Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Obama has gone off the deep end
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Rich
Sep 17, 2011, 11:18:43 PM9/17/11
to
Lets say he taxes the estimated 775,000 people in the U.S. who earn over
$1M a year. Lets say he raises what they already pay by about 30%, which
is a huge increase. He'll probably go for less. The most this will net
him will be about $40 billion, at most. That is about 1/350th of the
total debt which is running at $13 trllion per year. So exactly what
does clueless hope to accomplish?
CNN:
17 September 2011 Last updated at 21:17 ET
US economy: New Obama plan to tax wealthiest
US President Barack Obama is planning a higher minimum tax rate on the
richest Americans to ensure they are taxed at the same rate as the less
wealthy.
White House officials said Mr Obama would provide details of his proposal
on Monday when he reveals his long-term plan to reduce the budget
deficit.
Reports say the proposal is to be called the Buffett Rule, after the
billionaire investor Warren Buffett.
Mr Buffett says loopholes mean the richest pay relatively less tax.
This is because earnings from investments are taxed at lower rates than
wages.
The proposed new tax would affect Americans who earn more than $1m a
year.
The proposal is likely to meet a strong challenge in Congress, where
Republicans have said they oppose any tax increases.
The US economy has been growing only slowly while the unemployment rate
remains stubbornly high, above 9%. Facing an election next year, Mr Obama
has had a battle in Congress over how to reduce the ballooning deficit
while the economy remains stagnant.
A Congressional "supercommittee" of six Republicans and six Democrats has
been charged with finding steep reductions in the deficit by late
November, when automatic cuts come into force.
$1M a year. Lets say he raises what they already pay by about 30%, which
is a huge increase. He'll probably go for less. The most this will net
him will be about $40 billion, at most. That is about 1/350th of the
total debt which is running at $13 trllion per year. So exactly what
does clueless hope to accomplish?
CNN:
17 September 2011 Last updated at 21:17 ET
US economy: New Obama plan to tax wealthiest
US President Barack Obama is planning a higher minimum tax rate on the
richest Americans to ensure they are taxed at the same rate as the less
wealthy.
White House officials said Mr Obama would provide details of his proposal
on Monday when he reveals his long-term plan to reduce the budget
deficit.
Reports say the proposal is to be called the Buffett Rule, after the
billionaire investor Warren Buffett.
Mr Buffett says loopholes mean the richest pay relatively less tax.
This is because earnings from investments are taxed at lower rates than
wages.
The proposed new tax would affect Americans who earn more than $1m a
year.
The proposal is likely to meet a strong challenge in Congress, where
Republicans have said they oppose any tax increases.
The US economy has been growing only slowly while the unemployment rate
remains stubbornly high, above 9%. Facing an election next year, Mr Obama
has had a battle in Congress over how to reduce the ballooning deficit
while the economy remains stagnant.
A Congressional "supercommittee" of six Republicans and six Democrats has
been charged with finding steep reductions in the deficit by late
November, when automatic cuts come into force.
W/Q
Sep 17, 2011, 11:29:28 PM9/17/11
to
On Sep 17, 11:18 pm, Rich <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Lets say he taxes the estimated 775,000 people in the U.S. who earn over
> $1M a year. Lets say he raises what they already pay by about 30%, which
> is a huge increase. He'll probably go for less. The most this will net
> him will be about $40 billion, at most. That is about 1/350th of the
> total debt which is running at $13 trllion per year. So exactly what
> does clueless hope to accomplish?
The collective wealth of all the millionaires and billionaires in the
> Lets say he taxes the estimated 775,000 people in the U.S. who earn over
> $1M a year. Lets say he raises what they already pay by about 30%, which
> is a huge increase. He'll probably go for less. The most this will net
> him will be about $40 billion, at most. That is about 1/350th of the
> total debt which is running at $13 trllion per year. So exactly what
> does clueless hope to accomplish?
US, which makes up over a quarter of the world's total, is about $12
trillion. Tax them an extra 10% and voila, you get $1.2 trillion.
And you know what? The rich'll still have trillions left over for
themselves to play with any way they want. That's why they're
steenking rich. Try not to bleed pity for them, because they really
don't give a damn about you. They're too rich, and the only thing
rich about you is your name.
