Fox News poll asks if increasing taxes for the wealthy means ‘nobody gets to be too rich.’
By on Apr 2nd, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Fox News poll asks if increasing taxes for the wealthy means ‘nobody gets to be too rich.’
Fox News/Opinion Dynamics polls are known for often including a few loaded and misleading questions. In their latest survey out today, Fox’s pollsters asked a question that assumed that raising taxes would mean that “nobody gets to be too rich“:
Another question asked respondents whether they believed that President Obama “wants the financial crisis to continue so government can take over more businesses and grow the federal government.” Twenty-three percent said they thought Obama wanted it to continue while 68 percent said they think Obama wants the crisis to end.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
It’s a Fox poll. Duh…
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:02 pm“Twenty-three percent said they thought Obama wanted it to continue while 68 percent said they think Obama wants the crisis to end.”
But even Fox can’t always get the sheep to vote the way they’d like — other than the 23%ers. :-D
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:04 pmI just don’t get what people don’t understand. We had the same tax system during Clinton Era and the economy was booming.
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:04 pmJason, You beat me to it.
What is it that republicans don’t understand?
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:06 pmDidn’t people make a lot of money in the 90’s?
Wasn’t the country prosperous?
Faux poll from faux news!
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:07 pmIncorrect, it was not the same tax system and the economy was only booming dur to the dot.com boom, when that went bust the economy tanked and the bush tax cuts is what got it going again
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:07 pmWell I’ve got some questions for them: At what point did Fake News Network sell their souls to increase their ratings?
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:08 pmDoes Fake News Network want President Obama to fail?
Is it true that Beck has mental health issues?
Is O’SillyO a sex offender?
Can Hannity differentiate between fact and fiction?
This ridiculous mis leading question
along with the
* stunt of bringing blank budget reports to the press
* spinning a mistrial into a mis election
* Allowing Coleman to go on and on hoping he will reverse the election he lost
* wanting President Obama to fail
shows all what idiot un American fools the goppers are.
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:08 pmDid they say they took the poll at Chez Riche Folkes in Manhattan?
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:09 pmJasonEdwards88 Says:
I just don’t get what people don’t understand. We had the same tax system during Clinton Era and the economy was booming.
And this is why GW had to change it when he came into office?
“Trolls are singing”
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:11 pmA) So why didnt Bush make the tax-cuts permanent?
B) The businesses/banks that got bailed out approached the government FOR bailout funds.
C)The FDIC has had laws in place BEFORE Bush or Obama to seize the banks to protect peoples assets.
D) TARP bailout plan occurred under Bush.
E) Bush tax cuts did not create more jobs.
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:13 pmOh geez.
fake news wants to know if their staff wears rubber panties will it prevent bed wetting and seepage?
<<<>>>
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:20 pmIf tax cuts are supposed to spur growth, exactly how long is it supposed to take to deliver prosperity?
Shouldn’t the good times be here by now?
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:26 pmOkay, why should the wealthy pay less than their share of the bailouts? Arent they the ones that invest with these investment banks?
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:27 pmPresident Obama is winning hearts and minds alike!
China and Russia******Mission Accomplished-0 dead or maimed.
World Stage*******Mission Accomplished – 0 dead or maimed.
President Obama has done more in his 2 years than chim…excuse me, correction I meant, President Obama has done more in a year than chi…100 days…
Go USA!
Go President Obama!
Go Ed!
This is the first time in my adult life that I’m PROUD of the United States.
It feels good doing what’s decent.
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:30 pmAnd who watches FAUX to know to vote?
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:31 pmIt IS great to not be ashamed of our representative to the world for a change.
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:31 pmI didnt gamble in derivatives, I didnt buy SIVs, I didnt bundle mortgages and resell them, I didnt give this asset backed paper triple AAA ratings. I didnt pay lobbyists to gut Glass Steagal, I didnt lobby Phil Gramm to deregulate stuff. I didnt hire a single lobbyist.
Why arent they bailing out working people who lost money on their 401ks?
Who benefits from all this lobbying? Thats who should pay for this mess.
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:32 pmHmm the rich don’t seem to mind the government pissing away massive sums of money when they’re operating under the assumption that us lowly serfs are going to pick up the tab. Now that Obama is going to squeeze them to pay for their war and their economic crisis they want to cry “Fiscal conservativism!”
Gag me.
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:32 pmwell, if the foxbots would remember their religion,
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:33 pmit’s a SIN to be ‘too rich’.
People like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity preach that them being a “humble, worker” rich opens it up to their audience. When in reality they support measures to keep their audience just as poor as they are today as they would be 10 years from now…delivered with the “aw shucks” everyman nauseated Lucifer smile.
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:37 pmFirst they imply that it is possible to get too rich, by the question itself. Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt on that one. Then it turns out that 72% of republicans think that too much is OK by them.
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:37 pmI can’t believe that Fukuyama said this. He also disapproved of the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:41 pmalternator Says:
Incorrect, it was not the same tax system and the economy was only booming dur to the dot.com boom, when that went bust the economy tanked and the bush tax cuts is what got it going again
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
You are delusional. The economy was booming not JUST the dotcom. Which pumped up Wall St. NO the Bush tax cuts didnt get ANYTHING going. 23 MILLION Jobs were created during the Clinton presidency and not all in the dotcoms. Bush gave us what a net 5 million over 8 years? Yeah you can regurgitate the talking points you have been brainwashed with. Your grasp of reality however is pretty much non-existant
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:43 pmalternator Says:
Incorrect, it was not the same tax system and the economy was only booming dur to the dot.com boom, when that went bust the economy tanked and the bush tax cuts is what got it going again
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Sheep.
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:47 pmJasonEdwards88 Says:
“I just don’t get what people don’t understand. We had the same tax system during Clinton Era and the economy was booming.”
—————————————————————-
That’s not true it was a different tax system under Clinton that’s why when Bush came into office his first term he cut taxes.
The first round of Bush’s $1.35 trillion in tax cuts were a gift to his super-rich campaign contributors after he took office in 2001–with the richest 1 percent of U.S. taxpayers getting away with nearly half of the loot. In 2003, Bush came back for more.
Today, not only have the worst of these predictions come true, but ordinary people are being forced to make do with less and less of the things that matter. That’s because the Bush tax cuts have been–and will continue to be–paid for with sharp cuts to programs that working and poor families rely on.
The Bush administration’s latest budget-slashing demands include cuts in 141 domestic programs, including a $36 billion cut in Medicare spending for the elderly over the next five years. Bush has also proposed drastic cuts to Medicaid and Head Start, the elimination of $1 billion in child-care funds over five years, and termination of the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, which provides food assistance to low-income seniors, needy pregnant women and children.
According to data compiled by the National Priorities Project, the average $1 million tax break that went to just one of the super-rich taxpayers in 2003 alone as a result of Bush’s tax cuts could have paid for the annual salaries and benefits of 16 public school teachers; health care for a year for 126 uninsured people; or Head Start programs for 112 poor children.
Looking at the “whole package,” however, shows that the tax burden in the U.S. has been systematically shifted onto the shoulders of the poor and working class. Today, according to Times reporter and author David Cay Johnston, tax cuts and loopholes designed to aid the rich mean that “the poor are taxed almost as heavily as the rich are–and even more heavily than the super-rich.”
