[ale] Corporate taxes... (please, someone stop me.. I'vecreated a monster)
F. Grant Robertson
f.g.robertson at alexiongroup.com
Wed Nov 13 13:14:26 EST 2002
I too love to hear you left wing liberal whiners complain about how the
rich don't pay taxes. It only underscores your complete and total lack
of understanding of the facts at hand. Read our federal budget
sometime, you'll be amazed at how much the rich and moreover the vast
working middle class bear the burden of your federal spending. Here's
some numbers, you can verify my accuracy by running the numbers
yourself. It will take you some effort and time, as the federal budget
is a very complicated animal but, it's available on-line at
http://www.omb.gov/ (That's the Office of Management and Budget, the
federal branch responsible for cooking the books)
Individual Average Percent of Percentage
Income % Income Total Income of total income tax
of earners (Whole US) liability
Top 1% $313,469 20.81% 37.42%
Top 5% $128,336 35.30% 56.47%
Top 10% $92,144 46.01% 67.33%
Top 25% $55,225 67.15% 84.01%
Top 50% $27,682 87.01% 96.09%
The top line utterly decimates your fallacy that the rich don't pay
taxes. It most likely also destroys your illusions of how much the rich
actually make.
The second line, the top 5% of earners should scare the living daylights
out of you. 90-120k a year is not an unattainable goal for any of us who
dare to exert the effort to get an education. Upon reaching that level
of income you can be proud to know that you are one of the _5% percent
of the total population that pay for over 50% of the federal tax
liability.
Now, to the bottom line, and what should really make you shake in your
liberal little boots. 50% of our workers pay 96% of the taxes.. Holy
cripes! That means that the other 50% only pay FOUR PERCENT of the
taxes!!!
Now, given those numbers.. we can effectively eliminate somewhere near
50% of our total population as possible voters (Hey, those are your
rules.. I'm not the one who said people who don't pay tax shouldn't get
to vote). In my oppinion, it's not those who pay little or no tax who
shouldn't vote, rather those who couldn't pass a reasonable civics
test.. This is not rocket science but, since you don't learn civics or
economics in government schools anymore, I'll bet a dime to a dollar
that 65% or better of the population couldn't pass even the most
remedial civics exam.
The rich pay taxes, they pay a lot of taxes, and indeed they pay more
than their fair share. Graham-Ruddman (or Reganomics as you liberals
love to call it.. Supply Side Economics is what it's actually called as
an intellectual concept.) .. was only an attempt, (neigh, a partial
success as these numbers were much worse prior to the budget of 1982) at
leveling the inequities of the US tax codes.
Go ahead, soak the rich all you want.. But let me ask you this. Who
creates wealth in this country? I can assure you it's not the blue chip
corporations, at least not the majority of wealth. The majority of
wealth in this country is created by small business. Daring and
courageous individuals that embrace the spirit of the free market
economy and go into debt to create opportunity for themselves and
others. Something in the neighborhood of 70% of GDP is passed through
the hands of small business (Businesses with less than 5 million dollars
in GROSS recipts in any given fiscal year..). They also employ the vast
majority of our people, and are responsible for something on the order
of 85% of all new job creation.
Now, I ask you.. Have you ever gotten a job from a poor man? If you
actually knew of what you speak, you wouldn't be speaking it. And, not
to offend but, it's people like you that scare me to death, as you vote
for the people who've made you believe what you do.
Think for yourself! Find the _actuall_ facts (and I'm not pointing you
to any right wing policy groups.. I'm pointing you to our own Office of
Management and Budget... it's a .gov for a reason.. it's not just a
bunch of "right wing fortuante ones", it's the federal budget.. it gets
passed every year.
Two years from last Tuesday you will have the power to get rid of EVERY
SINGLE MEMBER of the house of representatives. By constitutional
mandate, _every_single_dollar_that_is_spent_ must originate as a bill in
the house. Yet, every two years you and the rest of the country send 90%
or more of those people back to write new budgets... Wake UP!! The
authors of the constitution set this up this way for a reason, a reason
that was much more obvious under our original scheme of elections
(Senators were never intended to be elected by you, they were supposed
to be elected by your state house of representatives.. in 1914 this was
changed by constitutional amendment) The house is there to represent
YOU! The senate represents your State, and, might I add, you don't
actually even elect the president.. in fact, you have no constitutional
right to elect the president, and the founding fathers didn't create
that system by accident. Your only constitutionaly given right to
representation is in the House! Educate yourself, USE YOUR RIGHTS!
