The Republicans are the Problem

[Alceste]

Don't worry about the legality of it, just think about thousands of unemployable people who are getting more and more desperate. Then as a slap in the face cut welfare and benefits programs to boot and lets see what ends up happening.

Well, let's see. If you take away the only means of support for unemployed people who are unable to find work, what's going to happen? Skyrocketing crime rates. Obviously. Honestly, it amazes me that conservatives can't figure this stuff out.

 

[1robin]

Actually, it's more like the 10% living off of the 90%. How long do you think it will take for the millions to stop accumulating in the fat cats' banks if the people who actually do the work stopped working?

What are you talking about. Approx 45% of us pay nothing and and live on what they get from the rest of us.

Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid 71 Percent of Federal Income Taxes

Top earners are the target for new tax increases, but the federal income tax system is already highly progressive. The top 10 percent of income earners paid 71 percent of all federal income taxes in 2009 though they earned 43 percent of all income. The bottom 50 percent paid 2 percent of income taxes but earned 13 percent of total income. About half of tax filers paid no federal income tax at all. Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid 71 Percent of Federal Income Taxes

Yet you want more of their money. This is emotional class warfare and envy, it does not reflect reality. Those people are who empoly the rest of us. If you kill them and the liberals will, if left alone they will kill us as well. I guess suck the host dry and move on is the official liberal mantra these days.

 

[Shermana]

Taxes should be more "Exponential" based rather than "incremental". (Not sure if exponential is the right word I have in mind)

A person with 500,000 can take a 40% hit to their income far better than a person who makes 50,000 can take a 15% hit. It makes sense that the top 10% of earners should pay the lion's share of taxes.

I used to like the idea of a flat tax until I did some basic math. Fair tax is "fair" for a reason.

 

[1robin]

Taxes should be more "Exponential" based rather than "incremental". (Not sure if exponential is the right word I have in mind)

A person with 500,000 can take a 40% hit to their income far better than a person who makes 50,000 can take a 15% hit. It makes sense that the top 10% of earners should pay the lion's share of taxes.

I used to like the idea of a flat tax until I did some basic math. Fair tax is "fair" for a reason.

I posted in the Trinity thread so I am sure I will hear from you soon there. Taxes are in many respects incremental as they are. That is why almost half pay nothing. Many of those actually get money from the government they didn't pay in. I would agree that taxes need a large overhall. I do not know about the fair tax but some far simpler code needs to be invented. One guy that owned a painting company said he had to obey 8,600 pages of tax law out of over 80,000 pages that exist. No matter what is done soaking the rich hurts the rest of us but they do need to pay their share at least.

 

[Shermana]

. One guy that owned a painting company said he had to obey 8,600 pages of tax law out of over 80,000 pages that exist.

I'd like to see what exactly those 8,600 pages translated to. Nothing a trained Accountant doesn't handle on a daily basis, probably with relative ease.

No matter what is done soaking the rich hurts the rest of us

It can be argued that NOT soaking the rich hurts the rest of us. Prices remain high for everyone else as long as there's a class who can hoard all the resources with ease for one thing. If all the rich left, the available resources would....be more available.

 

[idav]

Let's look at the alarming figure of 46.4% will not pay Federal Income Tax. That means that 53.6% of the population is supporting all entitlements not counting Social Security or Medicare. They, the 46.4% are not supporting mandated expenses like National Defense, Federal Employee Retirement payments, and other costs. Basically 46.4% are relying on 53.6% of us to pay their "fair share" of government expenditures. I kind of like the Idaho State Income Tax. Once you have computed your tax owed or tax refund you have to add or subtract $10.00 as an additional tax. This way everyone in the State has "skin in the game".

We do need more flat rate tax so that everyone gets taxed and the more you make the more you pay. Lending the money back to the lower and middle class at the end of tax season doesn't solve the problem. It's like we are paying the lower and middle class to live above there means because the cost of living is too high. I don't see this ending well.

 

[Falvlun]

Yet you want more of their money. This is emotional class warfare and envy, it does not reflect reality. Those people are who empoly the rest of us. If you kill them and the liberals will, if left alone they will kill us as well. I guess suck the host dry and move on is the official liberal mantra these days.

my bolding
:biglaugh:
You got that right. Ignoring reality? (rich people only and alone produce wealth) Check. Emotional Class warfare? (Liberals want to kill the rich and suck us dry.) Check.

 

[Falvlun]

No, there are 4.1% of the US population receiving welfare, 48.5% of the population live in a household receiving government assistance of some kind.

