Should The Rich Keep Bush Era Tax Breaks? Jon Kyl Says Yes
SodaHead News
2010/07/13 13:00:00
|
|
|||||
|
113 votes
|
|
64% | |||
|
63 votes
|
|
36% | |||
Jon Kyl (R-Ariz) is fighting for the rights of Americans truly impacted by the recession. In spite of economic data indicating that the gap between rich and poor has never been greater in the U.S.A, John Kyl has taken a courageous stand against removing Bush era tax cuts on those earning over a quarter of a million dollars a year, even if it means the nation goes further into debt.
Congress has been considering scrapping the Bush era tax breaks because there is no funding to pay for them and they only add to America's growing budget deficit. However John Kyl believes that this isn't a problem. "You should never raise taxes in order to cut taxes. Surely Congress has the authority, and it would be right to -- if we decide we want to cut taxes to spur the economy, not to have to raise taxes in order to offset those costs," he said during an interview with Fox News.
While Kyl fights to keep tax breaks in place for the richest in the country, Republicans continue to stonewall extending unemployment insurance, leaving many middle and lower class Americans laid off during the recession to scrape by on meager savings and the goodwill of other Americans.
This Darwinian approach to economic politics is not garnering many fans among Democrats. “Unpaid for tax cuts for the rich at the expense of working people is the same backward policy Republicans used to put the nation in this hole, and it's the same policy they promise to return to if put in a position of power again,” said Hari Sevugan, DNC press secretary.
Should The Rich Keep Their Tax Breaks?
Congress has been considering scrapping the Bush era tax breaks because there is no funding to pay for them and they only add to America's growing budget deficit. However John Kyl believes that this isn't a problem. "You should never raise taxes in order to cut taxes. Surely Congress has the authority, and it would be right to -- if we decide we want to cut taxes to spur the economy, not to have to raise taxes in order to offset those costs," he said during an interview with Fox News.
While Kyl fights to keep tax breaks in place for the richest in the country, Republicans continue to stonewall extending unemployment insurance, leaving many middle and lower class Americans laid off during the recession to scrape by on meager savings and the goodwill of other Americans.
This Darwinian approach to economic politics is not garnering many fans among Democrats. “Unpaid for tax cuts for the rich at the expense of working people is the same backward policy Republicans used to put the nation in this hole, and it's the same policy they promise to return to if put in a position of power again,” said Hari Sevugan, DNC press secretary.
Should The Rich Keep Their Tax Breaks?
Top Opinion
-
GANGA~Patriotic Revolution ... 2010/07/13 16:30:15Yes. It's not their fault everyone else is poor.
What they have done is to cut jobs to increase their bottom line, to increase dividends to their investors who are the rich. A vicious cycle of greed.
Jeezus H....we need to increase taxes to improve our educational system, which apparently is failing!!
Now along comes the government and imposes a tax on oil company's profits of 10%. Does the oil company now make 0% on all the products they sell? Doesn't make much sense does it? They wouldn't be in business long if they did. What they do is simply raise the price of their gas. Instead of charging $2.50/gal they raise the price to $2.75/gal. Now when we buy our 20 gallons of gas it costs us $55.00 inste...
Now along comes the government and imposes a tax on oil company's profits of 10%. Does the oil company now make 0% on all the products they sell? Doesn't make much sense does it? They wouldn't be in business long if they did. What they do is simply raise the price of their gas. Instead of charging $2.50/gal they raise the price to $2.75/gal. Now when we buy our 20 gallons of gas it costs us $55.00 instead of $50.00. Now the oil company needs to pay $5.50 in taxes which reduces profit from $5.00/gal to $4.50/gal.
Here's the big $$ question; Who paid $5.50 in taxes to the government? The corporation? No, it was the consumer. You would figure, since you have such a long career in "corporate finance" that companies don't stay in business for long when they don't make money. Their profitability is what determines their longevity and increased costs to produce their products can either be offset by an increase in price or a decrease in profit. Hence, corporations DO NOT PAY TAXES! The consumer pays them.
I acknowledge that this example is very much simplified, but I thought it necessary since you wouldn't understand anything more detailed.
Using your example, the 10% tax SHOULD BE applied to the NET PROFIT BEFORE TAX - which is $5.00. So 10% of $5.00 = $0.50 of tax - leaving $4.50 of PROFIT AFTER TAX.