-G
P.p.s. If people would stop spouting lies I'd shut up but apparently I'm
not sinking in to some of you who seem to care. I really _want_ to stop
this thread.. I really do.
On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 12:15, Jeff Rose wrote:
> I love to hear the right wing conservative "fortunate" ones whine about
> their taxes. Boo friggin hoo. We all have to support our country and
> our government. Just pay your damn taxes and shut up. If we had a flat
> tax, then there would be no discussion, we'd all pay the same
> percentage. Then again you "fortunate" ones couldn't avoid paying YOUR
> share. Maybe only liberals are smart enough to realize that taxes are a
> necessary evil. And that if we all pitch in our fair share, then the
> country remains solvent. And furthermore, there have only been a
> handful of true liberals in Congress the past 20 years. This government
> has been dominated by right wing Conservatives and moderate
> conservatives since the 70's. If you want to blame someone, blame
> yourself. You voted for these right wing conservative bozos who value
> corporate freedom above individual freedom. Now you and I are reaping
> the rewards of Reaganomics.
> Any entity that doesn't pay taxes should have no influence in US laws
> or policies. A person that avoids paying taxes should not be allowed to
> vote. A corporation that doesn't pay taxes should not be allowed to
> lobby congress or give money to political campaigns. You can't reap the
> rewards of this economy without taking some of the tax burden.
>
>
> On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 11:33, Terry Lee Tucker wrote:
> > I had intended to stay out of this; however, your comments are exactly
> > correct and you have quite effectively summed up the entire situation.
> > Would you run for office? I'll vote for ya :^)
> >
> > F. Grant Robertson wrote:
> >
> > >Did you not read what I replied to you? GE as an entity may have paid
> > >no actual tax but, the shareholders and employees paid taxes on the
> > >dividends and wages they were paid. Even Jack Welch, paid taxes.. and
> > >believe you me he paid quite alot of them.
> > >
> > >If you eliminated personal income tax, and forced the corporations to
> > >pay for the burdens of the federal government, you would not create any
> > >net difference in where the money came from. You would only create the
> > >illusion that individuals pay no tax.. The reality is quite the
> > >contrary though, as people who earn money (consumers) are the ones who
> > >provide the income to the corporation, they are in turn the ones who
> > >bear the burden of any tax, regardless of who is technically liable for
> > >it under the tax code.
> > >
> > >The myth of corporate taxes is only a device used to make you as a voter
> > >think that you are being relieved of the burden. the end result of any
> > >tax is money _you_ earned through work or investment is confiscated at
> > >the point of a gun by the federal government. It makes absolutely no
> > >difference who signs the check, it's coming out of _your_ pocket.
> > >
> > >The only exception comes if you are one of the "unfortunate" people who
> > >the liberals have relieved of their own tax burden by shifting that
> > >burden to those who are "fortunate". The end goal of the Democrats is to
> > >eliminate the direct, visible tax burden on the lower and middle class
> > >so that they think they are getting a deal and a free ride. However,
> > >this idea breaks down once transfered from paper to practice because of
> > >the principles I've outlined above. Any income for the federal
> > >government _must_ come from GDP. When you expand your thoughts to
> > >visualize this larger picture, and remove individuals and corporations
> > >from view (by taking all as a whole, hence the concept of GDP or Gross
> > >Domestic Product) it becomes crystal clear. More money in federal income
> > >directly translates to less free capital in the open economy. If you
> > >ran the numbers and expressed the yearly federal budget as a percentage
> > >of GDP, you'd find that the total tax burden is growing at a rate beyond
> > >that of the growth of GDP. This by definition is an impossible cycle to
> > >continue, as eventually, all of GDP becomes the sole property of
> > >government.. and that by definition is the economics of communism.
> > >
> > >It's plain and simple, it's right there in front of you but you refuse
> > >to see it.
> > >
> > >-G
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 10:42, James P. Kinney III wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 10:01, Brian J. Dowd wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>Ok...my blood has finally reached the boiling point...
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>The only thing you left out was to close the tax loopholes
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>Since all tax "loopholes" are congressional laws initiated by the House
> > >>>and passed by both
> > >>>the House and the Senate. And since both houses have been almost totally
> > >>>under the control of Demorats for the past 48 years...What, exactly, is
> > >>>your thesis?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>The process of paying taxes requires money. It has always seemed to me
> > >>that since corporations are an artificial entity whose existence is
> > >>solely for the accumulation of money, they should be required to chip in
> > >>as I am required to chip in. I have always viewed taxes as the means for
> > >>funding the processes we, as a collective people, want to see done.
