We've arrived at Socialism

optimusprime_IHB

New member
<a href="http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=320977608242634">On The Road To Socialism? We've Arrived!</a>

By PATRICK J. BUCHANAN | Posted Tuesday, March 03, 2009 4:20 PM PT



In his campaign and inaugural address, Barack Obama cast himself as a moderate man seeking common ground with conservatives.



Yet his budget calls for the radical restructuring of the U.S. economy, a sweeping redistribution of power and wealth to government and Democratic constituencies. It is a declaration of war on the right.



The real Obama has stood up and lived up to his ranking as the most left-wing member of the Senate.



Barack has no mandate for this. He was even behind John McCain when the decisive event that gave him the presidency occurred ? the September collapse of Lehman Bros. and the market crash.



Republicans are under no obligation to render bipartisan support to this statist coup d'etat. For what is going down is a leftist power grab that is anathema to their principles and philosophy.



Where the U.S. government usually consumes 21% of gross domestic product, this Obama budget spends 28% in 2009 and runs a deficit of $1.75 trillion, or 12.7% of GDP. That is four times the largest deficit of George W. Bush and twice as large a share of the economy as any deficit run since World War II.



Add that 28% of GDP spent by the U.S. government to the 12% spent by states, counties and cities, and government will consume 40% of the economy in 2009.



<strong>We are not "headed down the road to socialism." We are there.</strong>



Since the budget was released, word has come that the U.S. economy did not shrink by 3.8% in the fourth quarter, but 6.2%. All the assumptions in Obama's budget about growth in 2009 and 2010 need to be revised downward, and the deficits revised upward. Look for the deficit for 2009 to cross $2 trillion.



Who abroad is going to lend us the trillions to finance our deficits without demanding higher interest rates on the U.S. bonds they are being asked to hold? And if we must revert to the printing press to create the money, what happens to the dollar?



As Americans save only a pittance and have lost ? in the value of homes, stocks, bonds and other assets ? $15 trillion to $20 trillion since 2007, how can the people provide the feds with the needed money?



In his speech to Congress, Obama promised new investments in energy, education and health care. Every kid is going to get a college degree. We're going to find a cure for cancer.



Who is going to pay for all this? The top 2%, the filthy rich who got all those Bush tax breaks, say Democrats. But the top 5% of income earners already pay 60% of income taxes, while the bottom 40% pay nothing.



Those paying a federal tax rate of 35% will see it rise to near 40% and will lose a fifth of the value of their deductions for taxes, mortgage interest and charitable contributions.



Two-thirds of small businesses are taxed at the same rate as individuals. Consider what this means to the owner of a restaurant and bar in Los Angeles open from noon to midnight, where a husband and wife each put in 80 hours a week.



At year's end, the couple find they have actually made a profit of $500,000 that they can take home in salary. What is the Obama-Schwarzenegger tax take on that salary? Their U.S. tax rate will have hit 39.6%. Their California income tax will have hit 9.55%.



Medicare payroll taxes on the proprietor as both employer and salaried employee will be $14,500. Social Security payroll taxes for the proprietor as both employer and employee will be $13,243.



In short, U.S. and state income and payroll taxes will consume half of all the pair earned for some 8,000 hours of work.



From that ravaged salary they must pay a state sales tax of 8.25%, gas taxes for the 50-mile commute, and tens of thousands in property taxes on both their restaurant and home.



And, after being pilloried by politicians for having feasted in the Bush era, they are now told the tax deduction they get for contributing to the church is to be cut 20%, while millions of Obama voters, who paid no U.S. income tax at all, will be getting a tax cut ? i.e., a fat little check ? in April.



<strong>Any wonder native-born Californians are fleeing the Golden Land?</strong>



Markets are not infallible. But the stock market has long been a "lead indicator" of where the economy will be six months from now. What are the markets, the collective decisions of millions of investors, saying?



Having fallen every month since Obama's election, with January and February the worst two months in history, they are telling us the stimulus package will not work, that Tim Geithner is clueless about how to save the banks, that the Obama budget portends disaster for the republic.