Thanks for the clarification. Though it really doesn't tell us much. Actually, the number should be 100% since there's nobody who doesn't benefit from government assistance of some kind or another.

No, it says that 14.5% of the US population live in a household that someone is receiving Medicare. Nothing about who is or is not paying taxes.

I agree, that has nothing to do with anything that was in my post.

Those figures does not say if the do or do not pay income tax. It is just that 32.4% of the population receive food stamps.

Correct, I stated that 46.4% pay no FEDERAL INCOME TAX. There is a difference between Income Tax and Social Security/Medicare tax.

You missed the point. Your point, I presume, was to provide "evidence" for 1robin's statement that 90% of the country is living off of the 10%. I responded in that vein, to show why, regardless of whether those numbers are correct or not, they fail to prove that point, because even if 14% of people receive food stamps, that doesn't mean that they don't pay taxes in some way or another, or else sustaining themeselves in other ways. If they pay taxes, then they are a part of the people who are helping sustain themselves. If they earn money, then they are part of the people who are helping to sustain themselves.

Are you saying that the figure of 46.4% is incorrect? I suggest you look at the following: Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

No, I am saying that your opinion of what that number means is false.

What the blank has this to do with my post. How do you think Steve Jobs, Scott McNealy, Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Howard Hughes, Henry Ford, George Vanderbilt and others made their fortunes? I would suspect if was by hard work and dedication to a goal.

Again, that was in relation to the thread. Your post had a context, you know; they don't exist all by themselves.

I don't deny that those entrepreneurs worked hard. I deny that they did it all by themselves. They relied upon workers to build their dreams and government infrastructure to make marketable.

And you also act like every single rich person was a brilliant entrepreneur. I find it far more likely that the majority of the super rich simply inherited their millions from daddy, or else started out richer than average and was able to effectively invest (investment rapidly snowballs a person's wealth, but only if you have a lot to put in in the first place).

 

[no-body]

Whatever Reagan did when he created 12 million jobs would be a good core to start from. Lower - not eliminate regulations, lower corporate taxes (we are currently the worst in world history), bust unions that are sucking companies dry making $40 an hour to change light bulbs. Bring in the pipe line from Canada, open up off shore drilling again, access known oil reserves in the Dakotas and quit funding middle easter religious tyrants. That is a start. Oh and undue everything Obama has done. Or at least most we can keep Bin Laden dead.

How about instead of lowering corporate taxes we tax companies that go overseas and use outsourcing like the treacherous swine they are?

But no, the rich our are superior masters and we should bend over backwards for them because they are the "job creators" it's totally fair that someone like Romney pays only 14% in taxes (and that's with inflating it for show) while many middle class people pay much more than that.

One day we too can scrimp and save (or just be lucky enough to be born or marry into it) to be superior and screw over our fellow man. Who needs unions? The rich know exactly what we need, if they didn't they wouldn't be rich.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

How about instead of lowering corporate taxes we tax companies that go overseas and use outsourcing like the treacherous swine they are?

But no, the rich our are superior masters and we should bend over backwards for them because they are the "job creators" it's totally fair that someone like Romney pays only 14% in taxes (and that's with inflating it for show) while many middle class people pay much more than that.

One day we too can scrimp and save (or just be lucky enough to be born or marry into it) to be superior and screw over our fellow man. Who needs unions? The rich know exactly what we need, if they didn't they wouldn't be rich.

.....:clap......

 

[Revoltingest]

How about instead of lowering corporate taxes we tax companies that go overseas and use outsourcing like the treacherous swine they are?

This makes me think of a guy I know who owns a large furniture manufacturing company. He faced competition from importers which
was so severe that it was either outsource or go out of business. To see him called "treacherous swine" without understanding his
circumstances or recognizing the good he does reflects the low state of political discourse these days. It seems all name calling &
hatred, with no understanding of the other side.

 

[Awoon]

This makes me think of a guy I know who owns a large furniture manufacturing company. He faced competition from importers which
was so severe that it was either outsource or go out of business. To see him called "treacherous swine" without understanding his
circumstances or recognizing the good he does reflects the low state of political discourse these days. It seems all name calling &
hatred, with no understanding of the other side.

I understand. Cheapskate Anti-American consumers ran him out.

 

[Revoltingest]

I understand. Cheapskate Anti-American consumers ran him out.

Yeah, it's odd....I know so many who worked in the auto industry who'd
chant "Buy American!", but they'd get their tools a Harbor Freight.

