Class War – American and Proud

The Rich pay 4x More than Middle

By Robert | November 25, 2012

And we still need to take more from them right? I’m thinking I could use a few more bucks from Uncle Iris.

I’ll try to figure out exactly how much of that “Rich Tax” money I’m going to get. It will be tough to figure though.

Fair Share? IRS Data Says Millionaires Pay 4X Higher Tax Rate Than The Middle Class

Warren Buffett and Mitt Romney have managed to create one of the enduring myths of our tax debate: that the rich pay a lower rate than the rest of America.

This may be individually true. Buffett pays a lower rate than his secretary and Romney pays a lower rate than most of us who make our living from salaries.

But nationally, the tax code is still broadly progressive. The more your make, the more taxes you pay as a percentage of your income.

According to new data from the IRS, people who make $1 million or more had an average tax rate of 20.4 percent in 2010. Tax filers who earned $30,000 to $50,000 paid an average rate of 4.8 percent, while those who made between $50,000 and $100,000 paid 7.7 percent. Those making under $30,000 had a negative effective rate, meaning they paid no federal income taxes after deductions and credits.

Put another way, millionaires pay a rate that’s more than four times that of the middle class.

All you Liberal/Progressives/Democrats/RINO’s who believe this will help with our national debt need to think a bit. Just a bit. Let me help:

Rich people, even people like Warren “Tax me” Buffet and Mitt “Its my money” Romney will tell you, tax them more doesn’t mean you will see a dime of it. Matter of fact if YOU pay taxes at all, taxing the rich will actually hit you.

Here’s why: Rich people own businesses and/or buy big ticket items. High end items. MOST High cost items are manufactured here in America. America can’t compete with the cheap good market in China but we can make the BEST out there. What happens when you take disposable income from someone? They cut back. A rich person who has a budget, while it may be 20k a month, if it’s decreased something isn’t going to get bought. IF it’s not bought, there’s no need for people to make it…. pretty simple huh?

…

Union Dues would cover 265,447 jobs….

By Robert | April 20, 2011

A Great article at “Labor Union Report”

One Year’s Worth Of Union Dues Could Support 265,447 U.S. Workers For A Year

Union bosses have been engaging in class warfare for so long now that it’s become standard for the media to echo the meme without challenge. An example of such mainstream Marxism is in today’s Bloomberg piece entitled ‘Runaway CEO Pay’ Could Support 102,000 U.S. Jobs, AFL-CIO Says. Bloomberg’s piece relies heavily on the AFL-CIO’s Executive Pay Watch, which was set up years ago to conduct a haves vs. have nots class warfare campaign to eventually have CEO pay limited by law or regulation. This was something union bosses accomplished to some degree with last year’s “Wall Street Reform.

Here is the AFL-CIO’s statement:

In 2010, Standard & Poor’s 500 Index company CEOs received, on average, $11.4 million in total compensation. Based on 299 companies’ most recent pay data for 2010, their combined total CEO pay of $3.4 billion could support 102,325 median workers’ jobs.

Using a simple calculator, it is easy to determine that the “workers’ jobs” would pay $33,227 per year (about $16 per hour), not counting union dues, of course.

Read the Rest then come back..

What the article says is truth. CEO’s do make a lot of money, taking ALL of it would leave WHO to run the corporation? Nobody works for free and Unions don’t hire, produce or develop anything. They are LABOR.

Here’s the basic math on union dues and jobs they would create:

If we were to use a conservative figure of $50 per month for union dues, in 2010, unions collected $735,000,000 per month in union dues from America’s unionized workers. Multiply $735,000,000 by 12 months and you get a whopping $8,820,000,000 that was collected in union dues in 2010.

Divide $8,820,000,000 by $33,227 and you’ll find that if unions did not take union dues from workers in 2010, 265,447 workers’ jobs could have been supported.

So union dues would cover DOUBLE the jobs CEO’s salary’s would… WOW, I’m all for that.

