The EVIL RICH !!

C A L I F O R N I A C O M M E N T A R Y

Week of June 6, 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The Evil Rich

By Jon Coupal

They live among us.

They make every attempt to live anonymously. So as not to attract
attention, they drive two- or three-year-old cars. Chances are, they
live in homes valued at about a half-million dollars, the current
state average. Some send their children to private schools, yet many
more send their children to public schools because the cost of a
private education is just out of reach.

However, their days of posturing as ordinary hardworking people that
have had some modest success have come to an end. The Democrats in the
Legislature have just ripped the masks from -- "The Evil Rich!"

Under a plan announced by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, those "rich"
people making more than $142,582 will see their taxes go up by 7
percent to a marginal tax rate of 10 percent. While the "super rich,"
those making more than $285,164, will see their tax rate go up by 17
percent.

If the Democrats are successful in placing this "tax the rich" scheme
on the ballot, some voters may be tempted to approve it because it
will not affect them. It was the late Senator Russell Long of Georgia
who summed up the approach this way, "Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax
that fellow behind the tree." After all, it's no great sacrifice to
vote to tax other people, and the "rich" are always a tempting target.
And it is interesting to note that Speaker Nunez, whose pay will go to
$127,512 this year, plus a daily tax-free allowance of $138, will not
see his taxes go up.

However, before anyone is tempted to support the Democrats' proposal,
they may want to look at how fast the definition of "rich" for tax
purposes has declined

Just last November, voters approved another soak-the-rich measure,
Proposition 63, the mental health tax that increased the levy on those
making a million dollars or more by 10 percent. In just seven months,
the political definition of rich has declined by 85 percent to just
over $142,000! If we were to continue at this rate, by the beginning
of July, those making minimum wage could expect to be classified as
rich.

Regardless of one's income, all Californians should be concerned about
tax increases. The state is already in the top 10 in per capita taxes.
Although there are some in the Legislature who would like to be able
to shout, "We're number one," most taxpayers are already painfully
aware of the substantial burden they carry and they believe that what
they provide should be sufficient to fund essential services.

However, those lawmakers who seek to perpetuate an over-priced public
service sector are unlikely to be dissuaded. After all, many
politicians owe their election to the state's public employees, who,
according to the U.S. Census Bureau, are the highest paid in the
nation.

While politicians will continue to try to make it tempting to consider
increasing taxes on those who are more financially successful, there
is a major flaw in this thinking. It is that those making the most
already pay most of the taxes. If the state continues to pound above
average earners with new taxes, the more likely it is that we will see
taxpayers, jobs and businesses leave the state for a more tax-friendly
climate. As noted by economist Art Laffer, there is nothing so mobile
as the wealthy and their capital. However, when the "wealthy" include
tradesmen and nurses headed to Las Vegas for a lower cost of living --
including taxes -- the rest of California ought to be worried.

If those making more and paying more in taxes flee the state, those
left behind may discover that it is they who will inherit a higher tax
burden.


Jon Coupal is an attorney and president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers
Association -- California's largest taxpayer organization with offices
in Los Angeles and Sacramento.

In article <Wbgqe.2115$VK4.1607@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
> C A L I F O R N I A C O M M E N T A R Y
>
> Week of June 6, 2005
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The Evil Rich
>
> By Jon Coupal
>
> They live among us.
>
> They make every attempt to live anonymously. So as not to attract
> attention, they drive two- or three-year-old cars. Chances are, they
> live in homes valued at about a half-million dollars, the current
> state average. Some send their children to private schools, yet many
> more send their children to public schools because the cost of a
> private education is just out of reach.
>
> However, their days of posturing as ordinary hardworking people that
> have had some modest success have come to an end. The Democrats in the
> Legislature have just ripped the masks from -- "The Evil Rich!"
>
> Under a plan announced by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, those "rich"
> people making more than $142,582 will see their taxes go up by 7
> percent to a marginal tax rate of 10 percent. While the "super rich,"
> those making more than $285,164, will see their tax rate go up by 17
> percent.
>
> If the Democrats are successful in placing this "tax the rich" scheme
> on the ballot, some voters may be tempted to approve it because it
> will not affect them. It was the late Senator Russell Long of Georgia
> who summed up the approach this way, "Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax
> that fellow behind the tree." After all, it's no great sacrifice to
> vote to tax other people, and the "rich" are always a tempting target.
> And it is interesting to note that Speaker Nunez, whose pay will go to
> $127,512 this year, plus a daily tax-free allowance of $138, will not
> see his taxes go up.
>
> However, before anyone is tempted to support the Democrats' proposal,
> they may want to look at how fast the definition of "rich" for tax
> purposes has declined
>
> Just last November, voters approved another soak-the-rich measure,
> Proposition 63, the mental health tax that increased the levy on those
> making a million dollars or more by 10 percent. In just seven months,
> the political definition of rich has declined by 85 percent to just
> over $142,000! If we were to continue at this rate, by the beginning
> of July, those making minimum wage could expect to be classified as
> rich.
>
> Regardless of one's income, all Californians should be concerned about
> tax increases. The state is already in the top 10 in per capita taxes.
> Although there are some in the Legislature who would like to be able
> to shout, "We're number one," most taxpayers are already painfully
> aware of the substantial burden they carry and they believe that what
> they provide should be sufficient to fund essential services.
>
> However, those lawmakers who seek to perpetuate an over-priced public
> service sector are unlikely to be dissuaded. After all, many
> politicians owe their election to the state's public employees, who,
> according to the U.S. Census Bureau, are the highest paid in the
> nation.
>
> While politicians will continue to try to make it tempting to consider
> increasing taxes on those who are more financially successful, there
> is a major flaw in this thinking. It is that those making the most
> already pay most of the taxes. If the state continues to pound above
> average earners with new taxes, the more likely it is that we will see
> taxpayers, jobs and businesses leave the state for a more tax-friendly
> climate. As noted by economist Art Laffer, there is nothing so mobile
> as the wealthy and their capital. However, when the "wealthy" include
> tradesmen and nurses headed to Las Vegas for a lower cost of living --
> including taxes -- the rest of California ought to be worried.
>
> If those making more and paying more in taxes flee the state, those
> left behind may discover that it is they who will inherit a higher tax
> burden.
>
>
> Jon Coupal is an attorney and president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers
> Association -- California's largest taxpayer organization with offices
> in Los Angeles and Sacramento.[/color]


