Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    7:54 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Do you think the "rich" should be paying more in taxes? Back to Topics
101Speedster

Champion Author
Ventura

Posts:31,786
Points:2,901,380
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Aug 20, 2005 3:12:20 PM

If so, how do you define rich?
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,775
Points:488,705
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Apr 27, 2015 9:53:42 PM

"Why can they not be done in conjunction? "

Because the super-rich don't want that.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,716
Points:34,220
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Apr 27, 2015 4:36:37 PM

"So, you're using "$48,000" as an example of "average and above", huh?"

That was from a dialogue talking about top marginal tax rates. The comment was made that "NO ONE" was taxed at the top rates. $48,000 in 1958 corresponds to the "upper 1%" income threshold of today. My point was the top one percent was over taxed as well as almost everyone else working in the 50s, 60s, 79s, and early 80s.

At those rates many, simply, will cease working.

Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,912
Points:652,070
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Apr 27, 2015 3:45:07 PM

"Tell you what today we do the big spending cuts first and then maybe we will think about redoing the tax code later."

Why can they not be done in conjunction?
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:24,482
Points:3,291,745
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Apr 27, 2015 3:05:12 PM

<<A "family earning $48,000 in 1958" would be filthy rich, earning almost 10 times what the "average" family earned - the equivalent of earning almost 1/2 a million dollars today. Hardly what I'd call "average", or even "average and above". How filthy rich were they?>>

I don't think dogma allows the use of the term "filthy" to describe rich people, because they only become rich through their honest toil. ;)
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:20,734
Points:3,489,260
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 27, 2015 2:49:21 PM

>>And a family earning $48,000 in 1958 paid a marginal rate between 62% and 66%. The rates for average and above incomes were punitive, up until the mid 1980's.<<

So, you're using "$48,000" as an example of "average and above", huh? In 1958, the median family income was $5,100. That's right, $5,100. A "family earning $48,000 in 1958" would be filthy rich, earning almost 10 times what the "average" family earned - the equivalent of earning almost 1/2 a million dollars today. Hardly what I'd call "average", or even "average and above". How filthy rich were they? A family earning $48,000 is 1958 wasn't just a 1 percenter family - they were in the top 1/3 of 1 percent, probably the top .2%. The "average" family, OTOH, paid about 20% in taxes.

[Edited by: NickHammer at 4/27/2015 2:50:57 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,912
Points:652,070
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Apr 27, 2015 9:54:19 AM

This is why austerity measures on their own are not the solution...

More revenue MUST be a part of the equation to balance the deficit, much less address the debt.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:30,066
Points:2,984,420
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 22, 2015 9:47:18 PM

flyboyUT R- "It seems like it doesnt matter how much income we have - the liberals and or progressives seem to always be able to find 10-20% more dollars that must be spent...."

That's because the conservatives don't seem to be able to solve any problems, just create new ones.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,775
Points:488,705
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Apr 22, 2015 9:16:26 PM

"Its gotta stop..... It seems like it doesnt matter how much income we have - the liberals and or progressives seem to always be able to find 10-20% more dollars that must be spent...."

Yup. I know what you mean. It's like trying to get the conservatives to cut back on weapons spending or private prisons spending. Ya know, every mandatory sentence for crimes blacks are typically charged with increases spending too...

And the way Republicans 'fixed' education results in more prison costs.

[Edited by: SemiSteve at 4/22/2015 9:18:02 PM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:30,595
Points:1,760,915
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Apr 22, 2015 7:57:49 PM

Weasle you said --- " A simple rollback of the W-era tax cuts for the wealthy is enough, in conjunction with targeted spending cuts, to further decrease the deficit such that the debt can someday be addressed." You know I keep hearing that "compromise" over and over and over. You know the one - give us a little increase in spending today and tomorrow we will reduce taxes. But tomorrow never seems to get here does it.

Tell you what today we do the big spending cuts first and then maybe we will think about redoing the tax code later.
.
.
It is my humble opinion that we dont have so much a tax (income) problem as we have a spending problem. The politicians want to give everyone adn anyone a piece of th action and promise the moon to get votes. Its gotta stop..... It seems like it doesnt matter how much income we have - the liberals and or progressives seem to always be able to find 10-20% more dollars that must be spent....