More than 70 percent of the tax savings on investment income went to the richest 2 percent of taxpayers, about 2.6 million people. Meanwhile, very few poor and working class people saw any benefit from the most recent wave of tax cuts. The bulk of “investments” held by working class people are retirement accounts, and these aren’t even eligible for the cuts. In fact, the tax break on dividends applies only to stock held outside of retirement accounts–most of which is in the hands of the richest 1 percent of the population.
It’s time the rich were made to pay their share.
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:53 pmBoy, that’s not a leading question or anything.
Let me see if I can try:
“Do you support SC Gov. Sampson’s rejection of bailout funds since they lead to child abuse in South Carolina?”
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:54 pm15 Game of Life
so right on… but where is MSM on this? Browsing through cnn could not find too much on the trip except… wait… there is this:
updated 12:56 p.m. EDT, Thu April 2, 2009
Michelle Obama’s warm touch with queen draws gasps
But on bbc.com we have this fine video of President Obama giving a speech
And back to cnn.com G-20 pumps $1 trillion into beating recession with an uncomplimentary pic of President Obama.
This is very sad as I am sure most would love and have a need to share your insight.
April 2nd, 2009 at 9:05 pmWhen the rich were taxed at 90% the economy was booming and unemployment was super low. We’re not even talking about going back to those days, only the Reagan/Clinton level of taxation.
I’ll pass on a party who wants to see a few people become wealthy feature stories, and accept the more realistic ideal of restoring income growth to millions of poor- and middle-class people. The wealthy aren’t good at spending anyway; storing money in numerous fancy accounts–overseas and domestic–is hardly economic growth.
But you see, this obsession with protecting the interests of the rich is in keeping with the right-wing philosophy of putting all major decision-making in the hands of a few — who get a decent salary, who gets aid, who goes to the ballot box, which legislation passes, etc.
April 2nd, 2009 at 9:09 pmIt’s not rocket science. Those who destroyed our economy by siphoning every unwatched dollar for the privilege of playing in the market should pay through the nose to fix it.
April 2nd, 2009 at 9:12 pmNo matter what the right says, the rich aren’t systematically giving the working class a fighting chance. Working class people have created the wealth enjoyed by the top.
Refusing to let up on the Christmas party is absolutely un-American. If the greedy rich won’t give back to the country that has made them, they can drop our money and move to North Korea.
April 2nd, 2009 at 9:15 pmStupid, stupid poll.
What if you think the federal government should increase taxes on the wealthiest individuals so that:
…it could increase defense spending?
…it could reduce taxes on the struggling middle class taxpayers?
…it could buy an iPod for every man, woman and child in the whole country?
…it could end world hunger?
…it could build a “laser” to destroy North Korea “nukular” intercontinental ballistic missiles?
…it could finally find Wally?
…it could reduce the Bush-created deficit?
I don’t see any of those options listed anywhere.
April 2nd, 2009 at 9:28 pmIs alternator (comment 6) being sarcastic? If s/he really thinks that the Clinton boom floated on the dot-com bubble, how can s/he not also argue that the good economic news under Bush II–such as it was–floated on the sub-prime mortgage bubble.
April 2nd, 2009 at 9:30 pmSorry about the OT but, Bill0 really hates me. I’m already an insect and now the Great Steaming Pile is boycotting my home state. If the slime ball hates me this much? I must be doing something right.
http://steveyoungonpolitics.com/o%E2%80%99reilly-announces-plan-to-boycott-minnesota-not-an-april-fools-joke/
April 2nd, 2009 at 9:36 pmYou can change if you want, but I doubt you will. Faziz and Ms. Turkey need to grow up.
Buy a mirror, buddy.
April 2nd, 2009 at 9:46 pmdot.com bubble bust doesnt come close to this.
April 2nd, 2009 at 9:47 pmSince it’s Murdock’s rag framing the “too rich” question, I’m assuming it’s somewhere in the 50-100 billion range.
April 2nd, 2009 at 9:49 pmhstps Says:
You are a MORON and it is YOU that needs to grow up. Billy LIED. We arent lying about him. YOU are stupid and you are a punk. Why dont you just go away and let the adults talk. Every one of your posts is a demonstration of toxic stupidity
April 2nd, 2009 at 9:52 pmhstps Says: this is suppose to be a think tank? Or a partisan attack machine?
I cant recall calling Bill-O anything more than Bill-O. Besides, I thought FOX was fair and balanced and if that is true how could criticizing FOX be partisan?
How is a debate about rape victims political?
April 2nd, 2009 at 9:52 pmSometimes I use the word BORe which is just the letters of his nameBillO‘Reilly
April 2nd, 2009 at 9:54 pmhstps Says:
You guys are committing the same crimes that you claim O’Reilly is committing: you just do it differently.
___________
Really ??? TP claimed IN COURT it had the LEGAL right to lie and call it news?
Pray tell… cite some specifics for us…
April 2nd, 2009 at 9:54 pm#35 Troll-
Flagged
At least the third thread this was posted to. We get it you dont like us, Go Away!
April 2nd, 2009 at 9:56 pmhstps Says:
You can change if you want, but I doubt you will. Faziz and Ms. Turkey need to grow up.
________
Talk about hanky-waving hyperbole… someone hand him a napkin so he can wipe the spittle off his chin.
April 2nd, 2009 at 9:57 pmhstps Says:
You can change if you want, but I doubt you will. Faziz and Ms. Turkey need to grow up.
April 2nd, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Oh, the irony…
April 2nd, 2009 at 9:58 pmBSG Fan Says:
#35 Troll-
Flagged
____________
I agree.
Let the flagging begin!!!
April 2nd, 2009 at 9:58 pmI think it’s safe to say we object to FAUX. I think they are overtly trying to sabotage the efforts of our new President and Congress while some of them are even sowing the seeds of rebellion against the lawful government of our country. And that’s their good points.
They have staunchly embraced the most radically anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-freedom, anti-American, 20% of our society. They are enemies of progress, civic unity, and civilization itself. Their dishonesty and fear-mongering are positively dangerous and I, for one, will continue to do whatever my limited means allow in an effort to discredit them at every turn.
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:04 pmSpeaking of Bill0. In addition to being a sexual predator and seemingly devoid of compassion or empathy, he’s an effing liar. Normally he’s careful to protect himself. But? He stuck his head in a noose when he repeatedly slandered a number of people on his show because he was mad a few exposed his hateful nature.
This showed, for all to see, in his malicious attacks on Amanda Terkel and everyone else who dared to call him on his crap. It can also be seen in his ridiculous “boycott” of an entire state because a guy who called him a liar, and wrote a whole book to prove his case, has been elected as a Senator.
He never even discusses any objective criticism of Mr. Franken. Just bilious attacks because Franken has his number. Bill0 is a pathetic, vindictive, petty, lying, bombastic, buffoon who has damaged this country. He can’t be marginalized enough though he’s doing a good job with his insane vendettas.
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:13 pmhstps
eat crow.
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:15 pmI already flagged him before I read your comments.
Since the question is framed in am ambiguous way, the result is meaningless. There is no certainty that people were using the same definitions of “too rich” in their minds. For all we know, some of the respondents felt that $100,000 per year was “too rich”, and would have said “no”. We don’t know, so we can’t put any credibility in its purported “results”.
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:16 pmThey should have asked people if Bernie Madoffs greed made him ‘too rich’
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:22 pmNo conservative wants people to be poor. There are plenty of opportunities in this country to raise your status, no matter where you start from. We all know there is a segment of the population that will not advance themselves, that will just wait for a handout. I believe that those people should remain poor.
