logo
 

Go Back   HuntingNet.com Forums > Non Hunting > Politics

Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-15-2011, 11:55 AM   #1
Boone & Crockett
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location:
Posts: 17,822
Default For you Sal

A MINORITY VIEW
BY WALTER WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, APRIL 13, 2011

Eat the Rich

I've often said that I wish there were some humane way to get rid of the rich. If you asked why, I'd answer that getting rid of the rich would save us from distraction by leftist hustlers promoting the politics of envy. Not having the rich to fret over might enable us to better focus our energies on what's in the best interest of the 99.99 percent of the rest of us. Let's look at some facts about the rich laid out by Bill Whittle citing statistics on his RealClearPolitics video "Eat the Rich."
This year, Congress will spend $3.7 trillion dollars. That turns out to be about $10 billion per day. Can we prey upon the rich to cough up the money? According to IRS statistics, roughly 2 percent of U.S. households have an income of $250,000 and above. By the way, $250,000 per year hardly qualifies one as being rich. It's not even yacht and Learjet money. All told, households earning $250,000 and above account for 25 percent, or $1.97 trillion, of the nearly $8 trillion of total household income. If Congress imposed a 100 percent tax, taking all earnings above $250,000 per year, it would yield the princely sum of $1.4 trillion. That would keep the government running for 141 days, but there's a problem because there are 224 more days left in the year.
How about corporate profits to fill the gap? Fortune 500 companies earn nearly $400 billion in profits. Since leftists think profits are little less than theft and greed, Congress might confiscate these ill-gotten gains so that they can be returned to their rightful owners. Taking corporate profits would keep the government running for another 40 days, but that along with confiscating all income above $250,000 would only get us to the end of June. Congress must search elsewhere.
According to Forbes 400, America has 400 billionaires with a combined net worth of $1.3 trillion. Congress could confiscate their stocks and bonds, and force them to sell their businesses, yachts, airplanes, mansions and jewelry. The problem is that after fleecing the rich of their income and net worth, and the Fortune 500 corporations of their profits, it would only get us to mid-August. The fact of the matter is there are not enough rich people to come anywhere close to satisfying Congress' voracious spending appetite. They're going to have to go after the non-rich.
But let's stick with the rich and ask a few questions. Politicians, news media people and leftists in general entertain what economists call a zero elasticity view of the world. That's just fancy economic jargon for a view that government can impose a tax and people will behave after the tax just as they behaved before the tax, and the only change is more government revenue. One example of that vision, at the state and local levels of government, is the disappointing results of confiscatory tobacco taxes. Confiscatory tobacco taxes have often led to less state and local revenue because those taxes encouraged smuggling.
Similarly, when government taxes profits, corporations report fewer profits and greater costs. When individuals face higher income taxes, they report less income, buy tax shelters and hide their money. It's not just rich people who try to avoid taxes, but all of us -- liberals, conservatives and libertarians.
What's the evidence? Federal tax collections have been between 15 and 20 percent of the nation's Gross Domestic Product every year since 1960. However, between 1960 and today, the top marginal tax rate has varied between 91 percent and 35 percent. That means whether taxes are high or low, people make adjustments in their economic behavior so as to keep the government tax take at 15 to 20 percent of the GDP. Differences in tax rates have a far greater impact on economic growth than federal revenues.
So far as Congress' ability to prey on the rich, we must keep in mind that rich people didn't become rich by being stupid.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM
__________________
John Adams “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”

Ronald Reagan: 'Everybody that is for abortion has already been born'

"I never said I was worth it. I only said I wouldn't do it for less " William F. Buckley Jr.
Fieldmouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2011, 02:10 PM   #2
Giant Nontypical
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,706
Default

So in 1 year we can have an extra 1.3 trillion?
ok so do that for 14 years and we have 0 debt...

Works for me.

Why is the US #1 in disparity in wealth?? before Reagan we were something like 28 of 36 nations.

When disparity in wealth increases, disease increases, crime increases.

Plain and simple republicans don't want to help anyone but themselves.

But there's no arguing politics, start listening to Thom Hartmann on the radio instead of Rush, do that for a month and get back to me.

By the way when we say Tax the Rich! We're saying make the rich pay a fair true rate like the rest of us, like buffet pays 17%, nowhere near 34% etc...

Fair is fair, the poor don't have lobbyists, so I doubt we're likely to see any significant change anytime soon.

You honestly think someone making 50million/yr should pay less tax than someone making 50k/year??

Do you ever listen to liberal radio? liberal tv? documentaries?

Last edited by salukipv1; 08-15-2011 at 02:15 PM.
salukipv1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2011, 02:18 PM   #3
Giant Nontypical
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,706
Default

You must be in that 1%...earning over $300k/year.

Why anyone earning $50k/year would vote republican is beyond me.
salukipv1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2011, 02:49 PM   #4
Boone & Crockett
 
ipscshooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Republic of Texas
Posts: 10,257
Default

Unbelievable.
ipscshooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2011, 02:56 PM   #5
Boone & Crockett
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 18,458
Default

What was the tax rate on the rich under presidents like Reagan,Clinton and bush1?
__________________
You're only one post away from a federal watch list.
Charlie P is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2011, 03:26 PM   #6
Nontypical Buck
 
C. Davis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Kountze, Texas
Posts: 2,102
Default

Wow,
I finally understand how not only Obama got elected, but how he is still at 39% approval.

C. Davis
__________________
Am I greedy because I don't want to give you what is mine?
or
Are you greedy because you want to take what is not yours?
C. Davis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2011, 05:51 PM   #7
Boone & Crockett
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location:
Posts: 17,822
Default

Sal is one of the minions who plays the lottery bi-weekly for his dreams.
__________________
John Adams “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”

Ronald Reagan: 'Everybody that is for abortion has already been born'

"I never said I was worth it. I only said I wouldn't do it for less " William F. Buckley Jr.
Fieldmouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2011, 06:02 PM   #8
Boone & Crockett
 
ipscshooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Republic of Texas
Posts: 10,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie P View Post
What was the tax rate on the rich under presidents like Reagan,Clinton and bush1?
When they left office? Under Reagan, 28%; Under Bush 41, 31%; Under Clinton, 39.6%. Now, it's 35%. What are you trying to get at?
ipscshooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2011, 06:16 PM   #9
Boone & Crockett
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location:
Posts: 17,822
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ipscshooter View Post
When they left office? Under Reagan, 28%; Under Bush 41, 31%; Under Clinton, 39.6%. Now, it's 35%. What are you trying to get at?
No, sal said on another thread ( only because his leaders have told him and he doesn't question them) Obama has the lowest tax rates in 50 years. I was born at night but not last night. If Reagan had such a low tax rate he would have been president in 1950s.
__________________
John Adams “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”

Ronald Reagan: 'Everybody that is for abortion has already been born'

"I never said I was worth it. I only said I wouldn't do it for less " William F. Buckley Jr.
Fieldmouse is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

 

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:32 PM.