Tax is NOT applied to GROSS REVENUES. You SAY that - so it appears you know that the tax should be applied to profits. But your math ("company now makes 0%...") shows you are applying the 10% to revenue.
Our schools are failing us.....
Either you can't read, or you can't understand the object of the example I gave. You don't argue the point of the discussion. Like your first response to me you point out that I misspelled a word rather than address the issue. How about you respond to the assertion that the company doesn't pay taxes, taxes are passed on the the consumer. Where do you think the money a company comes from? Answer: The consumer.
Profit AFTER ALL EXPENSES is what tax is based on. That will by definition - leave a PROFIT AFTER TAX - because taxes only take A PERCENTAGE OF THIS NUMBER.
I cannot make it any simpler for you.
In a competitive marketplace, sellers cannot automatically pass on cost/tax increases. In a competitive marketplace, sellers are PRICE TAKERS - not PRICE MAKERS. This applies to MOST markets. There are very few monopolies, who can dictate prices to buyers. Therefore, companies must 1) become more productive to reduce costs to try to maintain profits, 2) accept lower profits, or 3) some combination of the two. Prices can also be raised when the economy is overheated, and demand outstrips supply.
Beyond that...I give up. You're pretty much hopeless.
…and you're pretty much stupid.
Edit: Here is a link to an article that might show you what I have been unable to communicate to you:
http://www.atr.org/corporatio...
Corporate Income Tax Rates--2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005
Taxable income over Not over Tax rate
$ 0 $ 50,000 15%
50,000 75,000 25%
75,000 100,000 34%
100,000 335,000 39%
335,000 10,000,000 34%
10,000,000 15,000,000 35%
15,000,000 18,333,333 38%
18,333,333 .......... 35%
BTW, your Corporate tax rates are for "C" Corporations, not Sub-chapter "S" corps. That does make a difference to the rates because the net income on "S" Corps. is taxed at the shareholder's 1040 rate which could be as high as the 35% going up to 39.6% if the Bush tax cuts expire.
Corporate Income Tax Rates--2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005
Taxable income over Not over Tax rate
$ 0 $ 50,000 15%
50,000 75,000 25%
75,000 100,000 34%
100,000 335,000 39%
335,000 10,000,000 34%
10,000,000 15,000,000 35%
15,000,000 18,333,333 38%
18,333,333 .......... 35%
The wealthy are the only ones that can put America back to work.
So as a matter of fact - yes - those on the dole are creating jobs. More than the rich who are putting money into their piggy banks.
what have i done to earn? worked like everyone else. didn't know i needed to do anything special.
greed is a disease. one that'll probably destroy our species.
During the first few months of the government bailing out AIG and other financial institutions it was revealed that some of these companies, AIG and Citigroup were planning some conventions in Las Vegas. The President came out and said that it wasn't appropriate for these companies who had received government money, to be having these "frivolous" trips to Las Vegas. What was the result? Corporate travel to Las Vegas was cut buy virtually everyone which has created a higher unemployment rate in Nevada than other parts of the country. When people don't go to Las Vegas the hotels and casinos don't have revenue they need to keep their employees.
If that's not a good enough example, here's another one. The Big Three auto executives travel to D.C. to be grilled by Congress about why they needed the bailout money. During the questioning some boneheaded congressman asked the executives how many of them flew to D.C. on a private jet. They all had. Then the guy asked how many of them were selling the private jet and flying back to Detroit on a commercial plane. None of them raised their hand. Now this may seem like it's a good thing that these guys not fly on private jets, but what happened was...
During the first few months of the government bailing out AIG and other financial institutions it was revealed that some of these companies, AIG and Citigroup were planning some conventions in Las Vegas. The President came out and said that it wasn't appropriate for these companies who had received government money, to be having these "frivolous" trips to Las Vegas. What was the result? Corporate travel to Las Vegas was cut buy virtually everyone which has created a higher unemployment rate in Nevada than other parts of the country. When people don't go to Las Vegas the hotels and casinos don't have revenue they need to keep their employees.
If that's not a good enough example, here's another one. The Big Three auto executives travel to D.C. to be grilled by Congress about why they needed the bailout money. During the questioning some boneheaded congressman asked the executives how many of them flew to D.C. on a private jet. They all had. Then the guy asked how many of them were selling the private jet and flying back to Detroit on a commercial plane. None of them raised their hand. Now this may seem like it's a good thing that these guys not fly on private jets, but what happened was; Other large companies either cut back on their corporate jet flying or even sold the company plane. This created a domino effect which caused fewer airplane to be sold/built and thus the aircraft manufacturers had to lay off thousands of employees, companies had to lay off pilots, FBO's had to lay off mechanics, fuelers, etc.
