Republicans: Forget the White House, IF.......

.... and watch Tax revenue disappear, just like the French and British did.

Keep in mind, a 70% tax, plus State taxes, will likely mean they are actually being taxed 90-100%.

And at that point, why should they even work? Most people in the top tax Bracket only earn $300,000, so they're getting $30,000 to zip.
Might as well move at that point.


Your mistake, is that you thought tax rates = tax revenue. You are wrong.

 

Major malfunction (misinterpretation). Yeah, if we raise taxes, we'll have less tax money. Riiiiiiiiiiiiigggghhhhhtt!!

Many states DON"T HAVE state taxes.

Most billionaires DON'T work. They have others working for them.

The top tax bracket has nothing to do with what I've said. I'm talking about a bracket that involves only millionaires and billionaires.

Move ? LOL. I've heard that one before. Sometimes they do. They almost always come back. Home is where he heart is. And outside the US, security is phhhhhhhhhhtt!

Tax rates = tax revenue. $ure they do. What did you think they equalled ? Cat hairs ?

I've heard all the little ploys. I've been around for a while.

 

So do you support Bush's SSI reforms, or not? We usually get along fine but please, stop bouncing around this so that we can have an honest discussion of the issue.

 

First of all, the honest discussion is of the TOPIC of this thread >> REPUBLICANS, and their incapability of winning elections, while advocating cuts to Social Security. Now, this one time I will go off topic BRIEFLY, just to say that as long as Bush (or whoever) doesn't advocate cutting Social Security, I don't care what his trip is.

On the other hand, if it involves cutting one dime from Social Security, I won't support it, 85% of the American people won't support it, and any politician who advocates it, can start applying for a job bagging groceries.

 

I believe you are confused. Conservatives believe that governments should be constrained by written Constitutions. Ours is not.

I just have to smile at your weak justifications. That was quite a basket of accusations. What is true? Broadly-based low tax rates to provide adequate funding for those enumerated responsibilities, if you were to phrase it correctly, is true. Everything else could be written by any statist with his or her hand out.

I have the right perspective but so far we agree. It is not about economic classes. That is a Marxist formulation frequently used by liberals, Progressives, socialists, Marxists, and statists.

You completely missed the point. Conservatism is about governments doing only what is allowed by written constitutions. Governments such as our still have enormous power sufficient to fulfill their Constitutional obligations.

I also wrote, "You, and other statists, claim that under Eisenhower the tax rate was above 90%. But you can never quite come to grips with your profound misunderstanding of effective tax rates, or you are simply liars. But I get it. You want to pretend that you are conservative. Only you know why." To which you replied for reasons known only to you,

If you are calling my comment a dodge then I can only assume that you are a liar instead of simply mistaken. Which do you prefer, to be thought in error or to be identified as dishonest?

I think you have a Reagan fetish.

He was the only President in my memory who was actually conservative. If you were not a statist with your hand out you would see that.

 

Is there a moment when you don't have your hand out?

 

Statists use such terms to hide their greed. Reagan was a conservative. I would be delighted to be called a Reaganist if people accepted that as a synonym for conservatism.

It does not even bother you that most of your bedrock principles are Marxist, does it? Envy. Class warfare. Getting even with them...Radical Karl would be pleased with you.

 

And there you go. You had one obstacle in your way and you folded like a cheap shirt.

And you don't see just how steeped in Marxism you are, do you?

Guess what? You are not conservative. You are, in fact, a Marxist through and through.

 

It dawns on me that it is not my job to clarify just how steeped in class envy, in hatred for the rich, in all of the things that make you the Marxist that you are. I will look at your future messages to see if there is anything worth commenting on. Who knows?

- - - Updated - - -

I cannot recall saying that 80% are Marxists. You clearly are influenced by Radical Karl.

 

His works fill about 50 volumes. I have read just a few of his works.

Capital volume I was especially hard to work through.
Critique of the Gotha Program was easier.
The Communist Manifesto was easiest.