[Edited by: flyboyUT at 4/22/2015 8:00:32 PM EST]
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,716
Points:34,220
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Apr 22, 2015 7:52:29 PM

"As Warren Buffett pointed out, I'm probably already paying more in taxes than some of "the rich". "

Thanks for carrying the load.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:30,066
Points:2,984,420
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 22, 2015 7:10:54 PM

SoylentGrain - "And you would be willing to do your part by paying what percentage of your income?"

As Warren Buffett pointed out, I'm probably already paying more in taxes than some of "the rich".
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,716
Points:34,220
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Apr 22, 2015 6:12:12 PM

"What is proposed is to raise taxes enough to eliminate the deficit so we can start paying down the debt, as we were poised to do until the Republicans and Shrub took over. "

And you would be willing to do your part by paying what percentage of your income?
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:30,066
Points:2,984,420
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 22, 2015 5:17:45 PM

Cirdan - "Point is, if you take away all their money, then who will you tax to cover the other $X Trillion in debt, and pay for all those Obama $1B annual deficits?

"take away all their money" is your fantasy, not what anyone has actually proposed. What is proposed is to raise taxes enough to eliminate the deficit so we can start paying down the debt, as we were poised to do until the Republicans and Shrub took over.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,912
Points:652,070
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Apr 22, 2015 2:26:49 PM

"That will happen when pork bellies fly."

Given the past 15 years, I must admit this is wishful thinking...
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,775
Points:488,705
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Apr 22, 2015 2:13:30 PM

"The bigger issue, then, would be that the nation's top producers would have left the country to seek to build their fortunes again elsewhere."

The nation's top producers are not the ones getting paid the most. The nations top producers are the working class which has been forced to work at maximum efficiency under threat of losing their jobs. Having witnessed the multitudes of co-workers getting the axe all around them, they work not for wealth but for a living. The vast majority of what they produce is confiscated by their employers.

If those wealthy were to leave the country (purely hypothetical) they would be quickly replaced by others who would size the opportunity to fill the voids created and the holes in the market.
Profile Pic
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:26,749
Points:4,049,690
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Apr 22, 2015 1:42:24 PM

"in conjunction with targeted spending cuts"

That will happen when pork bellies fly.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,912
Points:652,070
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Apr 22, 2015 1:30:15 PM

"As I mentioned before, my sister ceased working because of high marginal rates in the early 1970's. Both her and her husband held professional degrees. By the time travel, childcare, state taxes, and federal taxes took their toll, she had less than 10% of her salary left over."

And as I stated, I don't see too many indicating that they want to go back to that level of taxation... A simple rollback of the W-era tax cuts for the wealthy is enough, in conjunction with targeted spending cuts, to further decrease the deficit such that the debt can someday be addressed.

Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,716
Points:34,220
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Apr 22, 2015 1:09:37 PM

""In 1958, an 81% marginal tax rate applied to incomes above $140,000, and the 91% rate kicked in at $400,000 for couples."

And a family earning $48,000 in 1958 paid a marginal rate between 62% and 66%. The rates for average and above incomes were punitive, up until the mid 1980's.

As I mentioned before, my sister ceased working because of high marginal rates in the early 1970's. Both her and her husband held professional degrees. By the time travel, childcare, state taxes, and federal taxes took their toll, she had less than 10% of her salary left over.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,775
Points:488,705
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Apr 22, 2015 12:43:40 PM

"The super-rich could easily afford to pay enough more taxes to wipe out the deficit and then some. "

Pirate: "CLASS ENVY
Punish those that work hard for those that catch the free ride."

Says you. Not me. And where in the world do you get this idea that the rich work any harder than the rest? Some do, some don't. Being well paid has very little to do with how hard one works. In many cases the middle and poor are working harder than the rich, but since they are not paid as well for their time, they don't have as much money or wealth.

In today's economy of the evaporating middle class full time jobs are the latest casualty. Today's workers are finding it increasingly difficult to locate a full time job. They are forced to take several part-time and temporary jobs to try to make ends meet. And as statistics show they are not doing as well as workers 30 years ago. The top earners are making more than ever and the rest are lucky if they are still earning the same thing they had before the class war went full monty.

