The Rich Don't Pay Enough?!

[Steelplate]

Correct.



Such programs are not to be found in the enumerated powers of the Constitution. If your state feels the need to create an entitlement mentality, do it with your money.



According to the latest Census data, 96 percent of poor parents responded that their children had never been hungry during the previous year due to a lack of food resources. Only 4 percent of poor parents responded that their children had been hungry at some point in the year.



Who was it that moved Social Security into the general fund and then spent all the money? Besides, if SS is not an entitlement like you lefties claim, you shouldn't have to tax anyone else to get the money you put into it.



Perhaps so. As a Libertarian, I believe we could do with less military intervention. This does NOT mean you should get handouts at the expense of others.

You moron....

Ah yes, another brilliant retort from the left we've come to know and love...



And with such a low number (4% of those consider below the poverty level), real charity could easily supplement their nutritional needs. Real charity, not the kind that involves theft.



And that extra money you get beyond what you've put in, where does that come from? Oh yes, it's stolen from other citizens. When government takes from some to give to others, it damn well is an entitlement.



I want the choice to opt out. If you want to depend on the government to keep your retirement money, fine, but stop forcing others into your Ponzi schemes.

grandfather it to the point where people can spend their lives paying into something else. Don't fuck people over.

Not sure what you're trying to say here.

Same with Medicare

The average person on Medicare takes out THREE TIMES what they pay in. But that's not an entitlement either...

once again....real slow this time....Did you ever consider that the 96% number of poor people without hunger issues is that high BECAUSE OF PROGRAMS LIKE FOOD STAMPS? You do away with them and that number plummets.

Now....onto the next part of your lack of reading comprehension....

What I was saying is that if you want to do away with SS and Medicare, do it so that older folks who are still working don't get fucked. Decide on a fair cutoff age....say 35 or 40....those older than that age will keep their SS benefits as is....those younger than that can decide what to do.

The idea of making the cutoff at 55, like Ryan's proposal fucks over a lot of people who didn't have the time to prepare for higher out of pocket costs.

 

[daveman]

So could you please tell us which of the assumptions in the "fiscal cliff" CBO report were given by politicians?

Thanks.

Since the CBO doesn't generate any raw data they analyze -- all of them were given by politicians.

Can you please be more specific? What data was given by which politician?

Thank you.

Since the conclusion of the report was "ZOMG we're gonna go back to the Dark Ages if we don't take money away from rich people!!!", I'd say the data was provided by Democrats in the White House.

 

[8537]

Bullshit. The CBO takes the ASSUMPTIONS given them by politicians. They're nothing but a calculator. No one, I mean NO ONE, can state with certainty which way revenues would go if tax rates rose for all, which is what would happen if the current tax rates expire. We might see more revenue but on the other hand, the economy could tank even worse and we might see less revenue. You cannot state what would happen to revenue following changes in tax rates with certainty.

So could you please tell us which of the assumptions in the "fiscal cliff" CBO report were given by politicians?

Thanks.

Since the CBO doesn't generate any raw data they analyze -- all of them were given by politicians.

Whatever does that mean? CBO doesn't "generate any raw data"? Huh?

 

[eflatminor]

Thats odd. Congressional Budget Office (.gov) says that these tax cuts for the wealthy will only increase the deficit and hurt this economy even more.

If we let Bush era tax cuts expire, our deficit would be reduced by hundreds of billions of dollars.

Congressional Budget Office warns recession looming if Congress doesn't act on "fiscal cliff" - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Bullshit. The CBO takes the ASSUMPTIONS given them by politicians. They're nothing but a calculator. No one, I mean NO ONE, can state with certainty which way revenues would go if tax rates rose for all, which is what would happen if the current tax rates expire. We might see more revenue but on the other hand, the economy could tank even worse and we might see less revenue. You cannot state what would happen to revenue following changes in tax rates with certainty.

So could you please tell us which of the assumptions in the "fiscal cliff" CBO report were given by politicians?

Thanks.

In the context of this discussion, the assumption that revenue will increase following an increase of tax rates. Obviously...

 

[daveman]

So could you please tell us which of the assumptions in the "fiscal cliff" CBO report were given by politicians?

Thanks.

Since the CBO doesn't generate any raw data they analyze -- all of them were given by politicians.

Whatever does that mean? CBO doesn't "generate any raw data"? Huh?

CBO | our processes

where do you get your information?