The president says he is gearing up for a fight on his budget.



Good. Let's give him one.
 
60 days in - 4 years ahead of schedule! Awesome!



<img src="http://uk.gizmodo.com/DrEvilLaser.jpg" alt="" />



Next stop - total world domination!
 
The rant start with socialism but 2/3 of it is about higher taxes. Letting the Bush tax cuts on the highest tax bracket expire is somehow socialism? I guess the argument is that those lazy poor people are getting more money and that is tantamount to the redistribution of wealth. How is a mortgage interest deduction also not a re-distribution of wealth? Or any tax advantages you get for having children?



I have nothing against a rant against higher taxes. Pat Buchanan will have to end up paying more (and maybe that's why he is so resentful). But this is far from what socialism really is.
 
[quote author="trrenter" date=1236213507][quote author="green_cactus" date=1236211476]The rant start with socialism but 2/3 of it is about higher taxes. Letting the Bush tax cuts on the highest tax bracket expire is somehow socialism? I guess the argument is that those lazy poor people are getting more money and that is tantamount to the redistribution of wealth. How is a mortgage interest deduction also not a re-distribution of wealth? Or any tax advantages you get for having children?



I have nothing against a rant against higher taxes. Pat Buchanan will have to end up paying more (and maybe that's why he is so resentful). But this is far from what socialism really is.</blockquote>


Wouldn't higher taxes on the wealthy and less taxes on the "poor" actually be more of a shift toward socialism?



<strong><blockquote>From each according to his ability to each according to his needs.</blockquote></strong>



So the Rich can produce more income and the poor cannot. Therefore we tax the rich more and more and then give it to the people that don't have the same ability but have a need.



<blockquote>Who is going to pay for all this? The top 2%, the filthy rich who got all those Bush tax breaks, say Democrats. But the top 5% of income earners already pay 60% of income taxes, while the bottom 40% pay nothing.</blockquote>


<a href="http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html">Tax break down </a></blockquote>


The 2003 tax cut was the second in three years, and although tax rates are lower, the federal income tax still remains highly progressive. The average tax rate in 2006 ranges from 3.0 percent of income for the bottom half of tax returns to 22.8 percent for the top 1 percent.



So here we have "From Each according to their ability".



At some point the wealthy will just pack their stuff up and leave.



People move to FL. to avoid state income taxes why wouldn't they leave US?
 
Take your marbles and go. Adios. Go grab your passport and find someplace better.



Not sure if you have traveled much. But this world is a big place.

Lots of different governments and societies. The US has its good and its bad.

We have terrible crime and a lower class that most of the modern world

does not. We have more people in jail per capita than any modern country.

Thats great if your a Union prison guard in California with a pension plan.

We have great wealth in the hands of a very few. And we have a

broken down health care system that benefits a few large corporations at the expense

of employers and and those of us that are being squeezed for premiums.

The Doctors are screwed. The patients fight for every benefit. And the Drug

Companies have billions to blow on lobbyists and commercials.



Personally. I dont mind paying a little more in taxes. And watching the richest

1% of this country finally become more accountable is just fine with me.



Any system that allows someone like Bernie Madoff to steal 50 Billion and not be in Jail is flawed. If you conservatives dont like it. Too bad. The people had enough of your guy for the last 8 years and thats how they voted. Get over it.
 
[quote author="bltserv" date=1236215569]Take your marbles and go. Adios. Go grab your passport and find someplace better.



Not sure if you have traveled much. But this world is a big place.

Lots of different governments and societies. The US has its good and its bad.

We have terrible crime and a lower class that most of the modern world

does not. We have more people in jail per capita than any modern country.

Thats great if your a Union prison guard in California with a pension plan.

We have great wealth in the hands of a very few. And we have a

broken down health care system that benefits a few large corporations at the expense

of employers and and those of us that are being squeezed for premiums.

The Doctors are screwed. The patients fight for every benefit. And the Drug

Companies have billions to blow on lobbyists and commercials.