The guy was a kook who got nearly everything wrong. But it always sounds good to blame someone else for your failures, to hate the successful and to believe that you are on the winning side despite all of the evidence of your miserable life.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh! For a moment I thought you made a comment worth discussing. I admit it when I am wrong. I was wrong.

 

You do realize, don't you that Karl Marx was not a conservative?

 

Then we're in agreement. If the next gop nominee for president tries to do what no gop nominee for president has ever tried to do, or ever advocated in my lifetime, then they'll lose. But you're really talking about straw men here. No ones proposing what you're talking about.

 

I've heard prominent Republicans talk about not only cutting Social Security, but abolishing it entirely, and I've heard this hundreds of times, for years. So whether they officially propose it or not, the point is, its been spoken so much that the voters can't help but think about it and worry about it, and accordingly, not vote for a Republican. This is one of the key things that Democrats take advantage of.

 

I realize that Ronald Reagan wasn't one, Do you ?

I realize that Dwight Eisenhower was one. Do you ?

 

raise the retirement age? to what?

 

Oh course, the lower the tax rates, the more money comes in "to provide adequate funding". We can all see the sense of that. Pheeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle)

FALSE! Conservatism is about CONSERVING America's language, borders, culture, national security.

I don't misunderstand effective tax rates. Whatever the tax rates are that is what the people being taxed WILL PAY. If at any time they dodged taxes with shelters or whatever cute little tricks they could come up with to fortify their greed, the simple answer to that is to close the loopholes. And keep closing them. And every time they find a new one, close it. That's what the American people want. Overwhelmingly we want the super-rich to pay much more, and we're paying Congressmen to handle it. It's their job to close those loopholes as they arise, CONTINUALLY, and they better do it, or they won't have a job for long. You can drop the effective tax rate talking point now.

Few things could be more meaningless than what you call me.

You think wrong. "Understanding" is the correct word.

That's because you have a distorted Reaganist definition of what a Conservative is, Reagan was not anything even close to a Conservative. His whole scenario of small govt., less spending, low taxes was nothing but a formula geared to his extremely high income as a movie star, and the scenario was fitted to benefit HIM, not you. He also created an elaborate economic scam "philosophy" designed to make it look like his low (individual) tax on the rich had some real economic credibility, when actually it was (and is) a scam to allow greedy rich people to avoid paying taxes.

His low tax, low spend talk goes directly against everything that Conservatism stands for. It prevents us from hiring ICE agents, CBP officers, building the Mexican border fence, creating immigration courts & jails, deporting illegal aliens, fixing dangerous infrastructure, building prisons, hiring cops, funding the military, stopping terrorists, etc. By endangering the American people this way Reagan was a traitor to this country, and so are current-day Republicans who ludicrously adopt his reckless methodology.

 

I agree with you about the first two things, but why no mention about the popular idea of raising taxes in the rich ?

And in contemplating that we might also note that a lot of money can be raised by a very small number of ultra-rich people, who represent a small number of votes. Raising retirement age affects a very large number of people negatively. That could trigger a large loss of votes> This is the TOPIC of the OP/thread.

 

Yeah. It was 1962-2012. 50 years that I was in the workforce and serving in the military. And if you don't like hands out as we do it here in America, you could find another country. Maybe one where tax rates are very low. How about >> Syria ? Egypt ? Palestine ? Sorry, I couldn't resist. The door was too wide open (but actually they really do have very low tax rates).

 

My bedrock principles are Protection, Security, Preservation, and Democracy. With regard to the latter, the overwhelming majority of Americans support higher taxes on the rich, and more spending to help fix a multitude of problems. Does it bother you that your greed policies of low taxes on the rich are reducing national security, and endangering (in some cases killing) Americans ?

 

I am a REAL Conservative. Like Eisenhower was. He had a 91-92% tax on the rich for 8 years. So do you call him a "Marxist" too ? And do you call the 85% of the American people who want tax hikes on the ultra-rich, "Marxists" also ? I'm saying same as what they all are saying.

