Praise God for the Tea Partiers and Baptists.

<p>I'm far from demonizing the rich.  I want them to have as much money as they want.  Doesn't bother me.  But at the same time the richer one is the more responsibility I think they have in paying their share of taxes, even if it does mean they pay more than the middle and lower incomes.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The owners of my firm own two corporate jets, a race team that has nothing to do with the business, a vintage car dealership, a house in an upscale gated community, a house on Lake Lanier that has a guest house bigger than my townhouse, and a condo or two in Florida.  I don't begrudge them that one bit.  I watched them go from a normal middle class husband and wife to where they are now enjoying the fruits of their labor as it should be.  But they do furnish their employees with decent health care benefits as well as contribute to our 401(k) that vests 100% immediately even if the employee contributes nothing to the 401(k).  Nothing in the law requires them to do anything other than furnish us whatever the minimum wage is now.  They do considerably more than that.  And I'm grateful to work for them.  I certainly hope they continue to make more money.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Now, if I win a $300 million lottery the poor and middle class can kiss my <span><img alt="bootyshake.gif" src="http://files.kickrunners.com/smilies/bootyshake.gif" style="width:25px;height:29px;"></span> .  Until then I expect the wealthy to share a little, not a lot or most of their wealth, but certainly when States such as Georgia are trying to enact tax legislation that benefits the wealthier at the expense of the middle class, I would hope they would stand up and on their own tell the Republican legislature to rethink their position.  I bit idealistic perhaps, but being a liberal what else can I say. <span><img alt="spam4.gif" src="http://files.kickrunners.com/smilies/spam4.gif" style="width:42px;height:44px;"></span></p>

<br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>GaReb770</strong> <a href="/forum/thread/73242/praise-god-for-the-tea-partiers-and-baptists#post_1992902"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border:0px solid;"></a><br><br><p>I'm far from demonizing the rich.  I want them to have as much money as they want.  Doesn't bother me.  But at the same time the richer one is the more responsibility I think they have in paying their share of taxes, even if it does mean they pay more than the middle and lower incomes.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The owners of my firm own two corporate jets, a race team that has nothing to do with the business, a vintage car dealership, a house in an upscale gated community, a house on Lake Lanier that has a guest house bigger than my townhouse, and a condo or two in Florida.  I don't begrudge them that one bit.  I watched them go from a normal middle class husband and wife to where they are now enjoying the fruits of their labor as it should be.  But they do furnish their employees with decent health care benefits as well as contribute to our 401(k) that vests 100% immediately even if the employee contributes nothing to the 401(k).  Nothing in the law requires them to do anything other than furnish us whatever the minimum wage is now.  They do considerably more than that.  And I'm grateful to work for them.  I certainly hope they continue to make more money.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Now, if I win a $300 million lottery the poor and middle class can kiss my <span><img alt="bootyshake.gif" src="http://files.kickrunners.com/smilies/bootyshake.gif" style="width:25px;height:29px;"></span> .  Until then I expect the wealthy to share a little, not a lot or most of their wealth, but certainly when States such as Georgia are trying to enact tax legislation that benefits the wealthier at the expense of the middle class, I would hope they would stand up and on their own tell the Republican legislature to rethink their position.  I bit idealistic perhaps, but being a liberal what else can I say. <span><img alt="spam4.gif" src="http://files.kickrunners.com/smilies/spam4.gif" style="width:42px;height:44px;"></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<br><br><p>And they do all that without the government forcing them! Go figure. Now - add up the sales tax, property tax, use taxes, and every other tax they paid as they acquired all those toys  - They're not 'keeping ' their wealth - they are distributing it. And do you think that at one point the amount of 'fair share' taxes that you (and other liberals claim is the wealthys obligation to pay) - where those great benefits they share with you won't come into question? They can do what they do because they can afford it without impacting the way of life they've earned from their risk and work - incremental tax increases will be like the straw the broke the camels back - and then you may wind up wishing your employer wasn't penalized for their success - as it seems, from this perspective - you have already benefited greatly from their success</p>
<p> </p>

<br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>satfix</strong> <a href="/forum/thread/73242/praise-god-for-the-tea-partiers-and-baptists#post_1992904"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border-bottom:0px solid;border-left:0px solid;border-top:0px solid;border-right:0px solid;"></a><br><br><br><br><br><br><p>And they do all that without the government forcing them! Go figure.</p>
<p> </p>
</div>
</div>
<p><br>
Not quite true.  There are some governmental regulations such as minimum wage, as well as competiton that force them to pay part of those benefits.  Look at Wal-Mart.  They "pay" their employees as little as Wal-Mart's executives can get away with.  Wal-Mart offers a minimum health care plan to some of their employees - not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because their executives were brought kicking and screaming by various State Attorney General's and public opinion.  And while no banker, attorney or real estate sales person has gone to jail for all those "liar" loans that helped bring down the housing industry a homeowner who bit off more than he could afford is in jail after being prosecuted by an overzealous Government Agent.   </p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/business/26nocera.html" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/business/26nocera.html</a><span style="display:none;"> </span><br>
 </p>
<p> </p>

