Omigawd! Where's the fucking string? Ya know, like on those talking dolls. That little string with the loop on it that you pull to get the doll to talk. "I'm Chatty Cathy, and I love you".
I keep looking for that little loop and string on Senator Tommy Dunghole.
Pull the string. "Tax cuts for the rich."
Pull the string. "We want to give tax relief to working families."
I'm a working family. Howza 'bout giving me some tax relief you socialist asshole?
How about Dink Gotfart Dork Gapeheart (Dammit Babs! Now you got me doing it!) Dick Gephardt?
Pull the string. "We want to help those who have not won life's lottery."
Howza 'bout me you asshole? I didn't win life's lottery. I'm a fucking cripple. But I don't want any help from you or the gummint. I would just like to keep some of the money I've worked my butt off to earn and that you assholes want to take from me for wasteful gummint programs like naming every bridge and building in West Virginia after Robert (Kleagle of the KKK) Byrd. Why don't they just rename the whole fucking state after him?
In the business section of yesterday's Atlanta Urinal and Constipation, I came upon this 'factual and unbiased' article about the Bush tax plan. Some excerpts.
"It's a great recipe for a lot more inequality," said economist Jared Bernstein of the Economics Policy Institute. "These guys are using slow growth and the stagnant economy as an excuse to distribute income upward. If you want to stimulate the economy, there's a better way to do it."
Distribute income upward? What the fuck is this dickwad talking about? Income is not distributed, it is earned. This fkwd (noun - fuckwad - an ignorant asshole - I think I got that from Andrea Harris, but can't find it on her site. God, I'm getting senile!) is obviously a socialist. And now this, from the guy who wrote the article.
Getting most of the attention is Bush's call to eliminate the dividend tax, which would shift an estimated $364 billion in revenue from the U.S. Treasury back to investors. But most Americans hold stocks through tax-deferred pension plans, so that change will mostly pad incomes at the top of the curve.
Huh? Did you read what this fkwd just said? He said that this would take money from the treasury and give it to investors by not taxing their dividends. So in this dipshit's world, gummint owns the money and might give it back to the investors who actually earned it. This guy obviously went to a gummint school. But, I'm not done.
Pull my string. This guy's a fkwd!
Let's go over to the editorial page and see what the AJC's editorial board (8 liberals and 1 conservative, see Meet the Staff) has to say in this this editorial.
It's true that today, more than half of Americans own stock. For most of us, though, that stock is held in 401(k) accounts that are already shielded from taxes until money is withdrawn as income. Abolishing the dividend tax would directly benefit only those who own stock outside of 401(k)s, which is a far smaller number.
Do ya know who lots of those people are? Old folks, that's who. The people on Social Security that the Socialist Dimocrat Party seems to worry so much about. Gramma and Grampa like to buy electic utility stocks and they have very good dividends. I have a few of them myself and am planning on using them to supplement my pension and Social Security.
The standard excuse for abolishing dividend taxes is that the money has already been taxed once, when it appeared as profit generated by a corporation. To tax that money again when it is converted to personal income would allegedly be double taxation.
Yep! It would. But, that's OK, according to the editorial board (8 liberals and 1 conservative).
However, repeated taxation is a fact of life. A dollar is taxed every time it moves from one person's pocket to another. For example, a working person's income is taxed by the state and federal governments, and taxed again when the person spends that money on goods susceptible to sales taxes.
See this is how liberals think. Tax. Tax. Tax. Tax. Tax. Tax. Multiple taxation is good. It just keeps getting better.
Imagine two families living side by side, each with an identical income of $100,000. In the Smith family, nobody works. Their income comes entirely from dividends generated by substantial stock holdings. In the neighboring Jones family, both parents work hard to generate their six-figure income.
And let's just pretend the Smith family is actually the Grouchy Old Cripple who has worked his butt off and invested his money (that has been taxed many times) wisely and is now getting $100,000 in dividends (I wish).
There's nothing inherently unfair about that situation. In a capitalist economy, such disparities are common and even necessary. It would, however, be unfair for the government to treat those two families differently based on how their income was generated.
No! It! Wouldn't! I worked my butt off to accumulate that six figure dividend income and you socialist assholes want it!
Pull my string. Keep your hands off my money!
Should the Bush proposal become law, though, the Smith family would pay a federal tax of zero, as in nada or nothing, on its dividend-generated income. They would get all the rights and services that other Americans get, but pay nothing for them.
That is a crock of shit! The gummint has sumpin' called the alternative minimum tax just for situations like that.
Conversely, because the Jones' income was generated by their own hard work, not by pre-existing wealth, they would pay considerable taxes on their $100,000 income. In essence, the president proposes to abolish taxes on income generated by accumulated wealth, while continuing to tax income earned by personal labor.
My wealth was accumulated by hard work and wise investing. The Jones's could do the same thing if they didn't have to pay the 'considerable taxes on their $100,000 income'. Hey! Here's an idea. Why don't we cut their taxes. Oh yeah. They make $100,000 a year. They're rich. And you know what Senator Dasshole would say.
Pull the string. "Tax cuts for the rich."
And you know what I would say.
Pull my string. Fuck off!