I'm rich, at least according to the Democrats.

[bountyhunter]

Collapse? You call this a collapse? I haven't noticed a collapse. None of my friends have noticed a collapse.

That means none of your friends are among the millions of jobs that disppeared. Congratulations, in the mind of a republican, that proves there is no recession.

Well, if 90% comes from their pocket in the first place, I see nothing wrong with them getting 90% of the tax reductions.

Then you are in the correct party. Rich people should pay more taxes because it's fair.... they still have more money left after paying taxes. Ever see a rich guy box up his money and give it away because he didn't want tt have to pay taxes on all his money? Tell him to send it to me... I'll happily pay the 36% tax rate on the top bracket and keep the other 64%. Rich people should quit bitching about paying taxes and be glad they are rich. It does not automatically mean they should receive more tax cut if they are not the ones who need it and (more importantly) are not the ones who would pump it straight back into disposable goods and cause actual economic growth.

So who is it that determines if someone has all the disposible income they need .

Any moron knows that. NEED are things that you need to live like food, clothes, medical care, transportation to work, etc. This may be an abstract concept to a republican, but among the great poor masses, we often did without things we NEEDED because there was no money.

Majority? As in over 50%?. Gee, if there were that many you'd think I'd know a few of them.

I guess you must be right. The fact that you don't know any of them is absolute proof that millions of elderly Americans can't be eating dog food, cutting their pills in half because they can't afford to buy their medicines... and all those people can't possibly be out of work or working at minimum wage jobs because they can't find real work. I guess that must be it... all those millions of people are engaged in a liberal conspiracy to promote the lie that Bush's tax cut didn't save the economy.

 

[jimpeel]

How bout if I determine how much disposible income you need? You alright with that? If I decide you have more than you need, I'll take the rest away from you. How about it?

YOU COMMIE BASTARD!!!!

 

[jimpeel]

bountyhunter

... while the majority of Americans are feeling real pain.

Now wait a minute ... if the top 50% of taxpayers are paying 96.03% of all income taxes but you say the majority of Americans are "feeling real pain"; could it be that they are saddled by confiscatory taxes which is causing that pain?

 

[Mark Tyson]

The rich are being raped because of their lifestyle;

The rich are a minority; but other minorities are vaunted because of their minority status and afforded special laws and privleges.

If you are rich in America you are treated like a pariah

Think of the millionaires! The poor, oppressed millionaires!

Oh Puh-leeze! Bountyhunter is right. The wealthy ought to be thankful that they live in a society where they can prosper the way they do. Graduated taxation is not punitive. It's not done because the government hates rich people or because there's anything wrong with being wealthy. It's done because the more you prosper, the more you ought to give back to society. You know - society - all those other people out there who make wealth and capitalism possible. I'm sure you've heard of it.

We can keep things like the estate tax while making exemptions for farmers and small business owners. Eliminating these taxes completely is a mistake.

 

[bountyhunter]

What will the rich get for their contribution? The top 50% pay 96.03% of income taxes.

Even if we accept that as fact, examine the actual content: what does it say?

It does NOT say that rich people pay 96% of their income in taxes. In fact, the top federal tax rate is 36% and rich people's aggregate (average) rate of taxation is typically far lower than 36% because they exploit tax shelters and derive much of their income from captail gains which are taxed at 20%.

So, what does that statistic mean?


IT MEANS THEY MAKE WAY MORE MONEY THAN THE PEOPLE BELOW THEM IN THE "BOTTOM" 50% OF THE INCOME STRATA.

Does it automatically mean that tax relief should go primarily to the top wage earners?

Depends.... on what you think that relief should be for.

 

[jimpeel]

bountyhunter

That means none of your friends are among the millions of jobs that disppeared.

I lost my job at Quantum Corp. in August 2001. I was making $34/hr or ~$72,000/year.

I was out of work for a year.

I sold my house.

I lived on savings, tax returns, and unemployment.

I bought a 31' Airstream trailer so I could follow the jobs if I could find one.

Noone would talk to me because they wanted "local candidates" only.

I decided that I needed to find a job that would afford us an apartment plus wage. That would get rid of the things that eat up most disposable income like rent, utilities, etc.

I'm good at maintenance as I have always maintained my own home.

I started looking for maintenance jobs at apartment complexes, trailer parks, group homes, hotels, motels, etc.

I got this job as a motel manager / maintenance man.

Sold the Airstream and paid off my truck.

I make $5.15 / hr now.

I have an apartment, utilities, cable tv, and all the ice I can use.

I still have the debts of a guy who was making $72,000 / yr.

I didn't have to bankrupt.

You didn't get stuck with my debts.

We are comfortable.

We are happy.

