Killing the Class-Warfare Argument
 

A recent report from the Treasury Department confirms that the rich are paying a bigger share of taxes than they would if the Bush tax cuts hadn’t passed. The Treasury estimates that the top 1 percent of earners will pay about 32.3 percent of taxes this year, which is the same as the CBO estimate. The Treasury also estimates, however, that absent the tax cuts, the top 1 percent would be paying only 30.5 percent of taxes, down 10 percent from 2001.

http://www.nationalreview.com/moore/moore200408191201.asp

No Comments from the John Kerry Crew. Amazing

None required.

Look up "AMT".

Interesting...

What does the alternative minimum tax have to do with the actual percentage paid? Everyone is paying less, the rich just got a smaller percentage drop. Many who were on the low end don't pay fed tax at all now. Yep, he's a BAD MAN.

Low income people got a $250 tax cut. High income people got $100k tax cut. Who needs the money more?

From the article - this part made me laugh:

The part in bold is laughable - can anyone honestly raise their hand and say that the tax rate is their only disincentive to working harder and making more money?

<i>"Who needs the money more?"</i>

In a free society, it's nobody's business who "needs" the money more. I don't need some government bureaucrat deciding who needs MY money more. I work hard for MY money with no help from the government. The government serves only as a hurdle. I employee several highly-paid engineers due to MY hard work. They, in turn, support their families and live very comfortably.

But on second thought, maybe I should let the government redistribute MY hard-earned money to some low-income people who "need" it to buy cigarettes, cheap wine and Lotto tickets ...... :rolleyes:

Nice try, Kafka. See here in America, it's called free enterprise. People who get an education and work really hard make more money than people who drop out in the 10th grade to buy a Camaro and go to work at Hardee's. All men are created equal, after that it's all about life choices. If you choose to work long hours to get ahead, you deserve to keep that money. Sending money to people because they "need it more" is a nice income redistribution scheme. That doesn't work so hot in the real world (see also: Soviet Union). The top 50% of income earners pay 96.04% of all income taxes in America. When there are tax breaks, who exactly do you think should get them? I think it's the people who actually pay taxes.

-Paul

VAT/Sales Tax. What other fair way is there to tax people?

Now wait a second. . .maybe Cam has something here.

I think that we can all agree that we all/each need our money more than our politicians do. :p

Oh man, Cam; you really stepped in it, on this one.

Yeah Cam, I'm raising my hand here. . ."The part in bold" is spot-on. Who want's to work full-time when part-time will get them by?

Island - not with the same standard of living.

Personally, I only work about 30-40 hours a week at the moment. That is because I am lazy and I have the option. The fact that I face a (top) marginal tax rate of 39% on the additional income I might earn if I work harder is completely irrelevant. I want to have the free time more than I want to earn heaps more income. Even at 39%, the additional tax is not the relevant factor to me.

I'm serious, think about the consequences of a nice fat tax cut for you. The way the world works, if you get it tax money back, someone else misses out. The debate should only be about what minimum standard of living people are entitled to.

To address other, specific comments:

Curt In a free society, it's nobody's business who "needs" the money more.

Its not a free society - in your "free society" you will enjoy all of the glories of true poverty. Its all fine and well to say "if someone needs to eat, they can get a job". Will they? What if they can't through illness? Because they are a teenage mother and have a daughter with no father?

Oh wait, I hear the answer already - she shouldn't have got pregnant. But she did. You want for mother and baby to go without food so you can have a lower tax rate?

drop out in the 10th grade to buy a Camaro and go to work at Hardee's

He's not really the problem. In your low tax utopia, he would probably get by. He'd live in a slum (I assume you'd be taking away any accommodation supplement he needs), but you'd be ok, because you live behind a big fence.

Poverty sucks, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone - whether it is through their own mistakes or not. You guys basically take the viewpoint that it is ok that poverty sucks because that is an incentive to climb out of it. Screw that.

Anyone that is not severely handicapped can be successful in this country if they work hard and make reasonable choices. Sloth and poverty are chosen via free will in this country. Why should we make it any more attractive than it already is. Why punish the industrious and reward the lazy? It does not make much sense to me.

Well said. The dole should exist for those incapable of helping themselves and as a temporary helping hand for people who hit temporary bad times. It has become an unfortunate way of life for people who've figured out the system and exploit it such that they can exist without lifting a finger of their own. This is not right, not fair, not just. Anyone -anyone- in America (with the exception of invalids and a select few others) can make their own successes with nothing more than a minimal work ethic and the desire to do so. Those that choose not to warrant no pity from me.

-Paul

I saw a guy in front of McDonald's the other day. he was holding a "will work for food" sign asking for donations. He was leaning against a sign that said: "help wanted immediately..all shifts...no experience required"

I saw another guy...he was about 25 years old or so. He was wearing an old field jacket and had a sign saying: Hungry-Please help Vietnam Vet..God Bless"...Too lazy to even find out that the war he claimed to be a veteran of happened before he was born....or maybe he was an animal doctor from Vietnam.....

Here is a special guest response from my wife (if you think I'm a lefty, spend five minutes talking to her):

It's Cam back (I was taking dictation) - she is not as reasonable as I am and she is beginning to get ummm, rude.