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:23 pmThe top 1% of the country pays 40% of the tax, and all i hear is you liberals think they should pay 99%. What is the point of trying to become that 1%, if once you get there, you lose it all to taxes?
What is the magical number that you think we all need to get to all at the same time, where everyone would be happy? Everyone in the country should make 100k a year? 200k? Do you want the guy who pumps gas at the station to make the same as the guy who owns the gas station? Doesnt that inhibit the drive to succeed? Why try harder at your job, or put in a couple extra hours a week to own a business, if you know that the guy next to you is going to make the same, whether he works harder or not?
Stampede88 Says:
No conservative wants people to be poor.
_____________
Riiiiiiiiiight… keep believing this.
_____________
The top 1% of the country pays 40% of the tax, and all i hear is you liberals think they should pay 99%.
_____________
Who ever said they should pay “99%”??? That’s such a wild exaggeration I’m surprised you have the nerve to present it as a valid opinion.
_____________
What is the point of trying to become that 1%, if once you get there, you lose it all to taxes?
_____________
Apparently you don’t understand how the tax system works. Perhaps you should go educate yourself before you come here and pontificate.
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:31 pmSome people just don’t want to give credit where it’s due. ;)
Clinton raised taxes on the rich, and we enjoyed the longest sustained economic expansion in U.S., history. Income rose at all levels and we were paying off the deficit.
Clinton handed Bush II the biggest surplus in U.S. history. whereupon GWB and his complicit 109th Congress promptly piddled it all away.
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:31 pmStampede88 Says: No conservative wants people to be poor.
I dont buy that, the elected conservatives fought tooth and nail to keep min wage down. In fact min wage is poverty wages…legalized poverty.
I remember Tom Delay talking of his petri dish of capitalism in the Mariannas…a sweat shop. And how that was a good thing.
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:35 pmWhere did you get that figure Stampede88?
Top 50% who make $31,987 [base] pay 97.01% of personal federal income taxes
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:39 pmNo, we dont want poor people, we just know that not everyone will actually put in the effort. So, there always will be poor people. If everyone was rich, who would clean toilets and wash windows?
So what is it you want? They pay their taxes too(most of the time, and even the democrats in office are obviously not paying either), and they pay more in taxes than most people will make in their lives. If you dont want them to pay more, what is it you want from them? Why demonize the super-rich?
Again, all i’m hearing is how these people who are super rich are paying a smaller percentage of the taxes than the poor or middle class. Directly from the IRS, the top 1% of the income earners in the country pay 40% of the taxes in the country, and the top 5% pay 90% of the taxes in the country. Are you mad at them cause they are not paying the other 10% too? What is it you want?
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:41 pmhttp://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6
Look at the chart Stampede88, yes the 1% pay 40% of their personal federal income tax BUT the 50% class [which you are likely in] pay 97% of personal federal income tax.
Get it??
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:42 pmXisithrus, Hemiptera Says:
Where did you get that figure Stampede88?
_________
It’s obvious from the comment that Stampede has no idea what Stampede is talking about.
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:42 pmNow that’s a strawman!
The process that needs to be stopped is the rape of capital for the purpose of gambling in market investments. Part of that will have to come from reformed tax code and much of it from re-regulation of the financial industry.
Of course, if we want long term stability, we will have to return manufacturing to its rightful place and reduce the dependence on simple money-changing. When too much wealth is devoted to nothing but building more wealth? We end up with the crisis we find ourselves in today.
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:43 pmYou cant have a society where no one empties the trash, where no one fixes the cars, where no one does plumbing, builds the roads, serves the hamburgers, cleans the dishes.
You could never have a society where everyone makes millions and no one does the dirty work. Why should labor, which is hard work, make less than a CEO that sits on his behind all day?
Who burns the most calories, the ditch digger or the CEO?
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:45 pmStampede88: No, we dont want poor people, we just know that not everyone will actually put in the effort.
What work did Madoff do, better yet, what work did AIG CEOs do that deserves such great salaries? Maybe everyone doesnt want to be a corrupt AIG financial type?
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:46 pmA lot of ranting, Stampede, but no empirical data. Taxation have has become largely flat, percentage wise, because of your Bushies 2.4 trillion in tax cuts and the tax code in general working very much for the rich. Deductions galore.
We didn’t ask for your 5-conservabooks-for-$1 input.
Blue states pay much more and take in less than red states. Care to reconcile that?
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:46 pmHow many people did Fox have making phone calls for this? (from teh link:)
When John Zogby was a guest on The Daily Show, Jon Stewart asked him, (something like) “To get that 900 people we always hear about in polls, how many phone calls do you have to make?” And Zogby said, “About six or seven thousand.” (It may have been seven or eight.) They claim that the polling was done in the evenings, and over a two-day period. So how many people did they have calling to make six, seven maybe more thousand phone calls?
Or were these all robo-calls and you had to answer more robo-questions to give your demographic information? How are these polls conducted again? And what relationship does it have to the alleged “results”?
I’m sorry, Mr. Zogby, Mr. Gallup, Mr. Rasmussen, Mr. Murdoch, et al, it is time to stop bamboozling America with ridiculous, fantasy-based, relevance-challenged, meaningless polls. The foundations of your methodology are flawed and you know it. You cannot assume that 900 people can represent what a nation of 300 million is thinking. It’s not the use of statistical math, or any of the numbers in it that make it flawed. It is the initial presumption, that all public opinion on any given topic can be graphed to a bell curve, so that a random sample of 900 people would (assuming that everyone in the population was relatively “the same”) result in only a 3% chance that the sample did not represent the population as a whole (and was an aberration, such as too many people from one state, or something), that is wrong.
We are too diversified in our own political thinking, with too many of us getting our “facts” (be we lefties or righties) from too many disparate sources, that an assumption that we would respond to the particular terms used in a poll’s questions the same way is completely wrong.
If you want to know what a nation of 300 million people thinks, you’ll just have to ask all 300 million of us. Whether we are conservative or liberal, we do not think completely alike (regardless of what any of us, myself included, has said about “the other side.”)
Besides, unless they completely reveal their methodology (which is probably a company secret) there’s no way to know how they are manipulating the answers they were given, and how much weight they gave to any category. I’m sorry. But I do not see such polling as serving a valid useful purpose. I know many of you will disagree, and some of you may argue that “results are consistent”. To that, I would say, “Are you sure? How do you know?”
Thank you for letting me express my opinion. I’ll trouble you no further on the subject.
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:46 pmPerhaps, I was hoping Stampede wasnt just repeating talking points from some pundit and would use some actual data. *Sigh*
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:50 pmStampede88 Says:
——————————————————————————–
No conservative wants people to be poor. There are plenty of opportunities in this country to raise your status, no matter where you start from. We all know there is a segment of the population that will not advance themselves, that will just wait for a handout. I believe that those people should remain poor.
The top 1% of the country pays 40% of the tax, and all i hear is you liberals think they should pay 99%. What is the point of trying to become that 1%, if once you get there, you lose it all to taxes?
What is the magical number that you think we all need to get to all at the same time, where everyone would be happy? Everyone in the country should make 100k a year? 200k? Do you want the guy who pumps gas at the station to make the same as the guy who owns the gas station? Doesnt that inhibit the drive to succeed? Why try harder at your job, or put in a couple extra hours a week to own a business, if you know that the guy next to you is going to make the same, whether he works harder or not?
