Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="diesel96" data-source="post: 250955" data-attributes="member: 9859">I'm sorry folks, (I know this ain't Healthcare,but it has alot to do with how we partially pay for the Healthcare Choice plan) but I have to respond. Yes, the baseball analogy was somewhat sarcastic(especially to a part time income tax accountant) but also had some valid points in the overall scheme of the present Administration.  It's funny - and sad -- how many Republican politicians will argue that they do not labor mainly for the rich. Those who do not stoop to such arguments try to fool you by justifying their kiss-the-super-rich-a$$es philosophy by saying the super wealthy deserve a proportionately larger tax cut - along with their fourth vacation homes in the Caribbean and yachts -- because they pay a larger share of our taxes. If you beg to differ, you will be called a socialist radical who wants to bring on class warfare.   First of all, the wealthiest 1-2 percent of taxpayers in the United States, own about 35/40 percent of the wealth - more than the bottom 90 percent! - according to the U.S. Federal Reserve Board, which is supposedly nonpartisan. No other industrial country comes close to matching this imbalance between the very rich and the rest of us. Even in class-conscious England, with its imperial Queen and all, the wealthiest 1 percent own closer to 20 percent.Furthermore, these very wealthy American families only pay about 20 percent of the taxes, not 35 to 40 percent. Their actual rate is 39 percent, but they get that drastically reduced through tax credits and creative, Enron-like, accounting schemes. You claim to do income tax, I bet you know a few tricks of the trade. The more you save your client, maybe the more generous they might be..Wink-Wink Second of all, those who have wealth have all the advantages of keeping it and making their money grow. They have tax advantages, such as getting abatements and rebates for their businesses and investments. They can contribute more money to politicians, who, in turn, give their firms government contracts -- this is how Ross Perot became a billionaire. They can hide money in Swiss bank accounts and accounts in the Caymans, where they don't pay taxes to the U.S. They can hire accountants like the crooks at Andersen who can find more legal and illegal ways for them not to pay taxes. Third of all, it makes little sense if you want to help the economy to give more money to these wealthy people who already know how to make their riches grow. They will be fine without tax cuts -- when was the last time you saw a homeless wealthy person? If you give them more money, they will most likely hoard it and won't circulate it back into the economy like those at the lower end will. Tax cuts for the lower and middle classes make more sense to spur the economy. Fourth of all, there is the moral reason. I am a Christian, but I admit I don't do enough, but I try to help the poor when I can, such as with my donations, including direct ones to the homeless I meet, and in this post where I'm advocating for their lives as they just try to survive. You can't shun them all and say your lazy and irresponsible and every man for himself. Bush and many of his supporters claim to be Christians, but I do not see how Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy -- where 45 percent of the cuts go towards 1 percent of the people -- are helping the poor or embelishing their Christian values .Fifth, tax cuts for the rich, A lot of good that does our economy when they are investing it in high gain foreign capital markets. Espeicially when the foreign market's dollar equivlent is surpassing the US dollar, therefore making a solid return..Cha Ching !</blockquote>

Verification