CBO relies on the rich data sources from the government’s statistical agencies. Those sources include the national income and product accounts, the census of manufacturers, the Statistics of Income database, the Current Population Survey, and various national health surveys. CBO also uses information provided by relevant government agencies and industry groups to meet specific needs. In addition, the agency seeks outside experts’ advice on specific analytic matters, such as the outlook for agricultural production, spending projections for Medicare and Medicaid, and business prospects in the telecommunications industry.​

 

[8537]

Since the CBO doesn't generate any raw data they analyze -- all of them were given by politicians.

Whatever does that mean? CBO doesn't "generate any raw data"? Huh?

CBO | our processes

where do you get your information?

CBO relies on the rich data sources from the government’s statistical agencies. Those sources include the national income and product accounts, the census of manufacturers, the Statistics of Income database, the Current Population Survey, and various national health surveys. CBO also uses information provided by relevant government agencies and industry groups to meet specific needs. In addition, the agency seeks outside experts’ advice on specific analytic matters, such as the outlook for agricultural production, spending projections for Medicare and Medicaid, and business prospects in the telecommunications industry.​

I know! Why in the heck would you expect them to create primary data? They use the nonpartisan data generated by dozens of other government agencies.

The data is not "given to them" by politicians.

If you're going to shrink government small enough to fit into a tub, you really need to avoid duplicating efforts.

 

[eflatminor]

You moron....

Ah yes, another brilliant retort from the left we've come to know and love...



And with such a low number (4% of those consider below the poverty level), real charity could easily supplement their nutritional needs. Real charity, not the kind that involves theft.



And that extra money you get beyond what you've put in, where does that come from? Oh yes, it's stolen from other citizens. When government takes from some to give to others, it damn well is an entitlement.



I want the choice to opt out. If you want to depend on the government to keep your retirement money, fine, but stop forcing others into your Ponzi schemes.



Not sure what you're trying to say here.

Same with Medicare

The average person on Medicare takes out THREE TIMES what they pay in. But that's not an entitlement either...

once again....real slow this time....Did you ever consider that the 96% number of poor people without hunger issues is that high BECAUSE OF PROGRAMS LIKE FOOD STAMPS? You do away with them and that number plummets.

I disagree. The number is that high because this country still maintains a modicum of the best welfare program of all, a job. It is the success of American capitalism that keep everyone fed. Besides, we have far more people on food stamps than are truly in danger of going hungry, FAR more. Take food stamps away and America's poor might have fewer television, cell phones and the latest Nike sneakers, but nobody's starving. For the very few folks that are truly incapable of meeting the most basic of needs and that have no family or friends to lend a hand, American charity has long proved capable of responding. Again, real charity.

Now....onto the next part of your lack of reading comprehension....

We understand the Left is incapable of debate without ad hominem attacks. Thank you for demonstrating that once again...

What I was saying is that if you want to do away with SS and Medicare, do it so that older folks who are still working don't get fucked. Decide on a fair cutoff age....say 35 or 40....those older than that age will keep their SS benefits as is....those younger than that can decide what to do.

The idea of making the cutoff at 55, like Ryan's proposal fucks over a lot of people who didn't have the time to prepare for higher out of pocket costs.

Interesting. I'd say that depends. A 54 year old has plenty of time to plan for retirement, unless we're expecting to retire Greece-style at 61. That said, I'm impressed you're open to the idea. Rep coming your way...

 

[daveman]

Whatever does that mean? CBO doesn't "generate any raw data"? Huh?

CBO | our processes

where do you get your information?

CBO relies on the rich data sources from the government’s statistical agencies. Those sources include the national income and product accounts, the census of manufacturers, the Statistics of Income database, the Current Population Survey, and various national health surveys. CBO also uses information provided by relevant government agencies and industry groups to meet specific needs. In addition, the agency seeks outside experts’ advice on specific analytic matters, such as the outlook for agricultural production, spending projections for Medicare and Medicaid, and business prospects in the telecommunications industry.​

I know! Why in the heck would you expect them to create primary data? They use the nonpartisan data generated by dozens of other government agencies.

The data is not "given to them" by politicians.

If you're going to shrink government small enough to fit into a tub, you really need to avoid duplicating efforts.

Yes the data is given to them by politicians. Where do you think it comes from when they're asked to analyze the results of taxation or spending plans?

 

[initforme]

Well if most of the wealth is controlled by a few at the top then they should prepare to pay more. Common sense. Does anyone actually believe we need to understand the Plight of the rich? Hilarious.

 

[8537]

CBO | our processes

where do you get your information?

CBO relies on the rich data sources from the government’s statistical agencies. Those sources include the national income and product accounts, the census of manufacturers, the Statistics of Income database, the Current Population Survey, and various national health surveys. CBO also uses information provided by relevant government agencies and industry groups to meet specific needs. In addition, the agency seeks outside experts’ advice on specific analytic matters, such as the outlook for agricultural production, spending projections for Medicare and Medicaid, and business prospects in the telecommunications industry.​

I know! Why in the heck would you expect them to create primary data? They use the nonpartisan data generated by dozens of other government agencies.