Personally. I dont mind paying a little more in taxes. And watching the richest

1% of this country finally become more accountable is just fine with me.



Any system that allows someone like Bernie Madoff to steal 50 Billion and not be in Jail is flawed. If you conservatives dont like it. Too bad. The people had enough of your guy for the last 8 years and thats how they voted. Get over it.</blockquote>


You crack me up!



I made the point at some point the wealthy will make the choice to leave if they continue to get taxed at increasing rates. You say addios to them we don't need them I guess?



In 2006 which is the link I posted the top 1% paid 39.89% of ALL taxes. <a href="http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html">Here it is again</a>



What percent would you consider to be more accountable?



I continue to tell you they were not MY GUYS but that is the drum you continue to beat. Which by the way the table I linked to was during the Bush administration.



So you are saying that you believe that since the Top 1% are capable of making more then they should give more. <blockquote><strong>From Each according to his ability</strong></blockquote>


I do mind paying more taxes. Our goverment gives me nothing more then they do someone making less then I do. Actually our government gives me less then they give these people.



You continue to site the constitution and say the Bush admin ignored the constitution.



Can you site in the constitution where any of what you are talking about is written. That the rich should pay more taxes then the poor? That the top 1% of the population should be more accountable to "SUPPORT" the rest of the country.



The 16th amendment is very short and doesn't discuss taxing the top x % of the country.



Just as an FYI Federal Income tax was found to be unconstitutional in 1895. Doesn't it upset you that even though the Supreme Court deemed Income taxes unconstitional the government collects taxes from us?
 
[quote author="trrenter" date=1236217334][quote author="bltserv" date=1236215569]Take your marbles and go. Adios. Go grab your passport and find someplace better.



Not sure if you have traveled much. But this world is a big place.

Lots of different governments and societies. The US has its good and its bad.

We have terrible crime and a lower class that most of the modern world

does not. We have more people in jail per capita than any modern country.

Thats great if your a Union prison guard in California with a pension plan.

We have great wealth in the hands of a very few. And we have a

broken down health care system that benefits a few large corporations at the expense

of employers and and those of us that are being squeezed for premiums.

The Doctors are screwed. The patients fight for every benefit. And the Drug

Companies have billions to blow on lobbyists and commercials.



Personally. I dont mind paying a little more in taxes. And watching the richest

1% of this country finally become more accountable is just fine with me.



Any system that allows someone like Bernie Madoff to steal 50 Billion and not be in Jail is flawed. If you conservatives dont like it. Too bad. The people had enough of your guy for the last 8 years and thats how they voted. Get over it.</blockquote>


You crack me up!



I made the point at some point the wealthy will make the choice to leave if they continue to get taxed at increasing rates. You say addios to them we don't need them I guess?



In 2006 which is the link I posted the top 1% paid 39.89% of ALL taxes. <a href="http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html">Here it is again</a>



What percent would you consider to be more accountable?



I continue to tell you they were not MY GUYS but that is the drum you continue to beat. Which by the way the table I linked to was during the Bush administration.



So you are saying that you believe that since the Top 1% are capable of making more then they should give more. <blockquote><strong>From Each according to his ability</strong></blockquote>


I do mind paying more taxes. Our goverment gives me nothing more then they do someone making less then I do. Actually our government gives me less then they give these people.



You continue to site the constitution and say the Bush admin ignored the constitution.



Can you site in the constitution where any of what you are talking about is written. That the rich should pay more taxes then the poor? That the top 1% of the population should be more accountable to "SUPPORT" the rest of the country.



The 16th amendment is very short and doesn't discuss taxing the top x % of the country.



Just as an FYI Federal Income tax was found to be unconstitutional in 1895. Doesn't it upset you that even though the Supreme Court deemed Income taxes unconstitional the government collects taxes from us?</blockquote>


Personally I am for a flat tax. It eliminates most of the IRS and the CPA`s.

But thats too simple. An yes technically Income Tax is ill defined by law.

But lets see you get away with out paying it. Ask Wesley Snipes.