Absolutely right on the mark:
Tax Rate Single Married Filing Jointly
10% Not over $8,025 Not over $16,050
15% $8,025 – $32,550 $16,050 – $65,100
25% $32,550 – $78,850 $65,100 – $131,450
28% $78,850 – $164,550 $131,450 – $200,300
33% $164,550 – $357,700 $200,300 – $357,700
35% Over $357,700 Over $357,700
The more money you make, the higher the percentage of your income you pay…how can you “intellectuals” say the rich aren’t paying their fair share. It is no different in the corporate world, KEEP JACKING UP THE TAX RATE on the corporations and they will keep sending our jobs overseas. I just don’t understand how you can’t understand such a basic premise. Perhaps you are just lazy and you want a free hand out from your government. But just keep it up, pretty soon there wont be any income to tax.
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:50 pmHeck, the Bush tax cuts werent tax cuts, they were tax shifts, even the Bush folks bragged about bringing in more tax receipts.
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:51 pm65% of corporations pay no taxes..that didnt keep jobs from being sent overseas now did it?
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:52 pmIf people have run-ins with the IRS, that crosses any party line, dolt. I am adamantly opposed to a resolved dispute with the IRS affecting anyone’s prospects for government employment.
One thing is certain, however: President Obama’s vetting process is much stronger. How do we know your hero former President Bush’s appointees didn’t have tax issues? We don’t.
In the most cartoonish fashion, you right wingers pick up your talking points and crash into all four walls of the room.
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:53 pmLemme see hundreds of billions in offshore accounts that rob the treasury of 100 billion a year in taxes
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:54 pmThe Repugs have a track record of giving tax cuts to the wealthy people in our country. They do the same for big corperations. How can any politician go sleep at night knowing there are children going to bed hungry most nights.
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:54 pmXisithrus, Hemiptera Says:
——————————————————————————–
Crymeariver: KEEP JACKING UP THE TAX RATE on the corporations and they will keep sending our jobs overseas.
65% of corporations pay no taxes..that didnt keep jobs from being sent overseas now did it?
I think you mean STATE taxes (please check your facts). And on that note, would you like to provide a source for that statement? More source was the IRS.
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:57 pmWhat work did Madoff do, better yet, what work did AIG CEOs do that deserves such great salaries? Maybe everyone doesnt want to be a corrupt AIG financial type?
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Riiiiight, because corporations don’t presently receive a TAX BREAK to send jobs overseas.
2/3
2/3
2/3
… of corporations PAY NO TAXES, DOLT.
I’ve give you a moment to let your head spin.
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:58 pmLook at this chart http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6 CMAR, do you understand it?
Look at the wealthy 1% persons, they pay 40%.
The 50% persons pay 97%
Why is that so hard to see?
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:59 pmTrolls, why do Democratic administrations typically see more jobs created than Republican administrations?
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:00 pmIncorrect, it was not the same tax system and the economy was only booming due to the dot.com boom, when that went bust the economy tanked and the bush tax cuts is what got it going again
disagree with the and the bush tax cuts is what got it going again
Bush and his neocons ruined our economy by starting a war plus at the same time cutting taxes.
Due to empty money because of less government, high available credit lines granted, low interest rates we were led down the path all was well.
I will never forget the urgency from the bush ad granting us a stimulus check Spring of ‘08 to keep the leak in the dike from blowing, revealing to all the real truth of our economy, hoping the eruption would happen during the next administration.
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:00 pm“What is the point of trying to become that 1%, if once you get there, you lose it all to taxes?”
sigh.
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:01 pmNo one wants the rich to “lose it all to taxes”.
But it would be nice if they paid their fair share. They live off the fat of the land and backs of the workers, they can give back a larger amount. You act like high taxes have hurt the rich. That is just plain silly.
The poor and middle class pay a larger precentage of their income in taxes, social security, sales taxes and payroll taxes then the “rich” do.
A portion of the super wealthy did not even earn their wealth they just got it from daddy when he died.
Whats funny about the graph I linked to the 1% paid less in 1999 under Clinton [36%] than in 2006 under Bush [39.89%]
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:01 pmXisithrus, Hemiptera Says:
Who burns the most calories, the ditch digger or the CEO?
__________
JP Morgan, who could only be described as the High Apostle of Greed, once said, “The highest paid executive at a corporation should never make more than 8 times the lowest paid worker.”
This is a chart from a Washington Post article about the outrageous escalation in CEO compensation over the last few decades.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/11/15/GR2008111500247.html?sid=ST2008111500315
Take a look at it.
From 42 times the average worker in 1980 to a whopping 525 times by 2000.
From 1987 to 2007, CEO compensation increased a STAGGERING 167.3%, whilst the average worker’s pay grew about 10% in the same period.
And a huge amount of that increased income was in the form of stock and stock options, which get taxed at a LOWER RATE (capital gains, as opposed to income tax…) I think.
Want to know where all the money went? Along w/ everyone’s pension and benes? Look no further.
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:02 pmI cant find the link, and i’m tired of looking, i’d rather go back to drinking, but even by your chart, the top 10% of the wage earners in the country pay 70% of the income tax.
Still, your ignoring, for whatever reason, that those in the 50% bracket are paying 97% of personal federal income tax!!
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:03 pmhttp://zeet.newsvine.com/_news/2009/03/13/2542789-two-thirds-of-us-corporations-pay-no-federal-income-tax
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:03 pmStampede88 Says:
I cant find the link, and i’m tired of looking, i’d rather go back to drinking…
__________
Clearly, a Fox viewer… kind of says it all, huh?
Please… return to your regularly scheduled binge…
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:05 pmI agree, that sounds about right. What we have today, some sort of bastardized serf form of capitalism isnt workable, at the rate its going no employee will be able to afford what other companies produce. Its self defeating.
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:05 pmI gave you a valid line. Thanks for playing. Goodnight.
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:07 pmOur esteemed guests from the Right are ignoring the fact that we have to pay the bills that have been racked up during the last 40 years. They seem to forget that 28 of those 40 years have seen a Republican in office while 32 of those 40 years the republicans have held one or both Houses. Their methods have proven to be abject failures.
And we have to fix the damage by the worst 8 years of governance in generations. We have to pay off Bushco’s war debts. We have to rebuild infrastructure and we have to start substantive action on the energy and pollution problems. Simply giving the richest among us huge piles of cash with which to speculate in investment schemes will not address any of the burning issues of the day.
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:07 pmThey have such a nerve, TRoHS because they have no interest in reasonable debate.
Tax policy could be debated vigorously, with good points possible on either side, but these guys aren’t interested in that.
One might suspect it’s because they think they will lose the debate, so they have to resort to straw men like the one you pointed out.
This is what leads them to claim that a 36% top tax rate is fine, but 39% is socialist.
This is what leads them to ignore that the top 1% controls 40% of the nation’s wealth, when they try to portray it as unfair that they pay 40% of the nation’s taxes.
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:09 pmMegaloptera McWars Says:
——————————————————————————–
Riiiiight, because corporations don’t presently receive a TAX BREAK to send jobs overseas.
2/3
2/3
2/3
… of corporations PAY NO TAXES, DOLT.
I’ve give you a moment to let your head spin.