David Johnston
Sep 18, 2011, 12:09:20 AM9/18/11
to
On 9/17/2011 9:18 PM, Rich wrote:
> Lets say he taxes the estimated 775,000 people in the U.S. who earn over
> $1M a year. Lets say he raises what they already pay by about 30%, which
> is a huge increase. He'll probably go for less. The most this will net
> him will be about $40 billion, at most.
> Lets say he taxes the estimated 775,000 people in the U.S. who earn over
> $1M a year. Lets say he raises what they already pay by about 30%, which
> is a huge increase. He'll probably go for less. The most this will net
> him will be about $40 billion, at most.
Well you know, 40 billion here. 40 billion there. It adds up. And if
the United States government is going to inflict suffering on the poor
by cutting back services just when they're needed most, it's good
politics to have them not thinking that the upper class is doing better
than ever even as unemployment continues to grow.
Mr. Finsky
Sep 18, 2011, 2:18:30 AM9/18/11
to
taxes, mainly on the rich. Within 2 years, Reagan realized that the
massive budget deficits were truly bad news. He increased taxes and
the country didn't fall apart. The still massive deficits caused
Clinton to raise taxes on the rich (by a tiny 10% on the last layer of
income) in 1992. The economy boomed, mainly because government
deficits were soaking up all the available money. The stock market
boomed and the rich made more in stock value than the cost of the tax
increase. In 2000, Bush and the Supreme Court stole the election.
Taxes were lowered, mainly for the rich. We've now had the largest
shift in wealth from the middle-class to the rich in US history. We
had a ridiculous war and such poor oversight over the private sector
that the economy nearly collapsed. If tax increases for the rich are
so bad, why did the economy do so well in the 1990's? If tax decreases
were so good, why was there no job creation after Bush's tax cuts?
All the Prez wants to do is have tax increases on the wealthy offset
the tax breaks being extended to the rest of the country. Maybe we
should try to stop rewarding greed.
AC
Sep 18, 2011, 4:25:33 AM9/18/11
to
Rich wrote:
> Lets say he taxes the estimated 775,000 people in the U.S. who earn over
> $1M a year. Lets say he raises what they already pay by about 30%, which
> is a huge increase. He'll probably go for less. The most this will net
> him will be about $40 billion, at most. That is about 1/350th of the
> total debt which is running at $13 trllion per year. So exactly what
> does clueless hope to accomplish?
>
Getting more money in, obviously.
> Lets say he taxes the estimated 775,000 people in the U.S. who earn over
> $1M a year. Lets say he raises what they already pay by about 30%, which
> is a huge increase. He'll probably go for less. The most this will net
> him will be about $40 billion, at most. That is about 1/350th of the
> total debt which is running at $13 trllion per year. So exactly what
> does clueless hope to accomplish?
>
Sorry, what's the down side? The rich close their businesses and sulk?
Or are they so unpatriotic that they will leave? Clearly they are so
anti American they done like contributing to the country that made them
in the first place.
--
AC
Lord Vader III
Sep 18, 2011, 7:55:17 AM9/18/11
to
On 9/17/2011 10:29 PM, W/Q wrote:
> On Sep 17, 11:18 pm, Rich<n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> Lets say he taxes the estimated 775,000 people in the U.S. who earn over
>> $1M a year. Lets say he raises what they already pay by about 30%, which
>> is a huge increase. He'll probably go for less. The most this will net
>> him will be about $40 billion, at most. That is about 1/350th of the
>> total debt which is running at $13 trllion per year. So exactly what
>> does clueless hope to accomplish?
>
> The collective wealth of all the millionaires and billionaires in the
> US, which makes up over a quarter of the world's total, is about $12
> trillion. Tax them an extra 10% and voila, you get $1.2 trillion.
> And you know what? The rich'll still have trillions left over for
> themselves to play with any way they want. That's why they're
> steenking rich. Try not to bleed pity for them, because they really
> don't give a damn about you. They're too rich, and the only thing
> rich about you is your name.
> On Sep 17, 11:18 pm, Rich<n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> Lets say he taxes the estimated 775,000 people in the U.S. who earn over
>> $1M a year. Lets say he raises what they already pay by about 30%, which
>> is a huge increase. He'll probably go for less. The most this will net
>> him will be about $40 billion, at most. That is about 1/350th of the
>> total debt which is running at $13 trllion per year. So exactly what
>> does clueless hope to accomplish?
>
> The collective wealth of all the millionaires and billionaires in the
> US, which makes up over a quarter of the world's total, is about $12
> trillion. Tax them an extra 10% and voila, you get $1.2 trillion.