Taxes are a fact of life. You should see what its like to own a business and

get attacked by the State Board of Equalization over Resale issues. They just got over sampling 4 years of invoices for my company last year. They are like dogs in heat when they come into a business.



The government gives you plenty. What about all that Military Protection ?



And the top 1% paying 40%. Hogwash. The trick is to avoid the AMT

and defer as much as you can to corporate retirement. People that make big bucks

have plenty of ways to shelter income and defer taxes. Nothing like expenses,

company cars and corporate travel and entertainment. Just to name a few.
 
Socialism for who exactly?



Geithner Pledges ?Ambitious? Plan to Crack Down on Tax Havens



<A href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ao4l9vyug6.c&refer=home">http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ao4l9vyug6.c&refer=home</A>
 
<blockquote>Personally I am for a flat tax. It eliminates most of the IRS and the CPA`s.</blockquote>


We agree on this.



<blockquote>But thats too simple. An yes technically Income Tax is ill defined by law.

But lets see you get away with out paying it. Ask Wesley Snipes. </blockquote>


I know you cannot get away from paying taxes. I asked if it bothered you that in 1895 the Supreme court ruled Federal Income Tax was unconstituional then 18 years later the government ratified a Amendment that was unconstitutional. That eliminated the Americans right to checks and balances which again is unconstitutional.



<blockquote>Taxes are a fact of life. You should see what its like to own a business and

get attacked by the State Board of Equalization over Resale issues. They just got over sampling 4 years of invoices for my company last year. They are like dogs in heat when they come into a business.</blockquote>


I owned my own business and after being audited by the IRS and then fighting them and the state franchise tax board for 5 years they finally decided ooops our bad I guess you did pay what you owed. Sorry we thought you owned something that belonged to your father.



<blockquote>The government gives you plenty. What about all that Military Protection ?</blockquote>


Never said they didn't. I said I don't get more then the person paying less. People paying less taxes get the same military protection and the enjoyment of other things I don't.



<blockquote>And the top 1% paying 40%. Hogwash. The trick is to avoid the AMT

and defer as much as you can to corporate retirement. People that make big bucks

have plenty of ways to shelter income and defer taxes. Nothing like expenses,

company cars and corporate travel and entertainment. Just to name a few. </blockquote>


They do not pay 40% of their income. They pay 40% of all collected taxes! Please at least click on this link I have provided for the 3rd time now. <a href="http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html">thrid time is a charm</a>
 
[quote author="trrenter" date=1236219183]<blockquote>Personally I am for a flat tax. It eliminates most of the IRS and the CPA`s.</blockquote>


We agree on this.



<blockquote>But thats too simple. An yes technically Income Tax is ill defined by law.

But lets see you get away with out paying it. Ask Wesley Snipes. </blockquote>


I know you cannot get away from paying taxes. I asked if it bothered you that in 1895 the Supreme court ruled Federal Income Tax was unconstituional then 18 years later the government ratified a Amendment that was unconstitutional. That eliminated the Americans right to checks and balances which again is unconstitutional.



<blockquote>Taxes are a fact of life. You should see what its like to own a business and

get attacked by the State Board of Equalization over Resale issues. They just got over sampling 4 years of invoices for my company last year. They are like dogs in heat when they come into a business.</blockquote>


I owned my own business and after being audited by the IRS and then fighting them and the state franchise tax board for 5 years they finally decided ooops our bad I guess you did pay what you owed. Sorry we thought you owned something that belonged to your father.



<blockquote>The government gives you plenty. What about all that Military Protection ?</blockquote>


Never said they didn't. I said I don't get more then the person paying less. People paying less taxes get the same military protection and the enjoyment of other things I don't.



<blockquote>And the top 1% paying 40%. Hogwash. The trick is to avoid the AMT

and defer as much as you can to corporate retirement. People that make big bucks

have plenty of ways to shelter income and defer taxes. Nothing like expenses,

company cars and corporate travel and entertainment. Just to name a few. </blockquote>


They do not pay 40% of their income. They pay 40% of all collected taxes! Please at least click on this link I have provided for the 3rd time now. <a href="http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html">thrid time is a charm</a></blockquote>


Although the top 1% may pay 40% of total taxes, they are also earning 21% of total income. Bottom 50% pay something like 3% of taxes while earning about 13% of income. What we have is a scenario where 1% of the population is earning substantially more than the bottom 50% of the population. Thus, the top 1% pays substantially more of collected taxes than the bottom 50%. This would be true even if there were no progressive taxation.



