.

What about the 40% who pay ZERO income taxes?

rob,

The percentages don’t have to match up because we’re talking about two different totals. One is total income, the other is total tax revenue.

i didn’t say they have to match up. i pointed out that 50% of the population controls 88% of the income and pay 97% of the taxes.

You think that taxing the richest Americans more would change that (if it were even possible to tax them more)?

i didn’t say that taxing the rich more would do anything. i was asking who would get better access to their government.

Until you consider that the vast majority of government spending benefits those who pay the least in taxes through entitlements, welfare, etc.

the biggest ‘entitlement’ is social security and medicare/medicaid (see chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png ) which is based on employee and employer contributions, so the more you make the more entitlement you get. as far as welfare, it is about 1% of the federal budget ( http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-runawaywelfare.htm ). this is a good summary of the info, but i can easily find better sources if you need.

so it was a nice try to bash my post by saying i think things that i didn’t even bring up.

If this is the democrat’s idea of a good plan, we should apply it to their union supporters - pass a federal law that 47% of their members do not have to pay dues but still maintain a full say in how the union will be run, with the top union officials paying 40% of all dues.

I’m not holding my breath - what’s good for me is not for thee. . . .

Social Security is a ripoff; the money confiscated over the decades would return many times more if invested safely in the private sector.  It’s really a welfare program, wherein the biggest beneficiary is the federal govt infrastructure.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

crshedd: The flaw in your reasoning is that you regard the tax system as an implement for imposing “social justice”, which is its purpose in a socialist regime.  In our country, however, the tax system is supposed to be for defraying the legitimate and Constitutional expenses of govt.
Thus, all discussions of “fairness"(which cannot be objectively determined) are inappropriate in a free country.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Um, Robert, Crshedd is saying that it’s not fair. And that Social Security is a welfare program.

Give him some slack.

Obama/Biden is not change. It’s more of the same.

As a member of the working class, I’d like offer all billionaires the opportunity to exchange jobs and bank accounts if they feel they are unfairly taxed and missing out on the free ride that the rest of us enjoy. I can’t promise you will qualify for the earned income tax credit; nonetheless, you can experience the warm feeling I get after making others rich through the work I do and the bills I pay. After the switchover, I can cover your share of the Federal Government’s expenses just like you currently do for me. Your assets will then be protected by the US government through military power, occasional bailouts, and countless other avenues for free. Well, maybe not your assets. I don’t really have any. But your way of life will be protected. Guest workers will probably keep your wages in check so don’t worry about jumpin’ into a higher tax bracket. Inflation is really nothing to worry about either; dollar stores can be found on every corner these days. So, hey, I recognize my freeloader status and I am ready to become a more responsible tax-paying citizen. I’ll assume the burden that comes with being filthy rich; you know, paying for this great country and everything. I wouldn’t expect you to do that. Ya can’t get blood out of a turnip. I mean, like, I can’t control sales taxes or real-estate taxes or gas taxes or tollbooth fees or whatever; nonetheless, I’ll go the extra mile and promise not to make you pay for political influence.

Nice Marxist class envy bullshit, but without those rich guys financing businesses, you would be making your own shoes and sewing your own clothes.  Without initial capital investment, there are no jobs beyond subsistence, and without continuing capital investment, there is no job growth or economic growth.  Educate yourself.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

As a member of the working class

Who is not a member of the “working class?”