Jim Moran - "simplistic notion" you keep your money

[red states rule]

It is strange that Dems are this blunt about taking others people money

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QJyS1WJNisM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QJyS1WJNisM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[retiredman]

I'd prefer that all workers simply unionized and got a bigger piece of the pie by striking for higher wages.

I think it is reasonable for the labor that gives goods their value to be more highly compensated.

[red states rule]

I'd prefer that all workers simply unionized and got a bigger piece of the pie by striking for higher wages.

I think it is reasonable for the labor that gives goods their value to be more highly compensated.

Yea, look at what unions did to to the auto industry, and libs did to the state of MI

Again, libs like Moran openly saying it is "simplistic" for people to think they can keep the money they earn shows Dems are all for socialism

[retiredman]

Yea, look at what unions did to to the auto industry, and libs did to the state of MI

Again, libs like Moran openly saying it is "simplistic" for people to think they can keep the money they earn shows Dems are all for socialism

a progressive income tax is not socialism.

[red states rule]

a progressive income tax is not socialism.

Taxes are to fund the constitutional duties of government - not to redistribute the money to who Dems deem as "needy"

Libs have created an entitlement mentality in half the voters, and made them think they are entitled to other peoples money

I saw the video where idot Obama voter said she will not have to pay her mortage or pay for the gas she puts in her car

[retiredman]

Taxes are to fund the constitutional duties of government - not to redistribute the money to who Dems deem as "needy"

Libs have created an entitlement mentality in half the voters, and made them think they are entitled to other peoples money

I saw the video where idot Obama voter said she will not have to pay her mortage or pay for the gas she puts in her car

if you tax rich people more, and tax poor people less, you spread the wealth around, don't you? the dollar you take from the rich man is a dollar that remains in the pocket of the poor man.


"promote the general welfare"
:laugh2:

[Yurt]

I'd prefer that all workers simply unionized and got a bigger piece of the pie by striking for higher wages.

I think it is reasonable for the labor that gives goods their value to be more highly compensated.

so the owner of the goods will simply raise the price of the good :poke:

if people are willing to work for X wage, why should the government force someone to pay them more?

[manu1959]

unions have done more harm in the past 20 years to various industries than help them.

[red states rule]

if you tax rich people more, and tax poor people less, you spread the wealth around, don't you? the dollar you take from the rich man is a dollar that remains in the pocket of the poor man.


"promote the general welfare"
:laugh2:

I see how well your brand of liberalism worked in the state of MI. Yep, higher taxes, more government spending, and unions did wonders for the state

So what ever you do, do not make over a certain income, do not grow your business, do not hire people or libs will punish you for being successful

[retiredman]

unions have done more harm in the past 20 years to various industries than help them.
that is your opinion and you are welcome to it. I do not share it.

[retiredman]

I see how well your brand of liberalism worked in the state of MI. Yep, higher taxes, more government spending, and unions did wonders for the state

So what ever you do, do not make over a certain income, do not grow your business, do not hire people or libs will punish you for being successful

punish you? do you consider taxes a punishment? If a businessman is successful, a few percentage points of tax will not make him unsuccessful or stop him from becoming MORE successful. How did business EVER grow during years when the marginal tax rate was higher?

[red states rule]

that is your opinion and you are welcome to it. I do not share it.

Look at Detroit

[red states rule]

punish you? do you consider taxes a punishment? If a businessman is successful, a few percentage points of tax will not make him unsuccessful or stop him from becoming MORE successful. How did business EVER grow during years when the marginal tax rate was higher?

Many business owners file on a 1040 and are already paying about 60% of their income in taxes

As you said when I asked you much in taxes was enough - your relpy was "as much as we can squeeze out of them"

Why should anyone take more of their money as give it to people who do not pay income taxes?

[retiredman]

Look at Detroit


I would suggest that the management of the auto industry - and not unions - is to blame for the plight of the auto industry.

[retiredman]

Many business owners file on a 1040 and are already paying about 60% of their income in taxes

As you said when I asked you much in taxes was enough - your relpy was "as much as we can squeeze out of them"

Why should anyone take more of their money as give it to people who do not pay income taxes?


I say again:

If a businessman is successful, a few percentage points of tax will not make him unsuccessful or stop him from becoming MORE successful. How did business EVER grow during years when the marginal tax rate was higher?

[red states rule]

I say again:

If a businessman is successful, a few percentage points of tax will not make him unsuccessful or stop him from becoming MORE successful. How did business EVER grow during years when the marginal tax rate was higher?

