Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So you are admitting the GOP hate radio mantra has been a lie all these years!Only by CON$ervative "Fuzzy Math."
Again you expose the lack of reading comprehension by CON$! I didn't make the claim, it was one of your fellow CON$ parroting the CON$ervative hate radio mantra.
I merely pointed out that WAGE EARNERS are not the truly wealthy.
Your big bold letters suggest you were trying to point out that the wage earners are paying the bulk of the tax bill. Which is simply not so.
Thank You.
December 18, 2007
RUSH: Before the Bush tax cuts, the top 1% of wage earners paid 37% of all income tax revenue. Now, after the Bush tax cuts, the top 1% are paying 39% of a total income tax bite. That's a 2% increase in the share of total taxes paid by the rich, the top 1%, since the Bush tax cuts went into effect. By the same token, before the Bush tax cuts, the top 5% paid 56% of all income tax revenue. Now the top 5% are paying 60%, after the Bush tax cuts.
Total lie.Right...And prior to WWI, there was also no income tax.
I assure you, the relationship between a graduated income tax and central economic planning is direct.
Dude, economic structures put in place in response to the Great Depression (including the new markets created by discoveries made during R&D by wartime scientists and researchers) brought many out of poverty and created the middle class.
Much of that same middle class became quite conservative once their economic and social security became old hat, when they decided their "place" was becoming too crowded / close for comfort, and when poverty became racialized by government and the mass media.
Not only did Hoover's and FDR's foolish and economically ignorant programs not get us out of the depression, they in fact created a double-dip depression.
Go peddle your Keynesian central planner propaganda to the willing and blissfully ignorant.
Now you are just playing dumb. Wage earners are not the "rich." You are trying to pass off upper middle class wage earners, the people actually paying the bulk of income taxes, as "rich." The truly "rich" do not work for the common wage. They accumulate WEALTH not WAGES. Wealth is not taxed, even a CON$ervative extremist like Stuttering LimpTard admits the "rich" don't pay taxes.So you are admitting the GOP hate radio mantra has been a lie all these years!Your big bold letters suggest you were trying to point out that the wage earners are paying the bulk of the tax bill. Which is simply not so.
Thank You.
December 18, 2007
RUSH: Before the Bush tax cuts, the top 1% of wage earners paid 37% of all income tax revenue. Now, after the Bush tax cuts, the top 1% are paying 39% of a total income tax bite. That's a 2% increase in the share of total taxes paid by the rich, the top 1%, since the Bush tax cuts went into effect. By the same token, before the Bush tax cuts, the top 5% paid 56% of all income tax revenue. Now the top 5% are paying 60%, after the Bush tax cuts.
Depends on what you're accussing them of saying and whether it's accurate.
Bump that to top 10% of income earners and that turns into about 80% of total income tax revenue. You see it's the math again that makes your consternation of the rich not paying enough so perplexing. Should the top 10% be contributing even more of the income tax revenue? How much is enough? 90%? 100%?
Taxation has nothing to do with CENTRAL PLANNING.
Per usual you folks are confusing yourselves because you don't really know what you're talking about.
Read a book!
How would one fund central planning without taxation?
Red herring.Taxation has nothing to do with CENTRAL PLANNING.
Per usual you folks are confusing yourselves because you don't really know what you're talking about.
Read a book!
How would one fund central planning without taxation?
Central planning is the boogieman now?
Okay sport what is the PENTAGON for?
Decentralized planning?
Seriously boys, stop using terms that you don't understand.
Here's a hint, Rush and Glen don't know what they mean either.
Now you are just playing dumb. Wage earners are not the "rich." You are trying to pass off upper middle class wage earners, the people actually paying the bulk of income taxes, as "rich." The truly "rich" do not work for the common wage. They accumulate WEALTH not WAGES. Wealth is not taxed, even a CON$ervative extremist like Stuttering LimpTard admits the "rich" don't pay taxes.So you are admitting the GOP hate radio mantra has been a lie all these years!
Thank You.
December 18, 2007
RUSH: Before the Bush tax cuts, the top 1% of wage earners paid 37% of all income tax revenue. Now, after the Bush tax cuts, the top 1% are paying 39% of a total income tax bite. That's a 2% increase in the share of total taxes paid by the rich, the top 1%, since the Bush tax cuts went into effect. By the same token, before the Bush tax cuts, the top 5% paid 56% of all income tax revenue. Now the top 5% are paying 60%, after the Bush tax cuts.