The data is not "given to them" by politicians.

If you're going to shrink government small enough to fit into a tub, you really need to avoid duplicating efforts.

Yes the data is given to them by politicians.

It's provided to them by the relevant federal agencies.

Where do you think it comes from when they're asked to analyze the results of taxation or spending plans?

If they are asked to analyze the impact of an increase in reimbursement rates from Doctors, they get the information from CMMS. If they are asked to analyze the impact of a 10% increase in the top marginal rate they probably get data from the BEA, SOI data etc...

They don't get data from politicians

 

[daveman]

I know! Why in the heck would you expect them to create primary data? They use the nonpartisan data generated by dozens of other government agencies.

The data is not "given to them" by politicians.

If you're going to shrink government small enough to fit into a tub, you really need to avoid duplicating efforts.

Yes the data is given to them by politicians.

It's provided to them by the relevant federal agencies.

Where do you think it comes from when they're asked to analyze the results of taxation or spending plans?

If they are asked to analyze the impact of an increase in reimbursement rates from Doctors, they get the information from CMMS. If they are asked to analyze the impact of a 10% increase in the top marginal rate they probably get data from the BEA, SOI data etc...

They don't get data from politicians

Uh huh.

The agency produces several statutory reports needed for the budget process. In addition, CBO is required by law to produce a cost estimate for every bill that is reported by a full committee of either House of Congress. The only exception to this rule is for appropriation bills, which do not receive a formal cost estimate. We sometimes produce cost estimates at other stages of the legislative process if requested to do so by a relevant committee or by the Congressional leadership.​

Where do they get the numbers to estimate costs for bills?

 

[eflatminor]

Well if most of the wealth is controlled by a few at the top then they should prepare to pay more. Common sense.

And they do. Big picture, we basically have 20% of American's footing the government bill for the other 80%. In addition, we have THE MOST PROGRESSIVE tax structure in the western world. That is, our rich "pay more" than in any other nation, including the Left's beloved Scandinavian countries. But we understand, for the Liberal Dem, it's NEVER enough.

Does anyone actually believe we need to understand the Plight of the rich?

Who is suggesting this? Sounds like a non sequitur to me.

 

[Some Guy]

2 things, plain and simple, that both parties should be able to agree on.

1. Taxes aren't the real problem, spending is. Don't know any hard numbers but you could tax the top 10% at 100% and still barely close the current deficit. That's ludicrous.

2. Simplify the tax code and eliminate tax loopholes. Make things simple, straight forward and unavoidable so no one: poor, middle class or rich can get away from taxes. That would make things a lot easier on small business as well.

 

[daveman]

2 things, plain and simple, that both parties should be able to agree on.

1. Taxes aren't the real problem, spending is. Don't know any hard numbers but you could tax the top 10% at 100% and still barely close the current deficit. That's ludicrous.

2. Simplify the tax code and eliminate tax loopholes. Make things simple, straight forward and unavoidable so no one: poor, middle class or rich can get away from taxes. That would make things a lot easier on small business as well.

I've been reassured by the left that this attitude is racist.

 

[eflatminor]

2 things, plain and simple, that both parties should be able to agree on.

1. Taxes aren't the real problem, spending is.

Yep. In fiscal year 2011, the federal government spent $3.6 trillion. Of that, $1.3 trillion was financed by borrowing. This deficit will ultimately be paid for by future taxpayers.

After years of this shit, we're about to hit $16 trillion of debt. Spending is clearly the issue.

Don't know any hard numbers but you could tax the top 10% at 100% and still barely close the current deficit. That's ludicrous.

Careful, there are some around here that would like that idea...

Simplify the tax code and eliminate tax loopholes.

Hell yes.

 

[8537]

Yes the data is given to them by politicians.

It's provided to them by the relevant federal agencies.

Where do you think it comes from when they're asked to analyze the results of taxation or spending plans?

If they are asked to analyze the impact of an increase in reimbursement rates from Doctors, they get the information from CMMS. If they are asked to analyze the impact of a 10% increase in the top marginal rate they probably get data from the BEA, SOI data etc...

They don't get data from politicians

Uh huh.

The agency produces several statutory reports needed for the budget process. In addition, CBO is required by law to produce a cost estimate for every bill that is reported by a full committee of either House of Congress. The only exception to this rule is for appropriation bills, which do not receive a formal cost estimate. We sometimes produce cost estimates at other stages of the legislative process if requested to do so by a relevant committee or by the Congressional leadership.​

Where do they get the numbers to estimate costs for bills?

