Friday, October 20, 2006

In California, the poor pay more

A friend of mine who claims to be a Democrat recently sent this crap out to our union list:
A Tax Lesson

Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table
At which he's fed.

Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule...
Blah, blah, blah... Here's my response:
Of course, one of the biggest reasons the middle class is getting squeezed is because middle class red-necks vote for Republicans who preach low taxes, and then they give Paris Hilton millions in tax breaks. Under Republican Rule, the rich get richer, and the middle class and poor pay more. How about we elect people who give a damn about the middle class for a change? How about we make sure people who work make more than the poverty level, get health care and a college education for his Children. Even under the liberal Republican Arnold, the middle class has gotten screwed with higher fees, tuition, and all kinds of other things we need and deserve because we make this country work. Meanwhile, in percent of income, Arnold pays less than a minimum wage earner in taxes.

Check out this telling graphic about tax rates in California.

See, on your little list here, I don't see

Tax his inheritence
Tax his portfolio
Tax his yacht
Tax his Bently
Tax his offshore corporation
Tax his oil profits
Tax his outsourcing
Tax his Chinese factory


stop his corporate welfare

Besides, if we don't tax wealth at least at the same rate as we tax work (which we currently don't), how the hell else do you propose we pay for George W. Bush's Trillions of dollars in debt? Oh, well, no worries. All you people without kids don't have to worry that your offspring will be paying the George W. Bush War tax for decades to come.


Hawkdoc said...

You, Sir, are a blithering idiot. Read the Fair Tax Book. Try to educate yourself instead of swallowing whole all this left wing pablum.

Supak said...

The Fair Tax Book? Yeah, right, you fascist fuck. Here's what you swallowed:


...the book's authors, Republican Congressman John Linder of Georgia and conservative radio host Neal Boortz, make a critical mistake in their supporting argument, according to MONEY.

Boortz and Linder argue that individuals would be better off following a switch from an income-tax structure to a national sales tax in part because they would pocket 100 percent of their paychecks.

While consumers would pay a federal sales tax on purchased items, the authors argue that prices at the store would stay the same. The reason: everyone involved in the process of production would no longer be paying taxes, so they could charge less for their goods and labor.

If true, that would mean a dramatic increase in Americans' purchasing power.

But, according to the MONEY report, the book fails to make clear that, in order for pre-tax prices to fall so sharply, companies would also have to cut wages they pay.

"Sure, you'd get to 'keep 100 percent of your paycheck,' as Boortz and Linder repeatedly write, but it would be a smaller paycheck," MONEY senior editor Pat Regnier writes. "That's kind of a big thing to leave out."


Those who benefit the most from America should pay the most for it. But, the point of my post is that in California income tax reality, the rich actually PAY LESS than the poor, and even by your own fucked up logic, that ain't right.

Now go crawl back under your Big Republican Rock. You and Karl Rove will have a lot to talk about.