Depends on what you're accussing them of saying and whether it's accurate.
Bump that to top 10% of income earners and that turns into about 80% of total income tax revenue. You see it's the math again that makes your consternation of the rich not paying enough so perplexing. Should the top 10% be contributing even more of the income tax revenue? How much is enough? 90%? 100%?
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."
You can't have it both ways, your own "math" rationalization says if the wealthy realize "very little income" then they must pay very little in income taxes on that "very little income." But you contradict your own "math" rationalization by saying "And even [though] the wealthy realize very little income, they STILL manage to foot most of the tax bill."Now you are just playing dumb. Wage earners are not the "rich." You are trying to pass off upper middle class wage earners, the people actually paying the bulk of income taxes, as "rich." The truly "rich" do not work for the common wage. They accumulate WEALTH not WAGES. Wealth is not taxed, even a CON$ervative extremist like Stuttering LimpTard admits the "rich" don't pay taxes.Depends on what you're accussing them of saying and whether it's accurate.
Bump that to top 10% of income earners and that turns into about 80% of total income tax revenue. You see it's the math again that makes your consternation of the rich not paying enough so perplexing. Should the top 10% be contributing even more of the income tax revenue? How much is enough? 90%? 100%?
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."
Not playing dumb at all. All of this seems fairly intuitively obvious.Our tax code is set up to tax income. If I never realize any income I can't be taxed. Pretty simple concept really. And even the the wealthy realize very little income, they STILL manage to foot most of the tax bill. AGAIN, it's the math. Compared to the uber wealth even a low 6 figure income is basically nothing relatively speaking. Paying part of that nothing in taxes still amounts to basically nothing. On the other hand even if the uber wealthy are taxed almost nothing as a percent of their wealth it's still a fairly significant chunk of change to the rest of us and in terms of tax revenue.
Personally the tax code should be simpler and the same for everyone. I would not be for taxing wealth simply because then government gets to tax not only your income but your savings as well. On pure principle I would not be for any taxing policy that trys to level the playing field levying more taxes ultimately giving government more money. More money is the last thing government needs. The only policy I might be for that may actually have a chance of generating more tax revenue than currently would be a national sales tax. In my ideal world that would be the federal tax code. An x% national sales tax and NOTHING else on the federal level.
You can't have it both ways, your own "math" rationalization says if the wealthy realize "very little income" then they must pay very little in income taxes on that "very little income." But you contradict your own "math" rationalization by saying "And even [though] the wealthy realize very little income, they STILL manage to foot most of the tax bill."
The absolute worst tax would be a national sales tax AKA a consumption tax as the wealthy consume very little of their wealth and the poor and lower middle class consume everything they earn plus some more putting themselves into debt!
A FLAT wealth tax in place of an income tax will tax everyone proportionally to the benefit they have gained from the government's protecting their right to private ownership. How is that not the fairest of all taxes?
Would you support replacing all personal taxes with corporate taxes? I wouldn't, but would you, and if not why not?
It's obvious that YOU don't know what is counted as income, but YOU is not WE!You can't have it both ways, your own "math" rationalization says if the wealthy realize "very little income" then they must pay very little in income taxes on that "very little income." But you contradict your own "math" rationalization by saying "And even [though] the wealthy realize very little income, they STILL manage to foot most of the tax bill."
I see what you mean I think. It may be misleading to cite the top 10% of income earners pay 80% of income taxes when we don't really know what's getting counted as income. Would certainly be interested to find out.
Source: Congressional Budget Office.
Notes: Income categories are defined by ranking all people by their comprehensive household income adjusted for household
size--that is, divided by the square root of the household's size. (A household consists of the people who share a housing
unit, regardless of their relationships.) Quintiles, or fifths, of the income distribution contain equal numbers of people.
Comprehensive household income equals pretax cash income plus income from other sources. Pretax cash income is
the sum of wages, salaries, self-employment income, rents, taxable and nontaxable interest, dividends, realized capital
gains, cash transfer payments, and retirement benefits plus taxes paid by businesses (corporate income taxes and the
employer's share of Social Security, Medicare, and federal unemployment insurance payroll taxes) and employee contri-
butions to 401(k) retirement plans. Other sources of income include all in-kind benefits (Medicare, Medicaid, employer-
paid health insurance premiums, food stamps, school lunches and breakfasts, housing assistance, and energy assis-
tance).
