Off Topic: “Their Fair Share” Taxes paid by the “Rich”

[Coronita]

Here we go again on the definition of “rich” means.

[Anonymous]

Something smells here; I don’t buy the argument. The artical under review ends with this quote:

“The way to soak the rich is with low tax rates, and last week’s IRS data provide more powerful validation of that proposition.”

Are we to conclude that the rich, with all the economists they want to hire, all the politicians they want to support, all the media they own, i.e., those that wanted the tax cuts and likely helped design them, raised their own taxes for the good of the rest of us! I think not. Somehow, and I don’t know how, wealthy supports of the president benefitted.

[Anonymous]

Something smells here; I don’t buy the argument. The artical under review ends with this quote:

“The way to soak the rich is with low tax rates, and last week’s IRS data provide more powerful validation of that proposition.”

Are we to conclude that the rich, with all the economists they want to hire, all the politicians they want to support, all the media they own, i.e., those that wanted the tax cuts and likely helped design them, raised their own taxes for the good of the rest of us! I think not. Somehow, and I don’t know how, wealthy supports of the president benefitted.

[Anonymous]

Something smells here; I don’t buy the argument. The artical under review ends with this quote:

“The way to soak the rich is with low tax rates, and last week’s IRS data provide more powerful validation of that proposition.”

Are we to conclude that the rich, with all the economists they want to hire, all the politicians they want to support, all the media they own, i.e., those that wanted the tax cuts and likely helped design them, raised their own taxes for the good of the rest of us! I think not. Somehow, and I don’t know how, wealthy supports of the president benefitted.

[Anonymous]

Something smells here; I don’t buy the argument. The artical under review ends with this quote:

“The way to soak the rich is with low tax rates, and last week’s IRS data provide more powerful validation of that proposition.”

Are we to conclude that the rich, with all the economists they want to hire, all the politicians they want to support, all the media they own, i.e., those that wanted the tax cuts and likely helped design them, raised their own taxes for the good of the rest of us! I think not. Somehow, and I don’t know how, wealthy supports of the president benefitted.

[Anonymous]

Something smells here; I don’t buy the argument. The artical under review ends with this quote:

“The way to soak the rich is with low tax rates, and last week’s IRS data provide more powerful validation of that proposition.”

Are we to conclude that the rich, with all the economists they want to hire, all the politicians they want to support, all the media they own, i.e., those that wanted the tax cuts and likely helped design them, raised their own taxes for the good of the rest of us! I think not. Somehow, and I don’t know how, wealthy supports of the president benefitted.

[Borat]

The definition of “rich” is the key to understanding how the super-wealthy soak the middle class to prevent the huddled masses from having a revolution and marching them all off to Le Guillotine. The definition of “rich” depends on who you are talking to:

Actual Super Wealthy Person: “Rich” means having several million invested and the majority of your income coming from passive investments. “Rich” means that your wealth and livelihood are isolated from political and economic events.

Middle Class Person: “Rich” means owning a couple of houses in nice parts of the country, taking fancy vacations and staying in nice resorts, having your kids in private school, and owning a 7-series BMW. Some day I hope to be rich, like my neighbor Mr. Jenkins, the attorney.

Poor Person: “Rich” means anyone making more than $100K per year (Note: this category probably includes the reporter that wrote this article!)

Articles like the one in the WSJ are designed to convince people in the second and third category that people in the first category don’t really exist, and if they do, they’re not important enough to worry about. The actual wealthy people that design things like the Bush tax cuts, the medicare giveaway and the Bear Stearns bailout stay hidden in the shadows while pitting the middle classes against the poor. There is a reason that whoever financed this study picked those particular income levels. Had they picked a higher income level (say $1M/year or higher), you can be guaranteed that the results would have said something very different, namely that the Bush tax cuts have generated a huge windfall for the people in category 1.

[Borat]

The definition of “rich” is the key to understanding how the super-wealthy soak the middle class to prevent the huddled masses from having a revolution and marching them all off to Le Guillotine. The definition of “rich” depends on who you are talking to:

Actual Super Wealthy Person: “Rich” means having several million invested and the majority of your income coming from passive investments. “Rich” means that your wealth and livelihood are isolated from political and economic events.

Middle Class Person: “Rich” means owning a couple of houses in nice parts of the country, taking fancy vacations and staying in nice resorts, having your kids in private school, and owning a 7-series BMW. Some day I hope to be rich, like my neighbor Mr. Jenkins, the attorney.

Poor Person: “Rich” means anyone making more than $100K per year (Note: this category probably includes the reporter that wrote this article!)

Articles like the one in the WSJ are designed to convince people in the second and third category that people in the first category don’t really exist, and if they do, they’re not important enough to worry about. The actual wealthy people that design things like the Bush tax cuts, the medicare giveaway and the Bear Stearns bailout stay hidden in the shadows while pitting the middle classes against the poor. There is a reason that whoever financed this study picked those particular income levels. Had they picked a higher income level (say $1M/year or higher), you can be guaranteed that the results would have said something very different, namely that the Bush tax cuts have generated a huge windfall for the people in category 1.