This is exactly how "trickle down" economics works. When people have money to spend, money in excess of the basic costs of living, they buy products that put people to work. It might be an airplane, a boat, motorcycle or a lawnmower. The concept of "trickle down" economics is provable and obvious. When "rich" people have money to spend it puts people to work. Everyone benefits when people have disposable income to spend on extra things. This is why cutting taxes on the rich is a better idea than government taking it to pay for pork projects. This is a far more efficient way to put people to work than for government to try and stimulate the economy.
Now that I've answered your question, please explain how "trickle up" economics works. If you can.
The theory is that those with money invest in new factories, or technologies, etc. which make new jobs for the rest of us. They get richer and we get jobs.
Reagan very significantly increased public expenditure, primarily the Department of Defense, which rose (in constant 2000 dollars) from $267.1 billion in 1980 (4.9% of GDP and 22.7% of public expenditure) to $393.1 billion in 1988 (5.8% of GDP and 27.3% of public expenditure); most of those years military spending was about 6% of GDP, exceeding this numbers in 4 different years.
All these numbers had not been seen since the end of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War in 1973. In 1981, Reagan significantly reduced the maximum tax rate, which affected the very wealthy, and lowered the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 50%; in 1986 he further reduced the rate to 28%. As a result of all this, the budget deficit and federal debt increased considerably: debt grew from 33.3% of GDP in 1980 to 51.9% at the end of 1988 and the deficit increased from 2.7% in 1980 to more than double in 1983, when it reached 6%; in 1984, 1985 and ...
The theory is that those with money invest in new factories, or technologies, etc. which make new jobs for the rest of us. They get richer and we get jobs.
Reagan very significantly increased public expenditure, primarily the Department of Defense, which rose (in constant 2000 dollars) from $267.1 billion in 1980 (4.9% of GDP and 22.7% of public expenditure) to $393.1 billion in 1988 (5.8% of GDP and 27.3% of public expenditure); most of those years military spending was about 6% of GDP, exceeding this numbers in 4 different years.
All these numbers had not been seen since the end of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War in 1973. In 1981, Reagan significantly reduced the maximum tax rate, which affected the very wealthy, and lowered the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 50%; in 1986 he further reduced the rate to 28%. As a result of all this, the budget deficit and federal debt increased considerably: debt grew from 33.3% of GDP in 1980 to 51.9% at the end of 1988 and the deficit increased from 2.7% in 1980 to more than double in 1983, when it reached 6%; in 1984, 1985 and 1986 it was around 5%.
In order to cover new federal budget deficits, the United States borrowed heavily both domestically and abroad, raising the national debt from $700 billion to $3 trillion, and the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation. Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency.
The number of Americans below the poverty level increased from 29.272 million in 1980 to 31.745 in 1988, which means that, as a percentage of the total population, it remained almost stationary, from 12.95% in 1980 to 13% in 1988. The poverty level for people under the age of 18 increased from 11.543 million in 1980 (18.3% of all child population) to 12.455 (19.5%) in 1988. In addition, the situation of low income groups was affected by the reduction of social spending. Inequality also increased.
The share of total income going to the 5% highest-income households grew from 16.5% in 1980 to 18.3% in 1988 and the share of the highest fifth increased from 44.1% to 46.3% in same years. In contrast, the share of total income of the lowest fifth fell from 4.2% in 1980 to 3.8% in 1988 and the second poorest fifth from 10.2% to 9.6%.
I'd love to pick through your comment but I just don't have the time. I need to get to work. But it is apparent that you are more likely to copy left-wing, anti-Reagan propaganda than you are to accept the fact that more people have accepted the Reagan model as successful than not.
How did you develop the idea that there is something wrong with people making money? Your contempt of people with more money than you is really transparent. Can you really be that jealous of other people who might be more successful than you? Or is it that you are just too lazy to take responsibility for your own life and think government should take care of you? What courses do/did you teach? Anything to do with economics or government?