 

[Shermana]

I'm actually all for slashing Corporate taxes, they really are rather paltry in terms of revenue, yet they are somewhat crippling to the small-to-medium business. It should at least be fanned out better to hit the bigger players more than others.

 

[1robin]

I'd like to see what exactly those 8,600 pages translated to. Nothing a trained Accountant doesn't handle on a daily basis, probably with relative ease.

Are you defending the current tax code? The same guy said he had several thousand pages of EPA bs he had to contend with. He said he was fined $30,000 dollars for using the wrong trash bags. He also said the next fault they find it would be $250,000 He said he has had to turn down many jobs on old houses because the codes were so complex he could not run the risk and loose his house and buisness because he used latex instead of something else.

It can be argued that NOT soaking the rich hurts the rest of us. Prices remain high for everyone else as long as there's a class who can hoard all the resources with ease for one thing. If all the rich left, the available resources would....be more available.

If any one left the resources would be more available. So? However if the rich left the jobs would leave as well. When the unions and corporate taxes make them leave now we do not party because more resources are available we yell becauuse unemployement went up, that or blame Bush.

 

[1robin]

How about instead of lowering corporate taxes we tax companies that go overseas and use outsourcing like the treacherous swine they are?

That's typical. If you can't keep them here so you can steal their money then tax them even more. Eliminate another freedom so you get more money to spend on whatever gets you elected. Not to mention they do not want to go overseas anyway. It's expensive and causes many problems. They are forced to because liberals tax them into insolvency, and the unions suck them dry.

But no, the rich our are superior masters and we should bend over backwards for them because they are the "job creators" it's totally fair that someone like Romney pays only 14% in taxes (and that's with inflating it for show) while many middle class people pay much more than that.

You libs have a very shallow understanding of things. The money he paid 14% on was previously taxed at a higher rate. He gave more to charity voluntarily than Obama is worth. Biden gave a few hundred dollars. Gates gave enough to immunize the entire world. You would instead take that money and spend it to bribe senators to pass a health care plan that we do not even have yet but has taken 750 billion that was stolen out of Medi-care. Not only that but then turn around and say Ryan is actually the one that is threatening Medicare by viciously saving it from the liberals. Some people just hate people with more than them and will make up anything to justify theft. There is no more generous a person with money than a liberal, as long as it is someone else’s money.

 

[1robin]

my bolding
:biglaugh:
You got that right. Ignoring reality? (rich people only and alone produce wealth) Check. Emotional Class warfare? (Liberals want to kill the rich and suck us dry.) Check.

I have no idea what you are trying so hard to say.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'd like to see what exactly those 8,600 pages translated to. Nothing a trained Accountant doesn't handle on a daily basis, probably with relative ease.

Ease? Every year, I have situations which require my CPA to do research. The code is so complex that there is no absolute right or wrong,
but rather there is a continuum wherein various strategies are just more or less likely to survive an audit. And the auditors aren't as
familiar as they could be. I been dere & dun dat!

 

[Alceste]

I have no idea what you are trying so hard to say.

He's saying that calling criticism of a regressive tax system where the richest of the rich pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than the middle class "envy" or "hate" (IOW, an appeal to emotion) is itself an appeal to emotion.

And it's really, really silly. Whoever chooses to spout this particular conservative talking point immediately brands himself or herself as an ignorant fool who is totally disinterested in understanding the criticism.

 

[1robin]

He's saying that calling criticism of a regressive tax system where the richest of the rich pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than the middle class "envy" or "hate" (IOW, an appeal to emotion) is itself an appeal to emotion.

And it's really, really silly. Whoever chooses to spout this particular conservative talking point immediately brands himself or herself as an ignorant fool who is totally disinterested in understanding the criticism.

Please feel free to say what you wish. Don't hold back ouit of politeness.

You will have to show me where the rich are required to pay less than any other group. In Romney's case the 15% he paid last year is on money that had already been taxed at a higher rate previously. It is more of a matter of having enough money to pay teams of people to find all loop holes possible. That is not a function of the tax rate rather a fault of the endless tax code we have. It is also justified to pay someone to try and shave of 1% of a billion dollars. It does not make sence to pay someone $1000 dollars to shave $300 dollars off a middle income. They are incidentals. I think all this comes from the rate on investment income and is simply extrapolated at will to every things else to justify class envy. It is not a stretch to say that emotional rhetoric and bitter sarcasm, with a missused fact here and there is not an evidenced based argument.