> And you know what? The rich'll still have trillions left over for
> themselves to play with any way they want. That's why they're
> steenking rich. Try not to bleed pity for them, because they really
> don't give a damn about you. They're too rich, and the only thing
> rich about you is your name.
Taxes aren't levied on wealth, they're levied on income.
LVIII
cloud dreamer
Sep 18, 2011, 7:59:28 AM9/18/11
to
On 18/09/2011 12:59 AM, W/Q wrote:
> On Sep 17, 11:18 pm, Rich<n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> Lets say he taxes the estimated 775,000 people in the U.S. who earn over
>> $1M a year. Lets say he raises what they already pay by about 30%, which
>> is a huge increase. He'll probably go for less. The most this will net
>> him will be about $40 billion, at most. That is about 1/350th of the
>> total debt which is running at $13 trllion per year. So exactly what
>> does clueless hope to accomplish?
>
> The collective wealth of all the millionaires and billionaires in the
> US, which makes up over a quarter of the world's total, is about $12
> trillion. Tax them an extra 10% and voila, you get $1.2 trillion.
> And you know what? The rich'll still have trillions left over for
> themselves to play with any way they want. That's why they're
> steenking rich. Try not to bleed pity for them, because they really
> don't give a damn about you. They're too rich, and the only thing
> rich about you is your name.
But you have to admire Rich's attempt at rationalizing not taxing
> On Sep 17, 11:18 pm, Rich<n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> Lets say he taxes the estimated 775,000 people in the U.S. who earn over
>> $1M a year. Lets say he raises what they already pay by about 30%, which
>> is a huge increase. He'll probably go for less. The most this will net
>> him will be about $40 billion, at most. That is about 1/350th of the
>> total debt which is running at $13 trllion per year. So exactly what
>> does clueless hope to accomplish?
>
> The collective wealth of all the millionaires and billionaires in the
> US, which makes up over a quarter of the world's total, is about $12
> trillion. Tax them an extra 10% and voila, you get $1.2 trillion.
> And you know what? The rich'll still have trillions left over for
> themselves to play with any way they want. That's why they're
> steenking rich. Try not to bleed pity for them, because they really
> don't give a damn about you. They're too rich, and the only thing
> rich about you is your name.
them....it will *only* add $40 billion.
Of course, he's way off, both in the amount and in the rationalizing
that "it won't make much difference so don't tax them."
D'uh.
..
--
We must change the way we live
Or the climate will do it for us
trotsky
Sep 18, 2011, 9:01:09 AM9/18/11
to
On 9/17/11 10:18 PM, Rich wrote:
> Lets say he taxes the estimated 775,000 people
Did Jay Leno the "democrat" say that?
> Lets say he taxes the estimated 775,000 people
trotsky
Sep 18, 2011, 9:05:09 AM9/18/11
to
the syphilis.
Anim8rFSK
Sep 18, 2011, 10:22:04 AM9/18/11
to
In article <3ImdnWkYD5WO_ujT...@giganews.com>,
wants to accomplish something other than he says.
--
"Please, I can't die, I've never kissed an Asian woman!"
Shego on "Shat My Dad Says"
Rich <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Lets say he taxes the estimated 775,000 people in the U.S. who earn over
> $1M a year. Lets say he raises what they already pay by about 30%, which
> is a huge increase. He'll probably go for less. The most this will net
> him will be about $40 billion, at most. That is about 1/350th of the
> total debt which is running at $13 trllion per year. So exactly what
> does clueless hope to accomplish?
He cripples the people he wants to cripple. He's not clueless; he just
> Lets say he taxes the estimated 775,000 people in the U.S. who earn over
> $1M a year. Lets say he raises what they already pay by about 30%, which
> is a huge increase. He'll probably go for less. The most this will net
> him will be about $40 billion, at most. That is about 1/350th of the
> total debt which is running at $13 trllion per year. So exactly what
> does clueless hope to accomplish?
wants to accomplish something other than he says.
--
"Please, I can't die, I've never kissed an Asian woman!"
Shego on "Shat My Dad Says"
Dano
Sep 18, 2011, 10:45:13 AM9/18/11
to
"Mr. Finsky" wrote in message
news:a954a42b-fe23-4d0b...@k15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
=======================================================
Ironically (hope I'm using that correctly), in the long run...maybe even
shorter term if this helps by stimulating the economic recovery more quickly
...wealthy investors (assuming they actually INVEST and don't just sit on
their money by buying up gold) stand to gain more from those investments
than they will lose in the tax differential.