If progressive taxation is socialism, then the US must have been a socialist country for a while ...
 
I think I would have to agree with you.



When permanent Income Taxes were levied followed by the New Deal and the proliferation of entiltement programs we started moving toward a socialistic Democracy.
 
[quote author="freedomCM" date=1236222882]So which country are you moving to?</blockquote>


I don't plan on moving. Is that your way of saying you disagree that we are skewing toward democratic socialism?
 
[quote author="trrenter" date=1236228929][quote author="freedomCM" date=1236222882]So which country are you moving to?</blockquote>


I don't plan on moving. Is that your way of saying you disagree that we are skewing toward democratic socialism?</blockquote>


He's making the same argument many Republicans made against anyone who disagreed with the last administration verbalized it, except he's leaving the commie part out.



<blockquote>"You don't like it here in the USA? MOVE you Pinko Commie bastard!"</blockquote>


If you listen or watch O'Riley you used to hear it a lot.
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1236230906][quote author="trrenter" date=1236228929][quote author="freedomCM" date=1236222882]So which country are you moving to?</blockquote>


I don't plan on moving. Is that your way of saying you disagree that we are skewing toward democratic socialism?</blockquote>


He's making the same argument many Republicans made against anyone who disagreed with the last administration verbalized it, except he's leaving the commie part out.



<blockquote>"You don't like it here in the USA? MOVE you Pinko Commie bastard!"</blockquote>


If you listen or watch O'Riley you used to hear it a lot.</blockquote>


I get it. Don't much like that argument no matter what side uses it. I don't listen to O'Riley or Rush or Savage. To far to the right for my liking.
 
[quote author="trrenter" date=1236213720]

At some point the wealthy will just pack their stuff up and leave.



People move to FL. to avoid state income taxes why wouldn't they leave US?</blockquote>


Wasn't the top tax bracket something like 90% a long time ago? I don't recall the US lacking for rich people then. The super wealthy don't work just to make money. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet had plenty of money years ago. I've never heard of someone quitting work or leaving the US due to taxes. I'm sure there is an exception, but I'm not going to worry about it until it becomes a trend.
 
[quote author="bltserv" date=1236215569]Take your marbles and go. Adios. Go grab your passport and find someplace better.



Not sure if you have traveled much. But this world is a big place.

Lots of different governments and societies. The US has its good and its bad.

We have terrible crime and a lower class that most of the modern world

does not. We have more people in jail per capita than any modern country.

Thats great if your a Union prison guard in California with a pension plan.

We have great wealth in the hands of a very few. And we have a

broken down health care system that benefits a few large corporations at the expense

of employers and and those of us that are being squeezed for premiums.

The Doctors are screwed. The patients fight for every benefit. And the Drug

Companies have billions to blow on lobbyists and commercials.



Personally. I dont mind paying a little more in taxes. And watching the richest

1% of this country finally become more accountable is just fine with me.



Any system that allows someone like Bernie Madoff to steal 50 Billion and not be in Jail is flawed. If you conservatives dont like it. Too bad. The people had enough of your guy for the last 8 years and thats how they voted. Get over it.</blockquote>


I hesitate to comment on this stuff, but since you ALWAYS miss the details I thought I would post an article from one of favorite pundits. In general his dispatches are pretty much irrefutable. Pay special attention to the part on TAXES. It is plain to even a casual oberserver, with even a modicum of familiarity with wealth and the tax code that the Upper-middle-class are the ones directly in the cross-hairs of the current tax hikes.



Obama: The Great Divider?

By Victor Davis Hanson



I confess I did not believe Barack Obama entirely during the campaign when he bragged on working across the aisle and championing bipartisanship.