<br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>GaReb770</strong> <a href="/forum/thread/73242/praise-god-for-the-tea-partiers-and-baptists#post_1992911"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border:0px solid;"></a><br><br><br><br><p><br>
Not quite true.  There are some governmental regulations such as minimum wage, as well as competiton that force them to pay part of those benefits.  Look at Wal-Mart.  They "pay" their employees as little as Wal-Mart's executives can get away with.  Wal-Mart offers a minimum health care plan to some of their employees - not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because their executives were brought kicking and screaming by various State Attorney General's and public opinion.  And while no banker, attorney or real estate sales person has gone to jail for all those "liar" loans that helped bring down the housing industry a homeowner who bit off more than he could afford is in jail after being prosecuted by an overzealous Government Agent.   </p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/business/26nocera.html" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/business/26nocera.html</a><span style="display:none;"> </span><br>
 </p>
<p> </p>
</div>
</div>
<br><br><p> </p>
<p>But you don't work for Walmart - you work for a family business who go beyond what the government says - </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Don't even get me started on people borrowing more than they should - don't blame the con if you get conned. - People who borrowed 150% of their equity (and more) or people who could never afford the homes -and yet still did?  People need to take responsibility for their own actions - foolish or otherwise.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Anyway - that's a different topic. But back to your company - You already said they give you a great more than the government 'dictates' . I just hope the governments insistence on more of their "Fair Share", that it doesn't come out of what they offer you.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>

<p>1.  If "the rich" are so likely to "do a John Galt" if they are taxed too much, then how ddi the country experience what was probably its most dynamic period of growth (during the 50s and 60s) in a time when marginal tax rates on the highest levels of income were at their most confiscatory levels?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>2.  I can't imagine that the rates of spending that marginal dollar are anywhere near as high for the rich as for the bottom 50%.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>3.  You talk like the amount of wealth in this economy is/can be unlimited.  The economy can only grow so much.  There are a finite amount of assets.  Studies have shown that the incidence of moving between classes (up or down) has significantly declined in this country - to the point where a poor kid has a better chance of "making it"  in one of the "socialist" countries of Western Europe than in the USA.  These days, "Ragged Dick" ends up working his way up to a $9/hr job and living in subsidized housing.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I'm glad you're making it, Sat, I really am.  But this American dream has fallen apart for a huge percentage of this country and lowering taxes (again) for those who have made it isn't going to cure the problem.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>yar<br><br>
 </p>
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>satfix</strong> <a href="/forum/thread/73242/praise-god-for-the-tea-partiers-and-baptists#post_1992896"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border-right:0px solid;border-top:0px solid;border-left:0px solid;border-bottom:0px solid;"></a><br><br><p>Yar - the rich are paying the 'freight' to use your words - and yet we still demonize them by feeding in to the political 'Fair Share' crap. They are paying their 'fair share' - perhaps, instead of making them or demanding them to pay more (which, they'll figure out how to get around it by spending less - or, in the case of a business owner, they may cut their investment in that and cost jobs which then has even a greater impact - because guys like GaReb who depend on those 'rich follk' to keep him employed may be one of the victims and then will require even more federal 'help' (which then you make the rich pay more and the circle continues!)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Again, I contend, the 'rich' don't hoard their money so when you take their dollars in increased taxes, they simply spend less - which cost even more than you potentially may get from the 1 dollar tax.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>As to the 97% verses 3% - The total wealth and the ability to create wealth isn't a 100% pie! My ability to make more money doesn't diminish your opportunity to make more - its not 'limited' - where opportunity must be divvied up amonst the masses like gold hidden under the tree. Opportunity affords everyone the same shot - but not everyone either accepts the opportunity (called, "Risk") or in some cases - they don't have the capacity (either financially, or intellectually) to respond to the opportunity. But it IS there for everyone.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
</div>
</div>
<br><br><p> </p>