Those who work hard are being punished alright. Not by taxes; but by the rich who only sparingly employ them. Those who work hard are everyone trying to make a living, from the rich to the middle and the poor. Everyone is working hard but only a few are getting paid well.
Profile Pic
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:26,749
Points:4,049,690
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Apr 22, 2015 12:31:51 PM

"Where is ol Dingy Harry when he is needed?"

Still recuperating from his fight with his exercise machine???
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:30,595
Points:1,760,915
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Apr 22, 2015 12:08:11 PM

Where is ol Dingy Harry when he is needed?
.
.
>>>National Review’s Jillian Kay Melchior reported Wednesday that, along with Al Sharpton and Melissa Harris-Perry, two more MSNBC stars are not paying their fair share of taxes. Touré Neblett, co-host of “The Cycle” owes the IRS a cool $59,000. Joy-Ann Reid, a former anchor and now a regular contributor to the “Lien” Forward network, owes New York almost $5,000 in back taxes.

As we reported last week, Melissa Harris-Perry owes the IRS $70,000. Al Sharpton’s tax bill is upwards of $3 – $4 million.

The fact that four MSNBC stars, all of whom must earn a pretty sweet 1% living, do not pay their taxes, should surprise no one. The Left is now officially the Do-As-I-Say-Not-As-I-Do Party on all issues, not just taxes, but also feminism, the environment, political contributions, and corporate windfalls.<<<
.
.
.
Why is it those who whine the loudest just cant seem to 'walk the talk'?
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,716
Points:34,220
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Apr 22, 2015 11:45:09 AM

deleted


[Edited by: SoylentGrain at 4/22/2015 11:46:57 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,912
Points:652,070
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Apr 22, 2015 11:02:51 AM

Peter Schiff: The Fantasy of a 91% Top Income Tax Rate

"In 1958, an 81% marginal tax rate applied to incomes above $140,000, and the 91% rate kicked in at $400,000 for couples. These figures are in unadjusted 1958 dollars and correspond today to nominal income levels that are about eight times higher. That year, according to Internal Revenue Service records, about 10,000 of the nation's 45.6 million tax filers had income that was taxed at 81% or higher. The number is an estimate and is inexact because the IRS tables list the number of tax filers by income ranges, not precisely by the number who paid at the 81% rate."

"The tax code of the 1950s allowed upper-income Americans to take exemptions and deductions that are unheard of today. Tax shelters were widespread, and not just for the superrich. The working wealthy—including doctors, lawyers, business owners and executives—were versed in the art of creating losses to lower their tax exposure."

I don't think we need to return to 50's-era taxation, but I od think we need to roll back W-era tax cuts for the wealthy - in addition to targeted spending cuts.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,912
Points:652,070
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Apr 22, 2015 10:32:07 AM

"This isn't the income inequality thread, it's the rich paying more taxes thread."

I stand corrected.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:76,081
Points:3,313,660
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Apr 22, 2015 10:28:32 AM

This isn't the income inequality thread, it's the rich paying more taxes thread.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,912
Points:652,070
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Apr 22, 2015 10:22:29 AM

"When the US should have been experiencing explosive growth, we experienced recessions"

Categorically false. The winding-down of the hyper-inflated war-driven economy seems to be completely missed by you.

"That 90%+ tax rate didn't work then."

Please relate this to income inequality, because I don't see the link.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,716
Points:34,220
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Apr 22, 2015 9:59:33 AM

"Makes for a good sound bite when posted in a vacuum... "

The vacuum during those periods was production. WWII destroyed much of the worlds production capability. The US was the global production powerhouse left standing after the war. When the US should have been experiencing explosive growth, we experienced recessions.

The 50's and 60's was the period when products sold in the US started bearing the stamp: "Made in Japan". The steel industry, for all practical purposes ceased to exist in the US. To increase profits, car-makers produced product that would rust through in 4 to 5 years. Those were great times.

That 90%+ tax rate didn't work then. There is glaring evidence that it would have devastating effects now.

[Edited by: SoylentGrain at 4/22/2015 10:02:09 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,912
Points:652,070
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Apr 22, 2015 8:51:22 AM

"Recessions in 49, 53, 58, 70, 73, 74, 75, 80, 81. Decreasing tax revenues in 49, 50, 55, 58, 71, 83. No those were not the best of times."