We used our heads and dealt with the problem and we didn't need any socialist programs to do it. We just took the bull by the horns and dealt with it.

We have sold 36 more rooms this March than we did in the entire month last March; and it is only the fifteenth at ~6PM. We'll likely sell 7 - 10 more tonight.

If the economy were as bad as last year, we would be somewhere near last year's figures.

By the way, this is not a major motel like Super 8, Motel 6, or Red Roof Inn. It is a minor chain that has 21 facilities in 5 states.

 

[CasualShooter]

Kerry will rape the military and intelligence budgets to get the funds he wants for his social programs.

AND .... He'll raise taxes.

 

[Diggler]

From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need.
-Karl Marx

Sounds like we have a few true fans here.

Jealousy. That's all it is, petty jealousy. <whiney voice>I'm not rich, I don't have as much as he does, so TAKE IT OFF OF HIM. IF I CAN'T HAVE IT, HE CAN'T EITHER!</whiney voice>

Socialists/communists/liberals need to grow up and take responsibility for their own lives. You have the right for life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness. That's all, pursuit. You can succeed, you can fail. That is up to you. But you can never truly succeed if you didn't also have the chance to fail.

It's time to get off of Uncle Sam's Plantation, guys.

BTW jimpeel, congratulations on keeping your head up. You're my kind of guy! I like your integrity.

 

[jimpeel]

Mark Tyson

Graduated taxation is not punitive

No. It's Marxian.

It's done because the more you prosper, the more you ought to give back to society. You know - society - all those other people out there who make wealth and capitalism possible. I'm sure you've heard of it.

So society "gave" Bill Gates his money. He didn't earn it. He didn't do anything for society in return.

 

[Mark Tyson]

You have the right for life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness

There are a lot of people who don't have a snowball's chance in hell of making it out of deep, pervasive, grinding poverty, much less achieving happiness, without some kind of assistance. Their children's children probably won't have a chance either. Giving the deserving poor that chance is not Marxism - that's called basic humanity.

It's Marxian.

Then by that definition just about every functioning government on the planet is Marxist.

 

[Sergeant Bob]

jimpeel said

YOU COMMIE BASTARD!!!!

No Jim,

bountyhunter said

Any moron knows that.

I'm the moron.

 

[Mark Tyson]

So society "gave" Bill Gates his money. He didn't earn it. He didn't do anything for society in return.

Of course he made his fortune through honest work. What he was given was a business friendly environment, composed of millions of Americans, educated work force, laws and regulatory agencies, infrastructure and so forth. He didn't create that, and he gets to pay for its maintenance and improvement - i.e. the general welfare, as mentioned in the constitution.

 

[TaurusCIA]

Depends.... on what you think that relief should be for.

Let's spout more foolishness.

Tax relief can only come to those who have paid the taxes. Kerry wants to target the tax cuts to the a certain group of folks (supposedly me & mine) that he and his decide.

A novel idea...let's give the relief to those who paid the taxes. Otherwise just call it a handout like it is a quit playing the word games.

Liberal Strategy:
"If we say it over and over and ignore any reasonable request to provide a logical argument to support it, the people will eventually believe it because it has become so familiar or they will at least get tired of thinking about it. That's what we want anyway. Don't let them think for themselves. We are smart enough to think for them."

 

[Frohickey]

bountyhunter

Then you are in the correct party. Rich people should pay more taxes because it's fair.... they still have more money left after paying taxes. Ever see a rich guy box up his money and give it away because he didn't want tt have to pay taxes on all his money? Tell him to send it to me... I'll happily pay the 36% tax rate on the top bracket and keep the other 64%. Rich people should quit bitching about paying taxes and be glad they are rich. It does not automatically mean they should receive more tax cut if they are not the ones who need it and (more importantly) are not the ones who would pump it straight back into disposable goods and cause actual economic growth.

How did rich people get rich? Did they get it by working for it, or did they do it by stealing from others? If its the latter, they should be arrested and put into jail.

Who determines how much the rich get to keep? If its you, then, that is similar to having a robber determine how much the victim gets to keep.

 

[Frohickey]

Of course he made his fortune through honest work. What he was given was a business friendly environment, composed of millions of Americans, educated work force, laws and regulatory agencies, infrastructure and so forth. He didn't create that, and he gets to pay for its maintenance and improvement - i.e. the general welfare, as mentioned in the constitution.

James Madison is the Constitution's acknowledged "father" and here's what he had to say, "With respect to the two words 'general welfare', I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

You sure sound like some of those living Constitution types that say the 2nd Amendment is only there to protect the right of the state to keep militias.

 

[Mark Tyson]

A novel idea...let's give the relief to those who paid the taxes.

No, I like my idea better -give relief to those who will get the most benefit from it. We don't set up soup kitchens in Bel Air and Chevy Chase do we?

