In response to:

Our Deviant Society

Jeff2422 Wrote: Nov 07, 2012 2:54 PM
Those who think raising taxes on ths so-called rich will make much difference don't know much history. In the short-run there will be a bump, but only a bump (maybe as high as $60 billion in the first year). But, history shows that those folks will adjust and this will diminish in the next couple years and often results in less revenues. Ultimately, every study shows that federal revenues fall within a narrow range of GDP. It is simple, people adjust their spending, investments, and taxable income to adapt. Even Eva Longoria's money manager will do this. As long as politicians need money for campaigns the soak the rich mantra is nice for an election campaign, but in reallity the politicians leave a back door for their donors.
kgrant Wrote: Nov 07, 2012 6:32 PM
So where are your references to 'every study' of which you write?

Taxes on the rich were far higher in the Reagan years than they are now. Do you object to Reagan's tax policies?

In taxes on the wealthy fact they were far higher under every administration than they are now. They are at record lows right now in this instant of time.
IHateHypocricy Wrote: Nov 07, 2012 4:51 PM
Yeah, let's look at history...back during the Eisenhower years, when the USA was at it's greatest, the top income tax bracket was 90%....and we STILL beat the entire world. Also, studies have shown that increasing income inequality leads to social unrest ( )
Marie150 Wrote: Nov 07, 2012 3:34 PM
Commies are worthless, hopeless and stupid. Nothing will ever penetrate their hard evil hearts.
watkinson Wrote: Nov 07, 2012 3:24 PM
Taxes for the rich are at an all time low. Trickle down exconomics does not work. The obvious solution is spending cuts combined with tax increases to get the US debt under control. The rich are a good place to start.
Ron-CA Wrote: Nov 07, 2012 3:34 PM
How can you say taxes for the rich are at an all time low when 1) Federal income taxes were not instituted until 1862 and then it was a max of 3% to pay for the civil war. In 1895 the supreme court declared them unconstitutional and they were not reinstated until 1913, and 2) today the top 5% of income earners pay 59% of all taxes while the bottom 50% pay only 2%?

You need to read Dr. Sowell's article on Trickle Down economics, and then come back.
Marie150 Wrote: Nov 07, 2012 3:34 PM
Government peeing on you does not work.
Brubaker15 Wrote: Nov 07, 2012 3:44 PM
The top 1% of income earners pay 37% of all federal income taxes collected. The top 5% pay 57% of federal income taxes.

The "rich" already pay what is arguably more than their fair share. The rich also are the ones who create jobs; have you ever seen a poor man hiring employees? Rather than buy into Obama's class warfare, try to focus on those things that would actually serve to balance the budget, most especially cutting unnecessary spending.
Colonialgirl Wrote: Nov 07, 2012 3:49 PM
Oh SURE!! TRICKLE-UP economics wil work so well when you have NOTHING to start with.
That idea has to be about the most stupid to eer come along.
Stan432 Wrote: Nov 07, 2012 4:03 PM
Keep your eye on the ball watkinson, you shouldn't care about tax rates, but tax revenues! Then look at taxes as percent of GDP (though for some years this is misleading as GDP drops). And then look at tax rates of actual taxes collected, you will find that they will always hover between 15-22% regardless of the tax rates!

So when we raise tax rates to high, all we do is stimulate unproductive tax shelters and investments not based on productivity, but on escaping tax. And than can include closing a business.
kgrant Wrote: Nov 07, 2012 6:37 PM
Oh yes? And what is that 59% of all income taxes as a percentage of the income 'earned' by the wealthy? 10% perhaps? It's certainly a significantly lower rate than you pay.

So in other words we have people who are the least able to bear high rates of income tax paying higher rates than those who are most able to pay. As I mentioned in an earlier comment, taxes on the wealthy are now significantly lower then they were when Reagan was President.

As for the 1800's, if you think it would have been nice to live under the conditions of those times you are having yourself on.
gofer Wrote: Nov 07, 2012 7:05 PM
39% is the top marginal rate. Most wealthy people don't receive "earned Income" but dividend income which is taxes at a lower rate.
Here's one usage of the term gentleman: The gentleman helped the fallen lady to her feet. Here's another, one we might hear from a newscaster or a police spokesman: Tonight we report on the arrest of two gentlemen who raped, sodomized and murdered an 80-year-old woman.

During earlier times, to be called a gentleman meant one was honest, brave, courteous and loyal. Today "gentleman" is used interchangeably in reference to decent people and the scum of the earth.

Much of today's language usage demonstrates a desire to be nonjudgmental. People used to shack up; now they cohabit or are living partners. Few young...