Why Tax Breaks For The Rich Are Important....To Them!

[DirkBelig]

"From each according to their means; to each according to their needs." - Central tennet of Communism. If you are trying to say who deserves what, then your are a COMMIE MOOCHER!!!! Suck it hard, Boyeeeeeee!!!!!!!!

Your hatred of the annoying trust fund babies cause you to sacrifice entrepenuers on your Altar of Envy. Michael Dell started building computers in his dorm room. Now he's responsible for one of the top three PC makers and has provided thousands of livings for his employees. To you, that makes him a slave master and unworthy of bequeathing his fortune to others. Sick.

The reason flat tax proposals haven't flown so far is because the sheep are still laboring under the Envy Merchants spell. Here's a Wake Up Call:

THE TAX CODE IS A MONUMENT TO ENVY AND HYPOCRISY!!!

Envy because it convinces the people to sacrifice what little they have in the promise that those with more will be punished.

Hypocrisy because those same evil rich are able to buy protection and exemptions from the tax code from the same politicians who promised the rubes would be raped.

It all ties in together: Politicians can destroy those who don't pay the "grift" to them for special breaks. Many lobbyists go thru a revolving door from government to the private sector where they make money pleading Big Business' cases to the same people they just worked with. Microsoft didn't hire enough lobbyists so the REAL MONOPOLY decided that they'd deal the smackdown. (Nice to be able to go to another wing of your organization to have ONE JUDGE decide in your favor.) So, companies pay HUGE campaign bribes...er...soft money contributions to the parties. The problem isn't the money, it's THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT TO DESTROY!!!!

If government wasn't shaking down business for cash like the Mafia because they can regulate business to death, there wouldn't be a finance problem. You think these people are ponying up all that jack cuz they like their ties? It's because if they don't sacrifice money to Great God Government, they risk being destroyed by the only people with an Army in town.

I have to skate now. I have a gig Thursday and practice is tonight. I'm sure you guys will remain stupidier than hell until my return, but I'd like to close with one thing:

I've called you idiots, morons, Commies, statists, moochers, guilty liberals, etc. because that's what you are...self-loathing Envy Merchants that can't believe that someone would dare oppose you. BUT, you'll notice that I haven't mocked your handles by spelling them in various juvenille manners. Try to step up and show the same respect for the name.

THE NAME IS DIRK. DIRK BELLIGERENT. AND I'LL KICK YOUR PINKO ASSES EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK BECAUSE I'VE GOT SOMETHING ON MY SIDE THAT YOU CAN'T BEAT...

THE TRUTH.

 

[chess9]

Dirk:

Have you had your anti-psychotic medication today?

Perhaps you need to grab your assault rifle and go out back and say a prayer to Adam Smith, or is he also a commie?

 

[Orbius]

Well Russ pardon me if I give more credibility to a team or reporters at a respected newspaper rather than you. . Facts speak louder than some angry guy at a keyboard.

And as for the Corporate thing no one here is arguing that Corporations are bad, you're reading that into it. But Corporations are self-interested and will generally do whatever they can regardless of the consequences to humans.

Thats why we need a Government that is able to come in and say 'Whoah!' when a Corporation does things that place too much of a burden on us mere mortals.

Trust me if Axis Chemicals dumped cancer causing chemicals somewhere close to you. You'd be screaming for legislation, and if you didnt you're a moron .

 

[Napalm381]

<< Quite a few people have done well earning their way to the top. A small number of people have successfully invested their way to the top. No one in America has SAVED their way to the top. >>

It appears we have different definitions of the top. If you mean wealth, then saving to the top is not out of the question. If you mean business success, then no, nobody gets to the top by saving. Nevertheless, my point was that you said that a lot of people have inherited/cheated their way to the top, and I believe that FAR more people have gotten there through legitimate means.



<< Most wealthy individuals and corporations do just that. >>


Bullsh!t. See Russ' posts.



<< It is truly ironic because the extent of your brainwashing is self-evident. You hate yourselves so much you want to make sure Daddy Warbucks gets his, yours and mine. >>


Brainwashing? Hate myself? Do you know anything about me, my financial status, or my personal life? I don't hate myself. I think that I should keep what I earned, you should keep what you earned, and &quot;Daddy Warbucks&quot; should keep what he earned. I believe in lower taxes because I believe that EVERYONE should be able to keep what THEY earn.



