Re: OT: oil profits


"McDuck" <wallyDELETEMEMcDuck@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dvai14tr8o8kr4u17avq1cp9nqn8qu1avi@xxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:05:06 -0400, "Fred Burton"
<fburton@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Dano" <janeanddano@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e4ydneLg39q-GIXVnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Translation for liberalspeak "more fairly taxed": Screw the rich and
successful.

It should be noted that in one of the most recent Dem debates that Obama
was
pushed on taxation and about the phenomena where revenues actually go up
when tax rates go down and after being pushed, he stated (I'm paraphrasing
here) that it didn't matter that revenues went up, because it was all
about
fairness.

Wait a minute! Isn't the entire purpose of taxation to RAISE REVENUES???
And if actually lowering tax rates will INCREASE revenues, isn't that the
right
thing to do? But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ... in the leftard mindset, taxation
is not about raising revenues, it's all about "fairness", read: screw the
rich!


It is about making the rich pay a reasonable persentage of their
income in taxes. Taxes are intended to raise revenue, and, obviously,
they are not high enough because the Federal government is running
huge deficits. So, the issue for anyone trying to make sense of tax
policy is simply --- who should be paying more. The "fair" answer is
the lucky bastards making the most money. The Republican answer is the
poor souls struggling to make ends meet. Or, in your language, screw
the poor.

First, just because the Fed Gov't is running deficits, does NOT mean that
you
have to raise taxes. That's the liberal mantra. There IS another solution.

CUT SPENDING!!!!


Second ... no, the FAIR answer is to make EVERY person share the load
equally be paying the same percentage of their income. Affordability when
it comes to taxation is utterly and completely irrelevent.

Forcing the rich to pay a disproportionate share of taxes is nothing more
and nothing less than thievery by government fiat, and outright economic
descrimination. Simply the fulfillment of the Robin Hood fantasies of
all you fucking liberals.






And you are dead wrong that lower taxes raise revenues. Or, one could
image some cases when lower taxes could increase revenue --- really
high taxes on cigarettes might produce less revenue than lower taxes
because of the resulting smuggling. But lower taxes on income simply
result in less revenue.

You will read stuff in the Wall Street Journal to the contrary, but
remember the source. On occasion, income inequality increases so
quickly that the rich pay more in taxes after a tax cut.

What is this leftard "income inequality" bull***? Nothing but commie
propaganda! What's next? You gonna rail on against the bourgousie
(sorry, can't spell that word)?


But, without
the tax cut, they would have paid a lot more in taxes. Clinton showed
that clearly with his tax increase in 1993. The WSJ predicted lower
revenues, but revenues went up by so much that we FINALLY got a
balanced budget.

Like always, you're full of ***.


.

Quantcast