Those "few percentage points" is money the owner EARNED, and could be used to expand his/her business; hire more workers, and thus generate more taxes

Why is thta libs have this notion they are entitled to take their money and get it unproductive people?

[retiredman]

Those "few percentage points" is money the owner EARNED, and could be used to expand his/her business; hire more workers, and thus generate more taxes

Why is thta libs have this notion they are entitled to take their money and get it unproductive people?

AGAIN: How did business EVER grow during years when the marginal tax rate was higher?

[Gaffer]

AGAIN: How did business EVER grow during years when the marginal tax rate was higher?

It didn't. It remained stagnant.

[retiredman]

It didn't. It remained stagnant.

yeah...we didn't have ANY business growth during the Clinton Administration. What created those 22 MILLION jobs? magic fairy dust?

[red states rule]

AGAIN: How did business EVER grow during years when the marginal tax rate was higher?

So then using your "logic" lets take the rates back to where they were before Pres Reagan

Lets make the top rate 70%

Forget the fact that the Reagan tax cuts gave the US the largest peace time economic growth in the nations history and DOUBLED tax revenues to the governemnt in 8 years

Still waiting for why libs think it is fine to take others people money int he form of higehr taxes; not use it for the Constitutional duties of government; and give it to less productive people

[red states rule]

yeah...we didn't have ANY business growth during the Clinton Administration. What created those 22 MILLION jobs? magic fairy dust?

The dot.com bust and the many companies that were cooking the books

[retiredman]

The dot.com bust and the many companies that were cooking the books


cooking books creates twenty two MILLION jobs and pays payroll? :laugh2:

and when the dot com happened, how come we didn't LOSE those twenty two MILLION jobs?

[red states rule]

cooking books creates twenty two MILLION jobs and pays payroll? :laugh2:

and when the dot com happened, how come we didn't LOSE those twenty two MILLION jobs?

Alot of jobs were lost, and the economy went into recession. Alot of wealth disappeared overnight

I rememebr AG Reno gloating how they went after Microsoft - and the NASDAQ sank like a rock

[retiredman]

So then using your "logic" lets take the rates back to where they were before Pres Reagan

Lets make the top rate 70%

Forget the fact that the Reagan tax cuts gave the US the largest peace time economic growth in the nations history and DOUBLED tax revenues to the governemnt in 8 years

Still waiting for why libs think it is fine to take others people money int he form of higehr taxes; not use it for the Constitutional duties of government; and give it to less productive people


straw man... no one is suggesting pre-Reagan tax rates.

and, as I said...if you take a dollar more from a rich man by raising HIS taxes, you can then let a poor man keep a dollar more of his money by lowering HIS taxes.

[retiredman]

Alot of jobs were lost, and the economy went into recession. Alot of wealth disappeared overnight

I rememebr AG Reno gloating how they went after Microsoft - and the NASDAQ sank like a rock


22 million jobs were created during the Clinton administration. How many were lost in Dubya's first term, and how many of THEM were as a direct result of 9/11?

[red states rule]

straw man... no one is suggesting pre-Reagan tax rates.

and, as I said...if you take a dollar more from a rich man by raising HIS taxes, you can then let a poor man keep a dollar more of his money by lowering HIS taxes.

The "poor" man is not paying income taxes. The Bush tax cuts caused about 40% of workers to be taken off the tax rolls

The "rich" are paying MORE in taxes after the tax cuts

So how can libs, and Obama, give tax cuts to people who do not pay taxes? By taking more money from the producers and giving it to the nonproducers. To libs this is a "tax cut"

The only thing that is accomplished is lower economic growth - and that benefits noone.

But it does allow libs to yell for even higher taxes on the "rich", because the "poor" are still "poor"

[red states rule]

22 million jobs were created during the Clinton administration. How many were lost in Dubya's first term, and how many of THEM were as a direct result of 9/11?

We were already in a recession, and 9-11 was a $1.3 trillion hit on the economy

[retiredman]

The "poor" man is not paying income taxes. The Bush tax cuts caused about 40% of workers to be taken off the tax rolls

The "rich" are paying MORE in taxes after the tax cuts

So how can libs, and Obama, give tax cuts to people who do not pay taxes? By taking more money from the producers and giving it to the nonproducers. To libs this is a "tax cut"

The only thing that is accomplished is lower economic growth - and that benefits noone.

But it does allow libs to yell for even higher taxes on the "rich", because the "poor" are still "poor"

everybody pays taxes.

and you can't prove that a marginal increase in the top income tax rate causes lower economic growth.