They would NET more not earn more in your example. But the poor and middle class would also net more if the truly wealthy paid a share of the tax burden proportional to the wealth they have amassed. So a consumption tax does not make more money available to the bottom incomes to spend than a wealth tax, so that is not a good argument for a consumption tax and the wealthy will still get away with only paying a very small portion of their wealth on taxes.The absolute worst tax would be a national sales tax AKA a consumption tax as the wealthy consume very little of their wealth and the poor and lower middle class consume everything they earn plus some more putting themselves into debt!
But those poor and middle class would be earning more because they aren't haveing income taxes taken out of their pay check. Again I ask that you step back and look at the bigger picture. It isnt really your goal to just get government more money is it? Unless that's your goal I don't see how consumption as a proportion of income is relevant. As people climb the income scale their spending shifts from not just needs to wants and needs. Meaning the rich are going to be consuming the same as the poor and then some, probably a lot more. In fact I would be willing to bet it woudl result in the rich paying a lot more in taxes than they do now. Because again they have to spend on at least the same stuff the poor do, but the rich up it a notch. Better cars, better t.v. better everything. The only downside is now the poor actually have to pay taxes.
Absolutely IN PLACE OF an income tax. As I assume you would replace the income tax with your national sales tax. My goal is to create a fair tax system not add a new tax.A FLAT wealth tax in place of an income tax will tax everyone proportionally to the benefit they have gained from the government's protecting their right to private ownership. How is that not the fairest of all taxes?
In place of a income tax? Hmmmm. I might be okay with that though I disagree with the notion that how much you've earned is directly related to the benefit you've received from government spending of your tax dollars. And I think taxing wealth might be even more rife for tax evation.
That surprises me! After all businesses always just pass their taxes on to the consumer making corporate taxes a de facto consumption tax. While you could never get a consumption tax past the Libs, they would eat up any and all corporate taxes.Would you support replacing all personal taxes with corporate taxes? I wouldn't, but would you, and if not why not?
No I wouldn't. That's where fairness comes into play. In fairly tail land I think the most truly fair system would be one where over one is taxed in proportion to the benefits they recieve from government. Though that is awfully difficult to measure and I suppose businesses could be taxed more for things like roads and infrastructure. But the point is everyone, busienss or not gets some benefit from maintained roads so I don't think you can exclude an entire segment of the population from having to pay for them.
Absolutely IN PLACE OF an income tax. As I assume you would replace the income tax with your national sales tax. My goal is to create a fair tax system not add a new tax.A FLAT wealth tax in place of an income tax will tax everyone proportionally to the benefit they have gained from the government's protecting their right to private ownership. How is that not the fairest of all taxes?
In place of a income tax? Hmmmm. I might be okay with that though I disagree with the notion that how much you've earned is directly related to the benefit you've received from government spending of your tax dollars. And I think taxing wealth might be even more rife for tax evation.
I don't see how anything can be worse than our present tax system, so I'm willing to try a flat wealth tax and see just how bad it can be evaded. I would not allow any deductions of any kind, not even charity deductions as that has been a major way the present tax system has been perverted. If it doesn't prove out to be fairer then I would try something else, but we need a change from the present system.
They would NET more not earn more in your example. But the poor and middle class would also net more if the truly wealthy paid a share of the tax burden proportional to the wealth
hey have amassed. So a consumption tax does not make more money available to the bottom incomes to spend than a wealth tax, so that is not a good argument for a consumption tax and the wealthy will still get away with only paying a very small portion of their wealth on taxes.
Shouldn't the taxes for a CAPITALISTIC system be based on CAPITAL GAIN????? I think so.
That surprises me! After all businesses always just pass their taxes on to the consumer making corporate taxes a de facto consumption tax. While you could never get a consumption tax past the Libs, they would eat up any and all corporate taxes.Would you support replacing all personal taxes with corporate taxes? I wouldn't, but would you, and if not why not?
No I wouldn't. That's where fairness comes into play. In fairly tail land I think the most truly fair system would be one where over one is taxed in proportion to the benefits they recieve from government. Though that is awfully difficult to measure and I suppose businesses could be taxed more for things like roads and infrastructure. But the point is everyone, busienss or not gets some benefit from maintained roads so I don't think you can exclude an entire segment of the population from having to pay for them.
A consumption tax is even more unfair than the present tax system. Only the wealthy will get the choice you claim, someone who has to spend everything they make on survival has no such choice!!! I agree a consumption tax sure is brutal but but I don't agree it's fair. It hits the poorest the hardest and the richest the least. It is just too regressive to be fair.Absolutely IN PLACE OF an income tax. As I assume you would replace the income tax with your national sales tax. My goal is to create a fair tax system not add a new tax.In place of a income tax? Hmmmm. I might be okay with that though I disagree with the notion that how much you've earned is directly related to the benefit you've received from government spending of your tax dollars. And I think taxing wealth might be even more rife for tax evation.
