Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even more

[Little-Acorn]

Xavier Becerra (D-CA), Chairman of the House Democrat Caucus, repeated on Fox News Sunday today the leftist mantra that Americans don't pay enough taxes, and need to pay more. In particular, he tried to demonize even further the highest 2% of income earners and job creators. Though this 2% already pay almost 50% of the country's Federal income taxes already, he insisted that they pay even more.

Things like this are what got so many of these Democrats kicked out of office in Nov. 2010. Strangely, those who remain are still clinging to their vision of eternally expanding government, expanding taxes, and expanding spending.

Apparently they didn't take the hint. Well, there's another November coming, and we'll just have to keep kicking out Democrats until they do get it or none of them are left.

The good news is, Republicans are so far sticking absolutely to their guns, and insisting that there wil be no tax increases, period. I'm pleasantly surprised by this - many of them did not have this attitude in previous years. Sounds like they got a lot more learnin' out of the Nov. 2010 elections, than their comrades of the southpaw persuasion.

Of course, Republican are still very much on probation. Their wild spending of 2001-2009 has not been forgotten. And any of them that even think about going back to those habits, can expect to get kicked out so fast they'll jam in the door with Democrats going the same way.

[fj1200]

Xavier Becerra (D-CA), Chairman of the House Democrat Caucus, repeated on Fox News Sunday today the leftist mantra that Americans don't pay enough taxes, and need to pay more. In particular, he tried to demonize even further the highest 2% of income earners and job creators. Though this 2% already pay almost 50% of the country's Federal income taxes already, he insisted that they pay even more.

The line that we need to raise rates is SO easy to refute that I wonder why the Republicans don't make it. Revenues are low not because rates are low but because economic growth is anemic and unemployment is high. Raising rates is completely unrelated to raising revenues. Once we get back to a normal economic environment then revenues will return to ~18-19% of GDP, it's still spending that needs to be addressed and massive unfunded entitlement liabilities.

[Missileman]

The line that we need to raise rates is SO easy to refute that I wonder why the Republicans don't make it. Revenues are low not because rates are low but because economic growth is anemic and unemployment is high. Raising rates is completely unrelated to raising revenues. Once we get back to a normal economic environment then revenues will return to ~18-19% of GDP, it's still spending that needs to be addressed and massive unfunded entitlement liabilities.

I don't think government spending should be tied to a percentage of GDP. There should be a strict dollar figure limit to their budget.

[Gunny]

I don't think government spending should be tied to a percentage of GDP. There should be a strict dollar figure limit to their budget.

Starting with a complete review of Congressional incomes WITH all their perks included. Way overpaid for their poor performance.

[Little-Acorn]

If your neighbor has more than you do, is it OK to take it from him?

If he brings home a new laptop computer for his son at school, and another for the family at home, is there anything wrong with your walking into his house and taking one of them?

If he designs a new light bulb that uses less electricity but doesn't have weird colors like today's CFLs, and makes a lot of money selling them, and buys all new clothes for his family and trades in their two 10-year-old clunkers for two new econocars, should there be any problem with you walking in, taking half the new clothes, and taking away one of his new cars for yourself? Why shouldn't you be allowed to do this?

If he hired a contractor to build a new swimming pool in his backyard, would THAT make it OK for you to walk off with his clothes and car, and maybe lift his ATM card and take 1/3 of his bank account?

It wasn't that long ago when any of these actions by you, would be correctly labelled "theft", and you would wind up in jail for doing any of them. And your acquaintances would regard your fate as just and right, and wouldn't lift a finger to help you. Including the acquaintances who had no more than you did.

One of the most ominous signs of how thoroughly infected our country has become with the socialist disease, is the degree to which the above actions have become acceptable in recent years, at least if we use government to do them instead of using a tow truck and a purloined ATM card. Look in this very forum, for the number of people who have blithely assumed that people who earn more than they do, should be forced to pay more than they do. Some are even snarling with delight at the effects of these actions, as though it was the people who earned the money who deserve punishment rather than the people stepping in to take it away. It has gotten to the point where many of these people simply assume that those with more income, are themselves wrong or evil or some other state that makes them legitimate targets for losing the rights to what they have earned - a punishment formerly reserved for rapists, thieves, and murderers.

Would it be a good idea for people who have more, to pay more? Of course it would. And so they do - inevitably, every time, completely aside from the resources taken away from them by the takers. How many jobs did your wealthy neighbor support - and pay for, quite directly - on a computer assembly line when he bought two new computers? Compare that to how many you supported, who have not bought a new computer in years. How many seamstresses and clothing designers did he support - and directly pay for - especially considering that he made sure that the clothes he bought had "Made in the USA" labels on every piece, and paid higher prices for them as a result? Compared to you, who last bought a package of Hanes at Wal-mart three years ago? How much of his money did he put in a 401K fund, or even leave in his savings account... to be borrowed by someone else to by a car or pay a college tuition? Did more of his money go into that, than did your money? How many car assembly lines have YOU supported by buying a new car recently? Or house builders? How many job have YOU created by starting a new business or expanding an old one?

Probably the single most insidious and destructive effect of the "get the rich" mantra being pushed so zealously by those on the left in this country, is the discouragement and removal of the property rights our ancestors fought for. All the spending, and investing, and genuine transfers of wealth described above, depend absolutely on people knowing their rising incomes are theirs to keep... because then they never keep them. Every last dollar is ALWAYS spent, or lent, or invested, or otherwise returned to circulation. Every last one. No one stuffs a mattress or lights cigars with $100 bills... despite the cartoons penned by those who want us to believe it were so.

Next time you hear some whining simp shout that "the wealthy should pay in proportion to what they earn", remember that they are ignoring the fact that the wealthy already do... and the simps want that to change. They actually want the wealthy to be STOLEN FROM in proportion to what they earn. How much of the above genuine transfers of wealth, will no longer take place if the shouters and takers get what they are demanding from the rest of us?

A look at the shape of our present economy, will answer that question for you. But you may not like the answer you get.