Originally Posted By skinnerbox This is a must-read article from today, entitled "Nine Things the Rich Don't Want You to Know About Taxes" by David Cay Johnson (whom Obama referenced in his speech today): <a href="http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_things_the_rich_dont_want_you_to_know_about_taxes.html" target="_blank">http://www.wweek.com/portland/...xes.html</a> These are the topic titles which form the basis of the article: 1. Poor Americans do pay taxes. 2. The wealthiest Americans don't carry the burden. 3. In fact, the wealthy are paying less taxes. 4. Many of the richest pay no current income taxes at all. 5. And (surprise!) since Reagan, only the wealthy have gained significant income. 6. When it comes to corporations, the story is much the same -- less taxes. 7. Some corporate tax breaks destroy jobs. 8. Republicans like taxes too. 9. Other countries do it better. There are plenty of charts and graphs for visual stimulation, all referenced by sources from the IRS, Social Security, the US Census Bureau, to name a few. Definitely a must-read.
Originally Posted By fkurucz No one is "fretting over what other people have" We are "fretting" over what is being done to the American middle class (and the poor too). I would say that no one on this board begrudges the well to do for being wealthy. Some will have more than others. What we do begrudge are policies that allow the wealthy to amass greater wealth at everyone else's expense, while they smirk and say "let them eat cake".
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Exactly. And while we swim in red ink and they tell us (with a straight face) that the ONLY remedy is cutting more from regular folks.
Originally Posted By pecos bill I get so stinking sick of that jealousy argument. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that this is about people at all levels simply paying their fair share.
Originally Posted By Kevin Flynn The problem with the "fair share" argument is this. The vast majority of the truly wealthy do not work and do not pay taxes. Their money makes them more money in the form of capital gains. The "rich" as defined by our tax code, are the upper MIDDLE class small business owners. When it comes to wants and needs: Many of us who have "less" want equality, we want a "fair share." We want the "rich" to pay "their fair share." However, 98% of these "rich" hardworking, self sacrificing people, put their personal lives on hold, took huge risks, and sought higher education to better themselves. Meanwhile the "have nots" were getting married, having kids, drinking beer, going to the movies, and buying the latest brand new Mustang, or whatever else those (like me) of the middle and lower middle class did. Oh we, the "have nots" were not considering any sort of fairness when it was about the effort; when it was about the future heart Specialist MD studying ALL NITE LONG for 10 YEARS so that he or she could operate on the arteries of some guy who chose to get a job at Home Depot, and watch Nascar on weekends during that same period of time. Really, "modicum"? LOL For the record, I am a Democrat. Unfortunately, I don't blame others for my life, and I don't expect others to pay my way. That makes a lot LOT of fellow Democrats angry. The thing that bothers me the most is that it seems to be SOP that we as a party are most interested in blaming others and crying about not being rich, rather than finding solutions.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<For the record, I am a Democrat.>> I find that difficult to believe, given your little soapbox speech about the "have nots" frittering away their opportunities in life and not working hard enough to be successful. That's the conservative Republican mantra for justifying the enormous income inequity gap, not Democrat. <<Unfortunately, I don't blame others for my life, and I don't expect others to pay my way.>> I've heard this argument before, especially from previous LP posters like DAR and Beau. Kevin Flynn... you're very new to LP. You joined less than two weeks ago. Who are you? I'm beginning to get suspicious, given this air of deja vu hovering around your post. <<That makes a lot LOT of fellow Democrats angry. The thing that bothers me the most is that it seems to be SOP that we as a party are most interested in blaming others and crying about not being rich, rather than finding solutions.>> Definitely NOT a Democrat. Who are you, really?
Originally Posted By pecos bill Kevin Flynn, if you are a Democrat, I'll eat my hat. Your argument is that of the classic Republican shill. So we got married, so we had kids, so we drank some beer and bought a car, so what? An awful lot of Democrats went to college, worked hard there, and have been working our butts off since. Lastly, dont ridicule a word just because you dont understand it.
