JoeB131
Diamond Member
Let's start with that 39.6% top marginal rate. He has told us over and over that it is the rich who need to pay more, yes? Has he ever once suggested that the 50% of Americans who are paying little or nothing into the federal treasury need to pay more? No he has not. But he keeps hammering away at the rich and people like JoeB thrust their fists into the air and say "YES!!! The rich are evil." With the people behind him he receives little resistance.[
Oh my God, is this your belief, that "the people" would be totally for it, because the rich are evil?
Has it occurred to you that most of us just think it's fair that they pay more? The problem with the oft-cited horshit about the "50% that pay nothing" is that it works on the assumption that the only tax that exists out there is Federal Income Tax. besides the fact that the "half who pay nothing" include children and retired people and disabled people and people who have no jobs or income, the very few people who produce have an income and pay no tax on it are making so little there's nothing there to tax.
The other problem with that thinking is that it ignores the other taxes that do slaughter the working class. Sales taxes, ciagarete taxes, gasoline taxes, Social Securtiy (capped at 100K) Medicare (capped at 100K) State income taxes (usually flat).
For instance, I got a much bigger check back from the Feds this year because I paid a much bigger tax to Springfield this year, and I itemize on Schedule A.
Then when that milestone is reached what if he would declare the supremacy of unions which JoeB also wants and via executive order makes it almost impossible to do business with the government or any large corporations without being unionized? Another step necessary to take down the rich and concentrate the power even more. And then raise taxes more and rachet up more regulation etc.
Oh, noes, you mean rich people won't be able to fire people without actually being able to prove their case that peson needed to be fired, because they might have a union that will go to bat for them? The horror, the horror.
Whenever a conservatard (not to be confused with the dying species, conservative) talks about "Freedom", they are usually talking about the ability of rich people to screw with poor people. Even though m ost of them aren't rich themselves. But they might be, some day. They really need to believe that.
All this is speculatiive yes, but it still addresses your question of how raising the marginal tax rate squares with Marxism.
So when are you going to answer his actual question. How is a top marginal rate of 39% (the same rate it was under Reagan) a form of "Marxism"?
And this very thread is about a President who is presuming to take more and more personal power. The last thing he did so far is to countermand the law of the land, a law passed by a duly elected Congress of our representatives, and make a brand new law all on his own.
No, he used the authority of the executive branch to resolve a problem because a do-nothing congress was not addressing a criticial issue. By the way, Bush pulled stuff like this all the time, and you usually didn't have a problem with it.
If that doesn't chill the blood of every freedom loving American, I fear that the frog will be boiled before we finally wake up and say no more.
Which is what Marxism counts on in order to take over everything.
I'm sorry, how exactly is it hurting you that some kid who was brought here as a 2 year old is going to get some legal protection?
Incidently, the thing about boiled frogs is a myth. Frogs do not stay in water when it gets too hot for them.
Conservatards, however, keep bending over for the wealthy, no matter how many times they get screwed.