RSS
These Aren't Obscene Profits Are They?
How about a windfall profits "penalty" on this? I bet Obama would be all for it.
posted by Spencerblog at
11:09 PM
Friday, April 4, 2008
- Stalinist Commissions in Canada
- Obama Thinks (make that, Feels) Guns are Bad
- Juan Williams Celebrates MLK and Disses Obama
- Good News in Iraq Angers Democrats
- Conservation Tips and The Volt
- Nearby Puppy Mills Exposed
- The Dangers of Drinking and Driving?
- A Fluid Conversation
- Fun with Ted and Jane
- A Haunting Piece on Hillary
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
13 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
Wait a second, Diano, do you think oil company executives get to pay a lower tax rate on their income than the Clintons?
They don't.
As for the charity the Clintons donated to most of their contributions went to Bill's presidential library and the Clinton Trust.
Set up a Diano Trust to shield your tax liability and see if it doesn't get audited.
Meanwhile, according to economist Mark Perry:
"Over the last three years, Exxon Mobil has paid an average of $27 billion annually in taxes. That's $27,000,000,000 per year, a number so large it's hard to comprehend. Here's one way to put Exxon's taxes into perspective.
According to IRS data for 2004, the most recent year available:
Total number of tax returns: 130 million
Number of Tax Returns for the Bottom 50%: 65 million
Adjusted Gross Income for the Bottom 50%: $922 billion
Total Income Tax Paid by the Bottom 50%: $27.4 billion
Conclusion: In other words, just one corporation (Exxon Mobil) pays as much in taxes ($27 billion) annually as the entire bottom 50% of individual taxpayers, which is 65,000,000 people! Further, the tax rate for the bottom 50% is only 3% of adjusted gross income ($27.4 billion on $922 billion), and the tax rate for Exxon was 41% in 2006 ($67.4 billion in taxable income, $27.9 billion in taxes).
Oil companies don't pay a lower rate than the Clintons, they pay a HIGHER rate.
And yet the greedy Socialists are never satisfied.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I got you figures, Dave, you just don't like them because they don't prove YOUR point.
BTW, the top income tax rate is 35 percent, not 30. The Clintons pay it. So does everyone in the top bracket. Baseball players, movie stars, insurance salesmen, screenwriters, and oil executives.
The "other rich" you talk about are not taxed at half that rate. You're thinking if the capital gains tax that is today 15 percent. People are on taxed on capital gains when they REALIZE capital gains, that is, when they sell a stock or property.
That tax was lowered when it was argued that the government might get more money if it didn't penalize people so much for selling an asset. Guess what? The government did get more money, tens of billions, more.
You say the rich aren't paying their "fair share of taxes." The last time I checked the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid more than the bottom 50 percent of all taxpayers put together.
I guess it depends on what your definition of "fair" is.
The working poor pay no income tax. They actually get money from the government, that is THE REST OF US in the Earned Income Tax Credit.
As Bill Buckley might say, "get your own goddamn figures on oil executive pay." You want to make a point, do your own leg work.
UPDATE: It's the top 5 percent of income earners pay 53 percent of all income taxes. The top 50 percent pay 96 percent of all income taxes. The bottom half pays less than 4 percent. Fair? Not according to Democrats. It's not what you pay, it's what you're left with that counts with them.
In other words: From each according their ability, to each according to their need, with the government deciding abilities and needs.
DING! Round for Gil.
Doesn't Dave ever get tired of being bitch slapped?
That is the problem with Diano Edwards - it is all about the sound bite. The public is very ignorant to the liberal "make the rich pay their fair share". Also, liberals will never debate facts because the facts don't support any of their arguments.
C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.shieldsandhoppe.com
True words, Mr. S.
What would the liberals have done if President Bush's middle name was Adolph when he was running?
LMAO! Good stuff in the paper today, Mr. S!
Randall:
Political Correctness is a disease that has eliminated citical thinking and honest debate.
The intolerance of political correctness needs to be exposed as it is the liberals who play by the rules that they wrongly accuse our side of using. All of this race debate is something that the liberals are not allowed to resolve.
Scott
Political Correctness is a disease that has eliminated critical thinking and honest debate.
I disagree. While PC does indeed silence debate, it is not some mystical disease; it is by Lib engineered design that it has been underhandedly foisted upon our society in an effort to stifle honest debate, under the guise of civility, “tolerance” and “sensitivity”. And we have seen just how tolerant and sensitive Libs really are whenever someone disagrees with their prescribed script.
“There is nothing more insensitive and intolerant than a sensitive and tolerant Liberal.” ~Me
Btw, Mr. S, I think the Daily Times e-censored you. When I tried to find an online copy of your letter on their website to forward to a friend I was unable to. Although every other letter that appeared in the paper today was there.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home