Makes for a good sound bite when posted in a vacuum...
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,912
Points:652,070
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Apr 22, 2015 8:50:25 AM

"Some people work with their hands...some people work with their heads."

Some people don't do either...
Profile Pic
PopcornPirate
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:6,059
Points:1,666,615
Joined:Nov 2006
Message Posted: Apr 22, 2015 8:48:22 AM

"How many of 'the rich' actually work hard as opposed to how many simply take advantage of those who do work hard?"

Some people work with their hands...some people work with their heads.

The smarter ones always gets the less smarter ones to work with their hands for the smarter ones.
Fact of life & business
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:76,081
Points:3,313,660
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Apr 22, 2015 8:21:28 AM

rj: "...they excel at taking advantage of others..."

No one can take advantage of you without YOUR permission.
Explain how a person who is of higher income is taking advantage of lower-earning people. Explain how the higher earners get advantage from the hard work of others, knowing of course that employees at a business are expected to be productive in their work and that the company they work for will necessarily make more per hour in goods produced than the employee gets paid to produce the goods.
Profile Pic
Cirdan
Champion Author Nevada

Posts:2,740
Points:145,645
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Apr 22, 2015 12:45:16 AM

"What??? There are a couple million people in the wealthiest 1% of the population that have zero assets?"

Point is, if you take away all their money, then who will you tax to cover the other $X Trillion in debt, and pay for all those Obama $1B annual deficits?

That's the circular logic of the Liberals, we're going to tax the XXXX out of the rich to pay for all these programs until there are no more rich to tax. . . . Anybody see a problem there?
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,716
Points:34,220
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Apr 21, 2015 10:08:03 PM

"So you're saying that there was no capital investment and no growth and things just fell apart in the '50s and '60s? "

Recessions in 49, 53, 58, 70, 73, 74, 75, 80, 81. Decreasing tax revenues in 49, 50, 55, 58, 71, 83. No those were not the best of times.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:30,066
Points:2,984,420
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 21, 2015 4:05:04 PM

I75at7AM - "People who earn a lot of money are generally doing so for a reason."

Usually because they excel at taking advantage of others and their hard work.

"They are the ones who produce nothing (nothing but excess children)"

Yet it's the right that opposes contraception and abortion, actively supporting the cycle of poverty.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:76,081
Points:3,313,660
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Apr 21, 2015 2:10:02 PM

People who earn a lot of money are generally doing so for a reason. SOMEONE is paying them a lot, and it's probably NOT for doing stupid things or being unproductive.

The Top Leaches are generally found at the BOTTOM of society. They are the ones who produce nothing (nothing but excess children) and feel they are "entitled" to consume everything that productive people enjoy.

If wealth is seized from those who earned a lot, those people still possess the ability to earn a lot, and they will probably seek to do it elsewhere, where they are allowed to keep what they have earned.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:30,066
Points:2,984,420
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 21, 2015 1:35:39 PM

I75at7AM - "The bigger issue, then, would be that the nation's top producers would have left the country to seek to build their fortunes again elsewhere."

"top producers" or "top leeches"?
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:30,066
Points:2,984,420
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 21, 2015 1:34:58 PM

SoylentGrain - "If the government were to confiscate every asset from the wealthiest 1% of the population and apply that wealth towards the national debt, the US government would still owe $2-3 trillion."

Try reading what was posted. He said "wipe out the deficit", not "the debt". The idea being that once the deficit is wiped out we could start paying down the debt with that increased tax money.

"Then, you have the issue of what to do with the couple million people who have zero assets."

What??? There are a couple million people in the wealthiest 1% of the population that have zero assets?
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:30,066
Points:2,984,420
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 21, 2015 1:31:50 PM

PopcornPirate - "Punish those that work hard for those that catch the free ride."

How many of 'the rich' actually work hard as opposed to how many simply take advantage of those who do work hard?
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:30,066
Points:2,984,420
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 21, 2015 1:30:13 PM

mudtoe - "other people who hate them. Can't say as I blame them as I wouldn't want to pay people who hate me either."

Maybe if they behaved better, they wouldn't be so hated.

Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:30,066
Points:2,984,420
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 21, 2015 1:29:11 PM

SoylentGrain - "If over 90% of a person's or company's capital is prevented form being invested, what do you think they could do to maintain operations? I'm not talking about growth. That would be out the window. What do you think they could use to keep equipment operational and the roofs on the buildings?"

