Tax Increases

Forums: Politics, Conservative Idiot, Bush Deficits, U S Politics, American Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

The Drumbeat to Increase Taxes

Obama’s victory was, if nothing else, a class warfare victory. We see this personally here at the Boortz studios with the tenor of the email and letters we’re getting from those celebrating the Obama Junta’s victory. Oh, to be sure … we’ve always received the hate mail. Nothing new there. But for the last two weeks the hate mail has been focused on wealth and class envy. Now we’re hearing that “you rich people” are finally going to have to “pay your fair share” and that the “evil corporations” are going to have to answer for their abuse of workers and the “excess profits” they earn. The resentment of and hatred for high achievers just oozes out of these letters and emails.

If you’ve been listening you’ve heard the drumbeat for increased taxes on the evil rich growing louder by the day. This week, the unions launched their TV campaign pushing for tax increases on the rich. Then we get two different columns/op-eds in the New York Times, pushing for tax increases on the evil rich.

The first NYTimes op-ed is from an NYU professor calling for … a wealth tax! What a surprise! Oh … wait a minute. I’ve been telling you that the Democrats would be looking for a way to tax wealth instead of income for years now. Damn, I’m really sorry I was so right on this one. This NYU prof says that taxing wealth is the true way to get rid of economic inequality in America. There you go. Everybody should have an equal amount of stuff. It’s just not fair that some people work harder and longer and make better well-informed decisions that lead to the accumulation of wealth. Something has to be done! And that something is to seize the wealth these people accumulate through taxation to make things more equal. The problem here – a problem the proggies can’t see – is that Isn’t that what I’ve been telling you? The proggies are coming after your wealth next! What happens then? Well .. the people who acquire wealth through hard work and good decision making will soon stop working hard. That’s not going to work well for the rest of us. Hard work not only creates wealth, it also creates jobs. Don’t try to explain this to a proggie.

Then we had a much talked-about column by Paul Krugman, reveling in the good ole’ days of 91% tax rates on the rich. He wants to go back to that 91% rate. What Krugman fails to note --- in fact what most libs who reminisce about the old confiscatory tax rates fail to note --- is that there were massive tax deductions available to taxpayers when these high rates existed. You could deduct any and all interest, for instance. The result was that the effective tax rate – the actual percentage of your gross income you paid in taxes – was pretty much the same that it is now. Krugman wants those old tax rates but without the deductions.

The liberals can dream all they want, but the result of their calls to increase taxes on the evil rich results in less revenue to the government. Period. End of story. It’s a historical fact. We collected less tax revenue when our rates were at 91% or in the 70% range than we do in the 20% range.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 4 • Views: 16,621 • Replies: 266
Topic Closed

@H2O MAN,

Quote:

The liberals can dream all they want, but the result of their calls to increase taxes on the evil rich results in less revenue to the government. Period. End of story. It’s a historical fact.

Clinton had surpluses. Bush had Deficits.

This is one of the reasons that we Americans voted to give Obama another four years in charge of the economy.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Max, I see that you are confused.

The reason some Americans voted for Obama again was because he looks like a few of them and he
promised to give these tax consumers all sorts of goodies & services paid for by American tax payers.

3 Replies

@H2O MAN,

As opposed to Romney who promised to give all sorts of goodies to those that looked like him at the country club. (Those sitting at the tables being served by the under classes.)

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

I don't have any problem with that H2OMan. That's how democracy works.

Now let's raise taxes on the rich. I want my goodies.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

Goods and services paid for by American tax payers--which would not, of course, mean the red state parasites, who get more from the Federal government than they contribute.

0 Replies

I dont think they should increase taxes. I think the government should set on their thumbs untill after the first of the year and let nature take its course.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

You think Obama is equal to Clinton because. . . ?

I think you are trying to compare apples to bathtubs, and it isn't working.

2 Replies

@roger,

True. I think Mr. Obama is far too much like Bush Jr.

I'd like to see him at least pretend to head in a less conservative direction.

0 Replies

@roger,

I wasn't comparing Obama to Clinton. I was only using what happened during the Clinton presidency to counter this rather fantastic claim about historical fact.

Quote:

The result of their calls to increase taxes on the evil rich results in less revenue to the government. Period. End of story. It’s a historical fact.

Actually I am not a big fan of the Clinton presidency, and actually Obama is a little too much like Clinton for my liking, but that wasn't my point.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Way to go Max, you admitted that you were wrong... that's the first step to conservatism.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

Quote:

you admitted that you were wrong... that's the first step to conservatism.

In that case you must admit you're wrong a gazillion times a day.

1 Reply

@panzade,

Having a H20 brain allows plenty of liquidity in the thought process, but tends to cause trouble for floating ideas that are laden with borers... or have lead keels.

0 Replies

Pussyfooting around the facts...

Quote:

The liberals can dream all they want, but the result of their calls to increase taxes on the evil rich results in less revenue to the government. Period. End of story. It’s a historical fact. We collected less tax revenue when our rates were at 91% or in the 70% range than we do in the 20% range.

