Not a Socialist?

[89Hen]

the most fortunate among us can afford to pay a little more

[Skjellyfetti]

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

[89Hen]

The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities

[citdog]

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

that depends a whole hell of a lot on how you define rich.

[Skjellyfetti]

The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities

And the rich have a greater proportion they're able to contribute... that backs up progressive taxation as well, hen.

[citdog]

"a man should eat the bread that is earned by the sweat of his brow"

some Jew in the "old testament"

no sweat.....no bread

[Skjellyfetti]

There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.

[citdog]

There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.

that's called CHARITY astroglide.....NOT free government lobster

[Skjellyfetti]

that's called CHARITY astroglide.....NOT free government lobster

Your dear ole CSA passed a PROGRESSIVE income tax on its citizens in 1863.



CSA Secretary of Treasury must have been a COMMUNIST. Whodda thunk it?!


He was born in Germany... an instituted a progressive tax only 15 years after Marx's Communist Manifesto. Obviously inspired by "From each according to his ability."

Bunch of reds in the CSA government. Where was McCarthy when he was needed?

[Chizzang]

that's called CHARITY astroglide.....NOT free government lobster

I don't really like Lobster
Can I have free government Prime Rib instead..?

[89Hen]

And the rich have a greater proportion they're able to contribute... that backs up progressive taxation as well, hen.

We have a progressive tax rate. Obama wants to increase it.

[Skjellyfetti]

We have a progressive tax rate. Obama wants to increase it.

Did you read the part right before the quote that you took out?

I say that at a time when the tax burden on the wealthy is at its lowest level in half a century

and then your quote

the most fortunate among us can afford to pay a little more

He just wants to roll it back where it was.

[89Hen]

He just wants to roll it back where it was.

I'm pretty sure everyone's tax burden is at their respective lowest level in half a century. Raising only one group increases the disparity.

[citdog]

that's called CHARITY astroglide.....NOT free government lobster

Your dear ole CSA passed a PROGRESSIVE income tax on its citizens in 1863.



CSA Secretary of Treasury must have been a COMMUNIST. Whodda thunk it?!


He was born in Germany... an instituted a progressive tax only 15 years after Marx's Communist Manifesto. Obviously inspired by "From each according to his ability."

Bunch of reds in the CSA government. Where was McCarthy when he was needed?

i preferred it when we had the tax in kind. A Nation has to do a lot of things it may not want to do when it is cut off from commerce by an illegal blockade and it's staple crop which is essential to its security rots at the dock because o the said illegal blockade. The CSA was the epitome of the Constitutional Republic and free trade State. Look at the difference in our tariffs in comparison with the States of the dying empire. It's really why the great tyrant invaded our country. if goods from europe could have come into Charleston or New Orleans significantly cheaper than boston and new york who would have paid for that big government? We finally wised up and put a JEW in charge.

[blueballs]

But how much difference would raising taxes by 3-4% on those earning more than $250k/year really make in an annual deficit of about $1,250,000,000,000?

The answer, hardly any at all, which again underscores two things: First, raising taxes on the high income earners of this nation (which is different from wealthy- if you don't know the difference in wealth and being a high income earner you were educated in a public school and shouldn't be voting) is nothing more than a "wealth envy ploy" and is symbolic more than substantial (like many things politicians champion) and just a piece of red meat for the lower end of the bell curve. Secondly, the problem with our budget is not that the federal government- which raises over $2,500,000,000,000 annually- brings in too little, it is that politicians spend too much.

MEMO to all of you and especially you liberals: ALL politicians on the federal level are interested in three things: the acquisition, retention, and expansion of power. Taxation is the capital politicians use to accomplish those objectives. I'm worried about acquiring, expanding, and retaining money for me and my family- not to be used as a political pawn for some politician.

[citdog]

that's called CHARITY astroglide.....NOT free government lobster

I don't really like Lobster
Can I have free government Prime Rib instead..?

get you some food stamps and you can " buy" all the prime rib you want.

[citdog]

But how much difference would raising taxes by 3-4% on those earning more than $250k/year really make in an annual deficit of about $1,250,000,000,000?

The answer, hardly any at all, which again underscores two things: First, raising taxes on the high income earners of this nation (which is different from wealthy- if you don't know the difference in wealth and being a high income earner you were educated in a public school and shouldn't be voting) is nothing more than a "wealth envy ploy" and is symbolic more than substantial (like many things politicians champion) and just a piece of red meat for the lower end of the bell curve. Secondly, the problem with our budget is not that the federal government- which raises over $2,500,000,000,000 annually- brings in too little, it is that politicians spend too much.

MEMO to all of you and especially you liberals: ALL politicians on the federal level are interested in three things: the acquisition, retention, and expansion of power. Taxation is the capital politicians use to accomplish those objectives. I'm worried about acquiring, expanding, and retaining money for me and my family- not to be used as a political pawn for some politician.

a big problem is feeding, housing, and clothing all that obsolete farm equipment.

[Baldy]

But how much difference would raising taxes by 3-4% on those earning more than $250k/year really make in an annual deficit of about $1,250,000,000,000?