<< You think the progressive tax system is unfair. But hundreds of Republican Congressman, Presidents, and State politicians have thought otherwise for a long time. If you aren't interested in getting elected, support a flat tax. If you'd like to see revolution in the streets impose an onerous flat tax that fails to raise enough revenue to support social programs that give the poor hope. Or do you think they derive hope from the certain knowledge that legacy admissions at toney universities are benefitting the rich and powerful? Red rightly calls you guys MYOPIC. He's right. Taxation IS social policy. A radical change in governmental social policies will radically change the culture...for the worse. >>


I made that comment because you stated that you were worried about the tax system continuing to be fair (direct quote). From the way you stated it, it sounded like you were in favor of an unfair tax system. If that's not what you meant, please clarify. And where the hell did I mention the flat tax?! I never said a word about that. I never stated that I believed the progressive tax system is unfair. Stop putting words into my mouth, asshole. I generally try to avoid such Red Dawn-ish insults ( ) but when someone criticizes me for things I did not say I get quite aggravated. I don't have a problem with a mildly progressive tax system. I never proposed switching to a flat tax system; I know that switching to one directly from our current system would be most likely have negative consequences. I never claimed that taxation is not social policy, because I understand that it is. I think that legacy admissions are idiotic, and people should be admitted judged SOLELY on their merit and academic capability. If the only way you can debate is to make things up about your opponent, get a life.

Incidentally, you still have not given us an example of a tax cut you think WOULD be fair.

 

[Triumph]

all of you flamers, shut up. i came here cause i was sick of the crap that went on in Usenet. &quot;Yeah well MY dad could beat up YOUR dad!&quot; get some maturity.

chess9, while i do agree with you about the horrible living conditions in the rest of the world, and American's addiction to commercialism, I think these problems should be solved by the individual. the government can't ween us off of drive thru's and cable TV with social programs.

&quot;Follow the advice of St.Francis of Assisi-help the poor and lead a simple life.&quot;

true. lots of things would be better for everyone. but you cannot make people follow this advice. since you're quoting Saint Francis, maybe you are a religious person. without making this into a religious thread, let me just say that God gave man a free will. if man chooses not to help the poor, then so be it. GOD gave him that choice! Government can't usurp the decisions of God!

if you aren't a religious person, just forget about what i said, cause i don't want to somehow add religion into this debate. so i'm setting the precedent here, NO MORE RELIGIOUS COMMENTS! ok, carry on.

 

[Ornery]

Hell Red, this is going to be my new sig:

• &quot;That's what you are, self-loathing Envy Merchants that can't believe that someone would dare oppose you.&quot;

Honestly, I think we all better just start fresh later...

 

[chess9]

Napalm:

What is an &quot;unfair tax system&quot;? I assumed from your cryptic comment that you intended to debunk the progressive tax system we've had. I'm pleased to see you are more moderate in your views on that issue.

I don't think any tax cut is warranted until we pay the national debt to zero. Then we can talk about a reduction in taxes if warranted.

I HOPE far more people have earned their way to the top than have cheated their way to the top. I've become quite skeptical of those who are successful at other's expense. Bill Gates comes to mind. Although Microsoft has done a lot of good and made a lot of money, they've left a lot of dead bodies in their wake. Their predatory form of capitalism reflects their management's ethical failings. They are not alone. The sofware industry must have the lowest ethical standards in the world, and they set the bar it seems for everyone else.

Glad to hear you are opposed to legacy admissions. The conservatives aren't usually rallying in the streets over that issue, however. My point though is that many factors influence success. You aren't the son of a retired Texas President. I assume you come from less affluent and politically powerful stock. Not everyone who is rich or successful earned it legitimately or deserves it by any stretch of the imagination. Though Bush might be fun to party with, he really isn't top management material. In fact, I haven't discerned any significant talents emanating from his direction, unless you count his Berra-like malaprops and misstatements.

Triumph: I don't think individuals can or will take over many government programs. I help at a local homeless shelter on a regular basis. It is funded by the local governments, for the most part. Most of the volunteers are conservative right wingers. None of the liberals who chant about helping the poor are ever there! Really sad. Yeah, I'm being unrealistic about St. Francis. Too bad.

 

[etech]

There seems to be a lot of confusion and yes, downright envy about millionaires among some people in this thread. May I suggest reading the following book.

