Are 47% of americans “takers?”

[OohPooPahDoo]

2) I really don't care HOW you whittled 47% down to 20%. If the argument is about "fair shares" then by definition --- half the folks pay O into General Fund and that's not a fair share.

So people who worked hard all their lives and paid taxes all their lives and now live on small fixed incomes they pay no taxes on are government leaches and people who are in college, paying no taxes, but working on degrees that will enable them to make good money and pay taxes in the future are government leaches because you "don't care HOW you whittled 47% down to 20%."

Got it.


For the record I far prefer the current system where the government takes its biggest chunk from me during the years of my life when I can best afford it and leaves me alone during the years of my life when I can't.

Yeah they take so much you can't save enough to retire so when you're old you have to be dependent on government.

That after all is the goal of the Social Security scam.

I'm having no trouble saving to retire.

Funny how the right wing can't figure out if the government taxes people too much or too little.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So people who worked hard all their lives and paid taxes all their lives and now live on small fixed incomes they pay no taxes on are government leaches and people who are in college, paying no taxes, but working on degrees that will enable them to make good money and pay taxes in the future are government leaches because you "don't care HOW you whittled 47% down to 20%."

Got it.


For the record I far prefer the current system where the government takes its biggest chunk from me during the years of my life when I can best afford it and leaves me alone during the years of my life when I can't.

Yeah they take so much you can't save enough to retire so when you're old you have to be dependent on government.

That after all is the goal of the Social Security scam.

I'm having no trouble saving to retire.

Funny how the right wing can't figure out if the government taxes people too much or too little.

That's easy the fucking government taxes some people too much and others too little.

which is why we need a flat 10% tax on all income from dollar one regardless of the source.

And just think how well you could retire if the fucking government didn't steal 15% of your lifetime income for the SS Scam.

The truth is that the fucking government doesn't want people to be able to save enough so so as not to need government programs.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Yeah they take so much you can't save enough to retire so when you're old you have to be dependent on government.

That after all is the goal of the Social Security scam.

I'm having no trouble saving to retire.

Funny how the right wing can't figure out if the government taxes people too much or too little.

That's easy the fucking government taxes some people too much and others too little.

You're right. It taxes old retired folks who bring home 12k a year but who paid taxes all of their working lives and med school students living on shit income but who will one day pay oodles of taxes "too little" according to you and Mittens.

And just think how well you could retire if the fucking government didn't steal 15% of your lifetime income for the SS Scam.

If by "stolen" you mean "pays a stipend from age 67ish till your death and then 50% to a surviving spouse" - then OK, that's "stealing" I guess. I don't actually pay SS anyway, I pay into the Louisiana deferred compensation fund.

The truth is that the fucking government doesn't want people to be able to save enough so so as not to need government programs.

The government doesn't have emotions.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'm having no trouble saving to retire.

Funny how the right wing can't figure out if the government taxes people too much or too little.

That's easy the fucking government taxes some people too much and others too little.

You're right. It taxes old retired folks who bring home 12k a year but who paid taxes all of their working lives and med school students living on shit income but who will one day pay oodles of taxes "too little" according to you and Mittens.

I don't give a flying fuck who goes to what school. If they have an income they should pay 10% off the top in taxes. Period. It doesn't matter if the money comes from a shit job or an investment portfolio it's 10% off the top from everyone.

If you want to see the debt shrink a flat tax is the way to do it.

And just think how well you could retire if the fucking government didn't steal 15% of your lifetime income for the SS Scam.

If by "stolen" you mean "pays a stipend from age 67ish till your death and then 50% to a surviving spouse" - then OK, that's "stealing" I guess. I don't actually pay SS anyway, I pay into the Louisiana deferred compensation fund.

[/QUOTE]
Oooh the average SS payment is a whopping 1800 a month all for the benefit of having 15% of your lifetime income squandered by the government.

I've shown you sheep that even someone with a modest income of 45K can retire with a monthly income 5 times that and yet you sheep still beg the fucking corrupt politicians to steal your money.

The truth is that the fucking government doesn't want people to be able to save enough so so as not to need government programs.

The government doesn't have emotions.

I didn't prescribe any emotion to government. It's the corrupt motherfuckers who are the politicians who are hell bent on keeping people dependent so as to justify and secure their own futures.

 

[earthmuffin]

If you want to see the debt shrink a flat tax is the way to do it.

Indeed? Please explain how those that currently pay the most in taxes (speaking in terms of dollars, not percents) receiving a monumental cut in their tax rates, while pulling in a piddly amount from the poor, will raise revenue.

A flat tax is not only morally unjust, our system would collapse. The money brought in from a flat tax simply would not be enough.