The answer, hardly any at all, which again underscores two things: First, raising taxes on the high income earners of this nation (which is different from wealthy- if you don't know the difference in wealth and being a high income earner you were educated in a public school and shouldn't be voting) is nothing more than a "wealth envy ploy" and is symbolic more than substantial (like many things politicians champion) and just a piece of red meat for the lower end of the bell curve. Secondly, the problem with our budget is not that the federal government- which raises over $2,500,000,000,000 annually- brings in too little, it is that politicians spend too much.

MEMO to all of you and especially you liberals: ALL politicians on the federal level are interested in three things: the acquisition, retention, and expansion of power. Taxation is the capital politicians use to accomplish those objectives. I'm worried about acquiring, expanding, and retaining money for me and my family- not to be used as a political pawn for some politician.

[LeadBolt]

IMHO, there is no problem with progressive tax rates and redistribution of wealth within reason. A half century ago the top rate was a very unreasonable 91%.

I have no problem with taxing the top levels at 2 x's the percentage of government expenditures as a portion of GDP, or about where it is today. I don't think the government (all branches) should take away more of the marginal earnings of an individual to spend on others than it leaves for the individual to have.

With social security and state income taxes, unemployment tax, etc. that would mean that the top federal tax rate should not be raised above the low to mid 30's. It really doesn't do anyone in society good to take away the incentive to excel, innovate, invest or work for gain.

[ASUG8]

Parkinson's Law wrote:
"Expenditure rises to meet income"

[houndawg]

IMHO, there is no problem with progressive tax rates and redistribution of wealth within reason. A half century ago the top rate was a very unreasonable 91%.

I have no problem with taxing the top levels at 2 x's the percentage of government expenditures as a portion of GDP, or about where it is today. I don't think the government (all branches) should take away more of the marginal earnings of an individual to spend on others than it leaves for the individual to have.

With social security and state income taxes, unemployment tax, etc. that would mean that the top federal tax rate should not be raised above the low to mid 30's. It really doesn't do anyone in society good to take away the incentive to excel, innovate, invest or work for gain.

Yeah all those wealthy folk would quit working if their tax rate went up.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

IMHO, there is no problem with progressive tax rates and redistribution of wealth within reason. A half century ago the top rate was a very unreasonable 91%.

I have no problem with taxing the top levels at 2 x's the percentage of government expenditures as a portion of GDP, or about where it is today. I don't think the government (all branches) should take away more of the marginal earnings of an individual to spend on others than it leaves for the individual to have.

With social security and state income taxes, unemployment tax, etc. that would mean that the top federal tax rate should not be raised above the low to mid 30's. It really doesn't do anyone in society good to take away the incentive to excel, innovate, invest or work for gain.

Yeah all those wealthy folk would quit working if their tax rate went up.

just like they did in the 30's, 40's and 50's... clealry

[green&gold75]

But how much difference would raising taxes by 3-4% on those earning more than $250k/year really make in an annual deficit of about $1,250,000,000,000?

The answer, hardly any at all, which again underscores two things: First, raising taxes on the high income earners of this nation (which is different from wealthy- if you don't know the difference in wealth and being a high income earner you were educated in a public school and shouldn't be voting) is nothing more than a "wealth envy ploy" and is symbolic more than substantial (like many things politicians champion) and just a piece of red meat for the lower end of the bell curve. Secondly, the problem with our budget is not that the federal government- which raises over $2,500,000,000,000 annually- brings in too little, it is that politicians spend too much.

MEMO to all of you and especially you liberals: ALL politicians on the federal level are interested in three things: the acquisition, retention, and expansion of power. Taxation is the capital politicians use to accomplish those objectives. I'm worried about acquiring, expanding, and retaining money for me and my family- not to be used as a political pawn for some politician.

Or whoring themselves to those who already have wealth and power.

[HI54UNI]

IMHO, there is no problem with progressive tax rates and redistribution of wealth within reason. A half century ago the top rate was a very unreasonable 91%.

I have no problem with taxing the top levels at 2 x's the percentage of government expenditures as a portion of GDP, or about where it is today. I don't think the government (all branches) should take away more of the marginal earnings of an individual to spend on others than it leaves for the individual to have.

With social security and state income taxes, unemployment tax, etc. that would mean that the top federal tax rate should not be raised above the low to mid 30's. It really doesn't do anyone in society good to take away the incentive to excel, innovate, invest or work for gain.

Yeah all those wealthy folk would quit working if their tax rate went up.

No, they just hire more lawyers and tax accountants to avoid paying the tax and hire lobbyists to create more loopholes for them.

All the talk about raising rates on the rich makes for a good sound bite for the wealth envy crowd but in reality it isn't going to do shit. To paraphrase the rajun cajun "it's the spending stupid".

[LeadBolt]

Yeah all those wealthy folk would quit working if their tax rate went up.

just like they did in the 30's, 40's and 50's... clealry

I hate to be so inconsiderate as to burst your bubble by resorting to facts, but you are mistaken. Please see the table of top marginal income tax rates below that clearly show that during the 30's, 40's & 50's top marginal rates were increased routinely as the depression deepened.

YearTop Marginal Tax rate
1929 24
1930 25
1931 25
1932 63
1933 63
1934 63
1935 63
1936 79
1937 79
1938 79
1939 79
1940 81.1
1941 81
1942 88
1943 88
1944 94
1945 94
1946 86.45
1947 86.45
1948 82.13
1949 82.13
1950 84.36
1951 91
1952 92
1953 92
1954 91
1955 91
1956 91
1957 91
1958 91
1959 91