I think folks ought to also consider we have a lot of needed spending that
has real value to the country. Our own infrastructure is badly in need of
work. In great part because we have been spending so much on the
infrastructure of countries we've torn down in warfare. Those jobs will
help stimulate the economy in other businesses. Working people are good
little consumers when they have the cash to spend...unlike many of the idle
rich (and the working rich...is that an oxymoron?) who have so much already
they choose to sit on their riches more often.
news:a954a42b-fe23-4d0b...@k15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Ironically (hope I'm using that correctly), in the long run...maybe even
shorter term if this helps by stimulating the economic recovery more quickly
...wealthy investors (assuming they actually INVEST and don't just sit on
their money by buying up gold) stand to gain more from those investments
than they will lose in the tax differential.
I think folks ought to also consider we have a lot of needed spending that
has real value to the country. Our own infrastructure is badly in need of
work. In great part because we have been spending so much on the
infrastructure of countries we've torn down in warfare. Those jobs will
help stimulate the economy in other businesses. Working people are good
little consumers when they have the cash to spend...unlike many of the idle
rich (and the working rich...is that an oxymoron?) who have so much already
they choose to sit on their riches more often.
Dano
Sep 18, 2011, 10:47:49 AM9/18/11
to
"Lord Vader III" wrote in message news:j54m71$6ji$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
============================================
Semantics. Gotta love it.
What wealth doesn't produce income? Are you suggesting it's all packed in
mattresses?
Semantics. Gotta love it.
What wealth doesn't produce income? Are you suggesting it's all packed in
mattresses?
JRStern
Sep 18, 2011, 1:59:50 PM9/18/11
to
On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 22:18:43 -0500, Rich <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Lets say he taxes the estimated 775,000 people in the U.S. who earn over
>$1M a year. Lets say he raises what they already pay by about 30%, which
>is a huge increase. He'll probably go for less. The most this will net
>him will be about $40 billion, at most. That is about 1/350th of the
>total debt which is running at $13 trllion per year. So exactly what
>does clueless hope to accomplish?
Those numbers don't like right to me.
>Lets say he taxes the estimated 775,000 people in the U.S. who earn over
>$1M a year. Lets say he raises what they already pay by about 30%, which
>is a huge increase. He'll probably go for less. The most this will net
>him will be about $40 billion, at most. That is about 1/350th of the
>total debt which is running at $13 trllion per year. So exactly what
>does clueless hope to accomplish?
A minute googling suggests incomes above $1m are more like 250,000
people, that's 2009 data I think. Of course Obama calls families
making $250,000 a year "millionaires", and that's probably a couple of
million people.
http://www.lazymanandmoney.com/how-many-people-make-more-than-250000-per-year/
But the top 1% also represents a much bigger chunk of total income
than the small population suggests, looks like 20%, and a bigger
amount of total income *tax*, typically about 40%. Total personal
income tax in 2007 was about $900b (probably less now!). So increase
that by 30% and you get $27b. So your bottom line was close enough if
you count the top 1%, including incomes down to about $350k.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Receipts_-_FY_2007.png
But that's per year, and they always like talking about 10 years, so
that's $270b over ten years.
You're right, it doesn't touch the deficit of $14t or even the annual
deficits of $1t ("over ten years that's $10t" folks!).
--
We haven't seen details of what Obama even *means* by this yet,
everyone is guessing.
I'm guessing that whether it happens now under Obama or later under
Rick Perry, there is going to be a merger of the social security and
general income tax systems. That's one of the two things Warren
Buffett is always moaning about, the other is lower taxes on capital
gains. There are lots of problems in the tax system.
So, if Obama wants to basically extend the social security tax onto
huge incomes, that might be a "win".
One other thing that is rumored, that whatever this is is going to
include an elimination of the current AMT. THAT would be a good
thing, the current AMT is a joke and a pain. So even if that is
replaced with something that bites harder, it might get support.
Does it make any sense? Maybe a little. But as you say, the numbers
are not enough to touch the real problems.
J.
