English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

It sure seems so and the Dems seem happy to comply with the "donations" from the rich.

"During the 2005-2006 election cycle, Schumer helped Democrats raise $385,400 from private equity managers, far more than they gave to Republicans."

Schumer isn't going to raise taxes on the rich people who are helping Dems get elected! Right?

2007-12-28 13:12:22 · 7 answers · asked by Duminos 2 in Politics & Government Politics

".....Senate Democrats fundraising arm - is leading the charge AGAINST making private equity executives pay their fair share of taxes."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/when-privateequity-barba_b_76802.html

2007-12-28 13:13:04 · update #1

"CNN notes, Senate Democrats are likely to reject even that modest proposal (of raising taxes on the rich), in favor of simply adding $50 billion to the national debt and ultimately forcing the next generation to pay higher taxes."

2007-12-28 13:14:16 · update #2

7 answers

No. The congressional democrats just realized that they are the rich.

2007-12-28 13:25:58 · answer #1 · answered by DOOM 7 · 0 0

So the place are you attempting to pass with this? Do you think of Fuld might desire to pay greater suitable than $36M. in taxes? it form of sounds like lots to me already. Do you think of he shouldn't gets a commission to bankrupt a company? I agree. shame on the those that paid him, yet whilst somebody paid me $200M. to make a mistake, i might funds the examine and pay my taxes too. Are you advocating the re-distribution of wealth? In my e book, it extremely is stealing private components no count the way you accomplish it. Are you advocating a flat tax? that would desire to pass away the wealthy with decrease taxes and not resolve the worry-loose situation, that's that the government spends too lots money. i assume my element is that i've got not got a situation with human beings being wealthy, as long as they got here by utilizing their wealth actually.

2016-10-09 08:23:18 · answer #2 · answered by herzog 4 · 0 0

This sort of thing is why I believe that campaign finance reform is the single most important issue in politics. Until we have publicly funded elections, politicians have no choice but to pander to the rich. In the meantime, vote for candidates who receive less corporate money. That means whatever you do, don't vote for Hillary.

2007-12-28 13:29:07 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

top 5 % of the rich pay out about 85% in taxes
The next 15% pay about 65%
Then the middle class and so on and so on.
I doubt the Democrats have that in mind,their more into spreading the wealth,no matter who made it,to them it is a crime to be rich or prosperous.

2007-12-28 13:17:11 · answer #4 · answered by stygianwolfe 7 · 0 2

AGAIN..........We cannot do anything with a do nothing Republican Congress blocking our every move. Soon, Friends, Soon.
Hey Sty...your #'s are WAY off, but let's do it this way. If you make 30,000 a year, would you be okay if the Government took 50% and left you 15000? Now let go further. If someone makes 50,000,000 a year, do you think they would have a problem if the government left them 25,000,000. I don't think that's much of a hardship.

2007-12-28 13:16:08 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2 3

This question is so stupid it can not be taken seriously by any person with a brain that functions.

2007-12-28 13:38:24 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Well.. If that's true.. Which it's probably not..

At least they HAVE to be bribed.. hahaha.. Reps want to do that automatically.. It's part of their platform...

2007-12-28 13:21:10 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

fedest.com, questions and answers