So you're saying that there was no capital investment and no growth and things just fell apart in the '50s and '60s?
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:76,081
Points:3,313,660
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Apr 21, 2015 11:58:52 AM

The bigger issue, then, would be that the nation's top producers would have left the country to seek to build their fortunes again elsewhere.
The dumb masses left here could wallow around in shared (and deserved) poverty!
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,716
Points:34,220
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Apr 21, 2015 10:59:12 AM

"The super-rich could easily afford to pay enough more taxes to wipe out the deficit and then some. "

If the government were to confiscate every asset from the wealthiest 1% of the population and apply that wealth towards the national debt, the US government would still owe $2-3 trillion. Then, you have the issue of what to do with the couple million people who have zero assets.
Profile Pic
PopcornPirate
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:6,059
Points:1,666,615
Joined:Nov 2006
Message Posted: Apr 21, 2015 9:27:52 AM

"The super-rich could easily afford to pay enough more taxes to wipe out the deficit and then some. "

CLASS ENVY
Punish those that work hard for those that catch the free ride.
Profile Pic
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:26,749
Points:4,049,690
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Apr 21, 2015 9:27:32 AM

"The super-rich could easily afford to pay enough more taxes to wipe out the deficit and then some. Do that for a year and the debt is reduced. Do it again every year after that and eventually we are debt free."

A little math to back up that opinion would be nice.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,775
Points:488,705
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Apr 21, 2015 9:17:07 AM

"If the super rich paid taxes at the rates of the 60's the federal debt would be far lower."

"If the super rich (whoever you think they might be) paid taxes at a 100% rate, the federal debt would be insignificantly lower."

In one year.

But the fact is it would be lower. The super-rich could easily afford to pay enough more taxes to wipe out the deficit and then some. Do that for a year and the debt is reduced. Do it again every year after that and eventually we are debt free.

Just like that.
Profile Pic
Valandingham
Champion Author Washington

Posts:10,443
Points:2,211,975
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Apr 21, 2015 6:37:51 AM

SE3.5,
it is the Republican Reagan Tax Reform law of 1986 that keeps the Wealthiest of Americans from paying their Fair Share in Taxes. It is the Current GOP(Grand Old Party)/ Republicans that told the President "NO!" To closing these loopholes. And it is these "Loopholes" that keep out National Debt on the rise instead of falling.

Mudtoe,
If the people really wanted to get the Jobs back then all they have to do is Pass Laws at the State Level Banning Outsourced products from being transported and sold within the State, Self Checkout Lines, Movie and other Rental Boxes, and restricted percentage of Online Sales during Holiday Seasons. This kind of voting is a Vote of the People in the form of initiatives, and propositions not a vote of Corporate controlled government.
Profile Pic
Cirdan
Champion Author Nevada

Posts:2,740
Points:145,645
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Apr 21, 2015 12:40:15 AM

So Hillary rails against fatcat CEOs while taking $300,000 per speech from struggling college students.

Then she goes after the corruption of money in campaign financing, while raising $2 Billion for her Presidential run.

What would we do without liberals looking out for us poor folk.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,118
Points:2,085,230
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Apr 20, 2015 5:12:32 PM

socialiststeve: "The rich pocket the tax cuts they buy from the GOP. They don't expand business or create jobs with it. "


Nah, they will put the money into automating their businesses so that they can fire more of those loser liberals, union rabble rousers, and other people who hate them. Can't say as I blame them as I wouldn't want to pay people who hate me either.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:30,595
Points:1,760,915
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Apr 20, 2015 3:52:16 PM

So Steve those obscenely rich Democrat fat cats who bought tax cuts from other obscenely rich Democrats just pocketed it all. Man they must have some really big pockets to put it all in. Here I thought those Democrat rich folk invested their money in things that were supposed to pay dividends and stuff. At least that part of it that they didnt spend on new cars and houses and other stuff.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,775
Points:488,705
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Apr 20, 2015 1:41:52 PM

The rich pocket the tax cuts they buy from the GOP. They don't expand business or create jobs with it.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,912
Points:652,070
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Apr 20, 2015 1:08:36 PM

"It is on the specifics where everything gets messy."

Doesn't it always? lol
Post a reply Back to Topics