New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Why people who support raising taxes on those that make $250K and over....

are really supporting having their own taxes raised.

When people in your state who make 250K and over have to pay more of their earnings to Washington DC, that means that money that would normally stay in your state, and be spent and invested in your state is now in Washington.

That means that there is less money available to purchase goods and services in your state, which means that their will be less tax revenue and job creation in your state, which means there will be higher property and sales and income taxes in your state, taxes that Everyone will have to pay.

This is why Washington DC is the richest city in America, has the highest home values in America, while in the rest of the US, home values have dropped drastically and most state's budget deficits are increasing.

This is another reason why an informed citizen is a Democrats worst nightmare.
 
G

Greenridgeman

Guest
Hey, somebody has to feed the unwashed masses in the Dirty South
 
unwashed masses in the Dirty South
A rather bigoted stereotypical comment don't your think?

I've lived in both Chicago Illinois and and East Tennessee and I can assure you the work ethic is far more prevalent in Tennessee.
 
are really supporting having their own taxes raised....
Nice try, but this crap don't fly no more, Nit Wit Mitt has let the can out of the bag, now people can put a face to the 13.9% taxes that are being paid by the 1%er while a teacher pays an effective rate of 20% with no children.

...When people in your state who make 250K and over have to pay more of their earnings to Washington DC, that means that money that would normally stay in your state, and be spent and invested in your state is now in Washington...
There's NO NONE credible evidence of this, this is a talking point and not a reality and you can't link any proof of it in the past 100 years. Matter of fact, Clinton admin proves this assertion wrong on its face.

....This is why Washington DC is the richest city in America, has the highest home values in America, while in the rest of the US, home values have dropped drastically and most state's budget deficits are increasing...
This is false and has no current or historical basis, the mean avg income in DC did NOT rise during the Clinton admin after he raised taxes on the 1%ers. The reason its the richest city is because of the mean avg income rising due to the number of registered lobbyist moving in NOT because the rising amount of revenue going to the federal government.

Reality is a good thing and people shouldn't be sKeered of it.
 
Every one of your statements is provably, factually untrue.

Even the huffpo knows DC is the nation's richest metro area

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/19/dc-is-nations-richest-met_n_1019913.html

And if you think that taking more money out of your state and sending it to DC will help working people in your state, and letting DC decide how to spend it, your sadly mistaken, as it takes power away from localities (that means you) and increases power in DC.

That's why large centralized governments always eventually fail.

Nice try, but this crap don't fly no more, Nit Wit Mitt has let the can out of the bag, now people can put a face to the 13.9% taxes that are being paid by the 1%er while a teacher pays an effective rate of 20% with no children.
The tax rate the teacher pays on her vestments are exactly the same as the tax rate that Romney and everyone else pays on their investments. Completely fair.

As usual, another liberal who pulls his arguments out of his rear end.
 

OldGaffer

Governor
And yet, there are many states that get more money back from the feds than the state pays in, strange, that...I wonder which states that would be....?
 
G

Greenridgeman

Guest
I live in Louisiana.

You obviously have no idea what the term Dirty South means.
 
G

Greenridgeman

Guest
Well, 78% medicade births in LA, welcome to the New Standard, Third World and Proud.
 

wobblies

Mayor
You make two false assumptions: the first is that wealth will stay in the state if not taxed, and the second is that none of that tax revenue is spent by the federal government in one's state.
 

kgswiger

Council Member
Even if your logic weren't faulty, I'd be fine with that. I'm a patriotic American, and am willing to make some sacrifices for the good of the country.

Odd that a sergeant, who is/was presumably paid by a government, would have a problem with patriotism.
 

fairsheet

Senator
The flow of federal tax dollars is toward the redder states and away from the bluer ones. Therefore, the redder states are silly to be the ones who're shouting the lead, in terms of keeping federal tax rates low.

Fewer federal tax dollars available to the redder states, only means that the redder states will need to increase their state/local tax regimes, in order to maintain their expected levels of services.

The really funny thing is that many of us in the bluer states, have been chafing at this federal tax flow imbalance, for several decades now. But in our "do-gooder" hearts, we've been reticent to correct the imbalance by dint of legislative coercion. But now....the red states are doing it FOR us, and by their choice. It's all good.
 
G

Greenridgeman

Guest
It ain't the goodness of your hearts, it's the fear in them that the riff-raff will get out of hand again, like in the '60's.

Except the riff-raff is better armed, and after 50 years of the War on Poverty, there's a Hell of a lot more of 'em this time around.
 
And yet, there are many states that get more money back from the feds than the state pays in, strange, that...I wonder which states that would be....?
It's called wealth redistribution, totally against our founding principles and a very good reason to keep the money in the individual states rather than send it to the huge centralized bureaucracy known as the Federal Government who doles it out to lobbyists, cronies and others seeking tax dollars.
 
Top