Meet The Millionaire Next Door
The Surprising Secrets of America's Wealthy
by Thomas Stanley, William Danko, Ph.D
Most of America's millionaires are first-generation rich. How is it possible for people from modest backgrounds to become millionaires in one generation? Why is it that so many people with similar socioeconomic backgrounds never accumulate even modest amounts of wealth?
Only 19 percent receive any income or wealth of any kind from a trust fund or an estate.
Fewer than 20 percent inherited 10 percent or more of their wealth.
More than half never received as much as $1 in inheritance.
Fewer than 25 percent ever received &quot;an act of kindness&quot; of $10,000 or more from their parents, grandparents, or other relatives.
Many of the types of businesses we are in could be classified as dull-normal. We are welding contractors, auctioneers, rice farmers, owners of mobile-home parks, pest controllers, coin and stamp dealers, and paving contractors.
We are fastidious investors. On average, we invest nearly 20 percent of our household realized income each year. Most of us invest at least 15 percent. Seventy-nine percent of us have at least one account with a brokerage company. But we make our own investment decisions.

TAXES
Under Governor Bush's tax plan, the largest percentage reductions will go to the lowest-income earners. As a result:
Tax Relief for Families of Four
A family of four making $35,000 will receive a $1,500 tax cut, a 100 percent reduction.
A family of four making $50,000 will receive a $2,000 tax cut, a 50 percent reduction.
A family of four making $75,000 will receive a $2,500 tax cut, a 25 percent reduction.
Tax Relief for Single Parents
A single mother with one child making $22,000 will receive a $1,000 tax cut a 100 percent reduction.
A single mother with two children making $32,000 will receive a $1,500 tax cut a 95 percent reduction.

Now if you can find the details on Gore's plan and decipher his targeted tax cuts and actually figure out who will get them, let me know.
Does anyone think that increasing the complexity of the tax code is a good idea?
Why do I get suspicious when someone in the government announces targeted tax cuts. It smells of special interests and lobbyists and greed. An across the board tax cut for all Americans is more logical, fairer and better for us all.

 

[JellyBaby]

chess9,

Since lowering taxes usually (always?) increases the government?s coffers, I?d say you could most certainly drop taxes while aggressively paying off the national debt.

The fundamental problem is that deficit reduction requires spending cuts and reduced government employee wages. I really don?t see your man Gore doing either, do you? And to be fair, I?m not convinced Bush can accomplish much here either though at least republicans are willing to take political bullets for mentioning spending cuts.

<< Triumph: I don't think individuals can or will take over many government programs. >>

There?s a link between lower taxation and increased overall charity. I really do believe the private sector can do well in support of the needy. My goodness it almost sounds as though you feel there was NO quality life before welfare, social security and other entitlements!

 

[Corn]

Red quoteth:



<< That goes for his cowardly buddy Corn too! >>



You are going to seriously hate the day you crossed me. Let's talk about cowardly behavior shall we? My first response to you was regarding a very hypocritical post in which you emulated the behavior of your typical &quot;2 party politician&quot;. I called you up on it, and the best that you could do is take the cowards way out and edit your post. Pretty pathetic behavior if you ask me, but hey, too bad some politicians (that behave just like Red) can't also &quot;edit&quot; their past in the same fasion that Red can edit his posts.

Let's examine another jewel from Red's keyboard:




<< It has to do with the safety of the anonymity being behind the keyboard. If he'd start calling us that to our faces he'd only be able to say it once. >>




How ironic that you talk about someone being &quot;safe&quot; behind the anonymity of the internet--and yet you boast that you could kick some Dirk butt in a face to face. Yeah Red, it sure is easy to make that claim behind the anonymity of the keyboard....

.....and speaking of bragging--this one's a classic:



<< Sure it's ok for you to call Chess and me a mooch, even though we have probably paid more taxes in our lifetime than you have earned. >>



You've already proven that you have no credibility in anything you say here Red (and to top it off you had to edit your post in a pathetich attempt at hiding your own hypocracy), and now you (once again) behind the anonymity of the internet boast that you make more money than Dirk. LMAO at you own hypocritical a$$. Hey Red, put your money where you mouth is buddy and prove it or suck it!

I anxiously await your witty replies to my post--either that or I look forward to seeing alot of &quot;editing&quot; going on. You best quit while you are behind, else the one or two brainwashed school kids that still think you're cool might change their minds.



