Rick Perry: 'I Don't Care' If Tax Plan Helps the Rich

[WinkyDink]

Simpsonville, S.C. — Texas Gov. Rick Perry, seeking to jump-start his GOP presidential campaign with a 20 percent flat tax, said “I don’t care” if his plan gives millions to wealthy Americans because he says it will accelerate economic growth......

"I don't care about that," the governor replied. "What I care about is them having the dollars to invest in their companies, to go out and maybe start a business because they got the confidence again 'cause they actually get to keep more of what they work for.

“Those that want to get into the class warfare and talk about, oh my goodness, there are going to be some folks here who make more money out of this, or have access to more money, I'll let them do that.”
http://www.cnbc.com/id/45030263

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We know you don't care, Rick; we know.

[kentauros]

1. EHF: I don't care if Rick Parry crashes and burns

and all that before any real primaries :D

[HughBeaumont]

2. Keep Digging, Stupid.

Anyone who thinks America's Wealthy are somehow inconvenienced or suffering in any way under the current system needs to be put in a rubber room, not made President.

[madokie]

3. You know I thought that no one and I mean no one could be more clueless than W

but this sob is clearly there and stupid as a pair of cowboy boots to boot.
No offense meant toward cowboys either ok

[hifiguy]

9. It boggles the mind, doesn't it?

Ten years ago it seemed impossible we could ever see someone dumber than the Little Chimp run for the presidency and now being MUCH dumber is the threshold requirement for the 'pukes. If brains were gasoline, Perry, Bachmann, Cain and Santorum couldn't supply enough to get a gnat's motorcycle half way around a BB.

[warrior1]

4. toast

[City Lights]

5. Making an ass of himself again, I see. eom

[Scuba]

6. Yeah, if only the wealthy had any cash. That's it.

[LiberalFighter]

7. That doesn't make sense

If they "invest" in their companies or start a business they won't be keeping more of their money. They will be giving it to their company.

And what about the tax cuts that have been on the books for almost 10 years? What the hell did they do with all that extra money they didn't have to pay in taxes?

[True Earthling]

10. No - they're not "giving" their money. The money is converted to shares of the corporation.

They still retain ownership of the capital... just in a different form.

[sinkingfeeling]

8. Why is it that 'owners' should get to keep more of what they work for and not others?

[SammyWinstonJack]

11. +1

:thumbsup:

[True Earthling]

13. If an owner owns 100% of his company by risking and investing his life savings

to start a company... how much compensation do you think he deserves. If the company makes a profit, how much of the profit should be his and how much of the profit do his co-workers deserve over and above their wages?

[Zoeisright]

14. An owner of a corporation isn't going to get ANYWHERE without workers.

His workers should NOT have to collect food stamps, should be able to afford good health care, a decent house, and a decent standard of living. His employees should be paid a living wage and share in the corporation's profits.

It's not rocket science. It's called decency.

[sinkingfeeling]

16. If he's the 100% owner and the only employee, he gets to keep 100% of the profit and pay 100% of the

taxes due, based on how much that profit is. I'm for a progressive tax structure.

[True Earthling]

21. What if an owner has 10 employees...

He can still keep 100% of the profits and must pay the corporate tax rate or pay taxes based on his personal tax rate if the corporation is a sub-chapter S. Most small businesses are Sub-S which is a progressive rate.

[hfojvt]

12. oh he does too care - the big liar

His tax plan is deliberately designed to give more money to the rich. It was invented for that exact purpose. But like a good con man, he is trying to sell his magix beans to the non-rich, as something that will create prosperity for all.

And why not, the public bought the trickle down theory in 1980 and 1984 and 1988, and then again in 2000 and 2004, at least enough did to squeak out a stolen win. And even in 1992 and 2008 both Clinton and Obama promised tax cuts for the majority of voters. And Obama's stated plans helped the rich much more than they help the bottom 80%. Not as much as McCain's plans would have helped the rich, but since Obama didn't really fight for his own plan, we sorta ended up with McCain's plan - the Bush tax cuts got extended.

So the American voter does have a history of voting for tax cuts for the rich, over and over and over again.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

15. No, I think on this one he's making sense, actually.

I don't care if a tax plan helps the rich - in fact, I think making the rich richer is an actively good thing, in itself.

What's important is whether or not the plan also helps the poor. The argument against the flat tax is *not* that it will make the rich richer - Perry is quite right not to care about that - but that it will either reduce the amount of money the government has to spend on things like education and social security, or increase the tax burden on the poor and/or middle class, or both.

But he's quite right that making the rich richer is not, in itself, a bad thing, and I think the people taking issues with that are playing right into his hands.

[Rex]

17. There he goes again, that fucking socialist! Giving away govt. money

what a commie pinko!

[ellisonz]

18. He also doesn't care about polar bears...

[blkmusclmachine]

19. Absolutely clueless, or paid hack.

Maybe both?

[sarcasmo]

20. He told the truth for once.