Voters Favor Taxing The Rich….go figure.
Good stuff from fivethirtyeight.com.
I don’t know which will be more satisfying. Seeing the Dems do the right thing for a change, or listening to the working class republican sheep bitch and moan about Pete DuPont being forced to pay 1% more in taxes.
Typical liberal math.
It is not a simple 1% more in income taxes it is a huge 15% increase. Yes, the rate jumped 1% but it increased almost 15% (from 6-7% is a 15% increase).
Plus it is always easier to tax someone else and spend another person’s money.
The rich do pay their fair share.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkFpzTGD_0Y&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fdelawarerepublican.wordpress.com%2Fdrtv%2F&feature=player_embedded
More class warfare from liberals who always want to spend more, tax more and make excuses.
Mike Protack
You are such a moron.
We already know that Protack doesn’t understand taxes. He wanted to be our governor.
Another shameless punishment of success.
Your stupidity punishes logic and common sense. But I guess I have my answer. It is satisfying to listen to the $60k per year republican sheep bitch and moan about Pete DuPont being forced to pay 1% more in taxes.
Very satisfying.
tax and spend…tax and spend…
Afraid we do need Pete back with Eleanor Craig advising him again.
so it’s tax and spend? what’s the alternative, tax and horde? Maybe it’s don’t tax and pass the collection plate?
the era of bumper sticker politics is over; so therefore, the conservatives must find another way of tricking people into voting for them again.
VC,
The Republicans here don’t even get that it is VOTERS that think taxing rich people is a good idea.
Keep pretending that it is a “liberal” position dumbasses!
Keep pretending that it is a “liberal” position dumbasses!
… while they keep pretending they’re rich? 😉
Don’t you realize it, Pandora? They’ve got Jesus! So, they’re rich enough because he’s ALWAYS lookin’ out for them. (Or is that Bill Orally I’m thinking of?)
Oops! I forgot, Mike.
Mr Cracker wrote:
How ’bout don’t tax and don’t spend? You seem to have forgotten that permutation.
Fortunately, the Republican-controlled Senate in Pennsylvania has shown some backbone — for once — and even the Democratic-controlled House (just a 104-99 margin) isn’t willing to give Governor Rendell his 16% state income tax hike. Now, with reduced revenues, we’re looking at a $27.3 billion state budget, instead of the $29 billion that the Governor originally proposed and said he cut from $31 billion, which was never proposed.
Of course, it’s always easy to demagogue people into saying that someone else should pay more taxes. Thing is, the wealthy already pay far more in taxes, as a percentage of their income.
The Framers had it exactly right, when they specified that the federal government should not be able to impose taxes save on the basis of opulation; everyone should be taxed equally. The Sixteenth Amendment was the greatest mischief ever worked on our Constitution.
How ’bout don’t tax and don’t spend? You seem to have forgotten that permutation.
and i want to be a unicorn!
in other words, unrealistic. and you know it!
“Of course, it’s always easy to demagogue people into saying that someone else should pay more taxes. Thing is, the wealthy already pay far more in taxes, as a percentage of their income.”
Eighty-one percent of economists agree with the idea of progressive taxation, so they’re even more in favor of this than the voters. You and your rich pals can always leave the country.
It’s sad that so many people (voters/majority) have a something for nothing mentality. Just because you were born, you are entitled to anything and everything for free. What ever happened to hard work, determintaion, pride, and integrity? I love the argument about rich people paying their fair share. Let’s just say the tax rate is 10% to keep it easy. If you make 30k, your tax would be 3k. If you made 150k your tax would be 15k. How is that not a fair share?
You know who has a “something for nothing mentality” Dummy? You. And others who want governemnt services for free. You know who else? Pete Dupont. What company did he build? He is sitting on vast wealth created by the sweat and industry of his his great great grand dad.
Bottom Line: You working class Republicans are just stupid suckers and loser working to keep Paris Hilton from paying taxes.
You know who else? Pete Dupont. What company did he build? He is sitting on vast wealth created by the sweat and industry of his his great great grand dad.
His great great grand dad was an Irish immigrant?
French.
The du Pont laborers were Irish immigrants (later Italian).
“The du Pont laborers were Irish immigrants (later Italian).”
It’s a little late in the day (figuratively speaking) to introduce Marxism into the equation. It’s a long distance from progressive income taxes to “workers of the world unite.” In a world without jobs, Marxism loses meaning.
Geezer… Republicans have been working overtime to lower the bar on what can be called Marxism. Too bad you fell for their Overton Window game.
Sorry, but when you start proclaiming that du Pont owes its profits to its laborers, that’s Marxism — the real kind. Or do you maintain that the difference between successful companies and unsuccessful ones is how hard their labor force works?
Are you telling us that nineteenth century immigrants were not exploited by American industrialists?
I don’t know — were they running dog lackeys of the bourgeousie? As I said, your rhetoric is a far cry from what conservatives are calling Marxism these days. Yours sounds like the real thing.
We wouldn’t have to increase the tax rate for the rich if we could just get the members of the Obama administration to pay theirs.
Yours sounds like the real thing.
Of course it is. The Marxist analysis of labor relations was spot-on for that era. The “real thing” (Marxism) was entirely appropriate during the late nineteenth century, before anyone had ever heard of the Soviet Union. In the US, Marxism directed its energy into the union movement where it became Americanized and assimilated into mainstram politics. The Marxist movement was a force that helped make capitalism better.
But using the Marxist analysis to understand the economy, is a very different thing from recommending “Marxism.” I don’t.
So back to the point of this sub-thread, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that the du Pont fortune is composed of the excess labor of their workers, as much as “the sweat and industry of his his great great grand dad.”
“it is entirely reasonable to conclude that the du Pont fortune is composed of the excess labor of their workers, as much as “the sweat and industry of his his great great grand dad.” ”
Hey, I’m not the one who brought up the current GOP talking point about “Marxism.” If you’re going to acknowledge the importance of context, then consider that the du Ponts were more like European aristocracy than American industrialists of that era, setting up a paternalistic fiefdom in northern Delaware that owed more to feudalism than capitalism. The bulk of the fortune was accumulated early in the 20th century anyway.
In the context of this post, the source of the fortune doesn’t matter; either way, Pierre S. IV had nothing to do with its accumulation.
If you overtax the rich, they leave your state (taking their taxable income with them).
Look at California and New York City…people (and not just the rich) are leaving these states in record numbers for states like Texas and New Hampshire.