<< I wish I could express how little regard I have for him as a person but try as I will all I can do is lower myself to his level by spewing out profanties as apt discriptions for him and his kind. >>



You have to lower yourself to &quot;his level&quot; because you are no better than him. The &quot;I know you are but what am I?&quot; argument might have worked in the third grade, but it won't float here. At least he's not a hypocrite.

..and with that I'll just leave you with a few more hypocritical messages from our sponsor: Red Dawn.



<< I'm so tired of losers like you thinking that you are right and everybody else is stupid because we aren't led by our nose like you are. >>





<< Lowlife cocksuckers like DorkBellwag label those who don't agree with him commies and mooches. >>

 

[etech]

National Debt
Paying down the national debt is without doubt a good idea. Paying it down to zero could have some dangers though.

?There?s no investments, other than U.S. Treasuries right now,? says Crescenzi, ?that has the comparable safety of U.S. Treasury Bonds simply because there?s no instrument available that has the backing of the full faith and credit of the U.S. government.?
Investors could decide to put their money in the bonds of large, established U.S. corporations. Or they could choose to go outside the United States and put their money in Japanese or European government bonds. And that has consequences for the strength of the U.S. economy.
If dollar investments decline, so could the value of the dollar. And that, in turn, could lead to higher inflation, higher interest rates, and an overall slowdown of the U.S. economy.

William F. Buckley Jr. on paying down the debt


Gov. Bush
Governor Bush will also pay down a record amount of the debt held by the public, which will fall to the lowest level since the Great Depression (as a share of the economy).
Both debt reduction and personal accounts will improve the economy by increasing national savings and investment.
Reserve over one-quarter of the surplus for broad-based tax cuts: Governor Bush knows that hard-working Americans, not Washington, created the surplus.
He will return about a quarter of the surplus directly to the people who pay the bills.
As President Reagan demonstrated two decades ago, lower tax rates are the key to raising the standard of living for all Americans.
A sound tax plan is the best insurance policy against an economic downturn.

I will vote for Gov. Bush.

 

[etech]

I have seen many people advocate the US going to the socialized type of medical care the Canada offers. I have also seen these same people deploring the fact that the United States has a huge national debt and calling for it to be paid off to zero as soon as possible. I think these figures are interesting.

William F. Buckley Jr.

Next, one looks to the size of the national debt over against national income. A national debt of $1 trillion would instantly bankrupt a majority of the nations on Earth. But $1 trillion is a mere 11 percent of our national income. We have, now, a national debt of $5.7 trillion, which is equal to 63 percent of our national
income. That is a heavy debt; but again, one looks for relative figures. In Canada, the debt is about 87 percent of national income; in Japan it is 105 percent.

Only dreamers think you can have it both ways.

 

[Shuxclams]

<< As President Reagan demonstrated two decades ago, lower tax rates are the key to raising the standard of living for all Americans.
A sound tax plan is the best insurance policy against an economic downturn. >>



uh-huh, yea. Although that theory is good and has many valid points it is narrow in its approach. Somehow I have the feeling that you weren't around or awake for the TRIPLE recission 80's. Not that quoting William F Buckley would be a tip off to your political leanings........LOL



SHUX

 

[etech]

Yep, I was around for the 80's. I remember very well how much of a mess that Carter got us into. I remember the Democratic congress promising to reduce spending along with President Regans tax cuts. I remember the Democratic congress going on a spending spree.

I am appreciating the benifits of the economy which President Regan laid the groundwork for in those troubled 80's.

 

[DirkBelig]

The LIEberals keep squawking about the &quot;Reagan deficits&quot; due to his tax cuts, but anyone honest enough to look at the records will see that the tax cuts DOUBLED the revenue taken in. Unfortunately, the Democrats took one look at the big honey pot and spent TRIPLE what they used to. Reagan is at fault for not vetoing their pork-laden budgets.

Gore claims that his tax increase brought prosperity but for the entire term of Clinton/Gore, the two years, 1993 &amp; 1994 before the GOP retook Congress had the LOWEST growth and their budgets had deficits forecast until NOW and into the foreseeable future. The GOP cuts taxes, notably capital gains and the economy took off like a rocket. Now there's big pools of money lying around and unless it's returned to the people, it'll get spent on subsidizing dependency of government.

