Best
72 Comments
Post
  • #9
    !
    @MBernard-- Beg pardon? Democrat money is OLD MONEY. They don't pay taxes like you and me. Obama and the Democrats want to raise the MARGINAL RATE... That's the rate that Warren Buffett's secretary pays... not Warren Buffett, John "Marry into Old Money" Kerry and Jay "Descendant of the most notorious Robber Baron of them all" Rockefeller.

    It's the small business owners just like John Boehner's father who can;t get the tax laws written in their favor. It's the Big Corporations and the ultra-rich who have that kind of access to power. Don't fool yourself... Government Electric, DuPont, Halliburton, BP, Government Motors, George Soros, Jay "Old Oil Money" Rockefeller, John "I park my yacht in RI to avoid MA taxes" Kerry, The Kennedy Clan, et al will have their loopholes.
  • #57
    !
    @Bobolinsky
    Errr....once a person has their money, old or new, most new income dervives fro things like interest and dividends. With bonds offering little teturn these days, tax free munis are not profitable. Obama wants to raise taxes on such income, both the dividends and capital gains. Other passive income, such as from rent will also be subject to the tax increases...in other words these taxes will affect those who have income from old money, although not the money itself (which was taxed at the rates that existed at the time it was made).
  • #59
    !
    @Elliotsreport-- You weren't paying attention to what I wrote. It doesn't matter what the capital gains rate is. What matters is all the deductions and loopholes that are buried in the thousands of pages of tax code.

    Here's where you're confused. You think of someone who makes 250K as identical to someone who makes 250M. You then think of them all as another Warren Buffet who is victimizing his secretary in order to line his own pockets.

    Do you really want to stick it to the rich?

    Simplify. Simplify the Tax Code so much that your average American, with the help of a legal dictionary, could read and understand it in its entirety. Do that and there's no place for those big bad evil corporations and those dastardly rich people to hide their loopholes.
  • #60
    !
    @Bobolinsky
    You couldn't be wrong about what I think. I very well know the difference between someone who makes enough annually to not even afford a home in some areas and someone with hundreds of millions of dollars. One must work, the other has the option of living of interest or dividends for one thing. I very much agree with the need to simplify the tax code and eliminate loopholes, but think other taxes and budget cuts maybe needed...
  • R Load more replies

  • #5
    !
    Noblesse oblige and all that, it all depends on their behavior. The best president the working man ever had, FDR, was a silver-spoon baby, while one of the worst, Reagan, was born of modest means.
  • #72
    !
    nah! not unless they got their money from bribes or embezelment. nor do i believe in, any success tax either. in order to punish, their being a success. which is about as logical, as having a loser tax, for all of you who are not that successful.
  • #69
    !
    And yet taxes still go to pay their salaries. Why? Because Americans are pacified, lazy and apathetic. When you rape a society slowly and softly to many it will appear as love making none the wiser they are being violated and screwed royally. We have no representation in congress. It is a failed body. There should be no cap on the number of reps. in the lower chamber, each rep should speak for 50,000 people not 950,000 and should only be allowed to run if they meet a diversity quota based on income comparable to the average income of constituents. Senators should have term limits and be held to the political standards Supreme Court Justices follow which is no political affiliation at all.
  • #68
    !
    This is why all those tax loopholes are never closed and taxes aren't raised. The Democrats don't want to take those financial hits either.
  • #67
    !
    These same WEALTH congressmen will tax the HELL out of us little people all the while raising their salary and tell us Obamacare is good medicine for us and to take it like good little poor people.
  • #71
    !
    Please...
    Do you really think these people have it out for you? That they just want to tax you and hurt you with the taxes?
    No. They just want the government to be able to come up with the revenue it needs. It's no wonder the deficit always increases when Republicans are in power.
    If it wasn't for Republicans there would be less resistance to progressive taxation and the Democrats could raise taxes only on the richest of the rich and leave everyone else alone. But Republicans always throw a big hissy fit whenever Democrats want to raise taxes on just the millionaires so we wind up having to raise everyone's taxes.
    If you are just a "little person" and you want to pay LESS taxes vote Democrat because the government has to get its money somewhere, so the Republicans will either raise your taxes or borrow more money(which means more taxes in the future to pay it back with interest!)
  • #65
    !
    No. What concerns me is that they aren't doing more like rep Yarmouth who doesn't take his salary. They shouldn't take our health care, pay, and give themselves raises. They should be happy with all the extras they get and inside investments and not be taking our money too.
  • #58
    !
    Wait! I thought these people were in Congress because they cared! At least that's what they claim. They were supposed to care about the elderly, the children, the environment, and the poor. Where did they ever find the time to make all this money with their self-professed caring. When will you figure out these laws and regulations they passed were not to protect you? When? The laws, regulations, and tax code were passed to protect themselves.
  • #49
    !
    Congress should not make more money than the average income of their home districts! Their congressional salaries should be voluntarily cut, as anyone who refuses a pay cut will face a primary challenge by someone who will. They should return the rest of the money to charity or to the treasury. Earning the average of their home district will give Congress members an incentive to help their constituents.#meandemocracy ( meandemocracy.org )
  • #32
    !
    The working man that makes (lets say) 50 g's a yr pays about 13%?
    How much does the rich millionaires pay? uhh overseas accounts are tax free for them?
  • #17
    !
    Might be interesting to see what their stands are on raising the income tax on their own tax bracket. Kerry has already said he is for it. And now after checking, it appears that both Democrats Warner and Rockefeller are for eliminating the top tier Bush Tax Cut. Didn't bother checking the GOPers.
  • #27
    !
    @Lorth Why are ANY of them democrats? I thought that was against the very grain of a true liberal. Give away that cash, you rich heathens!

