We've been talking on another thread how Democrats preach "tax the rich and save the poor" to working class families. However I firmly believe all taxes end up hurting working class people eventually. Anyway, I digress. Just for fun, I thought I'd do a little experiment on how the Democrats help people.

Our case study today will be North Carolina, my old home. Most people assume it's a solid red state. Not so much. The local leadership is exclusively liberal (they've had a Democrat governer for 15 years straight) and on the national level, they'll be a swing state within a few elections. In 2004 Bush only won 56% there.

So I thought I'd take a look at this at sprawling Democratic utopia to see exactly how they tax the rich.

North Carolina ranks #6 in the highest state feul tax - 29 cents per gallon. Higher than any of its neighors. http://www.gaspricewatch.com/usgastaxes.asp

North Carolina imposes a 6% income tax on folks who earn less than the poverty line. Working and middle class families pay 7%, and very wealthy pay 8%. Big discrepancy there, huh?
http://dab.nfc.usda.gov/pubs/docs/taxformulas/formulas/statecitycounty/taxnc/taxnc.html

Sales tax in North Carolina hovers at 7% (including medicine, clothing, and essentials). Food is taxed at 2% with no exemption for working poor.
http://www.bankrate.com/brm/itax/edit/state/profiles/state_tax_NC.asp

North Carolina charges 3% property tax on cars and charges a fee of $70 to register a new car in the state.
http://www.ncdot.org/dmv/vehicle_services/registrationtitling/howToRegister.html



In 2005, the DNC in the state Congress forced a lottery bill through by voting when Republican tiebreakers were absent. They managed to get an exact 50/50 vote, which the lieutenant governor broke with a vote of his own, allowing the governor to sign it into law.

The new lottery was dressed up as the Education Lottery with a promise all profits would be given directly to public schools. But the general public was so furious they refused to participate and many convenience stores lured new customers by promising not to sell lottery merchandise. The lottery ended up losing money, forcing the governor to borrow funds from elsewhere to keep it afloat. The state school board was forced to go back to begging for referendums, which were soundly rejected by voters because of the lottery.

http://www.shelbystar.com/articles/tax_26554___article.html/schools_increase.html





I could go on with more horror stories but I'll stop with this.


If this is how Democrats take care of working families, I say no thanks.

I have a plan.  Let's make all these rich Democrats each adopt 5 poor families.  These 5 families could all live with them while they become educated, get themselves into positions where they can buy their own homes and businesses or can become gainfully employed.  Let these rich, bleeding heart liberals put their money where their mouths are and stop taking our money and just giving it away with no improvements in anything and no increases in anything except the number of people who are sheep looking for the handout and always voting for the "D."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Study: Democrats the party of the rich
By Donald Lambro
November 23, 2007

