GOP Congressman Makes $400,000, Whines About Tax Hikes

As I have said repeatedly and you have apparently failed to read. Entitlements need an overhaul. Welfare over long periods needs to be looked at, but that does not give the more wealthy an excuse to not pay thier proportionate income weight in taxes.

Since you're so into numbers, did you know the top 1% own 42% of the Financial Wealth in the US?. Is that fair?

There have also been numerous studies over the years showing that wealthy people and businesses do not spend to increase job growth or infrustucture, they save it and horde it.

Just a few examples;
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...ax-cuts-instead-of-spending-moody-s-says.html

http://econ.jhu.edu/people/ccarroll/Lectures/RichSaveSlides.pdf

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/analysis-shows-rich-people-save-not-s

http://www.mainstreet.com/article/moneyinvesting/savings/rich-save-don-t-spend-their-tax-cuts

 

It's more fair then taking it away from them because you feel that they have too much.
If you want their money then earn it from them. Don't steal it through punitive taxation.

 

There is no "earning it from them". It sits in a bank account, untouched. This means the amount of money in circulation goes down, drives prices up (they get to rise their item prices), lowers wages (they don't need to pay workers as much since EVERYONE is looking for a job, no matter if it's minimum wage), etc. They get more out of HORDING the money then they do out of spending it. Simple math.

I found this reply to be quite right as well, from an LA Time Opinion article.

 

Nothing new here. In Republican ********* America the rich are poor and the poor are rich.

 

Well, since I'm in that middle percentage class that actually pays pretty (*)(*)(*)(*) close to my 25%, nothing. At best, they should be paying the SAME percentage, if not more than me. Yet most are clearly not. I have every right to be angry at the policies that give the rich a free pass that I don't get, especially when I am a patriotic tax payer happy to offer my fair share after getting my fair shake. Care to challenge me on that one?

 

But his success is no different than mine, so why should I give a higher percantage of my income than any of them? Seriously? You argue that the poorest should pay more (sure they should, if they had anything to give), but I in the middle class should pay EVEN more than the rich? And thats somehow fair in your mind? What exactly is your deluded argument here?

 

You need to take a math class. .2%, sure thats a really small population of people, I get it. Yea, you're right, maybe they should only pay .2% of the revenues earned right?

Except that they control 42% of the wealth. What the hell is the matter with that logic?

Gosh, maybe we peasents could build them all pyramids or castles and then we might get to, once a decade, enter their 60,000 acre lots and walk amongst their many gardens and even get a glimpse of their royalty. After all, we shouldn't dare expect a penny from the uber elite that have taken everything for themselves in this country (of course, fairly, not through corporate lobbying, loopholes, inheritance, outsourcing, destroying American jobs, shoddy corrupt self serving financial vehicles, sweetheart government contracts, etc. etc. etc). They are above us all and the maybe if the right becomes the "peasents of the rich" (as apparently is the strategy of all the ignorant supporters on this site), they'll do what you all want and cleanse the nation of the liberal scourge that actually believes in a fair shake and fair opportunity for everyone in this country, even the millions of employees that actually do the work those billionaires earn their money from.

 

Money in banks is not out of circulation. The bank takes that money and invests it. That's how they earn the money to pay the interest they give you.

 

You do not pay more than the rich. Just because your percentage is slightly higher doesn't mean that the burden put upon you is greater.
If you want to pay a lower percentage then make more money. (In the Navy we called that incentive to make rank.) but, in the long run, you will be paying more than before.

 

No, it's not. If that were the case we would not be in the situation we are in today. We wouldn't of had to bail out banks. Most of it is also not held in American banks.

 

Build a better mouse trap. Then you can earn that money away from them.
But, until you EARN the money, you have no right to it.

 

Where does the bank get the money they pay you in interest? It doesn't come out of their pockets.

 

Donald Trump, Paris Hilton, Anderson Cooper, and Kim Kardashian all inherited millions of dollars when their parents died.

Is that what you mean by "earning" it?

 

That is 6.15% of what he earned.

Because 6.15% of what he makes in a year is more than you might make in 10 years, does not mean ANYONE is entitled to 93.85% of what he generated.

It is not yours for want of it.

Let's say you are a good looking guy. You eat right, you exercise. You are educated and witty... and you get all the ladies.

I am ugly, I got no game, maybe even I have a goiter or something... me and some average guys with one girl who rarely puts out, or no girl at all force you to give us your girlfriends. In fact, we now are given 93.8% of all the ass that should be yours, or you face prison.


Then we force you to watch while we do it wrong.

This is the best way I can try and translate the problem to the liberal mind.

 

Their PARENTS earned it... and can devote it to whatever cause or person they choose.

 

The parents are dead, so that is irrelevant. The children did NOT earn that money, thus that argument fails completely. Inheriting something is not EARNING it.

 

So, let me get this straight...

If I earn some money, create jobs, industry, legacy... when I die... you are more entitled to it than my children?

I am just trying to understand you...



and Richard Hilton is alive and well... I dunno about the rest of them.

and loathe her as I do, Paris has generated gazillions on her own.

 

That was never the argument. The argument is the belief that children born into wealth earn that wealth. The larger argument is the wealthy paying more taxes than they are now. None of that is arguing that the people take ALL of the wealth that the rich possess.

Paris has generated gazillions by throwing lavish parties for other celebrities and being friends with movie stars. All of which was made possible by the wealth she inherited.

 

I guess I missed where that argument was introduced. I thought we were talking about this representative whose businesses EARNED 6.5 million, of which he only saw 6.15%.

Is it your belief that most millionaires are because of inheritance? Why do you believe you are entitled to ANY of a persons wealth? Why would you be entitled to 93.85% of a persons wealth, earned or inherited? 80? 60? 50?

Ummm, no... she has made most of her money selling products to the public... after a successful reality tv show that the public watched. She is not making money on movie stars. She is making money because we all love a good train wreck.

I see you changed your earlier "its easy to make millions when you have millions to throw around" statement. That was wise. We all type things without thinking sometimes.

 

Have you been paying attention at all to recent events and how banks have failed and had to be bailed out with billions of tax payer dollars?

Are you people saying that millionaires like the heads and executives of GM, BoA, AIG, Citi Group, Chase, etc, etc, etc should be making millions still and not paying large amounts of taxes? Those people who took MILLIONS in bonuses after running their institutions into the ground and then got bailed out by the American people?

And yet you republicans still vote in representatives that call for even less regulation and laws against companies who caused these problems, giving them huge tax breaks and loopholes? How much fox news do you watch? Seriously.

 

Liberals, or whatever, keep reminding me that I should be voting my own self-interest. That means, in liberal-speak, I should be selfish and self-centered and vote the way they want me to vote.

Perhaps some peope vote the way they think if best for the economy, for the country as a whole, to benefit everyone. It's not the liberal way but it is a way.

 

Okay. You don't know. Next time just say that.

The banks probably wouldn't have had to bailed out had they not been forced to provide sub prime mortgages to people that obviously couldn't afford them. But, thanks to carter, clinton and a skinny-assed former community organizer from Chicago, they were.

 

Nobody forced them, in reality they wanted this as it was easy extra income.

 

Right wingers always claim that everyone that is not a right winger must be on the government entitlement dole...

Then you find out that half of them are retirees on social security and medicare (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing about others getting handouts and medical care.

I mean the best was one right winger on these boards (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing about Obamacare and socialized medicine who then proceeded to say it wasn't needed because you could go down to the free clinic like he did... And his free clinic was paid for by the county government.

 

You need to get informed before you post. Please show me the legislation that forced them to make loans.