[Borat]

The definition of “rich” is the key to understanding how the super-wealthy soak the middle class to prevent the huddled masses from having a revolution and marching them all off to Le Guillotine. The definition of “rich” depends on who you are talking to:

Actual Super Wealthy Person: “Rich” means having several million invested and the majority of your income coming from passive investments. “Rich” means that your wealth and livelihood are isolated from political and economic events.

Middle Class Person: “Rich” means owning a couple of houses in nice parts of the country, taking fancy vacations and staying in nice resorts, having your kids in private school, and owning a 7-series BMW. Some day I hope to be rich, like my neighbor Mr. Jenkins, the attorney.

Poor Person: “Rich” means anyone making more than $100K per year (Note: this category probably includes the reporter that wrote this article!)

Articles like the one in the WSJ are designed to convince people in the second and third category that people in the first category don’t really exist, and if they do, they’re not important enough to worry about. The actual wealthy people that design things like the Bush tax cuts, the medicare giveaway and the Bear Stearns bailout stay hidden in the shadows while pitting the middle classes against the poor. There is a reason that whoever financed this study picked those particular income levels. Had they picked a higher income level (say $1M/year or higher), you can be guaranteed that the results would have said something very different, namely that the Bush tax cuts have generated a huge windfall for the people in category 1.

[Borat]

The definition of “rich” is the key to understanding how the super-wealthy soak the middle class to prevent the huddled masses from having a revolution and marching them all off to Le Guillotine. The definition of “rich” depends on who you are talking to:

Actual Super Wealthy Person: “Rich” means having several million invested and the majority of your income coming from passive investments. “Rich” means that your wealth and livelihood are isolated from political and economic events.

Middle Class Person: “Rich” means owning a couple of houses in nice parts of the country, taking fancy vacations and staying in nice resorts, having your kids in private school, and owning a 7-series BMW. Some day I hope to be rich, like my neighbor Mr. Jenkins, the attorney.

Poor Person: “Rich” means anyone making more than $100K per year (Note: this category probably includes the reporter that wrote this article!)

Articles like the one in the WSJ are designed to convince people in the second and third category that people in the first category don’t really exist, and if they do, they’re not important enough to worry about. The actual wealthy people that design things like the Bush tax cuts, the medicare giveaway and the Bear Stearns bailout stay hidden in the shadows while pitting the middle classes against the poor. There is a reason that whoever financed this study picked those particular income levels. Had they picked a higher income level (say $1M/year or higher), you can be guaranteed that the results would have said something very different, namely that the Bush tax cuts have generated a huge windfall for the people in category 1.

[Borat]

The definition of “rich” is the key to understanding how the super-wealthy soak the middle class to prevent the huddled masses from having a revolution and marching them all off to Le Guillotine. The definition of “rich” depends on who you are talking to:

Actual Super Wealthy Person: “Rich” means having several million invested and the majority of your income coming from passive investments. “Rich” means that your wealth and livelihood are isolated from political and economic events.

Middle Class Person: “Rich” means owning a couple of houses in nice parts of the country, taking fancy vacations and staying in nice resorts, having your kids in private school, and owning a 7-series BMW. Some day I hope to be rich, like my neighbor Mr. Jenkins, the attorney.

Poor Person: “Rich” means anyone making more than $100K per year (Note: this category probably includes the reporter that wrote this article!)

Articles like the one in the WSJ are designed to convince people in the second and third category that people in the first category don’t really exist, and if they do, they’re not important enough to worry about. The actual wealthy people that design things like the Bush tax cuts, the medicare giveaway and the Bear Stearns bailout stay hidden in the shadows while pitting the middle classes against the poor. There is a reason that whoever financed this study picked those particular income levels. Had they picked a higher income level (say $1M/year or higher), you can be guaranteed that the results would have said something very different, namely that the Bush tax cuts have generated a huge windfall for the people in category 1.

[jficquette]

The “new rich” those that were born with nothing got rich by working hard. You can’t get rich starting from nothing without busting your ass.

When rich people get incentives it causes them to work harder, not less.

People who work for others have no way of understanding this.

The data is what it is and the data shows our system punishes the most productive members of our system.

John

[jficquette]

The “new rich” those that were born with nothing got rich by working hard. You can’t get rich starting from nothing without busting your ass.

When rich people get incentives it causes them to work harder, not less.

People who work for others have no way of understanding this.

The data is what it is and the data shows our system punishes the most productive members of our system.

John

[jficquette]

The “new rich” those that were born with nothing got rich by working hard. You can’t get rich starting from nothing without busting your ass.

When rich people get incentives it causes them to work harder, not less.

People who work for others have no way of understanding this.

The data is what it is and the data shows our system punishes the most productive members of our system.

John

[jficquette]

The “new rich” those that were born with nothing got rich by working hard. You can’t get rich starting from nothing without busting your ass.

When rich people get incentives it causes them to work harder, not less.

People who work for others have no way of understanding this.

The data is what it is and the data shows our system punishes the most productive members of our system.

John

[Author]

Posts