<p>Yar:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I don't necessarily disagree with your comments regarding the American Dream. I do think; however, we - as a society - want to 'blame' others and make 'others' feel guilty for being successful or make them "share" their wealth with us because we aren't as successful.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>There are obviously the 'Grinches" of the world who wouldn't use their own piss to put out a fire on a neighbor - but there are also the Bill Gates and Warren Buffets who willingly give and give extremely generously.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And - I am good with an incremental tax scale where those who have been successful help pay to keep those who have not been successful due to life circumstances. My bitch is that as we do expect the wealthy to pay a higher rate - we tell them they're not paying their "Fair Share". I think it's more the term than anything else. If their not paying their "Fair Share"; then logic forces us to conclude they are being UNFAIR. THAT is my point - "Fair" is where you go in the summer. Life isn't fair - it never has been nor will it ever be. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>At the same time we ask more of the wealthy, have we considered those who game the system ? Or the politicians who exclude themselves from many of the same laws they dictate on society? The permanent welfare class who live on welfare as if it was a job - I have relatives who suck on the welfare titty like no others. One niece (and an aunt before her) who when she needs more money, just pops out another kid so she can get more welfare money.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I dunno - I just hate the divisive tone of "Fair Share" -</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Best,</p>
<p> </p>
<p><br>
Rich</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><br>
 </p>
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>yar</strong> <a href="/forum/thread/73242/praise-god-for-the-tea-partiers-and-baptists#post_1992994"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border:0px solid;"></a><br><br><p>1.  If "the rich" are so likely to "do a John Galt" if they are taxed too much, then how ddi the country experience what was probably its most dynamic period of growth (during the 50s and 60s) in a time when marginal tax rates on the highest levels of income were at their most confiscatory levels?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>2.  I can't imagine that the rates of spending that marginal dollar are anywhere near as high for the rich as for the bottom 50%.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>3.  You talk like the amount of wealth in this economy is/can be unlimited.  The economy can only grow so much.  There are a finite amount of assets.  Studies have shown that the incidence of moving between classes (up or down) has significantly declined in this country - to the point where a poor kid has a better chance of "making it"  in one of the "socialist" countries of Western Europe than in the USA.  These days, "Ragged Dick" ends up working his way up to a $9/hr job and living in subsidized housing.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I'm glad you're making it, Sat, I really am.  But this American dream has fallen apart for a huge percentage of this country and lowering taxes (again) for those who have made it isn't going to cure the problem.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>yar<br><br>
 </p>
<br><br><p> </p>
</div>
</div>
<p><br>
 </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>

<p>At least in the State of Georgia the Republicans are paying some attention to the middle class.  They have now proposed to protect our deductions for single taxpayers making up to $80,000 and married $160,000 before trimming our deductions. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>True, I do not work for Wal-Mart and I hope the owners of my firm stay properous for another 8 to 10 years so I don't have to consider it.  But look at the Wall Street, banking, health care executives and others who make millions while working very diligently for laws to benefit them at the expense of the working class.  Not to mention that our illustrious members of Congress give themselves automatic raises each year under the guise that they do not actually vote for the raises, health care that is well above what most Americans including former members of the U.S. military receive, and a retirement plan that beats the socks off anything regular working Americans have.    If we simply took away benefits for Members of Congress we would resolve a lot of issues that pit wealthy vs the middle class in this country.  Imagine if U.S. Representatives and Senators had to buy their own medical and prescription insurance.  Wonder how many of them would be excluded by pre-existing conditions while the weathy insurance executives wine and dine them.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And note I don't demonize the wealth of persons such as my employer.  They do in fact share it, while keeping enough for themselves to live their lifestyle however they wish. </p>
<p> </p>

<p>There's a wrinkle that applies to state taxes that doesn't apply so much to federal taxes.  If a certain state decides to raise the taxes on "the rich" too much, those rich people will pick up and move to states that are more tax-friendly.  That has happened quite a bit up here.  I live in New Jersey, very close to New York City.  Of course, this is one of the most expensive parts of the country to live in, and state and local taxes are big part of the reason why.  I don't have these statistics in front of me, but I've heard it said that the state of New Jersey has lost something like $6 Billion in personal wealth becuase taxes on the rich kept rising and rising, and those rich people fled to states like Texas and Florida (which have no state income tax) or even states like Pennsylvania and Delaware.  Those aren't exactly cheap places to live, but they are compared to New Jersey. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Heck, the only reason I've stayed here is because I married a Jersey girl who doesn't want to move away from her family and friends...</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So again, the federal government really doesn't have this problem, becuase very few American citizens will give up their citizenship to go to another country.  But there is some sort of "competition" among states.  They all want to have wealthy residents who will spend money in their state.  So there comes a limit at which raising taxes too much will cost the state money because the wealthy people will move away...</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It was only about 50 years ago that John Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you.  Ask what you can do for your country".  I think that far too many people now aren't paying attention to that now.  It's all about "gimme gimme gimme" and "make someone else pay for it"...</p>