That is STATE TAXES NOT FEDERAL TAXES you Dolt. Try educating yourself before you discuss things you know absolutely nothing about.
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:09 pmIf you can’t find the link, you are the weakest link.
Lefty elitists win again — G’NIGHT!
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:10 pmCrymeariver Says:
That is STATE TAXES NOT FEDERAL TAXES you Dolt. Try educating yourself before you discuss things you know absolutely nothing about.
Earth to ignorant troll …
http://zeet.newsvine.com/ _news/ 2009/ 03/ 13/ 2542789-two-thirds-of-us-corporations-pay-no-federal-income-tax
**beep beep**
Earth to ignorant troll …
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:12 pmAnd btw, the states (such as Delaware) offer a no state tax to corporations because….CORRECT! They create jobs and generate TAXES on the income the residents of that state earn. Congrats Megaloptera McWars, you just learned an important principle about economics.
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:13 pmFox does nothing for me, its another biased news source. As everyone should, get your info from more than one source, and put together the facts from the whole.
And I do enjoy the drinking, but as a taxpayer, I am entitled to spend my money on whatever I please. Tonight I happened to enjoy stimulating the economy by perusing the local liquor establishments.
But, again, the question still remains, what is the fair share that should be payed by the super-rich?
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:13 pmWrong!
A recent study by the US General Accounting Office found that 73.3 percent of foreig ncontrolled
and 63.0 percent of US-controlled corporations paid no federal income taxes in 2000
http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2004/0409allgain.pdf
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:14 pmHmmm. Who actually makes the money that CEOs and economic rentiers accumulate? Hint: starts with an L.
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:15 pmThey don’t want to pay federal income taxes, and our troll is ok with firms paying no state income taxes either. They don’t want to pay for schools, bridges, roads, and other components of the general welfare, but the do want to chew people up and spit them out for a hunky profit, under the guise of goodwill.
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:16 pmIm for a flat tax rate and that amount, IIRC, is somewhere around 27-33% to cover our current debts expenditures etc
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:17 pmMeanwhile, here’s what the de facto head of the RNC has to say about Gordon Brown hanging with President Obama at the G-20 summit:
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/rush-limbaugh-g20
Limbaugh: The slobbering, the slobbering, this guy folks— I’m telling you. If he keeps this up throughout the G-20, Gordon Brown will come down with anal poisoning and may die from it.
____________
Man… that El Rushbo is ONE CLASSY GUY, HUH?
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:20 pmMegaloptera McWars Says:
——————————————————————————–
Crymeariver Says:
That is STATE TAXES NOT FEDERAL TAXES you Dolt. Try educating yourself before you discuss things you know absolutely nothing about.
Earth to ignorant troll …
http://zeet.newsvine.com/ _news/ 2009/ 03/ 13/ 2542789-two-thirds-of-us-corporations-pay-no-federal-income-tax
**beep beep**
Earth to ignorant troll …
LOL, your ignorance astounds me.
1/ That is a blog written by anyone who can say anything they want
2/ I went to the site myself and looked up that article myself…guess what I found:
“This article was deleted by the author.”
Maybe there was some problems with the facts HAHA
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:22 pmThe questions in a FOX News poll are akin to being asked if you have stopped beating your wife yet.
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:22 pmDelaware is a democratic state and doesn’t need your endorsement, cry.
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:22 pmSo if there was a flat taxe of 33% for everyone, this arguement would be over? I would not argue against a flat tax, but thats not what this arguement is about. Would the rich be paying their fair share, if they payed the same 33% of their income?
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:22 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
They have such a nerve, TRoHS because they have no interest in reasonable debate.
____________
You can say that again, ralphie…
____________
ralph the wonder locust Says:
They have such a nerve, TRoHS because they have no interest in reasonable debate.
____________
Whoa… pretty cool, ralphie. How’d you do that?
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:22 pmIs he doing drugs again?
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:23 pmCrymeariver Says:
“This article was deleted by the author.”
Maybe there was some problems with the facts HAHA
____________
Fortunately, THIS ONE hasn’t been deleted…
HAHA…
A recent study by the US General Accounting Office found that 73.3 percent of foreign controlled and 63.0 percent of US-controlled corporations paid no federal income taxes in 2000
http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2004/0409allgain.pdf
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:25 pmXisithrus, Hemiptera Says:
TROHS: Man… that El Rushbo is ONE CLASSY GUY, HUH?
Is he doing drugs again?
____________
Did he ever really stop???
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:25 pmStampede: Would the rich be paying their fair share, if they payed the same 33% of their income?
Im pretty sure thats why they call it an ‘Income tax’ as they are taxed on their income
What you seem to be speaking of is more of a membership fee?
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:26 pmMegaloptera McWars Says:
——————————————————————————–
They don’t want to pay federal income taxes, and our troll is ok with firms paying no state income taxes either. They don’t want to pay for schools, bridges, roads, and other components of the general welfare, but the do want to chew people up and spit them out for a hunky profit, under the guise of goodwill.
I thought you were just a bit lacking in information but I’m afraid it is just plain stupidity. Before you made the above statement I had already said, “And btw, the states (such as Delaware) offer a no state tax to corporations because….CORRECT! They create jobs and generate TAXES on the income the residents of that state earn.” Guess what…that is what pays for schools, bridges, roads, and other components of the general welfare.
Can you tie your own shoes?
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:26 pmOh, my mistake, not to your advantage. It happens sometimes, but the facts stand.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/12/news/economy/corporate_taxes/index.htm
Majority of corporations avoid federal income taxes – study
Poor trolls.
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:28 pmThey create jobs and generate TAXES on the income the residents of that state earn.
The company does not generate taxes. The workers generate income, for real work, which they are taxed on.
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:34 pmMegaloptera McWars Says:
Oh, my mistake, not to your advantage. It happens sometimes, but the facts stand.
http://money.cnn.com/ 2008/ 08/ 12/ news/ economy/ corporate_taxes/ index.htm
Majority of corporations avoid federal income taxes – study
Poor trolls.
_______________
But… but… EVERYONE KNOWS that CNN is a LIBERAL network…
I noticed Crybaby ignored Xisithrus’ link not once, BUT twice, too…
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:35 pmAgain, cry, Republicans don’t know how to run an economy, and Delaware is a democratic state. You’re a washed up minion.
The Simple Arithmetic of Employment: Job Growth Is Always Higher When a Democrat Is In The White House
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fiderer/the-simple-arithmetic-of_b_124510.html
If I didn’t know how to tie my own shoes, I wouldn’t be a democrat.
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:35 pmhell, majority of Obama nominees avoid paying taxes. How does that arguement help?
I’m out for the night.. goodnight TP
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:36 pmWhy does anyone need to be rich?
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:39 pmStampede Said: hell, majority of Obama nominees avoid paying taxes. How does that arguement help? I’m out for the night.. goodnight TP
But but but they are wealthy and are paying more than their fare share!! [Im kidding just throwing some reverse logic out there]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And I worked hard to find that link…with no pay even!!!
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:42 pmhell, majority of Obama nominees avoid paying taxes. How does that arguement help?
Maybe you didn’t read my earlier post. I don’t care if an individual has a run in with the IRS, as long as it’s resolved. A run-in with the IRS doesn’t necessarily mean a person is unfit for government employment.
You seem to think your unlinked and unsubstantiated tiresome talking point about President Obama’s nominees generated through his rigorous vetting process is working to your advantage.