    Or, just keep leading your mindless sheep to fight against 'the rich.'

    Priceless. Absolutely priceless!
  • #28
    !
    @MRMacrum If they are so in favor of it, they could have sent extra every year regardless. The treasury needs the money, and you'd think ideology would trump a checkbook.

    Or not.
  • #35
    !
    @Jeff_Woehrle - "If they are so in favor of it, they could have sent extra every year regardless. The treasury needs the money, and you'd think ideology would trump a checkbook."

    LOL. Classic can't discuss it, so I'll throw an irrelavancy at it.
  • R Load more replies

  • #11
    !
    Wealth in and of itself does not bother me. Protecting the wealthy under the misguided notion that by doing so somehow is the only way to protect the nation's economy does bother me.
  • #25
    !
    You're slinging the word 'wealth' around as if people know what wealth is. Again, the government can't protect the nation's economy, unless they are able to control the people. The economy is credit.
  • #40
    !
    @MRMacrum Being that no one recognizes a universal definition of what wealth is, a person has to have that understanding, prior to debating how wealth needs to be controlled. In my opinion.

    Accumulated wealth cannot be considered as important; since the possessor is capable of gambling with it. Wealth is the accumulation of other people's earned time and sometimes, unearned time in the form of credit. For a republican to be for free anything in regards to the operation of a business is treasonous. The government has to balance what they created (money) as children are born. Money is a means of collecting, storing and transferring people's time. The government doesn't just print money, there is a method.

    I've probably disclosed too much but republican supporters have no clue anyways.
  • #10
    !
    I certainly hope not - when you own something you should own it. Not have to repurchase it year after year after year.
  • #14
    !
    @Lorth But that's the way it works now, by way of property tax. The vast majority of middle-class "wealth" is tied up in the house they live in and they pay on it every year.
  • #16
    !
    @RoyFloyd - I don't believe we should have to pay on it every year. Buy it, pay taxes on the purchase price and own it.
  • R Load more replies

  • #3
    !
    Man these lists are wildly inconsistent. I read a list on the exact same subject less than a month ago that listed Issa as the wealthiest at more than double what is listed here.
  • #55
    !
    Don't mention thiS to fox news. They will say Bush took half the money. Issa is a loon and wasteful spender. He financed the effort to recall former governor Davis and then cried when Swartnagger (sic) ran.
  • #1
    !
    It can actually be good or bad. Being out of touch with what it is like to struggle financially day to day is bad. Being rich enough not to have to kiss up to special interests is good. It all depends on the politician.
  • #39
    !
    "Being rich enough not to have to kiss up to special interests is good"
    How do you think he became rich, PNWest?
Post