[manu1959]

The dot.com bust and the many companies that were cooking the books

the dot com era.......the left claims they created that......if not for gore and clinton the silicon valley "industrial revolution" would not have happened.....

now tell me what legislation di clinton pass that caused this 8 year rise and fall....bomb to bust in 8 years.....nevermindthat i live near there and did work there and it actually started under reagan and due to tax cuts flourished and the crashed under clinton....

[red states rule]

everybody pays taxes.

and you can't prove that a marginal increase in the top income tax rate causes lower economic growth.

Like with the dividend tax, when taxes are increased economic growth take a hit and less revenue is generated

But to libs like you (and Jim Moran) just because people earn the money, that does not give them any right to keep it

[manu1959]

Like with the dividend tax, when taxes are increased economic growth take a hit and less revenue is generated

But to libs like you (and Jim Moran) just because people earn the money, that does not give them any right to keep it

i was having this conversation yesterday with my cfo.....i said why don't we just reduce the pay of everyone making over 100,000 and increase the pay of everyone making less than 100,000 .... in fact lets just take everyone and pay the 75k no matter what they do......

[red states rule]

i was having this conversation yesterday with my cfo.....i said why don't we just reduce the pay of everyone making over 100,000 and increase the pay of everyone making less than 100,000 .... in fact lest just take everyon andpay the 75k no matter what they do......

The last year for tax dats is for 2005 and here are some numbers. There is no way Obama will cut taxes for 95% of workers - and there is no way just raising taxes on the top 5% will pay for all his promises

snip

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AG822_1taxri_20071216193247.gif

Last week the Congressional Budget Office joined the IRS in releasing tax numbers for 2005, and part of the news is that the richest 1% paid about 39% of all income taxes that year. The richest 5% paid a tad less than 60%, and the richest 10% paid 70%. These tax shares are all up substantially since 1990, and even somewhat since 2000. Meanwhile, Americans with an income below the median -- half of all households -- paid a mere 3% of all income taxes in 2005. The richest 1.3 million tax-filers -- those Americans with adjusted gross incomes of more than $365,000 in 2005 -- paid more income tax than all of the 66 million American tax filers below the median in income. Ten times more.

For the political left and most of the media, this means only that the rich are getting richer, so of course they're paying more taxes. And it is true that the top earners have increased their share of total income. Yet, as the nearby table shows, the rich showed more rapid gains in reported income shares in the 1990s than in the first half of this decade. The share of the richest 1% jumped to 20.8% of total income in 2000, from 14% in 1990, but increased only slightly to 21.2% in 2005. This makes it hard to pin their claim of "rising inequality" on the Bush tax cuts, though the income redistributionists are trying. By this measure, the Clinton years were far worse for "inequality."

Notably, however, the share of taxes paid by the top 1% has kept climbing this decade -- to 39.4% in 2005, from 37.4% in 2000. The share paid by the top 5% has increased even more rapidly. In other words, despite the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003, the rich saw their share of taxes paid rise at a faster rate than their share of income. How could this be?

One explanation is that the Bush tax cuts reduced the income tax liability of middle and lower income households by more proportionately than the rich. The average family of four with an income of $40,000 saw its income tax liability fall by about $2,052 a year from the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

The IRS statistics also tell a more complicated economic story than the media claim. First, America continues to be a society of upward income mobility. Over the past decade, millions of Americans have joined the once highly exclusive club of six- and seven-figure earners. Some 304,000 Americans earned $1 million or more in annual income in 2005, compared to 110,000 in 1996 and 176,000 in 2000. Because there is no cap on the top income share, this increase in millionaires pushes the top income (and taxes paid) share higher. The number of millionaire households in net worth also increased to nine million in 2006, up from six million in 2001, according to TNS, a global market research firm.

Liberals decry this as proof of a new "gilded age." But we'd say these gains are a sign that more Americans are joining the ranks of the truly affluent. More than 13 million American households, or about one in 10, had an income of more than $100,000 a year in 2005. This is the kind of upward mobility that a dynamic society should want because it means that incomes aren't stagnant and opportunity continues to exist.

Keep in mind as well that the IRS only records the income that taxpayers report. Its data don't include income that the rich hide in tax shelters or otherwise defer. And there is evidence that lower tax rates since 1981 have caused the rich to declare more of what they earn. In 1980, when the top income tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now, with a top rate of 35%, they pay more than double that share. With lower rates and fewer tax loopholes after the 1986 reform, there is less incentive to shelter income to avoid tax.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119786208643933077.html