> We apparently do not tax the obcenely wealthy enough in this country.
> > We apparently do not tax the obcenely wealthy enough in this country.
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> engine block casting, the seamstress making the curtains, the machine
> operator that made the wires for the controls, and so on.
> You use an excellent example by pointing out the yachting industry.
One only has to go back 16-17 years for this lesson on taxing the
"obcenely wealthy in this country.'
President George Bush, Sr., under pressure from Congress to raise
taxes in order to increase reveunes, fell for the old "tax the rich"
scheme.
He decided to implement a "luxury tax" on purchases of yachts.
Wealthy people, who did not become that way by being foolish, decided
to either : not buy one, hang on to the one they already had, or
purchase one overseas.
As a result, there was massive lay-offs in the yachting industry, not
only costing thousands of people their jobs, but the government lost a
lot of tax revenues by these lost jobs.
Over-taxing the wealthy almost always causes a loss in tax revenue for
the government, not an increase.
> Now, I'll admit that heating and cooling a 40,000 sq. ft. house is silly,
> but masons, carpenters, tilemen and others helped to feed their families as
> a result. Is that a bad thing?
>
> BTW, there is a difference between rich and wealthy, but both help the
> economy in different ways.
<RJ> - 03 Jan 2008 14:55 GMT
>> > We apparently do not tax the obcenely wealthy enough in this country.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>> engine block casting, the seamstress making the curtains, the machine
>> operator that made the wires for the controls, and so on.
>> Now, I'll admit that heating and cooling a 40,000 sq. ft. house is silly,
>> but masons, carpenters, tilemen and others helped to feed their families as
>> a result. Is that a bad thing?
>>
>> BTW, there is a difference between rich and wealthy, but both help the
>> economy in different ways.
Just remember......
There was "full employment" on the Cotton Plantation too.
<rj>
<RJ> - 03 Jan 2008 14:58 GMT
>President George Bush, Sr., under pressure from Congress to raise
>taxes in order to increase reveunes, fell for the old "tax the rich"
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>Over-taxing the wealthy almost always causes a loss in tax revenue for
>the government, not an increase.
That's because "MONEY" has no allegience, or patriotism.
( those are words they use when poor folks make the sacrifice )
<rj>
coachrose13@hotmail.com - 04 Jan 2008 05:59 GMT
> >President George Bush, Sr., under pressure from Congress to raise
> >taxes in order to increase reveunes, fell for the old "tax the rich"
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> ( those are words they use when poor folks make the sacrifice )
what sacrifice are you referring to in regards to taxes paid by the
poor?
Most "poor" people pay little, if any, federal taxes.
Thats fine. Hopefully, it helps them somewhat.
Taking more money from people in the form of increased taxes rarely
helps the ones who dont pay taxes.
The money is usually wasted by the government.
Government hand-outs has been a proven failure for what, 60-70 years?
Taxing people to the point that they cannot afford the Corvette will
only result in:
Lay-offs in Bowling Green, Ky.
A good portion of these people will then have to rely on the
government for assistance.
LESS revenues for the government due to fewer tax paying workers.
More welfare aid to people not working, which somehow always seems to
wind up in the hands of drug dealers.
Happens all the time.
> <rj>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -