The laws passed to make sure rich people don't get away with anything might not be economically sound, but they don't actually hurt rich people.

They hurt people like you and me who are prevented by law from making the economic choices that would best take care of those people in our immediate circle. Can't give gifts that are too big. Can't trade goods for services without paying taxes on the value. Can't pool resources.

Quite so, Synova. Even with specifically-designed "taxes on the rich," the very rich can always hire some clever lawyer or accountant who can find a way around them. If they can't, they put their money in the safest possible place, which is counterproductive to the economy at large by misallocating the resources. Naturally, the lower income ranges suffer most from this loss.

But the higher income phenomenon in the "dark blue" states was also the only reason the Democratic Congress finally acted, however temporarily, to stop the Alternative Minimum Tax from ensnaring thousands of middle-class households on their 2007 taxes. AMT was designed, of course, to prevent people with what were at the time "upper" incomes from paying no income taxes through the use of deductions (which were perfectly legitimate).

It was inspired by sheer envy and resentment, the great inspiring themes of the modern Democratic Party. But, it wasn't indexed to inflation at all, so gradually the effective cut-off line fell. As "middle" incomes also rose, it was discovered that many people would have to pay extra thousands of dollars to the government because their offsetting deductions would no longer count. These folks proved disproportionately from heavily Democratic areas, which not only enjoy higher incomes than the average, but also much higher state and local taxes (which deductions they cherish almost as much their vaunted "social conscience").

Voila! It's "fixed" - at least for this tax year. At least Reid-in-the-wind and Pelousy can chalk up something accomplished in their first year . . .

If she bothered to read your posts which she'd never do unless she was looking for comedy, she'd take it for what it's worth - absolutely nothing.

Kind of the same thing as - fascists are right wing so republicans must be the party of fascism.

That's inane and stupid just as your point was. Hopefully, you're not paid to write stuff like that

JFO,

?????? Start making sense.

Great example of the law of assumption. We all what happens when you ass-(of)-u-(&)-me?

Did you forget to file this under humour? This is the most ridiculous, easily debunked, weak-headed nonsense I've seen for a while.

The total number of millionaires per state doesn't matter, it's the proportion of wealthy to poor that you should consider. Anyway, a state is probably a bit to large to consider as a whole - to get an idea of which party is favored by the rich it'd be better to go by county, or better still congressional district.

On the other hand maybe you're right. Could this be proof that progressive policies generate greater wealth than conservative ones? Raising taxes, government-funded healthcare and welfare handouts make people rich! It must be true - Jayson says so...

Please, Barney, let's leave you, me and your ass out of the discussion. It ain't gonna happen, so try to move on with life.

Any time someone professes an "inescapable" conclusion, you can bet that it's unrelated to the facts offered to support it.

I realize that Democrats bank on this notion that they represent poor people. And a whole lot of poor people believe them, too.

The Dems love poor people. That's why they try to make sure there's as many of them as possible.

Brian-

Any time someone professes an "inescapable" conclusion, you can bet that it's unrelated to the facts offered to support it.

Dude! Are you smellin' your own shorts here?

Do you get the irony or are you soooo tied up in your own grandiose logic that you can't "escape" it?

Talk about putting a pretzel hold on yourself...

The Dems love poor people. That's why they try to make sure there's as many of them as possible.

You must be reading a different post. According to Jayson, Democrats make sure there are as many millionaires as possible. Says so right up there.

Democrats make sure there are stratified caste classes.

Brian try that on for size...

Synova - "I realize that Democrats bank on this notion that they represent poor people."

Sure do, they whine and complain about the Repubs connections to Big Business" all the time.

At the same time the cozy up to what amounts to the same thing, Big Unions. Obama was just endorsed by the largest union in Nevada (Culinary Workers Union).

The nation's largest industrial trade union, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, has endoresed Shillary and the list goes on-and-on for all the Dem candidates. (Well, except Kucinich, there are no unionized space aliens)

If anyone thinks these unions are any different than "EVIL" Big Business you're a few nuts short of a full jar of Skippy.

"Democrats must be the party of the rich.
Republicans must be the party of the working classes."

What a pathetic and shallow conclusion. Especially from the "economy" guy on a day when A LOT is happening to our stocks and credit.

jp2 - "What a pathetic and shallow conclusion. Especially from the "economy" guy on a day when A LOT is happening to our stocks and credit."

And your conclusion is?

Abd in case you haven't noticed the Dow Jones Industrial Average isn't "the economy" it only tracks the top 30 companies and is hardly an indication of the econ as a whole.

The demacrats are always claiming that the GOP is the party of the rich but look how many wealthy liberal eletists belong to the demacrook party

Dude! Are you smellin' your own shorts here?
Do you get the irony or are you soooo tied up in your own grandiose logic that you can't "escape" it?
Talk about putting a pretzel hold on yourself...

I'm inferring that you somehow believe I've been caught offering my own "inescapable" conclusions. Be so kind as to provide a link to one, and your diatribe might be considered relevant.

Abd in case you haven't noticed the Dow Jones Industrial Average isn't "the economy" it only tracks the top 30 companies and is hardly an indication of the econ as a whole.

Good to know, marc! I'll look forward to your comments next time there's a post like this one or this one.

Geeze...even a long time moonbat poster like me understands when Jayson is having a little fun...

We all want it....that's we we pony up for a lotto ticket..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYBpc4_fXmM

Peeloshi is another of the greedy multi-millionaires that use slave (criminal mexicans) labor to accomulate more wealth. None of these rich athiest think they will ever die. Bad news, they will die and they won't take the money with them to the grave. Even worse, the rip off democrat controlled government they have built in these states will end up with the money. So basically they stole the money, the state will get it and more politicians will steal it. A never ending process.

Jeesh Brain, you're not even trying any longer.

Those two links made no claim to be any indicator the Dow Jones being "the economy," they just related record highs that occurred at the time.

Better luck next time.

Oh, sorry, marc, I forgot I was dealing with "if it's not clearly stated and quoted verbatim the way I expect it to be, it's too hard for me to understand".

Guess you didn't read the comments, though. Oops.

Brian - "Guess you didn't read the comments, though. Oops."

Yeah, your right, OOPS! You only linked the post not the individual comments in the thread. I've seen you link comments before, you're not that stupid. I hope.

Asswipe, you failed to try this time also.