I guess you think the great majority of Americans are Marxists, right ? Guess what ? None of that matters relative to the definition of a Conservative. Really, one could be an actual Marxist and be a Conservative at the same time. In fact, being Marxist works in the direction of being a conservative because it allows the govt to get the money it needs to be big and strong and provide a strong national defense, homeland security, law enforcement, prisons, stop immigration, fight terrorism, fix infrastructure, etc. What works against Conservatism isn't Marxism. It is YOUR Reaganism which deprives us of the money needed to secure America in all the ways I just mentioned, and I suspect YOU KNOW THAT, quite well.

 

I said they are Marxists (at least by your definition), And no, I'm not influenced by Karl. I'm influenced by Dwight.

I guess you think somehow this "Marxist' card of yours is a tool to scare people away from speaking their minds on taxes. I couldn't care less if you call me a Marxist, and the more you call me that, I think I'm beginning to like the word. It is synonomous with the wishes of the American people to tax the rich more, it is consistent with strengthening the govt, and fixing all the problems I've been mentioning. So if we're all Marxists, that must be a good thing. A very Conservative thing. That is, REAL Conservative. Not the psuedo-Conservative of the Reaganists.
Eventually, you'll see my argument is rock-solid. You cannot defeat it with work gimmicks, or whatever else you can pull out of your psuedo-Conservative hat.

 

Detroit. Each time they raised taxes in the last 40 years, revenues for them went down.
Smoot-Hawley tarriff Act. While it raised tariffs, it resulted in tax revenues from tariffs going down.

And of course, Britain, you haven't even acknowledge the link I gave you, demonstrating that a raise to a 60% income tax resulted in LESS REVENUE, hence why the move was panned by economists across the board.

Proof, right in front of your eyes, and still you deny it.

Correction, what you meant to say is that many Billionaires do not have income.

They had a one-time pay out, and they just live off of it, they live of what the IRS defines as wealth, income AFTER taxes.

And after money has been taxed, you cannot tax it again. You cannot tax wealth, it's against the law the same way double jeopardy is.

[quote[Many states DON"T HAVE state taxes.[/quote]
All states have taxes, you meant to say not all states have an income tax.

And the ones who tend not have one? They're Republican-controlled, hence part of why people are moving there en-mass.

 

Obama cut Medicare by $700 Billion over the next decade to finance Obama Care and he still got re-elected.

 

Of course I deny it, It's absurd. If you charged me $100, and I paid you $100, you then would have less money ? Are you OK ? I mean really.

No it's not a correction. I said "Most billionaires DON'T work" THAT is what I said. THAT is what I meant.

All states have taxes, you meant to say not all states have an income tax.[/QUOTE] This time you're correct. I meant state income tax.

And once here they sometimes move out, due to the lack of even basic public services which we ALL need. Heck, in my county they've even stopped cleaning up road kill. So now we're left to clean up our own dead animals. Even being unsanitary won't stop these Reaganists from their appointed rounds (of protecting the rich from taxation), and turning the state (literally) into a mess.
In any case, say whatever you want, use any conjob or talking points, but if they want to have any power in DC, they better get past this Reagan snowjob, or they'll find themselves on the wrong side of a Democrat bulldozer.

I don't know all the inner details, I pay a bit less attention to it since I have VA medical, but a lot of people say that is a stretch.

 

Tariffs and taxes are part of the cost of doing business.
When a location raises taxes past the point that business is willing to pay … Business and employees relocate elsewhere … And no longer pay taxes to that location.
Hence ... Detroit lost revenue when they raised taxes, because the businesses and labor went elsewhere.

Your example of … “ … you charge me $100, and I pay you $100 ...” … Only works if I am willing to pay you $100 … Instead of paying someone else $75 for the same, or better service elsewhere.
You cannot collect taxes from what isn't there.

In the locations where I have property (including a third world country) … The cleaning of roadways is handled by trustee prisoners and DWI offenders.
Somehow the government imposed … “Up to $1000 fine for Littering” … Just doesn't do a damn thing to fix the problem.

The Professor was really a little gracious with his statement … And the actual amount was around $716 billion.
Do the research … It isn't hard to find … And get back with us when you figure out “why” he raided Medicare in regards to the Affordable Care Act.