You see, as in the case of any other politician, one must look to what he does--and has done--not what he says for election advantage.



And in the case of Sen. Obama, in his nascent career in the Senate, he had already compiled the most partisan record of any Democratic Senator. He had attended religiously one of the most racially divisive and extremist churches in the country. His Chicago friends were not moderates. His campaigns for state legislature, the House and the Senate were hard-ball, no-prisoner affairs of personal destruction, even by Chicago standards. Campaign references to reparations, gun- and bible-clingers, and Rev. Wright's wisdom were not words of healing.



In short, while the rhetoric was often inspirational, I found no real reason then--or now--to believe that Barack Obama wishes to be a uniter. And nothing in his first five weeks of governance has disabused me of that first tough impression.



Nevertheless, here are five modest recommendations that he might adopt if he were really interested in bringing the country together.



1) Forget talk radio. During the campaign, President Obama, you went after Sean Hannity on numerous occasions--which are recycled ad nauseam almost daily as sound-bites on his radio program. Once in office, both you and your staff have zeroed in on Rush Limbaugh by name. But Presidential candidates and elected Presidents must seem above the fray, and not descend into tit-for-tat with media celebrities. There is a reason why even your closest associates have ceased calling you Barack and now quite properly address you as "Mr. President"--and it is not due to your persistence in demonizing talk radio.



Did George Bush go after Bill Maher or Air America or Keith Olbermann when almost daily they slandered his character? Did he serially evoke Michael Moore? To have done so by name, would have demeaned his office. Worry about refuting conservative ideas, and governing the country, rather than dueling over the airways with those who get paid for only that. The country wanted a Lincoln, not another Nixon going after Dan Rather at a press conference. So far your administration resembles the latter, not the former.



2) Forget about George Bush. We got the message already that he is near satanic, you angelic. Yet even in your inauguration speech, you could not leave well enough alone, and so once again went after a predecessor who won two elections, and so far has been circumspect in his criticism of your own brief tenure. Even ex-Presidents--cf. Jimmy Carter's self-serving ankle-biting and Bill Clinton contorted snipes--reduce the office when they engage in schoolyard "they did it, not me" finger-pointing.



Again, in your first address to the nation, you went out swinging: "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." But President Bush never set up such a Manichean either/or situation, as you yourself must accept, when you embraced his protocols on FISA, the Patriotic Act, the Bush-Petraeus Iraq withdrawal plan, and kept rendition, and so far have not quite closed Guantanamo.



And there was more still in that address: "A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future. . .Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market."



But Mr. President, deficits arose from out-of-control spending, inasmuch as the Bush tax cuts resulted in increased revenue. It is fair to fault the past eight years of profligate spending, but when you engage in such demagoguery, the American people can detect your subtext: "I won't criticize Bush's spending because I found it not enough and will trump it; I will criticize his tax cuts, since I want to make the wealthier pay for my even greater borrowing."



Cutting taxes on everyone who pays them is not transferring wealth, unless you believe that one's own income belongs to the government in the first place. Under Bush, nearly 50% of the tax filers for the first time paid no income tax at all--hardly a transfer of wealth.



As far as "gutting" regulations go, I don't think you wish to go there--given the careers of Franklin Rains, a disgraced Jim Johnson (of your recent hire), Barney Frank, and Chris Dodd, who not only really did gut regulations that were at the center of the financial meltdown, but profited from such complicit laxity.



3) Drop the messianic style. The campaign is over. The Victory Column and Parthenon facades belong to last summer. Remember, it's hard finding elites to serve in government that are not tainted. You yourself discovered that depressing fact when you nominated tax-dodgers and lobbyists to your own cabinet. Not only did you have far more trouble on such ethical fronts than did Bush in his first month of nominations, but you suffered the additional wage of hypocrisy after adopting the prophetic rhetoric about your own virtue. 2012 will come soon enough without vero possumus at every turn.



