Well it seems my former flame, The Economist, has put up a "poll" about whether or not the productive should be taxed to pay for the parasites.
I went to take the poll (which you can find here) but they require that you sign up a whole slew of information. You aren't signing up for a subscription, but it was obvious they were using this as a means to bolster readership. (I just put in a bunch of BS information).
Regardless, what irks me is how The Economist abandoned its fundamental belief in capitalism and turned its back on nearly 150 years of its logging empirical data, only to support Barack Obama. Additionally, the seemingly shameless attitude to go for increased readership at the expense of integrity or intellectual honest as evidenced here.
In any case, so as to avoid a sampling bias of faux intellectual elitists taking the poll, I thought you normal guys out there might want to go slumming a bit and have a say in the debate, or at least make the poll numbers reflect reality a little bit more and not the limousine liberals' opinions.
Post Edit
Figured I would want to make a couple points that (all you readers know), but if as one person suggests this ever makes it to Glenn Beck, then two obvious charts that he will have to pull will be needed;
1. We already ARE socialist. Especially with Barack Obama putting the Fed tax rate at 30% GDP, you throw state and local and you're nearing 50%.
2. WE ALREADY HAVE PROGRESSIVE TAXATION as duly pointed out by a reader and proved here by the Major's chart entry.
The only real problem we have is a population so damn ignorant, they don't even known we're socialist and so will keep voting to spend more money to the point you will have deterred any production of GDP, thus putting us far along the wrong side of the Laffer Curve.
Don't the rich already pay more tax to reduce the social inequity? It is called a progressive tax system, if I have the term correct.
ReplyDeleteNotice how nice that sounds? How it makes it just so difficult to argue against? If you say no, the rich should not pay more taxes, then you will be accused of promoting social inequities.
No wonder Obama won when the media pushes a socialist agenda in that way.
Holy F-ing Crap! I just looked at that "debate" and words fail me.
ReplyDeleteI cannot believe the number of people, and the half assed reasons they have, for supporting crushing taxes on those that earn the most money. 90% on anything over a million?
What kind of BS is this?
What kind of argument is this?
Who are you to decide at what point I am earning "enough", or "too much"?
And, is anyone addressing the real root cause of social inequities? It is not just money and earnings. It is attitude, education, and most of all doing what it takes to get ahead. If you want a degree in woman's studies, you should not expect to buy a million dollar home, and you should not be upset when the accountant putting in 16 hours days every April can afford that dream home.
If you do not like being a "victim" of the class wars, do something about it. No, don't complain to the Government, look at what the winners in the class wars are doing, and emulate it.
Glenn Beck should have a segment on this.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure the Economist would like to know that a person named Shi Thead who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. in Washington DC just took their poll.
ReplyDeleteDiscussion with socialists is pointless. Their minds are deeply ingrained with Crimestop and Doublethink. Debate, logic, law and fairness aren't part of the leftist equation. Reality is Kryptonite to them.
ReplyDeleteAll that matters to them is the destruction of capitalism and democracy by every means necessary, whether it is through revolution, populism, exploitation of ignorance, or appeals to emotion. They attack through government, economics, environmentalism and undermining faith. They use children and the elderly as human shields.
They eat their young. They'd rather see 10 million poor, black teenagers remain in poverty than admit that non-profit groups, midnight basketball, diversity programs, gun control, public housing, affirmative action, community activism and naming schools after Martin Luther King hasn't solved any problems.
They are almost always wrong, never in doubt, and don't let facts get in the way of a persuasive argument.
The only proven way to penetrate the thick skull of a leftist is a bullet traveling with a high muzzle velocity.
I registered with the name "Iwana Hochilugie."
ReplyDeleteCappy,
ReplyDeleteI fear the battle is lost. Two generations of government school indoctrination of kids, many now adults, is an insurmountable barrier to a return to constitutional values.
Our world is spinning out of control. We don't have leaders, we have criminals, despots, and psychopaths running the show.