Mason Barge
Sep 18, 2011, 5:42:03 PM9/18/11
to
On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 20:29:28 -0700 (PDT), "W/Q" <i...@email.com> wrote:
>On Sep 17, 11:18 pm, Rich <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> Lets say he taxes the estimated 775,000 people in the U.S. who earn over
>> $1M a year. Lets say he raises what they already pay by about 30%, which
>> is a huge increase. He'll probably go for less. The most this will net
>> him will be about $40 billion, at most. That is about 1/350th of the
>> total debt which is running at $13 trllion per year. So exactly what
>> does clueless hope to accomplish?
>
>The collective wealth of all the millionaires and billionaires in the
>US, which makes up over a quarter of the world's total, is about $12
>trillion. Tax them an extra 10% and voila, you get $1.2 trillion.
It's income tax, not intangibles tax.
>On Sep 17, 11:18 pm, Rich <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> Lets say he taxes the estimated 775,000 people in the U.S. who earn over
>> $1M a year. Lets say he raises what they already pay by about 30%, which
>> is a huge increase. He'll probably go for less. The most this will net
>> him will be about $40 billion, at most. That is about 1/350th of the
>> total debt which is running at $13 trllion per year. So exactly what
>> does clueless hope to accomplish?
>
>The collective wealth of all the millionaires and billionaires in the
>US, which makes up over a quarter of the world's total, is about $12
>trillion. Tax them an extra 10% and voila, you get $1.2 trillion.
Mason Barge
Sep 18, 2011, 5:43:32 PM9/18/11
to
On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 22:09:20 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
wrote:
wrote:
>On 9/17/2011 9:18 PM, Rich wrote:
>> Lets say he taxes the estimated 775,000 people in the U.S. who earn over
>> $1M a year. Lets say he raises what they already pay by about 30%, which
>> is a huge increase. He'll probably go for less. The most this will net
>> him will be about $40 billion, at most.
>
>Well you know, 40 billion here. 40 billion there. It adds up.
Haha, you beat me to it. Although the Dirksen quote is phrased better:
"A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about
some real money."
(Only IIRC he said "million".)
W/Q
Sep 18, 2011, 6:22:50 PM9/18/11
to
survive quite well afterwards, more than you ever will.
anim8rfsk
Sep 18, 2011, 8:22:54 PM9/18/11
to
This would of course not be true. Property tax, for instance, is levied
on wealth, not income.
--
sent from a borrowed ipad
Adam H. Kerman
Sep 19, 2011, 12:10:34 AM9/19/11
to
that contributes to the creation of wealth.
Adam H. Kerman
Sep 19, 2011, 12:11:23 AM9/19/11
to
As he was talking about federal spending, he said billion.
anim8rfsk
Sep 19, 2011, 12:46:40 AM9/19/11
to
even stuff they're renting - even if they own no land whatsoever.
Stephen Newport
Sep 19, 2011, 1:56:20 AM9/19/11
to
From: ANIM...@cox.net (Anim8rFSK)
SN: Zzzzzzzzzz. You really know nothing.
He cripples the people he wants to cripple.
-----------------------------------
SN: Zzzzzzzzzz. You really know nothing.
Stephen Newport
Sep 19, 2011, 1:54:18 AM9/19/11
to
From: Sa...@Resources.now (cloud dreamer) But you have to admire Rich's
SN: No. Not really.
attempt at rationalizing not taxing them....
--------------------------------
SN: No. Not really.
Adam H. Kerman
Sep 19, 2011, 8:35:58 AM9/19/11
to
anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>Lord Vader III <lord.va...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On 9/17/2011 10:29 PM, W/Q wrote:
>>>>>On Sep 17, 11:18 pm, Rich<n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>Lets say he taxes the estimated 775,000 people in the U.S. who
>>>>>>earn over $1M a year. Lets say he raises what they already pay by
>>>>>>about 30%, which is a huge increase. He'll probably go for less.
>>>>>>The most this will net him will be about $40 billion, at most.
>>>>>>That is about 1/350th of the total debt which is running at $13
>>>>>>trllion per year. So exactly what does clueless hope to accomplish?
>>>>>The collective wealth of all the millionaires and billionaires
>>>>>in the US, which makes up over a quarter of the world's total,
>>>>>is about $12 trillion. Tax them an extra 10% and voila, you
>>>>>get $1.2 trillion. And you know what? The rich'll still have
>>>>>trillions left over for themselves to play with any way they want.