The thing that really gets me is how those who advocate for more government control, bigger government, use the argument that government is supposed to protect people from abuse (from the rich for example) but it's government who, a) Inflicts more abuse and restrictions on people than the "rich" ever could, b) Uses race, sexual orientation, the "evil rich" and the environment to promote support for their increased power and control, and c) Take money from the same people who they accuse of causing all the problems, i.e. AIG, Goldman Sachs, Unions, Oil companies, etc.
Since the wealthy control the government, they also control the way that they are given privilege by that government.
Top 25 Republican Party donors (1999-2003) with global consumer brands:
1 Altria (formerly Philip Morris) $6.5m
2 AT&T $5.36m
3 Microsoft Corp. $5.12m
4 United Parcel Services $4.48m
5 MBNA $4.38m
6 Citigroup $3.93m
7 Pfizer $3.9m
8 FedEx Corp. $3.4m
9 Bristol-Myers Squibb $3.4m
10 GlaxoSmithKline $3m
11 Wal-Mart $2.85m
12 General Electric $2.58m
13 ExxonMobil $2.35m
14 AOL Time Warner $2.31m
15 Anheuser Busch $2.23m
16 ChevronTexaco $2.2m
17 PepsiCo $1.9m
18 Schering Plough $1.8m
19 Archer Daniels Midland $1.8m
20 Wyeth (formerly American Home Products) $ 1.74m
21 Alticor Inc. $1.7m
22 American Airlines $1.62m
23 Ford $1.52m
24 BP Amoco $1.25m
25 Disney $1.25m
Political Campaign Contributors
Ranked by Amount Contributed from 1999 - Present
1. Bob Perry ... $17,387,800
2. Edward Lamont ... $14,246,894
3. Haim Saban ... $13,098,100
4. John Raese ... $12,548,200
5. James Pederson ... $11,710,474
6. Stephen B...
&
Since the wealthy control the government, they also control the way that they are given privilege by that government.
Top 25 Republican Party donors (1999-2003) with global consumer brands:
1 Altria (formerly Philip Morris) $6.5m
2 AT&T $5.36m
3 Microsoft Corp. $5.12m
4 United Parcel Services $4.48m
5 MBNA $4.38m
6 Citigroup $3.93m
7 Pfizer $3.9m
8 FedEx Corp. $3.4m
9 Bristol-Myers Squibb $3.4m
10 GlaxoSmithKline $3m
11 Wal-Mart $2.85m
12 General Electric $2.58m
13 ExxonMobil $2.35m
14 AOL Time Warner $2.31m
15 Anheuser Busch $2.23m
16 ChevronTexaco $2.2m
17 PepsiCo $1.9m
18 Schering Plough $1.8m
19 Archer Daniels Midland $1.8m
20 Wyeth (formerly American Home Products) $ 1.74m
21 Alticor Inc. $1.7m
22 American Airlines $1.62m
23 Ford $1.52m
24 BP Amoco $1.25m
25 Disney $1.25m
Political Campaign Contributors
Ranked by Amount Contributed from 1999 - Present
1. Bob Perry ... $17,387,800
2. Edward Lamont ... $14,246,894
3. Haim Saban ... $13,098,100
4. John Raese ... $12,548,200
5. James Pederson ... $11,710,474
6. Stephen Bing ... $10,054,093
7. Fred Eychaner ... $8,014,646
8. Richard Tarrant ... $7,083,800
9. Steve Forbes ... $7,057,000
10. Jared Polis ... $6,929,121
11. Sandy Treadwell ... $5,942,321
12. Harold Simmons ... $5,889,796
13. Vernon Buchanan ... $5,382,144
14. Dawn Arnall ... $5,381,850
15. Joshua Rales ... $5,362,347
16. Alex Spanos ... $5,293,556
17. John Davis ... $4,871,992
18. Boone Pickens ... $4,845,301
19. Mitt Romney ... $4,548,635
20. Fredric Eshelman ... $4,455,394
21. John Templeton ... $4,375,411
22. Wayne Hogan ... $4,351,322
23. Peter Lewis ... $4,173,143
24. Doug Ose Personal Funds ... $3,894,000
25. Bernard Schwartz ... $3,736,700
Bobby Jack Perry (a.k.a. Bob J. Perry) (born October 30, 1932), is a Houston, Texas homebuilder.
Lamont is the great-grandson of former J.P. Morgan & Co. Chairman Thomas W. Lamont. His self-reported net worth lies somewhere between $90 million and $300 million.
Haim Saban is an Israeli-American television and media proprietor. With an estimated current net worth of $2.8 billion, he is ranked by Forbes as the 102nd richest person in America.
