Re: We Needed A Big Gas Tax Like We Need a Scathing Case of Herpes

In article <430E638C.A4A442A8@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Hank wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <430D2B2D.1536803C@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Hank wrote:
>
>>> Fairly taxing the wealthiest top 5% percent, has nothing to
>>>do with your bizarre "removing incentives" rant. You're not
>>>making any sense at all.
>
>> If you look at who actually pays the taxes in this nation I would say the
>> top 5% of wage earners is currently paying 53% of the income taxes while
>> earning 32% of all income. The top 50% of wage earners are currently
>> paying 96% of the income taxes while earning 86% of all income.
>
>> Could you point out what isn't fair here and in which direction?

> I don't agree with your numbers.

They come from the IRS. The link given for the raw data is:
http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls

> The folks who wrote the websites
> below do a very good job of explaining what is and isn't fair. The
> first website is produced by very wealthy people who feel guilty
> accepting their tax breaks. They have the intelligence and compassion
> to help the people in the lower income brackets with their struggle
> struggle to make ends meet - like Jesus would. Should there really
> be an interest deduction for a million dollar vacation home? That
> deduction makes sense as an benefit for lower/middle class families
> purchasing a home, but not as a gift for billionaires at the expense
> of the working class.

Why do they need the government to force them?

Most people who think there should be higher taxes to help the 'poor' and
the like are all about doing their beveolence with other people's money.

> http://responsiblewealth.org/
> http:/ctj.org/

First website seems to consist mostly of feelings. The second shows the
obvious, the Bush tax cut helped those who paid taxes. It's hard to have
a tax cut when your income tax is already zero. It's hard to have a big
tax cut when your income taxes are already small.

Now getting back to 'fair share' Tell me why those values are unfair. I
am waiting for you to make the case.

>> I'll sum up how the two parties are the same with a quote:
>
>> "We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the
>> Russians, We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we
>> reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in
>> our national interest." -Sen. John Kerry, CNN, 1997.

> I agree that there isn't enough of a difference between
> Dems and Repubs. Both support barbaric policies like bu$h's
> terrorism in Iraq, and Prohibition, and both cater to the
> elite, but the Dems are clearly the lesser of two evils in
> that regard.

Dems are not a leser evil. They are mostly we-know-what's-good-for-you
elitests who already have wealth and use the tax code and regulation to
make it difficult for anyone else to reach their level of wealth. They
foster a dependency class by giving money out of the treasury, stealing
from one citizen to give to another.

> Dems are also much better environmentally.

No they aren't. They use the environment as tool to gain control over our
lives. That's all it has become, a tool, an excuse for more power.

> If
> Al Gore has won, coal plant emission standards would be
> tightened. Hell, you can't even eat Tuna now because of
> the mercury in it....

The so called standards you are refering to under the democrats were an
all or nothing upgrade policy. Either power companies didn't change
anything or if they upgraded one component it all had to be replaced and
upgraded. This all or nothing approach just encouraged power plants to
keep patching their ancient, dirty equipment up because of the huge
expense of wholesale replacement. The evil republican changes allowed
power companies to upgrade components as they broke. Sure, replacing one
component at a time wasn't as clean as replacing everything. But, in the
real world, it was cleaner than what the all-or-nothing regs caused.

> Ever wonder who benefits from the 150 MILLION
> U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?

Going for tangents?

I could go on and on about things too. I am glad you people woke up and
are now examining government. The only problem is, a democrat will be
elected and you'll all go to sleep again and the march against our
liberty will continue on just as it did under past dem admins. At least
it's noticed when republicans do it. (notice dems never reverse what the
republicans take from us and vice versa) I just wish the media and the loud
dem followers would examine 'their' guys as closely. If they did, they
would learn what I have.

I suppose living in the chicago area all my life has allowed me to see
the scope and method of democrat party corruption and goings on that
allow me to see that they are just as bad as the republicans.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: We Have Chosen?
    ... so, like those 47 million people without health insurance, primarily ... Wealth Inequality Destroys US Ideals ... the U.S. economy saw its second steepest decline in 27 ... income, while the top ten percent took half of the total income, the ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: OT How recessions become Great Depressions
    ... It's rare the wealth of a family can last for three ... The family income generators are ... The family maintains this savings plan, ... their monthly income into an equity investment over a 45 year period. ...
    (alt.sports.basketball.nba.la-lakers)
  • Re: BBC-Womens health fuelling poverty
    ... > much time doing the unpaid work at home. ... and sharing that income with other family members. ... sharing his wealth with the women in his life. ... Again, ambition is a form of strength, but anything taken to ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: Lucas: Shame on the redistributionists
    ... Matt was talking about wealth, ... Those who have it just want it to yield as much unearned income ... of economic rents. ... that bore on land rents; and even today, ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: The Frost Family, SCHIP, Sen. McConnell and Lies...
    ... Republican said his staff had not been involved in trying to push reporters ... letting the dems use them like this. ... of $83,000 income. ... That was NOT in this bill, though Bush said that's why he ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
Loading