>>>>>That's why they're steenking rich. Try not to bleed pity for them,
>>>>>because they really don't give a damn about you. They're too rich,
>>>>>and the only thing rich about you is your name.
>>>>Taxes aren't levied on wealth, they're levied on income.
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>Lord Vader III <lord.va...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On 9/17/2011 10:29 PM, W/Q wrote:
>>>>>On Sep 17, 11:18 pm, Rich<n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>Lets say he taxes the estimated 775,000 people in the U.S. who
>>>>>>earn over $1M a year. Lets say he raises what they already pay by
>>>>>>about 30%, which is a huge increase. He'll probably go for less.
>>>>>>The most this will net him will be about $40 billion, at most.
>>>>>>That is about 1/350th of the total debt which is running at $13
>>>>>>trllion per year. So exactly what does clueless hope to accomplish?
>>>>>The collective wealth of all the millionaires and billionaires
>>>>>in the US, which makes up over a quarter of the world's total,
>>>>>is about $12 trillion. Tax them an extra 10% and voila, you
>>>>>get $1.2 trillion. And you know what? The rich'll still have
>>>>>trillions left over for themselves to play with any way they want.
>>>>>That's why they're steenking rich. Try not to bleed pity for them,
>>>>>because they really don't give a damn about you. They're too rich,
>>>>>and the only thing rich about you is your name.
>>>>Taxes aren't levied on wealth, they're levied on income.
>>>This would of course not be true. Property tax, for instance, is
>>>levied on wealth, not income.
>>Just the portion that falls on the building. Land is the raw material
>>that contributes to the creation of wealth.
>Businesses get hit with property tax on everything under their roof -
>even stuff they're renting - even if they own no land whatsoever.
You're talking about personal property tax, unconstitutional in my state.
>>>levied on wealth, not income.
>>Just the portion that falls on the building. Land is the raw material
>>that contributes to the creation of wealth.
>Businesses get hit with property tax on everything under their roof -
>even stuff they're renting - even if they own no land whatsoever.
That's a bad tax. But the tax on land is a good tax.
trotsky
Sep 19, 2011, 8:44:11 AM9/19/11
to
On 9/18/11 9:22 AM, Anim8rFSK wrote:
> In article<3ImdnWkYD5WO_ujT...@giganews.com>,
> Rich<no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> Lets say he taxes the estimated 775,000 people in the U.S. who earn over
>> $1M a year. Lets say he raises what they already pay by about 30%, which
>> is a huge increase. He'll probably go for less. The most this will net
>> him will be about $40 billion, at most. That is about 1/350th of the
>> total debt which is running at $13 trllion per year. So exactly what
>> does clueless hope to accomplish?
>
> He cripples the people he wants to cripple. He's not clueless; he just
> wants to accomplish something other than he says.
>
> In article<3ImdnWkYD5WO_ujT...@giganews.com>,
> Rich<no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> Lets say he taxes the estimated 775,000 people in the U.S. who earn over
>> $1M a year. Lets say he raises what they already pay by about 30%, which
>> is a huge increase. He'll probably go for less. The most this will net
>> him will be about $40 billion, at most. That is about 1/350th of the
>> total debt which is running at $13 trllion per year. So exactly what
>> does clueless hope to accomplish?
>
> He cripples the people he wants to cripple. He's not clueless; he just
> wants to accomplish something other than he says.
>
Teabagger alert.
trotsky
Sep 19, 2011, 9:01:51 AM9/19/11
to
Vocalize
Sep 19, 2011, 6:03:34 PM9/19/11
to
How does this relate to rec.arts.tv ???
On 9/18/11 9:46 PM, in article
1835791799338100226.0...@news.easynews.com, "anim8rfsk"
On 9/18/11 9:46 PM, in article
1835791799338100226.0...@news.easynews.com, "anim8rfsk"
Rich
Sep 19, 2011, 11:09:25 PM9/19/11
to
"Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:j550am$jba$1...@dont-email.me:
I have just one question for the leftist trash out there: Why is it
incumbent upon the rich to PAY to subsidize your lifestyle? No one owes
you a living.
incumbent upon the rich to PAY to subsidize your lifestyle? No one owes
you a living.
Stephen Newport
Sep 20, 2011, 12:41:06 AM9/20/11
to
From: gms...@email.com (trotsky)
SN: What's the explanation for Rich?
It might explain his sounding like an intellectual cripple, though.
------------------------------------SN: What's the explanation for Rich?