4) Enough of the evil "rich." We've heard now about the proverbial jets, parties, and 'they want us to eat cake' rhetoric that is approaching the sloganeering of the French Revolution. No one likes a Bernie Madoff, or supports AIG and Citicorp execs wanting federal subsidies to cover their lavish lifestyles.



But a little humility is in order: the problem is not just Richard Fuld at a bankrupt Lehman Brothers, but also Clintonites like Robert Rubin at Citicorp, and liberals at Freddie and Fannie who took millions while destroying the financial integrity of hallowed institutions.



A William Jefferson, Charles Rangel, or John Murtha is an advertisement for ethical impropriety. Nancy Pelosi's private jet is as worrisome as those of the Big Three auto execs now on public assistance; both Ms. Pelosi and the car CEOs get federal monies and preside over bankrupt entities--and fly in class.



You are our President; so, please, begin seeing greed as an equal opportunity vice that infects liberal and conservatives alike--and anyone else with all too human frailties. If anything, the liberal egalitarian suffers the additional wage of hypocrisy for engaging in Rangelesque schemes or Robert Rubin 'me-first' bonuses--in the same manner conservatives do when caught with women or drugs after boasting of the need for old-time morality.



5) Stop the dissimulation. Your plan might work for a while given the incineration of trillions in stock and home equity and the need for replacement cash, but its revenue-raising component is not just aimed at the miniscule number of "rich", which you imply to the American people are flying the skies of America in private jets while being unpatriotic in avoiding taxes and violating regulations.



In fact, for your plan to succeed, you must go after the upper, upper middle-class, those making between $250,000 and $600,000 who are restaurant owners, home builders, labor contactors, architects, surgeons, engineers, hospital executives, college administrators, Ivy-League law professors, and many dentists.



These households are wealthy, yes; but they don't own or even fly on $50 million private jets or host private Super Bowl parties. Their income is all reported, and with such good salaries come high insurance and, in the case of business, constant reinvestment and expensive inventories. They are not greedy, but the bulwark of the United States' productive classes who in aggregate pay over 40% of the collective income taxes, and provide most of the jobs in the country. Under your plan many in these high-tax states will pay nearly 70% of their incomes in FICA, Medicare, federal income, and state income taxes. Why gratuitously mislead the American people that those for whom you will lift FICA ceilings or up their IRS bites to 40% are in any way synonymous with the super-rich? Remember the very, very wealthy voted overwhelmingly in your favor precisely because their riches gave them immunity from high taxes, and in many cases they were far removed from the everyday risk
 
[quote author="T!m" date=1236234095][quote author="trrenter" date=1236213720]

At some point the wealthy will just pack their stuff up and leave.



People move to FL. to avoid state income taxes why wouldn't they leave US?</blockquote>


Wasn't the top tax bracket something like 90% a long time ago? I don't recall the US lacking for rich people then. The super wealthy don't work just to make money. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet had plenty of money years ago. I've never heard of someone quitting work or leaving the US due to taxes. I'm sure there is an exception, but I'm not going to worry about it until it becomes a trend.</blockquote>


Reagan claimed (probably as a joke) that he would contemplate not working after hitting the highest bracket (around 90%) since it wasn't worth it anymore.
 
The tax system is set up the way it is so that the people who have the largest percentage of wealth pay the same percentage in taxes. So you have sales tax, property tax, payroll tax, etc etc, and the idea is that the people who have 50% of the wealth in this country cover about 50% of the costs of keeping the country running.



i.e. 5% of our population has 30% of the wealth and pays 30% of the costs per year to keep the nation running. (I pulled that figure out of thin air).



In general, over the last several decades, we've kept vaguely around this target.



So you can argue from a payroll taxation perspective (People who make 10k don't contribute any money). But people who make 10k, generally spend 10k on taxable things, so they pay about 6 to 10% back into running the country. But because that amount is miniscule compared to someone who buys a jet for 20 million and pays luxury tax on that, then their contribution is statistically insignificant by comparison.



Now as far as the socialism aspect, I guess we should concentrate on 50% of the services benefiting only the people who control 50% of the wealth. So that it's all fair. ;)
 
Back
Top