Should rich people pay more taxes?

"They have poor people complaining about the fact that the rich are gonna be taxed more."

Dear friends,

Recently, while rappin' with one of my siblings about the whole issue of income tax rates in our country, he quipped, "They have poor people complaining about the fact that the rich are gonna be taxed more." Go figure.

Yet, the rich have far more to defend in this possession-oriented, market-driven economy. Therefore, they should hardly be complaining. After all, as I have pointed out in a previous post, Adam Smith, the "Father of Economics", in his classic volumes called "The Wealth of Nations" summed up the entire notion of how our system works, when he wrote: For every rich man there are 500 poor ones, and he would not get a night's sleep if it weren't for the local magistrate.

Consequently, the dishonest claim by Republicans and their ilk about wanting “smaller government” and “less taxes” contradicts their genuine wants and needs to get multi-billion dollar government contracts for their sponsors like Halliburton and various other giant corporations of defense and technology who also given protection by the taxpayer-funded US police and military for their financial interests, both here and around the world. In other words, the very wealthy have far more to lose, so why shouldn't they contribute more? Moreover, why should those who make far less subsidize the wealthy?

Meanwhile, via the mainstream media that serve as the official communication organs for both the huge corporations mentioned above, as well as their sycophants called “politicians” who aid such companies in acquiring greater wealth, everyday people, that is, both military and non-military workers whose aggregate sweat and blood make all of this possible, live with one foot in the poor house, while the other foot is on a banana peel. Let’s keep it real.

G. Djata Bumpus Read full post

Federal politicians Lie about Tax Cuts

Dear friends, 

 As usual, the government- and corporate-controlled mainstrean media has hoodwinked the public. That is, while the income tax rates have not increased, the payroll tax has gone up That means that "middle class people", on average, will get a $1, 000 to $2, 000 increase in wages taken from their checks this year. 

 Let's remember the difference between income taz and payroll tax: Income taxes are withheld from an employee's wages and go into a general fund . Payroll taxes are comprised of Medicare and Social Security taxes--also withheld from an employee's paycheck. However, the employer also pays payroll taxes to the federal government for these programs (in addition to the amount an employee pays)....Federal income tax and the Medicare tax have no limit, but the Social Security payroll tax always carries a cap. In 2008, Social Security tax topped out at 6.2 percent on an earnings maximum of $102,000. 

 As the New Yorker magazine reports today, January 2nd, 2013, and I agree, an article called THE PAYROLL TAX AND OBAMA’S NEXT FIGHT, by Amy Davidson: More outrageously, cuts to the already highly regressive payroll tax are being allowed to expire, meaning that they will rise from 4.2 per cent to 6.2 per cent. Obama didn’t even fight for them. In his statement Tuesday night, Obama described the bill as “preventing a middle-class tax hike” that could have hurt families and sent the country back into a recession; that is true, but it allowed another middle-class tax hike that could have the same effect. 

 Please don't sleep on this! 

 G. Djata Bumpus Read full post