Please, get that head-start on drinking yourself stupid.
Err .. too late.
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:43 pmI dunno, cant take it with you when you go. I think sometimes that maybe they are scared of going thru that eye in the needle..
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:44 pmNo, I didn’t ignore any link. You see children, I actually read the articles and check my facts. The link provided was a STUDY done by a grant funded organization…California Budget Project. If you read it, you would have picked up on several things suchas:
“These “no federal tax” corporations included 37.5 percent of foreign-controlled and 45.3 percent
of US-controlled large corporations.”
Hmmm, those figures seem different dont they? Here is another little bit of information that you kids always forget to take into account. Corporations don’t turn profits every year. Should they pay taxes on their loses?
Again kids, you think you have all the answers and its so simple. Until you commit to being honest with yourselves, you will continue to be part of the problem. The rich create jobs period. I want the rich to get richer IN THIS COUNTRY. Why? Because if that man or woman can make money here, he or she is going to keep it here. Money that stays in our economy makes more money and yes, generates more taxes for the programs that benefit the welfare of all the citizens. Keep it up, keep squeezing the corporations and the wealthy and ALL those jobs and investment leave this country for good. You all just suffer from envy. I’m not rich and I couldn’t care less about the people that have billions…good for them. I just pray that they spend it here or invest it in US business so my neighbors have jobs.
Blah, I’m wasting common sense here…buh bye
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:49 pmMany Corporations Pay No Federal Income Taxes
A recent study by the US General Accounting Office found that 73.3 percent of foreigncontrolled
and 63.0 percent of US-controlled corporations paid no federal income taxes in 2000.4
These “no federal tax” corporations included 37.5 percent of foreign-controlled and 45.3 percent
of US-controlled large corporations. The percentage of “no tax” foreign-controlled corporations
has increased slightly in recent years, rising from 67.6 percent in 1996 to 71.3 percent in 2000,
while the percentage of “no tax” US-controlled corporations has remained relatively steady,
increasing from 60.3 percent in 1996 to 61.3 percent in 2000.5
No, the study was about California Franchise Tax, the GAO study, Federal study, was the whole country.
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:56 pmNo where does it say California owned corporations it says US owned corporations pay no federal tax.
The difference is in large US corporations
These “no federal tax” corporations included 37.5 percent of foreign-controlled and 45.3 percent
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:58 pmof US-controlled large corporations
Stampede88 Says:
Well you hit all the talking points you have been brainwashed with. Perhaps you can cough up a citation of liberals saying the rich should pay 99%? No of course you cant because it is stupid. It is a lie you are telling. One of the most mindless talking points I have ever heard is that rich people will get so despondent over having to pay a bit more in taxes that they will just stop trying to make money. I cant imagine how stupid you would have to be to take that seriously. We all know there is a segment of people who will jump through any hoops to kiss the ass of the rich hoping if they beg enough and if they get their nose highe enough up there in the brown they can get some crumbs off the table. It is time normal human beings started treating those Ebeneezer Scrooge worshipping morons like the intellectually and morally challenged idiots they are. Pat them on the head, say there, there let the adults talk now and ignore them
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:01 amNo, they dont. They create income and in order to create income they need laborers, without laborers, people to buy their product, they would create nothing, they wouldnt get rich because there would be none to buy their product.
IE Their wealth is created by the worker.
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:02 amYes thats why there are all those billions and trillions in offshore banks that are there to avoid paying tax.
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:04 amI spent my entire working life in small companies. None of the owners were “rich” yet they created jobs. And, with one exception, the owners worked the most hours and payed themselves salaries while excess profits went into expansion and equipment.
I also had the misfortune to work for one VERY dysfunctional company. The owners didn’t even bother to walk on the production floor and, while it’s holding on by a thread, they have shrunk the workforce by 66% in the last two years. Friends still there tell me the owners are as uninvolved as ever.
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:04 amHey, CMAR, where did Madoffs billions go? Are they still here? Did he invest it back into the economy?
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:05 amDid the Pox Fool ask if the respondents were nauseated by the slant of the questions? It’s hard to answer with your head tilted at 40 degrees…
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:07 amCryingmoron.
WWWWAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH. The rich pay a slightly higher rate of taxes even though that means they pay MUCH LESS of their disposable income. Also most of the money the very rich make comes from capital gains which is taxed at a LOWER rate than MY income taxes. Corportions will send thier businesses overseas no matter what the tax rate is because they can exploit their workers and the environment more effectively and maximize their profits. Keep snivelling for the rich. Keep kissing their ass. The rich get more from the investment taxpayers make in everyones ability to make money in this country it is only right they PAY more.
ALL of the income gains in 05 for instance went to the top ten percent. The rich have gotten the lions share of the income tax cuts since 1980. It isnt too much to ask for them to give some back. No one is talking about going back to 90% at the top level
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:10 amWhat about that Exxon CEO surely he is creating jobs with his wealth gotten by charging people exorbitant prices for fuel to get to work and back, right?
And Limbaugh, hes rich, what jobs did he create? Many AM radio stations today are basically unmanned. One or two techs. Rush;s show? How many people does it take to write such trivial things as Anal poisoing? The guy lives alone in a huge mansion in Florida, with a maid and some yard workers, probably illegals, So he invested that money in a hedge fund. Those dont create many jobs, they just trade paper. Why Jesus called this using money to make money usury.
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:10 amWhat about that Exxon CEO surely he is creating jobs with his wealth gotten by charging people exorbitant prices for fuel to get to work and back, right?
And Limbaugh, hes rich, what jobs did he create? Many AM radio stations today are basically unmanned. One or two techs. Rush;s show? How many people does it take to write such trivial things as Anal poisoing? The guy lives alone in a huge mansion in Florida, with a maid and some yard workers, probably illegals, So he invested that money in a hedge fund. Those dont create many jobs, they just trade paper. Why Jesus called this using money to make money usury.
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:10 amMORON, companies incorporate in Delaware so they don’t have to pay any state taxes. They don’t have to do business anywhere near the state. If every Delaware corporation operated in Delaware it would have to be bigger than Texas. I gather you’ve never seen a prospectus. They’re all Delaware corporations.
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:11 amStampede88 Says:
A flat tax is NOT fair. First it means the bottom are paying a MUCH higher rate of disposable income than the rich. Second the rich get a MUCH bigger return on the investment in taxes society makes on everyones ability to make money. They SHOULD pay more.
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:14 amStampede88 Says:
No they dont. You are a liar and a fool and a brainwashed moron
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:16 amStampede88 Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:23 pm
F ucking elitist.
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:16 amBTW, just to stick with two famous examples, the crashes of 1929 and 2008 were driven by the same folly. Greedy people were allowed to set their own rules with the result that they invested too much capital, and WAY to much borrowed capital, in purely speculative schemes.
Many people, as early as 2004, saw that we were one “margin call”, or a collapse of any of the many bubbles, from economic disaster. So, what did the speculators do? They doubled down while the oil companies flat-out raped the economy with contrived fuel prices in an orgy of excesses designed to withdraw as much capital, and more, than the system could provide. If “rich people” had been investing in expansion, innovation, and job creation? We wouldn’t be in this mess.
The fact of the matter is that “rich people” have not made wise investments in the future. And they won’t do so without a mandate and/or involuntary taxation. And that’s been true since our early ancestors invented hoarding.
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:16 amIt’s a 3% income tax increase to 39%, the same as Sir Ronald of Reagan.