3 Replies

H2O so much ignorance so little time, we could fill not only books but libraries with what you don’t know. To start with America already levied a tax on “excess wealth” in 1913 it was poorly named but it was a tax levied against “excess wealth” and only “excess wealth.” The original income tax carried a $89,634 (in 2011 dollars) tax exemption for couples. No workingman no matter how hard he worked was expected to pay the new tax as opposed to stealing men like Rockefeller who we all know was a master thief.

Now tell us all how the same percentage of Americans were subject to the original tax on “excess wealth” as there are now. Most of us can understand that when a tax is levied on those who own cars it is not paid by those who don’t own cars. The fact is the vast majority of Americans have no “excess wealth” to tax. The commie/conservatives are always looking for somebody to pay the tax that was levied on the ungodly greedy.

World history teaches that greed destroys not just the lives of the ungodly greedy but the entire society. The ungodly greedy are sick and they want not part of a country wealth but it’s entire wealth. Historically they will take all the wealth until the rest of the population of country rises up and kills them to man. During the French Revolution they roasted the ungodly greedy on a spit and fed them to their wives. In America we kept the ungodly greedy under control with our tax system but over the last 30 years of commie/conservative economic policy America has taken a giant step backwards. In the long run America has only two choices taxes on “excess wealth” or violent revolution and during a violent revolution being among the 99% has distinct advantages.

1 Reply

@Zardoz,

"commie/conservatives"

Oh, good one! I can't wait to slip that into a conversation.

2 Replies

@roger,

Roger no one has ever given credit to the many communists who are responsible for starting the modern conservative movement in America. Frank Meyer who is considered the Father of the Modern Conservative Movement was in fact a hard core communist who took his orders from Moscow. He was thrown out of England for trying to start a communist revolution in England. Whitaker Chambers, a communist spy, is another key philosopher in the modern conservative movement
Chambers wrote a book about being a communist spy master who turned over plans for our Battleships and top secret plans for bombing apparatus that made bombs much more accurate before WWII to both the Russians and the Nazis. Later President Reagan awarded this communist spy the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Regan gave Chambers credit for changing his politics from a democrat to republican.

These are but two of many communists who are responsible for the Modern Conservative Movement. I have spent the last four year researching the communist contribution to the formation of the Modern Conservative Movement. I have secured many books, now out of print, written by the communists who made the Modern Conservative Movement what it is today. It is just not fair not to give credit where credit is clearly do.

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

H2O figure don’t lie but liars do figure . The figures are no more than propaganda that is hashed and rehashed by the commie/conservative propaganda machine. They don’t hold up when put to the test. It is easy to recite propaganda but it is quite a different to take actual figures from a neutral source and prove your case.

The commie/conservative have long believed in the law of propaganda. If you say it three times it must be true.

1 Reply

@Zardoz,

Zar person, it's the green with envy liberal democrat party that is heavily populated by communist, not the conservative republican party.

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

H2O let’s talk about the tax on “excess wealth” and how Reagan cut taxes on the ungodly greedy by 60% while he was president. The tax on excess wealth stood at 70% when Reagan was elected he cut it to 28% during his term in office. A 42% cut which amounted to a 60% cut on the tax levied on “excess wealth.” There was no money to fund this massive tax cut and Reagan tripled the national debt during his term in office, no war going on, Reagan just tripled the national debt by giving the massive tax cuts to the ungodly greedy. What this doesn’t seem to fit with the commie/conservative propaganda you repeat endlessly does it? The difference is one is actual historical fact while your version is propaganda. Figures don’t lie but liars do figure the fact is tax revenues go down during a recession and Reagan caused one of the biggest recessions ever. They were actually known as depressions before someone decided to lessen the blow by calling them “recessions.” When the economy rebounds tax revenues increase the propagandists on the right tried to take credit for the tax increase which had taken place in every economic rebound in history.
With the deficit out of control Reagan had to raise taxes to offset the loose of tax dollars. What is a commie/conservative to do? Raise taxes on the working poor and the middle class and raise them Reagan did, he raised social security four times during his term in office and he raised the retirement age as well. The baby boomers got to pay more and retire 2 years later.

Social Security and other government tax income are not separated so the total government income figures include the social security surplus. So the huge increase in social security was used to partially offset the humongous tax cut for the ungodly greedy. Each president up to Obama has had a social security surplus to offset their real deficit. Obama was the first not to able to use Social Security surplus to offset a deficit. The Clinton surplus was actually the surplus of social security revenues. When Baby Bush said give the people back their money, the trouble was the ungodly greedy were given back the workingman’s social security. There was no surplus it was the $2.7 trillion social security trust fund Baby Bush was giving away. After baby Bush gave the $2.7 trillion in tax cuts to his richest campaign contributors he posed for a photo op by the filing cabinet that held the 42.7 trillion social security fund and said the U S Treasury bonds in it were just worthless paper. Of course the U S Treasury bonds held by Baby Bush and the ungodly greedy are still the safest investment in the world.

The fact there is one way and only one way to pay back the $2.7 trillion social security trust fund held in U S treasury bonds that is raise the taxes on the ungodly greedy thieves that stole it.

The forecast is for higher taxes on the ungodly greedy much higher taxes then even they can imagine in their worst nightmare.

H2O talk to me about the tax cuts and commie/conservative thieves that gave them.

2 Replies

Tax Increases

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know