> > >>
> > >>I place the blame on the current loopholes that allowed GE to earn
> > >>billions and pay $0 tax squarely on the greed of the people that make
> > >>the rules and the greed of the people that asked for the rules to be
> > >>made.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>>that allow
> > >>>>corporation to earn billions and pay no taxes. GE, Enron, and several
> > >>>>others have managed to avoid paying taxes on the billions they earned in
> > >>>>profits
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>Corporations are figments of lawyers' imaginations and corporate taxes
> > >>>are figments of liberals' dreams. Corporations are totally owned by
> > >>>shareholders, ie: *people*, who then wind up paying the taxes on any
> > >>>imputed profits. Any tax actually paid by corporations merely serves to
> > >>>raise the production costs of its goods so that all its customers wind
> > >>>up paying this hidden tax when they buy its products.
> > >>>
> > >>>If you really want to learn about (not just argue about) the
> > >>>ramifications of "corporate taxes" please give http://www.fairtax.org a
> > >>>few minutes of your time after you calm down.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>I have read much from that site before. And I still believe very
> > >>strongly that an entity whose only reason for existence is the financial
> > >>conquest of a market should be part of the funding process for the goods
> > >>and services that the government attempts to provide to the entire
> > >>population. As I see it, much of the current system of rules and
> > >>policies and processes exist to benefit that direct class of artificial
> > >>people. So, since they do have pockets lined with gold, why should they
> > >>not financially support the system that allows them to thrive here
> > >>better than anywhere else in the world.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>>while our schools were cramming 35 kids into a trailer called a
> > >>>>classroom in front of a single teacher who is supposed to train these
> > >>>>kids to become good employees of these companies.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>I'd seriously like to see your references to studies which correlate
> > >>>class size or classroom construction methods to SAT scores or some other
> > >>>measure of students' depth of knowledge. I will read your info after I
> > >>>calm down. ;-)
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>I teach, for one source of data. The direct evidence is getting harder
> > >>to come by as a layman. But some plugging on the web shows that the
> > >>schools with smaller class sizes will, on average, have better
> > >>performing students than schools with larger class sizes.
> > >>
> > >>It really is all about investment. Some areas of the country are willing
> > >>to invest more into their schools than others. The immediate payback is
> > >>bragging rights based on test scores. The long term payback is a better
> > >>educated population with higher lifetime earning potential to fill the
> > >>coffers of government with their tax money.
> > >>
> > >>The reference to trailers is not a slap on building style. It is an
> > >>attack on the poor planning and budgetary woes of many school systems.
> > >>
> > >>It is well known in the education profession that the closer a class can
> > >>get to the one-on-one mentor/student scenario found in graduate school,
> > >>the higher the learning rate becomes. As society moves towards using
> > >>more technology, the total amount of knowledge needed by an individual
> > >>to be an active participant in this society is increasing.
> > >>
> > >>So we have class sizes mandated by non-teachers in Georgia to be 32
> > >>students to one teacher maximum. This number has been chosen as the best
> > >>trade-off between teaching paradigms and budgetary concerns.
> > >>
> > >>I am still looking for a full-time job. But not in Georgia. Or anywhere
> > >>in the south, for that matter.
> > >>
> > >>--
> > >>James P. Kinney III \Changing the mobile computing world/
> > >>President and CEO \ one Linux user /
> > >>Local Net Solutions,LLC \ at a time. /
> > >>770-493-8244 \.___________________________./
> > >>
> > >>GPG ID: 829C6CA7 James P. Kinney III (M.S. Physics)
> > >><jkinney at localnetsolutions.com>
> > >>Fingerprint = 3C9E 6366 54FC A3FE BA4D 0659 6190 ADC3 829C 6CA7
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >---
> > >This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
> > >See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be
> > >sent to listmaster at ale dot org.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Sparta, NC 28675 USA
> > 336.372.6812
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
> > See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be
> > sent to listmaster at ale dot org.
> >
> --
> Jeff Rose
>
> jojerose at mindspring.com
>
>
>
>
> ---
> This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
> See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be
> sent to listmaster at ale dot org.
>
>
>
---
This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be
sent to listmaster at ale dot org.
More information about the Ale
mailing list