The media is ignorant and hapless.
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:18 amCryingmoron
Again MORON you regurgitate the idiocy you have been brainwashed with quite well. Reality you have lost all touch with. The wealthy dont give out jobs to be altruistic. Rather ALL WEALTH is created by someone who works. LABOR is prior to and more important than capital. The easiest person to replace in the equation is the one coughing up the money. THAT can be done many other ways. Labor CANNOT BE REPLACED. They can use OTHER labor. Like sending the jobs to Indonesia and can you show that as we make people rich they WONT send jobs overseas just to get richer? You are a brainwashed moron. You dont think you regurgitate. You are stupid and dont know what you are talking about
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:20 amWall street made trillion off derivatives..
Wheres the jobs Crymeariver?
Bush tax cuts made more millionaires
Wheres the jobs Crymeariver?
GM CEO got 20 million bonus?
Where are those jobs?
AIG got a bailout, 180 billion?
They got richer?
Wheres those jobs Crymeariver?
Greed doesnt create jobs, it creates huge failures.
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:22 amXisithrus, Hemiptera
You are on fire my friend, great posts.
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:24 amIn the 1960s,My ss payments were at 5% and my obligation was paid up for the year by July.Now for most of us,we pay a higher amount for the whole year.I think we should go back to the 5% system and you pay the 5% on every dime you make.You make a hundred thousand,you owe five thousand.You make a hundred million,You owe five million.We should ask billo or hannity what they think of that wonderful idea…
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:25 amTankew Tankew.
So many people, if they just use their heads, and use logic would see the falsity of what they are told…sadly, they sit down, tune in and turn off.
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:27 amPete knows how to make a great point. Great posts, pete.
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:31 amI concur.
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:31 amD ROCKO Says: 138
I completely agree
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:53 amWhat an f-in’ IDIOTIC reply…
Crymeariver Says:
No, I didn’t ignore any link. You see children, I actually read the articles and check my facts. The link provided was a STUDY done by a grant funded organization…California Budget Project.
___________
Whoa… SCANDALOUS…
When you can’t discredit the message, just discredit the messenger, huh?
____________
If you read it, you would have picked up on several things such as:
“These “no federal tax” corporations included 37.5 percent of foreign-controlled and 45.3 percent of US-controlled large corporations.” Hmmm, those figures seem different dont they?
_____________
You mean, when a corp like Halliburton ‘relocates” to Dubai to avoid paying taxes?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/12/business/main2558620.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_2558620
(CBS/AP) U.S. oil services firm Halliburton Co. is shifting its corporate headquarters and chief executive from Houston to Dubai in a move that immediately sparked criticism from U.S. members of Congress.
Halliburton Chief Executive Dave Lesar, speaking at an energy conference in nearby Bahrain, said he will relocate to Dubai from Texas to oversee Halliburton’s intensified focus on business in the Mideast and energy-hungry Asia, home to some of the world’s most important oil and gas markets.
“Halliburton is opening its corporate headquarters in Dubai while maintaining a corporate office in Houston,” spokeswoman Cathy Mann said. “The chairman, president and CEO will office from and be based in Dubai to run the company from the UAE.”
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., called the decision to move as “an example of corporate greed at its worst.”
“This is an insult to the U.S. soldiers and taxpayers who paid the tab for their no-bid contracts and endured their overcharges for all these years,” Leahy said in a statement.
“At the same time they’ll be avoiding U.S. taxes, I’m sure they won’t stop insisting on taking their profits in cold hard U.S. cash,” Leahy said.
____________
Here is another little bit of information that you kids always forget to take into account. Corporations don’t turn profits every year. Should they pay taxes on their loses?
____________
Oh… pul-lease… this is such an idiotic comment it’s breath taking in its inanity.
Again kids, you think you have all the answers and its so simple. Until you commit to being honest with yourselves, you will continue to be part of the problem. The rich create jobs period. I want the rich to get richer IN THIS COUNTRY. Why? Because if that man or woman can make money here, he or she is going to keep it here. Money that stays in our economy makes more money and yes, generates more taxes for the programs that benefit the welfare of all the citizens. Keep it up, keep squeezing the corporations and the wealthy and ALL those jobs and investment leave this country for good. You all just suffer from envy. I’m not rich and I couldn’t care less about the people that have billions…good for them. I just pray that they spend it here or invest it in US business so my neighbors have jobs.
Blah, I’m wasting common sense here…buh byeHmmm, those figures seem different dont they? Here is another little bit of information that you kids always forget to take into account. Corporations don’t turn profits every year. Should they pay taxes on their loses?
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:04 amMaster Debater Says:
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:09 am
You’re assuming TP hasn’t discussed that.
You’re an idiot.
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:11 amCrymeariver Says:
Again kids, you think you have all the answers and its so simple.
_________
You clearly have NO answers at all.
_________
Until you commit to being honest with yourselves, you will continue to be part of the problem. The rich create jobs period. I want the rich to get richer IN THIS COUNTRY.
_________
No they don’t most job growth comes from small businesses.
http://genylabs.typepad.com/small_biz_labs/2007/11/sba-on-small-bu.html
November 01, 2007
SBA on Small Business Job Creation
The SBA recently updated their small business statistics recently. The update again highligths the importance of small business employment to the US economy. Small businesses (less than 500 employees) employ 50.9% of nations private non-farm workforce in 2004.
Net new job creation is even more slanted towards small business. From 2003 to 2004 companies with less than 20 employees created roughly 1.6 million net new jobs. Companies with 20 to 499 employees created around 275,000 net new jobs. Meanwhile, employment at companies with more than 500 employees shrank by 214,000.
The SBA is also reporting that over the last 20 years small businesses have created roughly 3 out of 4 net new private non-farm US jobs.
Good Dog… yer either a liar or an idiot… or possibly both.
Why? Because if that man or woman can make money here, he or she is going to keep it here. Money that stays in our economy makes more money and yes, generates more taxes for the programs that benefit the welfare of all the citizens. Keep it up, keep squeezing the corporations and the wealthy and ALL those jobs and investment leave this country for good.
Complete BS. Chevron has had RECORD profits the last couple of years and just keeps shedding jobs.
_____________
You all just suffer from envy.
_____________
FFFFFF UUUUUU…. what a load of Cheney.
_____________
Corporations don’t turn profits every year. Should they pay taxes on their loses?
_____________
No… corps carry them over to the next year and sue them to offset taxable income…
Ye Gods… yer a staggeringly idiotic fool.
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:12 amScroll down, Master Bater.
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:22 amMaster Debater Says:
Where did they discussed it? I don’t want our troops to fight for this. We need to leave Afghanistan, let the Taliban have it. Hey the people want them.
____________
Right here, Master ‘Bater… 2 days ago.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai signs a law that ‘legalizes’ rape.
By Amanda Terkel on Mar 31st, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Today, the UK Independent reports that Afghan President Hamid Karzai has signed the new Shia Family Law, which women’s groups believe will essentially legalize rape.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/31/karzai-rape/
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:22 amDammit, TRoHS!!
Why you gotta be so dang helpful!?
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:23 amClearly, great minds thing alike…
I almost git the feelin’ somebody’s serving up softballs though…
N’ slo-pitch at that…
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:26 amI think the Master Bater is very concerned.