You guys need to look at statistics more - if the US is anything like NZ, the vast majority of people on the dole (95%+) are not on it long term and are certainly not second generation beneficiaries.

If you reduce the welfare state, you reduce what I personally (and Anna) consider to be basic human rights.

You want to take money from the people in the link below? They are working - will they be any less poor if they work harder?

http://www.nccbuscc.org/cchd/povertyusa/tour2.htm

Ah, Cam, and Anna. that was great. Such a refreshing flash-back to younger naïve days. :)

Point one)
Quite a long time ago, I (with some friends out looking for adventure) saw a guy down by the railroad yard with a nice fire burning. In my great wisedom I said "CAMPFIRE! . . .let get some hot-dogs and marshmellows and go see this guy" (yes we had been drinking)

Well we got quite the education that night. "Ol' Rusty" was setting us staight about the life, and culture of a transient. I can't really put it all in words here, put make no mistake, many transients are "transients just to be counter to "the system." (at least in this country)

Point two)
At one point in my career I took a job with a govt funded "non-profit" org, said to be in exsistnce to bolster the World Health concerns, primarily for women & children of 3rd world countries.

What a sham. I sat in total disbelief as the funding official gave mountains of money (tax-payer money) to projects that he openly admitted had no future. I was dumbfounded when I was instructed on how to mis-apropriate billing.

These two points were pivitol in my understanding the balance of this issue of tax dollars going to fund the "needy"

Please understand that your argument of "taking money away from the poor thru lower taxes" is off base. There needs to be a balance!

Certainly zero help to the truely needy would cause much further hardship to those already having problems. . . but as it exists right now, TAXATION does not lead to relief. Taxation "for the needy" leads to bureaucrat putzing around until they have used up all the money paying themselves, and their friends, or paying any who will kiss ass whilst chasing funded-bone$.

So, before Anna goes telling people, just what their (lacking)perspective is. . .she may be well advised to consider that from where they sit may be just a little less naïve than from where she sits.

btw; my favorite cardboard [feign]cry for help[/feign] sign, that I've seen. ..

"WILL WORK FOR FOOD. . .but this is far easier. :) "

I remember in college I was getting out of my car. A buddy was with me.

As soon as I got out I was approached by a homeless person asking me for $1.00

I stopped for a second and offered the guy $10 to wash my car.

I was told to "f@ck off"

My then girlfriend and I where walking to the movies. Had a bum ask me for $0.10 I would have given it to him if I had it. All I had was plastic. When I turned him down he proceeded to call me a racist and followed us for 4 blocks yelling your a racist.

Fast forward a few years. When I restaurant manager. I would have people coming in with dog crap on their clothes looking for a job. I found out they just wanted to turn in a app so they could say they applied for 5 jobs that week so they could keep the benefits coming in.

Had a waitress that was pregnant. Had social services tell her to stay home because she would make more money to sit at home.

I do not make the mega bucks that many on this site make. I do well enough to let my wife stay home with my child. Had to make some sacrifices to do so but it was important to me. I work on cars on the side to earn some extra money, also work on computers to earn a little extra money.

If you are willing to work you will get by in this country. You may not make enough to buy a new Porsche every year or even a new car but you can get by if you are willing to work.

I resent seeing my tax dollars going to support a bunch of lazy asses

You know, I'm sorry to hear about your unfortunate experiences with that nonprofit, Island. My experiences in government were very different. The people I dealt with were very hard-working and very honest. But they were often ineffective because their offices were tragically, and deliberately, underfunded. This nonprofit in your past was not a public agency. Yet they received grants. Perhaps those grants needed to be tracked more effectively, and audited for performance. But then, that would mean hiring a couple of auditors, total cost of $120k, to ensure that several million dollars of public funds are not wasted. Make sense? Sure it does, to you and me. But to a politician? Heck no! A politician thinks:

"That's 'gubmint spending' and if I get caught supporting it, I'll be defeated in the next election by very angry conservatives. So, the waste must stay. And besides, it makes government operate poorly, and I campaign on a platform of hating government, so this is just more fuel to use in scaring people and making them angry enough to vote for me."

And those of you who think everyone has an outside pony on the Capitalism Carousel, and can reach the brass ring, you're not paying attention. There are horses whose riders cannot reach the ring dispenser. When a liberal talks about freedom, this is party what he's thinking. When a conservative talks about freedom, he's thinking of how we can slam the door in these peoples' faces. After all, we need low wage workers, and we need a LOT of them. I understand what Anna was saying. But some of you do not. For some of you, life is simple. It's as simple as a conservative radio talk show.

Anna,

Every true conservative is more than happy to help those who truly need it. I don't know why this is so hard to understand? Trapping people in poverty by making them comfortable in it is the kind of travesty that should keep you up at night. There is nothing more vile than stealing someone’s dream before they ever had it. That is what our current system does. We tell them they could not possibly succeed and they are better off living on our charity. We said it often enough that many now believe it. Sad, truly sad.

What about the kids?
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1093277155.gif
(OECD and Luxembourg Income Study data.)