Democrats have made elimination of the alternative minimum tax, known as the AMT, the centerpiece of a sweeping tax-revision plan crafted by Rep. Charles B. Rangel of New York, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.
Democrats like to define themselves as the party of poor and middle-income Americans, but a new study says they now represent the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional districts.
In a state-by-state, district-by-district comparison of wealth concentrations based on Internal Revenue Service income data, Michael Franc, vice president of government relations at the Heritage Foundation, found that the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional jurisdictions were represented by Democrats.
He also found that more than half of the wealthiest households were concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats hold both Senate seats.
"If you take the wealthiest one-third of the 435 congressional districts, we found that the Democrats represent about 58 percent of those jurisdictions," Mr. Franc said.
A key measure of each district's wealth was the number of single-filer taxpayers earning more than $100,000 a year and married couples filing jointly who earn more than $200,000 annually, he said.
But in a broader measurement, the study also showed that of the 167 House districts where the median annual income was higher than the national median of $48,201, a slight majority, 84 districts, were represented by Democrats. Median means that half of all income earners make more than that level and half make less.
Mr. Franc's study also showed that contrary to the Democrats' tendency to define Republicans as the party of the rich, "the vast majoritiy of unabashed conservative House members hail from profoundly middle-class districts."
"I just found the pattern across the board to be very interesting. That pattern shows the likelihood of electing a Democrat to the House is very closely correlated with how many wealthy households are in that district," Mr. Franc said in an interview with the Washington Times.
Democrats have made elimination of the alternative minimum tax, known as the AMT, the centerpiece of a sweeping tax-revision plan crafted by Rep. Charles B. Rangel of New York, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.
Democrats like to define themselves as the party of poor and middle-income Americans, but a new study says they now represent the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional districts.
In a state-by-state, district-by-district comparison of wealth concentrations based on Internal Revenue Service income data, Michael Franc, vice president of government relations at the Heritage Foundation, found that the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional jurisdictions were represented by Democrats.
He also found that more than half of the wealthiest households were concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats hold both Senate seats.
"If you take the wealthiest one-third of the 435 congressional districts, we found that the Democrats represent about 58 percent of those jurisdictions," Mr. Franc said.
A key measure of each district's wealth was the number of single-filer taxpayers earning more than $100,000 a year and married couples filing jointly who earn more than $200,000 annually, he said.
But in a broader measurement, the study also showed that of the 167 House districts where the median annual income was higher than the national median of $48,201, a slight majority, 84 districts, were represented by Democrats. Median means that half of all income earners make more than that level and half make less.
Mr. Franc's study also showed that contrary to the Democrats' tendency to define Republicans as the party of the rich, "the vast majoritiy of unabashed conservative House members hail from profoundly middle-class districts."
"I just found the pattern across the board to be very interesting. That pattern shows the likelihood of electing a Democrat to the House is very closely correlated with how many wealthy households are in that district," Mr. Franc said in an interview with the Washington Times.

The wealthy are more likely to be Democrats.  Why?

The wealthy are more likely to have gone to College and been indoctrinated into Leftist ideology.

So, why are they more amenable to higher taxes for the rich (themselves)?

Because, on an individual basis they have the desire & ability to lessen their own tax liability based on the complex loopholes provided in the overly-complex tax code.  Exactly why they oppose a flat tax.

Is there any reason we couldn't just add a checkbox to the 1040 form and ask any liberals to double their income tax payment to the federal government?  I mean, they want to invest so we should give them the chance to do so.  Heck, make it multiple choice and allow them to add as much additional tax as they want!  Let's see how much liberals really believe in "solving" poverty with tax dollars.

paleocon wrote:Is there any reason we couldn't just add a checkbox to the 1040 form and ask any liberals to double their income tax payment to the federal government?  I mean, they want to invest so we should give them the chance to do so.  Heck, make it multiple choice and allow them to add as much additional tax as they want!  Let's see how much liberals really believe in "solving" poverty with tax dollars.

We don't even need that.  If Libs want to send $$ to the IRS at any time they want, the IRS isn't going to return the check.

Yup, I agree with this, my grandparents well now grandparent use to live in Ashville, NC on top of a mountain it was actually a beautiful home and the works, now when we went the 6 miles down the mountain (Yes 6 miles lol) we got into town and in alot of the parents it was a buncha hippies and art fetish people they were almost sexually attracted to art it was so bad there. If you were to go to ashville and yell out I SUPPORT BUSH! Then stand back, they'll knock you down with trees!

Eyas wrote:

paleocon wrote:Is there any reason we couldn't just add a checkbox to the 1040 form and ask any liberals to double their income tax payment to the federal government?  I mean, they want to invest so we should give them the chance to do so.  Heck, make it multiple choice and allow them to add as much additional tax as they want!  Let's see how much liberals really believe in "solving" poverty with tax dollars.

We don't even need that.  If Libs want to send $$ to the IRS at any time they want, the IRS isn't going to return the check.

Well, we don't see them rushing to pay more than they are obligated to do so.  What can we conclude from their reluctance to "invest in America" and "pay their fair share?"  Clearly Edwards, Clinton, and Kerry have benefited greatly from "life's lottery" yet I don't see them eager to pony up and give from their great bounty.  Odd, isn't it?  They are always interested in making others pay more but don't seem too interested in doing so themselves.