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:28 amSomehow… that fractured syntax seems hauntingly familiar…
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:31 amIsn’t there a liberal war on Christmas we’re all supposed to be worried about. As for me, I’m still troubled by Obama’s terrorist fist jab that Fox News never resolved for me. I also heard Fox News tell me we are on the brink of Socialism even though I live in a country where unfettered Capitalism caused the current economic crisis. That’s why I watch Fox. I prefer to base my facts on the opinions of others. I need other people to tell me what I should think. In between my martini lunches and shopping sprees, I don’t have time to think about the real issues in the world. That’s why I watch Fox News. That’s why I tell my kids to order freedom fries instead of French fries. I hate the French, and there’s a good reason. Fox News told me that France is bad. Did you know that French people (not the free people of America!) have one of the top rated health care systems in the world? Did you also know that working people in France also are allowed 6-8 weeks of paid vacation a year?! I don’t know about you, but paying people not to work is not the American way. I am outraged that we are heading down this path towards Socialism. I don’t what Socialism is, but I know it’s bad because Fox News tells me so. Now, Fox tells me that I am going to get taxed so I can’t get too rich. I have a lifestyle that I am used to, and I’m not going to lose it because of some Liberal, Socialist agenda. If you choose to work for someone, then you should follow their rules. If my taxes are raised, who am I going to pay to watch my kids while I’m shopping and enjoying my lifestyle. I personally don’t work for a living, but I am out there stimulating the economy making it possible for you to struggle to make ends meet. Just because you are not pretty enough to land a rich guy, or you’re not enough of a go-getter to go “git er done”, don’t start taxing me because of my success. There is no reward in punishing success. I know that because Fox News told me so.
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:33 amIt’s the troll accent.
Not all trolls have it, but ONLY trolls have it. ;)
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:34 amZooey Lepidoptera Says:
It’s the troll accent.
Not all trolls have it, but ONLY trolls have it. ;)
____________
Right… it’s that slight, tantalizing … hint… of Teh Stuped” in there…
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:36 amjedzep Says:
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:33 am
Yep, that about sizes it up. ;)
Or so I’m told…
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:37 amThe Republic of Hymenoptera Stupidity Says:
Right… it’s that slight, tantalizing … hint… of Teh Stuped” in there…
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:36 am
And that whiff of pee…
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:39 amZooey Lepidoptera Says:
And that whiff of pee…
__________
Right… stale urine… and human grease…
Stale urine… what a weird concept… is this as opposed to fresh?
Mebbe we should ask a troll that one… they seem to know all about the stuff…
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:49 amthe Fox poll proves their viewers are stupid –
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:04 amA couple poll question Fox left out:
1)Considering that the capital gains tax is 15% and the highest income tax rate anyone pays is about 35%, How much would taxes need to be raised to ensure noone in America would be able to be rich?
2) How much money would be available for things such as unemployment benefits, infrastructure reconstruction, and funds to pay down the Republican deficit if rich people had to pay the same percentage of their income in taxes as regular Americans are forced to?
3) If America had no super rich people, where would Congress get their bribes and who would they allow to write trade policy and bank deregulation legislation that made it possible for you to be sitting at home during working hours watching Fox and answering moronic poll questions that attempt to defend the very people that are responsible for your unemployment?
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:23 am“Fox News poll asks if increasing viewing for the freepers means ‘nobody gets to be too smart.’”
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:00 amIf 1% of the people have 90% of the wealth in this country, then what percentage of tax on earnings should be on that 1%.
Rethugs like the 1950’s so much – back then the top rate was 90% and wealth was not so concentrated as it is today.
Taxes are meant to redistribute wealth. Rethugs do not believe this should be the case. Why – cause they’re brain-washed by the rich.
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:08 amSomeone should poll folks whether they believe Fox is owned by an Australian billionaire whose goal is to undermine the United States by fostering division and anger between Americans.
Or is that not loaded enough?
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:09 am“Nobody gets to be too rich”
What’s wrong with THAT?
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:14 amJust WHY in the world do people have to have billions more than they really need to live on? To argue otherwise is obscene and perverted.
BTW: To quote Jesus.
It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven.
Right Daryll? (aka ruptured rectum)
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:17 amBetween 1979 and 2005, the top five percent of American families saw their real incomes increase 81 percent. Over the same period, the lowest-income fifth saw their real incomes decline 1 percent. (Census Bureau)
In 1979, the average income of the top 5 percent of families was 11.4 times as large as the average income of the bottom 20 percent. In 2005, the ratio was 20.9 times. (EPI, State of Working America 2006-07, Figure 1J)
All of the income gains in 2005 went to the top 10 percent of households, while the bottom 90 percent of households saw income declines. (EPI Snapshot, March 28, 2007)
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:52 amLink
FOX NEWS, THEY DISTORT, YOU COMPLY
http://alice.bigbig.com/
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:56 amctcadguy Says:
Taxes are meant to redistribute wealth. Rethugs do not believe this should be the case. Why – cause they’re brain-washed by the rich
That is the problem. Taxes are not meant to redistribute wealth. They are meant to pay for the things that private enterprise can not easily do on it’s own, or at least that is what they should be for and what they were meant to be for.
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:00 am______
Uncle Ho Says:
“Nobody gets to be too rich”
What’s wrong with THAT?
Just WHY in the world do people have to have billions more than they really need to live on? To argue otherwise is obscene and perverted.
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:14 am
______
“We — I strongly believe in a free-market system, and as I — as I think people understand in America, at least, people don’t resent the rich; they want to be rich. And that’s good.”
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:01 amBarack Obama
upright says:
In other word, greed is good?
See what Jesus said about greed, not to mention the morality of it.
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:11 am#
Uncle Ho Says:
upright says:
In other word, greed is good?
See what Jesus said about greed, not to mention the morality of it.
Yes greed is good. Greed works!
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:12 am______
The Republic of Hymenoptera Stupidity Says:
——————————————————————————–
Zooey Lepidoptera Says:
And that whiff of pee…
__________
Right… stale urine… and human grease…
Stale urine… what a weird concept… is this as opposed to fresh?
Mebbe we should ask a troll that one… they seem to know all about the stuff…
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:49 am
______
Be honest, now, bud. That appears to be more of an obsession with you and zooette than anyone else. ;)
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:17 am_____
Uncle Ho Says:
——————————————————————————–
upright says:
In other word, greed is good?
See what Jesus said about greed, not to mention the morality of it.
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:11 am
______
Read the Obama quote again. It said nothing about greed. Of course greed is bad. Check your dictionary. Greed and wealth are not synonymous. ;)
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:20 amupright left Says:
Be honest, now, bud. That appears to be more of an obsession with you and zooette than anyone else. ;)
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:17 am
I thought the pee smell just got stronger. You just can’t sneak up on people anymore, uptightie.
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:55 pm______
Zooey Lepidoptera Says:
——————————————————————————–
upright left Says:
Be honest, now, bud. That appears to be more of an obsession with you and zooette than anyone else. ;)
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:17 am
I thought the pee smell just got stronger. You just can’t sneak up on people anymore, uptightie.
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:55 pm
______
The Republic of Hymenoptera Stupidity Says:
Mebbe we should ask a troll that one… they seem to know all about the stuff…
Now zooette is a troll? ;)
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:17 pmOK Pat obviously senile dementia has set in. Time to see the nice young men that will need to take care of you soon.burun estetigi rent a car arac kiralama
April 18th, 2009 at 6:13 amsac ekimi