Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wayne Huizenga sold his 95% share of the Miami Dolphins, because he did not want to pay the higher rate. He sold his share of the team, ironically, on Inauguration Day.
Making someone pay a higher rate than someone else, because they are more successful, is a failed economic model, IMO, and is just morally unfair. I keep going back to the restaurant analogy: if you entered a restaurant, there were no prices on the menus, and you rightfully asked the price of an entree, if instead of the reply being "$14.95" the reply was "Please let me see your W2 form, so we can figure out how much we are going to charge you", anyone in their right mind would leave that restaurant ASAP, liberals and conservatives alike.
Everyone should pay the same rate of taxation. No more, no less, be it a flat income tax rate, or a national sales tax.
All the tax cuts, and most of the code, since Ronnie Raygun, have to be repealed. We need to raise corporate profit tax to 50%, Capital gains to the same and the top personal income tax rate to 95%. The personal tax has to be on all income from all csources les a $250,000 deductable.
Well, yes, that's just the point; no actual evidence is there. Still dodging the questions? Got any information/links/etc. to back up any of your claims yet? ETA: Besides "It's been done in Sweden" and "I know a marine who might do it".
good post ... those "Wealthy Worshippers" have NEVER been able to back up their claim that giving huge tax breaks to the uber-wealthy creates more jobs....ever! But that doesn't stop them from believing it !
Actually, it was very on-topic until you started dodging, ordering other people to Google, etc. I asked you to back up your claims with data, and the claims were OT. Got that back up as regards my on-topic questions yet? Or are you considering your own assertions off-topic (the ones about the wealthy planning on leaving the country)? If so, you may want to report your own posts for TOS.
Actually, it was very on-topic until you started dodging, ordering other people to Google, etc. I asked you to back up your claims with data, and the claims were OT. Got that back up as regards my on-topic questions yet? Or are you considering your own assertions off-topic (the ones about the wealthy planning on leaving the country)? If so, you may want to report your own posts for TOS.
Yes the entire topic went off topic.
This is the topic:
Quote:
Speculation that the Obama administration would keep Bush tax cuts intact was nixed today as a high-ranking Obama advisor said on Meet The Press that they would soon be eliminated.
Why dont corporations become "non profit"? It works for PETA..they make upwards of 14 million dollars a year IN PROFIT. THe ACLU makes even more even though it claims "Non profit" status...
we will get over the lost tax revenue, America will be a beter place when these greedy pigs leave it, they provide nothing but leeching off of the common working man, let them leave or better yet let them die
what nation will these greedy pigs go to most nations have a far better socialist system then the usa, like I said they will need to invade a 3rd world nation and demand the people work for them while recieving no benefits, that is a republican pig utopia
And I guess all the rich Dems are ok in your eyes?
Sorry, Kennedy proposed it, then got whacked. Congress passed it and Johnson signed it. But yeah, Kennedy originally pushed it.
Tax cuts are followed by high debt because Congress sees an extra few $$ and decides it's time to start spending it. Cut taxes, see revenue go up and CUT SPENDING...that is the only way.
No Kennedy proposed it in Jan. 63 never got it to the floor for a vote. Johnson wrote a new bill and submitted it to the new congress in 64. This was not the bill that Kennedy supported and many say Kennedy would have vetoed it.
There's no proof that tax revenues would go up if it wasn't for the run up of debt. However this is proof that if you increase taxes the revenue goes up and the economy takes off.
If Bush's tax cuts targeted the most wealthy, then why were they paying more (percentage) in taxes in 2006 than in 2000?
Taxes paid by percent:
Top 1%
2000-------- 37.42%
2006-------- 39.89%
Source: Internal Revenue Service
That is because they have a larger share of the income. As a matter of fact they have the largest share of national income since 1928. Of course we know what happened in 1929 to reverse that trend.
I do have to tell you though that I am always amazed, that the right wing would even bring that up. You see the fact that the top 1% pays 39.89% of the income tax. Which is only 48% of the total revenue of the federal government. That tells me that the people that have 33% of the wealth of America pay only 19.2 of the cost. Leaving the other 80.8% percent to be paid by the rest with only 67% of the wealth. I don't know why your so proud of that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Still dodging the questions? Got any information/links/etc. to back up any of your claims yet? ETA: Besides "It's been done in Sweden" and "I know a marine who might do it". 