You like charts and graphs, so if you have not seen this yet ... you might find it interesting. I have passed it on to many.
The really spells it all out for us.
http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse
Currently 53% are in favor of demonizing taxes on those that make the most money.
ReplyDeleteAre you aware of how long of a beating I would have received as a child if I so much as suggested that someone should give me money or anything else for that matter, that I did not earn.
Sure, I was jealous when kids in my school got new bikes for Christmas, and I had to ride a hand me down 3 speed. And, when I asked my Dad to buy me a nice new shiny 10 speed, he said that he did not have the money for that, and I should do some jobs around the neighborhood. Earn it.
What happened to that? Was I the last generation to hear that?
Lol, you're about 5 years late to the Economist shift. Go back and read articles from the mid 90's to the early part of this decade. Then compare that with the last 5-6 years. It's almost like 2 different publications.
ReplyDeleteI am curious as to why rich is defined by income rather than net worth. As an advisor, many of my asset rich clients simply defer and shelter the income from their assets to reduce the burden of disproportionate taxes. Some of them to the point where they are in the lowest tax brackets and by the income definition are considered "poor". On the other hand, I have some clients who have very high current income through employment that are asset poor and are considered rich because they are in high marginal brackets. I am not advocating higher taxation just questioning the definition of rich and poor.
ReplyDeleteIn the United States we tax productivity (income, capital gains, and profits) not wealth. The idea that you can tax wealth by taxing income is a myth perpetrated by FDR and the Trust Fund Liberals that rule this country. To eat their s..t, shows an incredible lack of intellect, sorry Captain, you accepted their basic premise and that rich earn more than the poor which as Brian points out is absolutely untrue. Personally, I suggest we start taxing wealth not productivity. I would make it progressive tax. The first million dollars of assets would be taxed at 1.2 percent, about what I pay in property taxes on my house, my largest asset. From $1 million to $10 million I would double the rate to 2.4 percent, doubling it again for $10 million to $100 million then doubling again to 9.6% for assets between $100 million and a billion dollars. The final rate would be 19.2 percent for all assets over a billion dollars. Corporations whose values exceed the value of their stock (stockholders would pay on the value represented by the stock at their rate) would be taxed at these rates also. My kids would end up with a $30,000 tax cut (because they are just starting out they have no assets), I would end up with a $3,000 tax cut, Theresa Heinz Kerry (reportedly worth $200 million, someone I figure to be a rich person) would end up paying $14 million instead of $660,000 and Bill Gates (a really rich person) would pay a truly patriotic billion dollars a year instead of the $59 million he now pays. This is how you get the rich to pay their fair share, you tax wealth. Foreign investments would be taxed at twice the domestic rate (unless held by a domestic publicly traded company or mutual fund). The best benefit of this system would be; never having to listen to that a-hole, Warren Buffet, complain about not paying enough taxes. Here in Minnesota, we have a whole gaggle of trust fund babies living on Late Minnetonka and around Lake Calhoun making 40 or 50K per year who get freaken property tax refunds!!! They are the scum that is destroying us. Captain, write a book exposing these creeps.
ReplyDelete"Progressive" taxation is State-managed and -mandated theft. Nothing more and nothing less.
ReplyDeleteThe first word that comes to mind when I hear the term "progressive" is injustice, because in virtually all cases where an action is deemed "progressive" the State is being used to punish certain identifiable groups to the benefit of other more politically correct and politically expedient identifiable groups.
And there was a time when I thought America wasn't as socialist as Canada. This myth has been dispelled of late.
From what I have seen and heard personally, anyone with more than someone else is a pig.
ReplyDeleteThis is envy gone wild.
Most truly wealthy people I have met in my lifetime have been pleasant & generous. Although, those who have inherited wealth seem to have some guilt issues that drive them to the current leftist thinking that all 'other' wealthy people should be sharing more.
They themselves have done nothing (worked for or made off the backs of others) untoward in achieving their wealth so they are entitled to it by virtue of that's just how it is.