John Raese is president and CEO of Greer Industries, a steel and limestone producer. His business interests also include The Dominion Post (Morgantown),the West Virginia Radio Corporation, which owns 15 radio stations, and the MetroNews radio network serving 56 stations.
Jim Pederson's net worth is valued at over $186 million.
See what I mean?
Something glaringly missing from your list is a comparison of Democratic contributors.
I can play your game too.
2008 Election Contribution by Democratic Committees
Democratic National Cmte…$277,847,035
Obama Victory Fund…$198,199,736
Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte…$176,204,612
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte…$162,791,453
Democratic Party of Ohio…$25,946,114
Democratic Executive Cmte of Florida…$24,690,593
Michigan Democratic State Central Cmte…$20,095,863
Cmte for Change…$19,907,754
Democratic Party of Virginia…$16,506,926
Democratic Party of Pennsylvania…$15,023,848
Democratic Party of North Carolina…$14,719,400
Democratic Party of Colorado…$13,758,961
Minnesota Democratic Farmer Labor Party…$12,358,089
Dollars for Democrats…$11,937,666
Missouri Democratic State Cmte…$11,135,567
Democratic White House Victory Fund…$9,857,484
Indiana Democratic Congresl Victory Cmte…$9,725,340
Democratic Party of California…$9,029,997
Democratic Party of Iowa…$8,761,686
Democratic Party of Wisconsin…$8,734,766
2008 Election According to Ind...
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
Something glaringly missing from your list is a comparison of Democratic contributors.
I can play your game too.
2008 Election Contribution by Democratic Committees
Democratic National Cmte…$277,847,035
Obama Victory Fund…$198,199,736
Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte…$176,204,612
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte…$162,791,453
Democratic Party of Ohio…$25,946,114
Democratic Executive Cmte of Florida…$24,690,593
Michigan Democratic State Central Cmte…$20,095,863
Cmte for Change…$19,907,754
Democratic Party of Virginia…$16,506,926
Democratic Party of Pennsylvania…$15,023,848
Democratic Party of North Carolina…$14,719,400
Democratic Party of Colorado…$13,758,961
Minnesota Democratic Farmer Labor Party…$12,358,089
Dollars for Democrats…$11,937,666
Missouri Democratic State Cmte…$11,135,567
Democratic White House Victory Fund…$9,857,484
Indiana Democratic Congresl Victory Cmte…$9,725,340
Democratic Party of California…$9,029,997
Democratic Party of Iowa…$8,761,686
Democratic Party of Wisconsin…$8,734,766
2008 Election According to Industries
Candidate Committees…$65,320,571
Lawyers/Law Firms…$46,582,516
Retired…$44,150,764
Securities & Investment…$39,905,842
Real Estate…$22,131,219
TV/Movies/Music…$13,990,551
Business Services…$13,681,700
Misc Finance…$11,385,941
Education…$9,313,364
Health Professionals…$9,076,139
Misc Business…$8,472,928
Computers/Internet…$8,299,658
Printing & Publishing…$7,619,188
Non-Profit Institutions…$6,600,954
Lobbyists…$4,378,210
Commercial Banks…$4,198,681
Misc Manufacturing & Distributing…$4,038,753
Civil Servants/Public Officials…$4,007,816
Leadership PACs…$3,582,739
Other…$3,543,935
EDIT: Link to this table since it doesn't layout properly after posting.
http://www.opensecrets.org/or...
