« Failing Propositions
|
Main
| Taxing the Rich
»
November 11, 2005
Taxing the rich to build up the Poor
I was "debating" over at the Progressive blog sight and this argument on taxes was almost too good to not address here too! John D was basically trying to tell us the rich needed to be taxed more and here is my response:"...the rich are already carrying most of the tax burden for the nation and if you push them more you are going to cause worse problems.
In case you missed it in my last post, the IRS reports, "The top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.3 percent) of all individual income taxes." That's a huge load and I'm concerned if we add more to that already unfair burden, we are going to force the wealthy to take their money elsewhere or find ways to beat the system. You can only push people so far, that's just human nature.
Ever hear of this old saying, "You cannot build up the poor by tearing down the rich?"
Do democrats want to tear down the rich? I think they do, which is wrong, it's also pure hypocrisy since there are more multi-millionaires in the DNC than the GOP! The Hollywood elite are almost all Dems, lots of trust fund babies are too. They have had this big money virtually handed to them on a silver platter and therefore they lack the understanding of how most of us have to actually earn it through hard work and personal sacrifices.
If you want to do something real smart, take a look at why we have so many poor on welfare in a wealthy nation full of opportunities. I can give you a hint why; in many, many cases, the poor are kept down and on welfare because of democratic policies that offer no incentive to get off welfare!
Those people have lost sight of what hard work and education can do for a person here. New immigrants to America, people that were not victimized by welfare, often blaze a trail to top wages because they are still highly motivated and they see the opportunities those other's on welfare don't!
In closing, taxing the rich at even higher rates would mean less tax revenues because they will resist, in long run that means less opportunities for the working class.
Posted by Post Scripts at November 11, 2005 08:51 AM
Comments
Arnold picked a fight with the public employee unions that are the “special interests� that control CA. It should come as no surprise that he did not win. The unions are a third party to elections not accountable to voters. An educated guess, the unions are no more popular with the voters than Gray Davis was after he defeated Bill Simon. It was Davis’ trash and slash campaign that made him vulnerable to the recall.
The CA democratic party and the unions is the same thing partly due to term limits. For example the Speaker of the Assembly and the Majority Leader are under-bosses of the LA Federation of Labor. They went from the executive offices of the union to anointed candidates with a lock on their term limited seats.
The CDP has a successful campaign strategy. They always without exception trash the other side personally and lie about the issues. They have zero compunction about doing either and are completely shameless. As AL Davis says “just win baby win�.
So my question to you is how could Arnold have won this election? Seriously, he spent $30 million on ad buys they spent $60 million. If he had the addition $30 million to work with what would he have had to say in order to win? Arnold is accountable to Republican voters, so trash and slash not only doesn’t work; the unions and press clobber him with every unmeasured utterance.
There is plenty of dead wood in the CRP that needs to be banned from all campaigns or policy measures. Unlike the CDP they don’t even act as shock troops to protect candidates.
This time Arnold picked a fight that I don’t think he could win. His strength is in his office, with his blue pencil and veto. That’s the only way he can beat the unions.
Posted by: pypr at November 11, 2005 08:58 AM
Tax the rich, Is more a mantra then a idea if you are of the liberal ideology. If I were to start up a new business today I would look overseas for many reasons beside cheap labor and tax breaks. The key issue would be locating people willing to work in the first place and then showing up prepared to work. We have created our own down fall trying to build up the poor to enter the work place as we 'RICH ' working tax paying conservatives do daily. We support our families and the government takes a healthy share of the income so we can support a growing class of non workers.They have learned through the pass generations and taught to depend on government entitlements so they do not have to toll to earn a living. Our Welfare system does not proved a step up for anyone period, not one iota of self motivation is involved with it. My attitude toward welfare recipients is that if you take the funds pushed on you by liberals, (who I firmly believe use my tax dollars to buy votes), then you must show up somewhere at 8:30am daily at least dressed to go to work and be required (not requested)to spend part of each day seeking employment , and part of the day getting some schooling or work skills needed to improve your self. What ever portion of taxes that need be paid by the working class in our society, be it low,middle or high income workers, that tax money should not relieve the welfare recipients of any obligation to return something to society for their free money ride...
Posted by: Harold Ey at November 11, 2005 01:41 PM
From the results of the election it is clear, a majority of people do not care what educators do in regard to education. Doing away with merit based education in favor of some communist system may not be far off. Thank you cattle people of California, worthless chit.
Posted by: Toby Stahler at November 13, 2005 04:23 PM