It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Valhall
Since it appears that Mitt Romney being a successful business man and having a net worth of 250 million dollars is the major "evil" point about him, I thought I'd take the time to identify a few notable "evil people" based on what is apparently the Democratic/Liberal ideology of when a person starts to "go evil". Now, according to their tax plan and Obama and Biden's own campaign statements, people "go evil" when a married couple makes $250,000 in one year. (I'd like to note that while I don't give a flying flamingo who you boink or who you love the Gay/Lesbian community needs to really re-think their battle for getting recognized with legitimate marriages. Marriage is evil in the eyes of the current administration. The marriage penalty is coming back. If you're married you "go evil" at a combined income of $250,000 in one year. If you are not married you each can make up to $200,000 per year before you "go evil"...so I'm just saying. You're selling your soul to the devil if you get married...by about $150,000/year!)
So, normalizing the data to where $250,000 net worth is unity and then measuring everyone richer against that first indicator that "you've gone evil", here's the breakdown on some notable names. Please use this list any time you want to ensure you don't vote for or support by purchasing products these evil people. You can thank me later.
edit on 10-6-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Valhall
And that you argue for multiple posts that the way to fix things is just tax the crap out of someone who makes a little more than you so that...what??? Exactly what? I want to hear what you think you get out of it, other than the satisfaction their earned income gets whittled down to closer to where you are. I want to hear what you THINK you get out of it.
Let's review the economics of the "enviable"...because that's what fuels the entire democratic redistribution of wealth philosophy. Effing envy. So let's review it:
As discussed, on the targeted evil couple of 250,000 gross income combined, they are currently paying $82,500 in taxes. That leaves them $167,500. Now, they pay taxes to their state (if their state has an income tax) so you have to reduce it by that. On average the states that have income tax are around 4%, so this couple is paying in around $10,000 to state income taxes. Please note I'm not applying any deductions here...that's Romney's plan as well, to reduced deductions and exemptions which will simplify the tax code and then you can just talk on straight gross income as I'm doing.
So now this couple is around $157,500. Here's where the envy kicks in. They may live in a newer home or a larger home, anyway, let's just say a "home of greater value". Guess what? They pay more taxes. They pay more property taxes, they pay a greater chunk of local millage applying to the local school, and local improvements....damn their hides. They may drive a more expensive car...or two! Guess what, they pay higher taxes. They pay higher excise taxes and higher taxes in the form of relicensing, etc. They may have more income to take weekend road trips...guess what, they pay more taxes. They pay more gasoline taxes that go toward road improvements. They may spend more money on food. Guess what, they pay more sales tax. They may buy more expensive clothing, guess what? they pay more sales tax. They may use more electricity/natural gas in their home utilities, guess what, they pay more energy taxes and sales tax. All the while, every single one of these "enviable" transactions is a transaction where a local individual, or a local government agency, is handed funds that improve the local area or keep a local worker employed.
Instead, what the democrats want to do is take some of that money because it's just frigging evil that someone can have extra money that allows them to have a slightly better home and slightly better car and slightly better clothing. Let's hand it to someone who has never worked, never attempted work, and has no plan to work. Let's see how we're going to use that money:
Well, the administrative costs of the government doling out funds to those who don't care to be contributing partners in society can't even be ascertained, but some calculations place it at as high as 80%. So, only 20 cents of what we pay in might actually go to do the following things:
1. Pay someone else's rent
2. Pay someone else's utilities
3. Pay someone else's health care
4. Pay someone else just straight spending power for cigarettes and booze or whatever they want.
5. Pay someone else's cell phone.
6. Pay someone else's car insurance, car repairs
Now, here's the problem. Food bought with food stamps is exempt from sales tax. You just knocked the local and state economy out of sales tax revenue. You reduced the spending power of the earning couple, eliminated the sales tax of their dollars, and handed a small percentage of that "disposable income" (after you deduct administrative costs) to a person who will spend their food stamps with no associated tax revenue generation involved. Section 8 housing is usually exempt from property tax. So instead of the couple of "disposable income" being able to live in a nicer home that would generate more real estate property tax to the local and state level, the money is handed to the government, you reduce by the administrative costs, and you spend it on section 8 housing that produces no real estate property tax revenue.
According to a 1997 study done by the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) and Northeastern University, animal abusers are five times more likely to commit violent crimes against people and four times more likely to commit property crimes than are individuals without a history of animal abuse.
Read more: Abuse Connection - The Link Between Animal Cruelty and Interpersonal Violence | Pet-Abuse.Com Animal Cruelty Database www.pet-abuse.com...
A 2010 study found that 4 percent of a sample of corporate managers met a clinical threshold for being labeled psychopaths, compared with 1 percent for the population at large. (However, the sample was not representative, as the study’s authors have noted.) Another study concluded that the rich are more likely to lie, cheat and break the law.