Dano
Sep 20, 2011, 1:12:23 AM9/20/11
to
"Rich" wrote in message
news:6pSdnYN8sZZ4nuXT...@giganews.com...
I have just one question for the leftist trash out there: Why is it
incumbent upon the rich to PAY to subsidize your lifestyle? No one owes
you a living.
====================================
Someone owes you a beating.
news:6pSdnYN8sZZ4nuXT...@giganews.com...
I have just one question for the leftist trash out there: Why is it
incumbent upon the rich to PAY to subsidize your lifestyle? No one owes
you a living.
Someone owes you a beating.
Stephen Newport
Sep 20, 2011, 1:39:45 AM9/20/11
to
From: no...@nowhere.com (Rich)
SN: Because I say so.
Why is it incumbent upon the rich to PAY to subsidize
-------------------------------------------
SN: Because I say so.
trotsky
Sep 20, 2011, 7:27:28 PM9/20/11
to
cloud dreamer
Sep 20, 2011, 7:32:26 PM9/20/11
to
Rich
Sep 20, 2011, 9:53:31 PM9/20/11
to
cloud dreamer <Sa...@Resources.now> wrote in
news:vdednU2sf8K9QOjT...@supernews.com:
> On 18/09/2011 12:59 AM, W/Q wrote:
>> On Sep 17, 11:18 pm, Rich<n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> Lets say he taxes the estimated 775,000 people in the U.S. who earn
>>> over $1M a year. Lets say he raises what they already pay by about
>>> 30%, which is a huge increase. He'll probably go for less. The
>>> most this will net him will be about $40 billion, at most. That is
>>> about 1/350th of the total debt which is running at $13 trllion per
>>> year. So exactly what does clueless hope to accomplish?
>>
>> The collective wealth of all the millionaires and billionaires in the
>> US, which makes up over a quarter of the world's total, is about $12
>> trillion. Tax them an extra 10% and voila, you get $1.2 trillion.
>> And you know what? The rich'll still have trillions left over for
>> themselves to play with any way they want. That's why they're
>> steenking rich. Try not to bleed pity for them, because they really
>> don't give a damn about you. They're too rich, and the only thing
>> rich about you is your name.
>
>
They do NOT owe you a living.
news:vdednU2sf8K9QOjT...@supernews.com:
> On 18/09/2011 12:59 AM, W/Q wrote:
>> On Sep 17, 11:18 pm, Rich<n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> Lets say he taxes the estimated 775,000 people in the U.S. who earn
>>> over $1M a year. Lets say he raises what they already pay by about
>>> 30%, which is a huge increase. He'll probably go for less. The
>>> most this will net him will be about $40 billion, at most. That is
>>> about 1/350th of the total debt which is running at $13 trllion per
>>> year. So exactly what does clueless hope to accomplish?
>>
>> The collective wealth of all the millionaires and billionaires in the
>> US, which makes up over a quarter of the world's total, is about $12
>> trillion. Tax them an extra 10% and voila, you get $1.2 trillion.
>> And you know what? The rich'll still have trillions left over for
>> themselves to play with any way they want. That's why they're
>> steenking rich. Try not to bleed pity for them, because they really
>> don't give a damn about you. They're too rich, and the only thing
>> rich about you is your name.
>
>
> But you have to admire Rich's attempt at rationalizing not taxing
> them....it will *only* add $40 billion.
>
Not "not" taxing, not OVERTAXING to support OTHER PEOPLE'S LIFESTYLES.
>
They do NOT owe you a living.
Rich
Sep 20, 2011, 9:55:57 PM9/20/11
to
David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote in
news:j53qtc$is4$1...@dont-email.me:
> On 9/17/2011 9:18 PM, Rich wrote:
>> Lets say he taxes the estimated 775,000 people in the U.S. who earn
>> over $1M a year. Lets say he raises what they already pay by about
>> 30%, which is a huge increase. He'll probably go for less. The most
>> this will net him will be about $40 billion, at most.
>
> Well you know, 40 billion here. 40 billion there. It adds up. And
> if the United States government is going to inflict suffering on the
> poor by cutting back services just when they're needed most, it's good
> politics to have them not thinking that the upper class is doing
> better than ever even as unemployment continues to grow.