Welfare reform was vetoed THREE TIMES by Clinton until he got polls saying that the people wanted it. Now he claims credit for it. The government shutdown was because the Congress didn't want to give him the huge spending he wanted, so he vetoed the budget, shut the government down and then went to the media, ever in his corner, and said that &quot;vital priorities were not being funded&quot; and he had to save us all. The &quot;priorities&quot; were PORK and WASTE. Of course, in keeping with Big Lie® politics, the GOP will always be blamed for doing the right thing for the country.

The GOP are a pack of sanctimoneous dipweeds who are gonna let the Liberals cow them into denying what's right. They're gonna lose as a result and it'll serve them right. Unfortunately, if they lose Congress and the White House, the ultra-liberal Old Democrat wing will sweep into power and the party will then be OVER. The economy will be destroyed and we'll become a fallen pauper state like most countries in Europe, with high unemployment and higher taxes. They've been striking in England because 75% of the price of petrol is TAX to fuel the Socialist Utopia.

Bush may be unappealing and mildly incompetent, but he won't ruin the country and millions of lives like Gore will. THINK about it. YOUR life hangs in the balance too.

 

[JellyBaby]

<< I remember the Democratic congress promising to reduce spending along with President Regans tax cuts. I remember the Democratic congress going on a spending spree. >>

Remember Tip O'Neil! To be fair, the republicans funneled quite a bit of ta-ta into the military (Cold War goin' on don't ya know).

 

[JellyBaby]

<< The government shutdown was because the Congress didn't want to give him the huge spending he wanted, so he vetoed the budget, shut the government down and then went to the media, ever in his corner, and said that &quot;vital priorities were not being funded&quot; and he had to save us all. >>

Dirk, yet Clinton has stated his two greatest achievements as president were 1) not backing down when congress played the government shutdown game and 2) fighting off impeachment. Either way you read that ,I feel Clinton's priorities were simply too political.

 

[Shazam]

Help me! Help me!! I'm drowning in ALL THIS BULL$HIT everyone's spouting!

Just curious. Besides chess9, has anyone here asked a wealthy person (>$1,000,000) what they think of all this?

 

[Communist_Paradise]

>)
<(
:0
:8
:{
:}
:[
:]

 

[Raspewtin]

Shazam,

when you say greater than $1 Million total worth, or $1 Million per year income from all sources? Just curious which you meant.

 

[jmcoreymv]

Let me give my unbiased perspective on the matter. When I start making over 10 mil/year (which I will do), I will meet up with Mr. Gates, and join Microsoft. Then I will takeover the governments, and give all my favorite anandtech members 100% taxcuts, so you better stay on my good side.

 

[Shazam]

Let's say $1mil a year.

 

[MrChicken]

<&quot;(A married couple from Wyoming earning $4.4 million a year, as the Cheneys did last year, would receive a $278,000 tax cut under Bush's plan.)&quot;>

I roughly figured that the pre cut taxes were $1,716,000 (4.4mill x .39) after the cut that still is $1,429,000. Exactly how much does a guy need to pay in taxes for you to be satisfied? Bear in mind that the Fed has a surplus of money, and is in no way strapped for cash.

So you say, that still leaves poor old cheney with a whopping $2,684,000, where do draw the line? Heck the guy still has 2.4 million, why not take 2 million more? He'd still have $400,000? Well crap how about we take every thing but $20,001? that would mean he would still be better off than me since I only make $20000. That's fair, right?

Where do you stop? To me stopping at taking no more than 1/3 of a persons income for federal taxes sounds about right. And doing so still doesnt put us in a defecit by a long shot.

 

[Communist_Paradise]

what is nef?

 

[Russ]

Red,

The problem with the &quot;tax cuts versus national debt&quot; argument is that they are not proposing cutting tax revenue, they are proposing a rate cut. We've already PROVEN that when rates are cut, revenues go UP. It happened in the sixties under Kennedy, and happened again in the eighties under Reagan.

In both cases, tax revenues sky-rocketed, giving Federal Piggy far more money to waste. If rates are cut, and we simply hold spending to a reasonable level, the debt would be paid down faster than it would be under Bore's complicated plan.

This is actually a very simple concept, but people keep thinking &quot;tax&quot; cut, when it's actually a &quot;rate&quot; cut.

Russ, NCNE