I don't see how anything can be worse than our present tax system, so I'm willing to try a flat wealth tax and see just how bad it can be evaded. I would not allow any deductions of any kind, not even charity deductions as that has been a major way the present tax system has been perverted. If it doesn't prove out to be fairer then I would try something else, but we need a change from the present system.
Are you sure you really want a fair system? Because that would be one where EVERYONE bares some degree of tax burden regardless of how much money they have. And you seem to be only in favor of systems that keep the poor and lower middle class from having to pay taxes at all. A consumption tax is the most fair to everyone because to an extent everyone will get to choose how much they pay in taxes. Oh I freely admit it will hit the poor and middle class a little harder. Dropping the income tax won't quite make up for the sales tax, but that doesn't mean it isn't fair. Brutally fair maybe, but still fair.
How could you be lost, it's the exact same reasoning you used to say the poor would have more money to consume if they weren't paying income taxes? If the wealthy started to pay taxes less tax would need to be collected from the poor and therefore they would have more money to spend. I think you don't want to agree that a consumption tax would offer no benefit to the poor over a flat wealth tax.They would NET more not earn more in your example. But the poor and middle class would also net more if the truly wealthy paid a share of the tax burden proportional to the wealth
Lost me there. How does changing what the rich pay in taxes change what the poor and middle class net?
Of course it take more from the poor and lower middle class when you consider they pay basically nothing in income taxes now. But they derive benefit from taxes just like the wealthy so they ought to be responsible for at least some of it.hey have amassed. So a consumption tax does not make more money available to the bottom incomes to spend than a wealth tax, so that is not a good argument for a consumption tax and the wealthy will still get away with only paying a very small portion of their wealth on taxes.
No. Our taxes aren't funding capitalism or capitalistic programs. By definition, because government is the one spending the tax dollars, the money is being spent on SOCIAL programs.Shouldn't the taxes for a CAPITALISTIC system be based on CAPITAL GAIN????? I think so.
A consumption tax is even more unfair than the present tax system. Only the wealthy will get the choice you claim, someone who has to spend everything they make on survival has no such choice!!! I agree a consumption tax sure is brutal but but I don't agree it's fair. It hits the poorest the hardest and the richest the least. It is just too regressive to be fair.
A flat wealth tax is fair because it is not regressive like a consumption tax or payroll tax and not progressive like the income tax. Flat is fair as long as there are no deductions. Everyone pays the same percentage of their wealth.
And please don't put words in my mouth, it only shows that you can't argue against anything other than a Straw Man. I never said I favor a system where the poor pay no taxes, and you know it. At least you didn't say I support the almost 50% of the people CON$ say pay no taxers! They pay payroll taxes even if they don't pay income taxes, unlike cap gains which are exempt from SS taxes even if they are realized. Unrealized cap gains are free of both income taxes and payroll taxes, now that's a true free ride.
There is no denying that a consumption tax disproportionally hits the poor harder than those who benefit most from the government paying the expense of protecting the right to private ownership. It is certainly not fair that the more you own that is being protected the less you should pay for that protection.A consumption tax is even more unfair than the present tax system. Only the wealthy will get the choice you claim, someone who has to spend everything they make on survival has no such choice!!! I agree a consumption tax sure is brutal but but I don't agree it's fair. It hits the poorest the hardest and the richest the least. It is just too regressive to be fair.
A flat wealth tax is fair because it is not regressive like a consumption tax or payroll tax and not progressive like the income tax. Flat is fair as long as there are no deductions. Everyone pays the same percentage of their wealth.
And please don't put words in my mouth, it only shows that you can't argue against anything other than a Straw Man. I never said I favor a system where the poor pay no taxes, and you know it. At least you didn't say I support the almost 50% of the people CON$ say pay no taxers! They pay payroll taxes even if they don't pay income taxes, unlike cap gains which are exempt from SS taxes even if they are realized. Unrealized cap gains are free of both income taxes and payroll taxes, now that's a true free ride.
Then we need to discuss what fair means. Because your objections so far to a consumption tax is that it hurts the poor too much. Some part of fair to you seems to have to do with the notion that it's inherently not fair for the poor to not pay in taxes because, well they're poor.