>
All he's going to accomplish is to eliminate legitimate jobs and replace
them with his overpriced, near-worthless make-work jobs. Taxing people
to death is not good for anyone except people who want to grow
government.
news:j53qtc$is4$1...@dont-email.me:
> On 9/17/2011 9:18 PM, Rich wrote:
>> Lets say he taxes the estimated 775,000 people in the U.S. who earn
>> over $1M a year. Lets say he raises what they already pay by about
>> 30%, which is a huge increase. He'll probably go for less. The most
>> this will net him will be about $40 billion, at most.
>
> if the United States government is going to inflict suffering on the
> poor by cutting back services just when they're needed most, it's good
> politics to have them not thinking that the upper class is doing
> better than ever even as unemployment continues to grow.
>
All he's going to accomplish is to eliminate legitimate jobs and replace
them with his overpriced, near-worthless make-work jobs. Taxing people
to death is not good for anyone except people who want to grow
government.
Stephen Newport
Sep 21, 2011, 1:01:14 AM9/21/11
to
From: no...@nowhere.com (Rich)
SN: Trickle-down is bunk! The lie that keeps getting told.
not good for anyone except people who want to grow government.
--------------------------------------
SN: Trickle-down is bunk! The lie that keeps getting told.
trotsky
Sep 21, 2011, 9:21:35 AM9/21/11
to
trotsky
Sep 21, 2011, 9:27:14 AM9/21/11
to
Rich
Sep 21, 2011, 8:37:21 PM9/21/11
to
Newpor...@webtv.net (Stephen Newport) wrote in news:9802-4E796F9A-46
@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net:
Sure. The rich guys who own companies like GM and Dow Chemical don't
employ people do they?
@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net:
employ people do they?
Rich
Sep 21, 2011, 8:37:55 PM9/21/11
to
trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote in news:75WdnbK-tuase-
TTnZ2dnUV...@mchsi.com:
Keep repeating, "The rich do not owe me a living."
TTnZ2dnUV...@mchsi.com:
Rich
Sep 21, 2011, 8:43:29 PM9/21/11
to
trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote in news:75WdnbC-
tuZDeeTTnZ2d...@mchsi.com:
Let me make it really simple. Americans wanted cheaper and cheaper
goods. Production moved overseas. American no long has the resource
base it once did either or the export markets. The tax base cannot be
restored by raising taxes on everyone except the shiftless scum who never
did work without worse economic repercussions than we see happening now.
Therefore, Americans HAVE to adapt to a lower standard of living. You
aren't going to save the empire by reverting to some form of long-ago
discredited pseudo-communism.
tuZDeeTTnZ2d...@mchsi.com:
goods. Production moved overseas. American no long has the resource
base it once did either or the export markets. The tax base cannot be
restored by raising taxes on everyone except the shiftless scum who never
did work without worse economic repercussions than we see happening now.
Therefore, Americans HAVE to adapt to a lower standard of living. You
aren't going to save the empire by reverting to some form of long-ago
discredited pseudo-communism.
Stephen Newport
Sep 22, 2011, 7:00:08 AM9/22/11
to
Small businesses are hiring, big business is downsizing.
trotsky
Sep 22, 2011, 7:52:16 AM9/22/11
to
trotsky
Sep 22, 2011, 7:53:05 AM9/22/11
to
On 9/21/11 7:37 PM, Rich wrote:
You can't be THIS stupid, can you?
trotsky
Sep 22, 2011, 8:04:52 AM9/22/11
to
Americans wanted cheaper and cheaper
> goods.
Production moved overseas.
God this is interesting.
American no long has the resource
> base it once did either or the export markets.
and iron ore and timber and stuff?
The tax base cannot be
> restored by raising taxes on everyone
except the shiftless scum who never
> did work without worse economic repercussions than we see happening now.
you merely have have to be dismissed as someone who is trying hard to
sound like an asshole.
> Therefore, Americans HAVE to adapt to a lower standard of living.
You
> aren't going to save the empire by reverting to some form of long-ago
> discredited pseudo-communism.
to shame. In fact, your thought process and getting hit in the head
with a ball peen hammer are impossible to tell apart.
Stephen Newport
Sep 22, 2011, 8:12:11 AM9/22/11
to
From: gms...@email.com (trotsky)
SN: Rich? For sure.
The rich wouldn't have a dime without the backs of the poor to step on.
You can't be THIS stupid, can you?
----------------------------------
You can't be THIS stupid, can you?
SN: Rich? For sure.
0 new messages