The article misses a little though. Consider this: $33,227 a year is the salary, it doesn’t take into account benefit deductions, union dues, FICA, and State Taxes. Your take home pay would be closer to 25k than 33k. A take home pay of 25k a year doesn’t afford the worker much more than a full time employee at burger king.

Now, let’s look at the CEO’s salary. Why? Well because liberals love to talk about what someone else makes… CEO’s make a LOT of money, but why are they paid so much? They are paid to make a company profitable, they are paid to RUN a company/Corporation and they have to have the ability to lead a group of people in attaining that goal. There are very few high school drop outs who are CEO’s Most of them are HIGHLY educated, very intelligent men or women. They made some good choices in their education and in their lives to put them in that position. IF a company or corporations shareholders pay it’s CEO a gazillion trajillion dollars, it’s because they can afford it, he/she is worth it, and they are good at their job. Regardless of HOW MANY JOBS their salary would produce.

Class warfare. Where do you stand?

Class War, Phase 2

By Robert | April 14, 2011

The democrat machine has always been for “Class War” You pick a democrat, any Democrat and they will have this in common. They feel that the “Rich” are the real problem in our nation. They would want more from the rich. If the rich tax rate was 80%. (Think about that, if the RICH paid 80% of their money to the Government) meaning out of every dollar they make, the government gets 80 cents. Democrats would be thrilled in the short term, but after a couple years they would demand the rich paid more….This is the CLASS WAR we knew was coming and it’s here.

The class war that is upon us is in its second phase. Obama stoked the fires in his campaign speeches, he fanned the flames during the “Bush tax cut extension debate” NOW that he’s running for POTUS again he’s pouring gas on the fire.

Obama and his LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE cronies and masters are blaming the rich for our debt. NOT their spending habit. Not their “pet projects” like “abortions R us” planned parenthood. Not any of the Stimulus package money that didn’t stimulate. Not any of the Democrats fiscal errors, its strictly the RICH are not paying enough.

The problem with this theory is very simple. Once you remove the rich and FORCE them to PAY FOR DEMOCRAT CAUSES, they leave. When they leave they take JOBS with them. In the short term taxing the rich is a very good sound bite. Why should anyone need 2 houses? Why does anyone need a yacht? and so on… But what else do the rich do? Well, frankly they provide a very valuable tool for teachers (At least they did) as an example of what is possible in our nation. Hard work, good decisions and education could put you in that position. Why would anyone want to be rich now? Now if you make over 200k a year you are the bad guy. You are not paying enough. You are selfish for not paying MORE…

The class war we are engaged in is by far the worst it’s ever been. Mostly because people are clueless its even going on. I do not make 200k a year. Nor do I think anyone that does is bad. I wish I had the ability to make that much. Too many young folks are taking the easy approach to this. Meaning “If I blame the rich for my shortcomings, then I don’t have to work harder to overcome them” This is a cop out, a chicken shit way of going through life, but its the DEMOCRAT way. If it’s hard, make it easy. If it’s still too hard lower the standard.

Obama, Pelosi and Reid were the generals in the early part of the war. We have the answer for them, Allen West, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan. All we need to do is FIGHT.

Some very good words…

By Robert | December 26, 2010

Found at Common Folks Using Common Sense

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away men’s initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.

– Rev. William John Henry Boetcker (not Abraham Lincoln)

These are words penned a very long time ago and they have been proven true forever. Now our elected ones have decided there are wiser ways to improve our prosperity.

You bring about prosperity by encouraging thrift.
You can help small men by making big men small.
You can strengthen the weak by removing the strong.
You can lift the wage earner by destroying the wage payer.
You can help the poor man by destroying the rich.
You can keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
You can further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You can establish security on borrowed money.
You can build character and courage by taking away men’s initiative and independence.
You can help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.

– Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and all Democrats of the 111th Congress.

Not exactly sure where this new direction will lead but I have a bad feeling about it.