How did rich people get rich?

They worked for it ... in a very business friendly society. I doubt they'd get very rich the same way in the Paupa New Guinea. So, seeing as how they benefit greatly, they can contribute a little something to the general welfare. I don't see what's so horrible about that.

Who determines how much the rich get to keep?

Our democratically accountable representatives of course.

 

[jimpeel]

The Communist Manifesto

The tenets of the Communist Manifesto as written by Marx and Engels. The tenets which are in place in America are in red. The ones that are in play are in blue.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

 

[Mark Tyson]

The Marxists thought public education was a good idea, therefore it's a bad idea. I assume you want to abolish the federal reserve too. Right? That's your argument? I think we should judge a policy on its own merits, not what Marx & company thought.

 

[Diggler]

It does not automatically mean they should receive more tax cut if they are not the ones who need it

I just love to see people on a pro gun board talk about what other people 'need.'

And there are lots of people out there that don't think you 'need' a black rifle, or a handgun, or hell, any kind of gun! It's funny that these people are the same ones that know how much money someone 'needs.'

There are a lot of people who don't have a snowball's chance in hell of making it out of deep, pervasive, grinding poverty, much less achieving happiness, without some kind of assistance. Their children's children probably won't have a chance either.

It doesn't matter how poor you are, you can come back from NOTHING in this country and make something of yourself! If you can't do it here, WHERE CAN YOU DO IT THEN? Way to look down on the abilities and outlooks of your fellow man! With that kind of attitude, they might as well just give up and let the goverment take care of them. I guess I just see more potential in people than others here do.

 

[MeekandMild]

There are a lot of people who don't have a snowball's chance in hell of making it out of deep, pervasive, grinding poverty, much less achieving happiness, without some kind of assistance. Their children's children probably won't have a chance either. Giving the deserving poor that chance is not Marxism - that's called basic humanity.

No, giving the desrving poor a chance is called vocational training. Anything else is total B.S. Most of what you believe about entitlements is B.S.

Let me raise my voice so as to be heard over the crowd. THE US SOCIAL WELFARE SYSTEM IS DESIGNED TO KEEP PEOPLE IN POVERTY AND DEPENDENT UPON GOVERNMENT SO AS TO PROVIDE WORK FOR THE ARMIES OF AID WORKERS WHO "HELP" THEM. DITTO FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

Jimpeel, you make me proud. Your way of handling things reminds me of what my grandfather did when he lost his farm during the Roosevelt 'new deal' and what my father did when he was laid off during the Johnson 'great society' then again during Jimmy Carter's 'new society'.

One of my favorite family stories was back during the mid 30's my grandmother sent the kids to school every day with a crust of cornbread or some cold turnip greens. They were probably the poorest family in the county.

Well some government workers came around and 'identified' the kids who didn't have any lunches, so gave them all free government lunches. All except the kids who brought their own lunches, so my father and his family continued to eat their crusts of cornbread while the children of "sorry" but wealthier families go free hot meals.

To this day the system still rewards poor character and learned helplessness rather than true need.

 

[Diggler]

The Marxists thought public education was a good idea, therefore it's a bad idea. Right? That's your argument? I think we should judge a policy on its own merits, not what Marx & company thought.

Last time I looked, public education was going right down the toilet. The lawmakers that run the public schools send their kids to private schools.

Yeah, look at public housing... and schools... now let's have them run our health care and everything else?!? NO THANKS.

 

[TaurusCIA]

There are a lot of people who don't have a snowball's chance in hell of making it out of deep, pervasive, grinding poverty, much less achieving happiness, without some kind of assistance. Their children's children probably won't have a chance either. Giving the deserving poor that chance is not Marxism - that's called basic humanity.

I disagree. I was one those snowballs in hell and I made it out. But I made consistent choices to continue to strive for a better life through education, hard work and strong faith. We have a time limited support system in place to help them over the hump but not to support them until they decide to do something. That doesn't mean they will have the same lifestyle as those who are actively working to support themselves, their family, community, state & country. :banghead:

 

[Mark Tyson]

I just love to see people on a pro gun board talk about what other people 'need.'

Need is not that alien of a concept. We all prioritize things. You're not going to buy another gun if you can't afford to pay the rent or groceries. Once you've taken care of the necessities of day to day survival you can worry about getting a college degree and stuff like that.

 

[Mark Tyson]

We have a time limited support system in place to help them over the hump but not to support them until they decide to do something.

Exactly - and I think we should keep some of it in place, with reforms. I don't want to dish out money to every slacker and illegal immigrant in the country.

 

[TaurusCIA]

To this day the system still rewards poor character and learned helplessness rather than true need.

Amen!


Don't confuse them with the truth.