Originally Posted By Longhorn12 >98% of these "rich" hardworking, self sacrificing people, put their personal lives on hold, took huge risks, and sought higher education to better themselves< You don't see the real world much do you? The majority of these "hard working self sacrificing" college kids you speak of are lazy slobs who are only their because daddy will pay for them to party. >That makes a lot LOT of fellow Democrats angry.< I don't see why we would be angry that you don't blame other, but ok... > rather than finding solutions.< You mean the solutions we do find, but can never utilize because Big Bucks needs another yacht instead of helping build roads?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Kevin, you make valid points but only about the first person who is becoming wealthy in a family. But when someone is born into wealth it gives them opportunities and money that people who are not born in to wealth never have. Not very many of the residents and medical students I meet in my job come from modest backgrounds. Not many of the 2000 doctors affiliated with the health system I work for come from a rags to riches background. What the Democrats want is a way to make sure that the classic rags-to-riches story is available to every American and that we aren't limited from reaching our full potential. That doesn't mean that we don't have to dig down and work very hard to get there, but we shouldn't be putting impediments in the way of the poor kid from the ghetto who wants a better education or the mother who wants healthy food for her kid but all she can afford are hot dogs. The Republican plan protects those who already have the money. It doesn't help anyone else to become wealthy. It puts roadblocks in their way by defunding education and health care. Most wealthy people in this country were born in to it. They didn't earn it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I don't expect others to pay my way.> Yet, that's EXACTLY what those wealthy people backing a plan like Paul Ryan's DO expect. They expect middle class people to do without Medicare and get a freaking COUPON (!) to pay part of their health insurance premium (which by definition would buy less coverage than Medicare, which doesn't have a profit taken off the top) and kick in the rest themselves (and good luck even finding ANYONE to insure you if you're too old or sick), so that they can have yet another tax break. The numbers don't lie. There has been a massive transfer of wealth the last 30 years (especially the last 10) from the middle class TO the upper 2%. Those people are simply not pulling their weight at present. They are expecting us to pay their way. Moreover, the 90's tax rates were NOT onerous in any way. We created a lot more jobs in the 90's with the higher rates than we did with the Bush rates, so the claim that we need to keep Bush's rates in order to create jobs is just hogwash - belied by our own recent history. The economy did fine in the 90's, the wealthy did JUST fine in the 90's... and we weren't swimming in all this red ink.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer We created even more jobs in the 1950s when tax rates were even higher and we had cheap, plentiful college education available to whomever wanted it.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Skinnerbox who were DAR and beau?>> Tony, I can't go into any details without getting my post ADMINed for grave dancing. But I will state that they were former posters who crossed the line of decency, violating the rules of conduct for the LP discussion boards, numerous times. And they have returned in the recent past under different names to continue their same old agenda of personally attacking posters whom they feel have either wronged them some how, or whom have differing political beliefs. Kevin Flynn is new to these discussion boards, and his tone is very familiar sounding to me. I wouldn't be surprised if this new poster was a previously banned poster who's returned to stir the pot.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper We created more jobs in the 50s because the World wasn't much of a competitor back then. Look no futher than the auto industry to prove that point.
Originally Posted By Longhorn12 >the World wasn't much of a competitor back then< Well Hitler, Stalin, and us did sort of bomb the hell out of everything, but the U.S. , Canada, and Mexico.
Originally Posted By fkurucz "We created more jobs in the 50s because the World wasn't much of a competitor back then. Look no futher than the auto industry to prove that point." And because we don't protect our markets. Go to Korea, and tell me how many imported cars they drive over there? Answer: next to none. Is it because Korean cars are superior to all others? Same story in Japan. And in most other countries. They have tariffs and trade policies to protect their industries and markets. We are the only chumps with open markets, and as a result our economy has been eviscerated and hollowed out.