Word to the wise:

Before one starts to hurrah for taxing the rich, one better know where
one stands on the richness scale.
--

Dbu~^ wrote:[color=blue]
> In article <Wbgqe.2115$VK4.1607@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>[color=green]
> > C A L I F O R N I A C O M M E N T A R Y
> >
> > Week of June 6, 2005
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > The Evil Rich
> >
> > By Jon Coupal
> >
> > They live among us.
> >
> > They make every attempt to live anonymously. So as not to attract
> > attention, they drive two- or three-year-old cars. Chances are, they
> > live in homes valued at about a half-million dollars, the current
> > state average. Some send their children to private schools, yet many
> > more send their children to public schools because the cost of a
> > private education is just out of reach.
> >
> > However, their days of posturing as ordinary hardworking people that
> > have had some modest success have come to an end. The Democrats in the
> > Legislature have just ripped the masks from -- "The Evil Rich!"
> >
> > Under a plan announced by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, those "rich"
> > people making more than $142,582 will see their taxes go up by 7
> > percent to a marginal tax rate of 10 percent. While the "super rich,"
> > those making more than $285,164, will see their tax rate go up by 17
> > percent.
> >
> > If the Democrats are successful in placing this "tax the rich" scheme
> > on the ballot, some voters may be tempted to approve it because it
> > will not affect them. It was the late Senator Russell Long of Georgia
> > who summed up the approach this way, "Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax
> > that fellow behind the tree." After all, it's no great sacrifice to
> > vote to tax other people, and the "rich" are always a tempting target.
> > And it is interesting to note that Speaker Nunez, whose pay will go to
> > $127,512 this year, plus a daily tax-free allowance of $138, will not
> > see his taxes go up.
> >
> > However, before anyone is tempted to support the Democrats' proposal,
> > they may want to look at how fast the definition of "rich" for tax
> > purposes has declined
> >
> > Just last November, voters approved another soak-the-rich measure,
> > Proposition 63, the mental health tax that increased the levy on those
> > making a million dollars or more by 10 percent. In just seven months,
> > the political definition of rich has declined by 85 percent to just
> > over $142,000! If we were to continue at this rate, by the beginning
> > of July, those making minimum wage could expect to be classified as
> > rich.
> >
> > Regardless of one's income, all Californians should be concerned about
> > tax increases. The state is already in the top 10 in per capita taxes.
> > Although there are some in the Legislature who would like to be able
> > to shout, "We're number one," most taxpayers are already painfully
> > aware of the substantial burden they carry and they believe that what
> > they provide should be sufficient to fund essential services.
> >
> > However, those lawmakers who seek to perpetuate an over-priced public
> > service sector are unlikely to be dissuaded. After all, many
> > politicians owe their election to the state's public employees, who,
> > according to the U.S. Census Bureau, are the highest paid in the
> > nation.
> >
> > While politicians will continue to try to make it tempting to consider
> > increasing taxes on those who are more financially successful, there
> > is a major flaw in this thinking. It is that those making the most
> > already pay most of the taxes. If the state continues to pound above
> > average earners with new taxes, the more likely it is that we will see
> > taxpayers, jobs and businesses leave the state for a more tax-friendly
> > climate. As noted by economist Art Laffer, there is nothing so mobile
> > as the wealthy and their capital. However, when the "wealthy" include
> > tradesmen and nurses headed to Las Vegas for a lower cost of living --
> > including taxes -- the rest of California ought to be worried.
> >
> > If those making more and paying more in taxes flee the state, those
> > left behind may discover that it is they who will inherit a higher tax
> > burden.
> >
> >
> > Jon Coupal is an attorney and president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers
> > Association -- California's largest taxpayer organization with offices
> > in Los Angeles and Sacramento.[/color]
>
>
> Word to the wise:
>
> Before one starts to hurrah for taxing the rich, one better know where
> one stands on the richness scale.
>[/color]

HEAR HEAR! And, make sure you have some Vasoline (tm) on hand...
because Bush is about to stick it to you in the Back Door with the
Alternative Minimum Tax (google this group -- I posted a research
article earlier).

Oh buddy, did Bush raise our taxes, and how!

Learning Richard wrote:[color=blue]
>
> Oh buddy, did Bush raise our taxes, and how!
>[/color]
OK, so you will support him now? I know how the demonrats are demanding
a tax increase. Oh, he raised your taxes? About time. I was tired of
always being elegible for a tax cut and never a tax break till recently.
Richard, what is your tax rate? I'm guessing 10% when it was 15%. Thats
a tax reduction.


--


[url]http://www.rightwingstuff.com[/url]
[url]http://www.gop.org[/url]
[url]http://www.townhall.com[/url]



The Second Amendment Is Americas "Original" Homeland Security!
[url]http://www.nra.org[/url]
[url]http://www.nraila.com[/url]