<br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>GaReb770</strong> <a href="/forum/thread/73242/praise-god-for-the-tea-partiers-and-baptists/25#post_1993130"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border:0px solid;"></a><br><br><p>I wouldn't mind moving to Australia.  Unfortunately Australia does not permit one to immigrate there when they are older than 45.  I'm too old now so I just have to sit this mess out and see what happens.  With the battle lines being drawn in the sand, it's not looking good for the future of the U.S. either way.</p>
</div>
</div>
<br><br><p> </p>
<p>Really? You are that disgusted with this country that you see this as 'sitting this mess out'? Really? There are plenty of other countries that surely would accept you.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>1. Mexico?</p>
<p>2. Iran?</p>
<p>3. Iraq?</p>
<p>4. Canada? (well - nix that - they still are ally's )</p>
<p>5. France?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It is so bad here that you think there's no future in this country?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>What's that old saying, "If you think you can't do it - you're right"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>(Please tell me you said all that with a tongue planted in your cheek and you really don't think the USA is that bad a place to be?)</p>

<br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>yar</strong> <a href="/forum/thread/73242/praise-god-for-the-tea-partiers-and-baptists#post_1992994"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border-bottom:0px solid;border-left:0px solid;border-top:0px solid;border-right:0px solid;"></a><br><br><p>1.  If "the rich" are so likely to "do a John Galt" if they are taxed too much, then how ddi the country experience what was probably its most dynamic period of growth (during the 50s and 60s) in a time when marginal tax rates on the highest levels of income were at their most confiscatory levels?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>2.  I can't imagine that the rates of spending that marginal dollar are anywhere near as high for the rich as for the bottom 50%.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>3.  You talk like the amount of wealth in this economy is/can be unlimited.  The economy can only grow so much.  There are a finite amount of assets.  Studies have shown that the incidence of moving between classes (up or down) has significantly declined in this country - to the point where a poor kid has a better chance of "making it"  in one of the "socialist" countries of Western Europe than in the USA.  These days, "Ragged Dick" ends up working his way up to a $9/hr job and living in subsidized housing.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I'm glad you're making it, Sat, I really am.  But this American dream has fallen apart for a huge percentage of this country and lowering taxes (again) for those who have made it isn't going to cure the problem.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>yar<br><br>
 </p>
<br><br><p> </p>
</div>
</div>
<p><br><br>
Are you suggesting a direct causal relationship between tax rates and economic growth?</p>
<p> </p>

<p>Totally as an aside,  Mexico would be very difficult to emigrate to.  Maybe it's changed, but I don't think so. (this is a pet peeve of mine, especially every time I see Mexico's president blasting the US about OUR immigration laws)</p>
<p> </p>
<p><em>Immigration must be deemed appropriate, and assimilate to the national average and their proper distribution throughout the country.{article 3, section 7} Foreign nationals are restricted when the national interest so requires.{article 3, section 8} Immigration to urban population centers can be restricted to ensure effective delivery public services.{article 3, section 9} The immigration of foreigners is allowed according to their potential to contribute to national progress.{article 32} Foreigners are subject to approval concerning appropriate activities they will pursue, and the location of residence.{article 34} Immigrants must be useful elements for the country and have the income needed for subsistence and persons under their economic dependence.{article 34} Foreigners may be denied entry for the following reasons, if: No international reciprocity, The national demographic balance is altered, It is deemed harmful to the national economic interests, he/she has violated national law or have a poor record abroad, deemed not physically or mentally healthy. For a foreigner to pursue other activities in addition to those that have been expressly authorized, requires permission from the Interior Ministry.</em></p>
<p> </p>
<p>I've also been told, again--maybe it's outdated info, that it's hard for foreigners to even get jobs in Mexico.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><br>
 </p>
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>satfix</strong> <a href="/forum/thread/73242/praise-god-for-the-tea-partiers-and-baptists/25#post_1993138"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border:0px solid;"></a><br><br><br><br><br><br><p> </p>
<p>Really? You are that disgusted with this country that you see this as 'sitting this mess out'? Really? There are plenty of other countries that surely would accept you.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>1. Mexico?</p>
<p>2. Iran?</p>
<p>3. Iraq?</p>
<p>4. Canada? (well - nix that - they still are ally's )</p>
<p>5. France?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It is so bad here that you think there's no future in this country?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>What's that old saying, "If you think you can't do it - you're right"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>(Please tell me you said all that with a tongue planted in your cheek and you really don't think the USA is that bad a place to be?)</p>
</div>
</div>
<br><br><p> </p>
<p> </p>