Dem Rep
1 AT&T; Inc $45,083,314 44% 55%
2 State, Cnty & Mun Empl $42,619,761 98% 1%
3 ActBlue $39,955,241 99% 0%
4 National Assn of Realtors $36,267,773 48% 51%
5 Goldman Sachs $32,263,177 63% 36%
6 Intl Brthrhd of Elec Workers $32,117,695 97% 2%
7 American Assn for Justice $32,017,379 90% 8%
8 N.E.A. $30,446,880 92% 6%
9 Laborers Union $29,318,050 92% 7%
10 Teamsters Union $28,444,184 93% 6%
11 SEIU $28,349,982 95% 3%
12 Carpenters & Joiners Union $28,024,933 89% 9%
13 Amer Fed of Teachers $27,524,391 98% 0%
14 Comm. Workers Amer. $27,423,296 99% 0%
15 Citigroup Inc $27,318,698 50% 49%
16 American Medical Assn $26,407,955 39% 60%
17 United Auto Workers $26,241,902 98% 0%
18 Mach & Aero. Workers Union $25,502,277 98% 0%
19 National Auto Dealers Assn $24,828,758 32% 67%
20 Food & Com.Workers Union $24,558,133 98% 1%
21 United Parcel Service $24,546,110 36% 63%
22 Altria Group $24,169,566 27% 72%
23 American Bankers Assn $22,928,221 41% 58%
24 Natnl Assn of Home Builders $22,473,155 36% 63%
25 EMILY's List $21,939,688 99% 0%
26 Ntnl. Beer Wholesalers Assn $21,528,095 32% 67%
27 Microsoft Corp $20,583,253 53% 46%
28 JPMorgan Chase & Co $20,420,253 51% 48%
29 Time Warner $20,180,015 72% 27%
30 Ntnl. Assn of Letter Carriers $19,841,434 88% 11%
31 Morgan Stanley $19,595,360 45% 54%
32 Verizon Communications $19,068,900 40% 58%
33 Lockheed Martin $19,048,196 43% 56%
34 General Electric $18,696,699 51% 48%
35 Pfizer Inc $18,609,155 29% 70%
36 AFL-CIO $18,315,746 95% 4%
37 FedEx Corp $18,265,106 40% 59%
38 Credit Union National Assn $17,878,728 48% 51%
39 Bank of America $17,585,712 47% 52%
40 National Rifle Assn $17,533,596 17% 82%
41 Ernst & Young $17,424,077 44% 55%
42 Sheet Metal Workers Union $17,063,813 97% 2%
43 Blue Cross/Blue Shield $17,049,079 40% 59%
44 Plumbers & Pipefitters Union $16,926,851 94% 5%
45 American Dental Assn $16,918,029 46% 53%
46 American Hospital Assn $16,828,229 53% 46%
47 Intnl Assn of Fire Fighters $16,730,143 82% 17%
48 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu $16,437,859 35% 64%
49 Operating Engineers Union $16,398,515 85% 14%
50 Air Line Pilots Assn $15,981,777 84% 15%
51 PricewaterhouseCoopers $15...
52 UBS AG $15,760,279 40% 58%
53 AFLAC Inc $15,345,219 44% 55%
54 Natl Assn/Ins & Fincl Advisors $15,290,354 42% 56%
55 Boeing Co $14,605,058 47% 52%
56 Union Pacific Corp $14,533,198 25% 74%
57 Merrill Lynch $14,333,210 37% 61%
58 United Steelworkers $13,988,901 99% 0%
59 United Transportation Union $13,955,010 88% 10%
60 Ironworkers Union $13,610,975 92% 7%
You might notice that the predominance of contributions go to Democrats not Republicans.
If you throw enough crap against the wall something might stick.
The point was, and is, people with money are influencing the government more than they should be allowed to do, and in doing so are getting laws passed that protect their lifestyle and their money. That is why the tax cuts should be repealed.
Taxing the rich is nothing more than a phrase used to inflame class envy. You can't tax the rich enough to compensate for the multi-trillion dollars this administration is spending. They know it, I know it, and anyone with half a brain know's it. What I really find funny are the people that try and say that the poor pay more taxes than the rich. After all, the poor have a disproportional share of "Payroll" taxes than the rich do. What the heck are "Payroll" taxes? FICA? Medicare? Federal and State income taxes? It's all of the above. Sure, higher income wage earners have a cap on the...
Taxing the rich is nothing more than a phrase used to inflame class envy. You can't tax the rich enough to compensate for the multi-trillion dollars this administration is spending. They know it, I know it, and anyone with half a brain know's it. What I really find funny are the people that try and say that the poor pay more taxes than the rich. After all, the poor have a disproportional share of "Payroll" taxes than the rich do. What the heck are "Payroll" taxes? FICA? Medicare? Federal and State income taxes? It's all of the above. Sure, higher income wage earners have a cap on the FICA they have withheld from their pay but that pales in comparison to the Federal and State tax rates that are "progressive" and penalize people for trying to make more money.
All of the complaining about big companies contributing to politicians and gaining an unfair influence on government could be eliminated if, like I said before, we had honest politicians. Since those are few and far between, the second best tactic is to take control away from the government.
Projections are one thing, and what occurs in fact, is another.
It is not "class envy" on my part, but just good common sense based on reality.