From the BEA, CMMS etc...

 

[daveman]

It's provided to them by the relevant federal agencies.



If they are asked to analyze the impact of an increase in reimbursement rates from Doctors, they get the information from CMMS. If they are asked to analyze the impact of a 10% increase in the top marginal rate they probably get data from the BEA, SOI data etc...

They don't get data from politicians

Uh huh.

The agency produces several statutory reports needed for the budget process. In addition, CBO is required by law to produce a cost estimate for every bill that is reported by a full committee of either House of Congress. The only exception to this rule is for appropriation bills, which do not receive a formal cost estimate. We sometimes produce cost estimates at other stages of the legislative process if requested to do so by a relevant committee or by the Congressional leadership.​

Where do they get the numbers to estimate costs for bills?

From the BEA, CMMS etc...

"CBO is required by law to produce a cost estimate for every bill that is reported by a full committee of either House of Congress."

Those numbers come from Congress.

 

[8537]

Uh huh.

The agency produces several statutory reports needed for the budget process. In addition, CBO is required by law to produce a cost estimate for every bill that is reported by a full committee of either House of Congress. The only exception to this rule is for appropriation bills, which do not receive a formal cost estimate. We sometimes produce cost estimates at other stages of the legislative process if requested to do so by a relevant committee or by the Congressional leadership.​

Where do they get the numbers to estimate costs for bills?

From the BEA, CMMS etc...

"CBO is required by law to produce a cost estimate for every bill that is reported by a full committee of either House of Congress."

Those numbers come from Congress.

No, the bill comes from Congress. The data comes from relevant agencies.

 

[edthecynic]

Well if most of the wealth is controlled by a few at the top then they should prepare to pay more. Common sense.

And they do. Big picture, we basically have 20% of American's footing the government bill for the other 80%. In addition, we have THE MOST PROGRESSIVE tax structure in the western world. That is, our rich "pay more" than in any other nation, including the Left's beloved Scandinavian countries. But we understand, for the Liberal Dem, it's NEVER enough.

Does anyone actually believe we need to understand the Plight of the rich?

Who is suggesting this? Sounds like a non sequitur to me.

No we have 20% of WAGE EARNERS who foot the bill, the truly wealthy do not work for wages and pay little or no income taxes. Even your Messiahrushie admitted it in a moment of weekness.

August 7, 2007
CALLER: And, you know, and the way our tax system works, we have an overly complex system, which in and of itself is a problem, but the way our tax system works and the way the tax laws are written, it's based on a few kind of like hinge numbers like adjusted gross income and taxable income, and while the soak the rich -- or however you choose to describe it -- really doesn't come down that way. It really comes down to much lower income levels.

RUSH: It does, exactly, and here's the dirty little secret if you ever to pull it off. It's hard. This is why most people don't understand the tax-the-rich business. You've got to structure your life so you have no "earned" income. I'm out of time. I'll explain that. There's a category called earned income versus other kinds of income. Earned income is what the income tax rate is on. That's how "the rich" do it. They don't have "earned" income.
END TRANSCRIPT

The Truth About Taxes
August 6, 2007
RUSH: I've told you before: the income tax is designed to keep people like his [Buffett's] secretary from becoming wealthy! There is no "wealth" tax. So this is a big misnomer. ...
But there's no tax on wealth. There is a tax on income, and the tax on income is designed to keep everybody who is not wealthy from getting there.
I'm talking about genuine wealth, not the way Democrats define "rich."

 

[eflatminor]

Well if most of the wealth is controlled by a few at the top then they should prepare to pay more. Common sense.

And they do. Big picture, we basically have 20% of American's footing the government bill for the other 80%. In addition, we have THE MOST PROGRESSIVE tax structure in the western world. That is, our rich "pay more" than in any other nation, including the Left's beloved Scandinavian countries. But we understand, for the Liberal Dem, it's NEVER enough.

Does anyone actually believe we need to understand the Plight of the rich?

Who is suggesting this? Sounds like a non sequitur to me.

No we have 20% of WAGE EARNERS who foot the bill, the truly wealthy do not work for wages and pay little or no income taxes.

Regardless of where the earnings of the wealthy come from (income or capital gains), it does not change the fact that they pay the majority of the taxes used to run government. The cap gains rate may be lower than high wage income rates, but it still produces massive tax revenues. Sorry, you can't wiggle your way out of this one. Hell, many countries have NO capital gains tax. We have the most progressive tax structure in the world, no matter how you cut it. Fact.