 

[flacaltenn]

If you want to see the debt shrink a flat tax is the way to do it.

Indeed? Please explain how those that currently pay the most in taxes (speaking in terms of dollars, not percents) receiving a monumental cut in their tax rates, while pulling in a piddly amount from the poor, will raise revenue.

A flat tax is not only morally unjust, our system would collapse. The money brought in from a flat tax simply would not be enough.

Easy... It's math so concentrate here.. There is no "MONUMENTAL CUT" proposed for the people paying the most in terms of dollars. But there is a substantial INCREASE proposed by you class warriors.. Raising a $bill from 1% of the population is a much more significant contribution than raising a $bill from 99% of the population. To be exact, the burden on 99% is roughly 100 times LESS than what you have to raise from the 1% isn't it?

Raising $1Bill from 3million in the 1% is $333 each. Raising the same $1Bill from the 99% is only about $3.50 each... And THAT is if they WERE PAYING AT THE SAME RATE...

A "piddling amount" ? No it's a TOKEN amount. And paying 1/100th of what the "rich" are contributing is more than fair..

 

[earthmuffin]

Easy... It's math so concentrate here..

Interesting. I don't recall insulting you for disagreeing with me. We're all adults here, I believe. Let's act like it, shall we?

There is no "MONUMENTAL CUT" proposed for the people paying the most in terms of dollars.

Then what would you call a decrease from from 35% to 10%? That's been more than slashed in half.

But there is a substantial INCREASE proposed by you class warriors.. Raising a $bill from 1% of the population is a much more significant contribution than raising a $bill from 99% of the population. To be exact, the burden on 99% is roughly 100 times LESS than what you have to raise from the 1% isn't it?

Raising $1Bill from 3million in the 1% is $333 each. Raising the same $1Bill from the 99% is only about $3.50 each... And THAT is if they WERE PAYING AT THE SAME RATE...

You're assuming everyone makes around the same amount. You're neglecting to realize that those in the top bracket make more than 380k a year (and some, quite substantially more than that) and those that pay very little or no taxes barely top out at 15k, sometimes a little more depending on the circumstances. (As far as income taxes anyway. Even those that pay no income tax still pay sales taxes and the like.)

And you have still yet to explain how a flat tax is, in any way, fair. On the surface, it may seem it, but it would require taking from those that have so little they can barely afford to eat. Those in higher tax brackets made their money from living in this country. They benefited from everything that was paid for by the taxpayers before them. If you gain obscene wealth from living in a country that was able to offer you such a glorious opportunity, you owe it to your country to help pay to give someone else that same chance.

A "piddling amount" ? No it's a TOKEN amount. And paying 1/100th of what the "rich" are contributing is more than fair..

How is it fair?

 

[PaulS1950]

In all my working years (i'm 62 now) I never paid more than 22% in taxes. Even when I was making $50000 a year and single I never paid more than 22% in federal income taxes.
Now if you add in the state, county and city sales tax, all the excise taxes, property taxes and bond issues levies then I probably paid more like 40% - 50% in total combined taxes.
For the last eight years I have paid no taxes and I plan to keep it that way from now on.
I may not pay any income tax but I have earned it.

 

[flacaltenn]

Easy... It's math so concentrate here..

Interesting. I don't recall insulting you for disagreeing with me. We're all adults here, I believe. Let's act like it, shall we?

There is no "MONUMENTAL CUT" proposed for the people paying the most in terms of dollars.

Then what would you call a decrease from from 35% to 10%? That's been more than slashed in half.

But there is a substantial INCREASE proposed by you class warriors.. Raising a $bill from 1% of the population is a much more significant contribution than raising a $bill from 99% of the population. To be exact, the burden on 99% is roughly 100 times LESS than what you have to raise from the 1% isn't it?

Raising $1Bill from 3million in the 1% is $333 each. Raising the same $1Bill from the 99% is only about $3.50 each... And THAT is if they WERE PAYING AT THE SAME RATE...

You're assuming everyone makes around the same amount. You're neglecting to realize that those in the top bracket make more than 380k a year (and some, quite substantially more than that) and those that pay very little or no taxes barely top out at 15k, sometimes a little more depending on the circumstances. (As far as income taxes anyway. Even those that pay no income tax still pay sales taxes and the like.)

And you have still yet to explain how a flat tax is, in any way, fair. On the surface, it may seem it, but it would require taking from those that have so little they can barely afford to eat. Those in higher tax brackets made their money from living in this country. They benefited from everything that was paid for by the taxpayers before them. If you gain obscene wealth from living in a country that was able to offer you such a glorious opportunity, you owe it to your country to help pay to give someone else that same chance.

A "piddling amount" ? No it's a TOKEN amount. And paying 1/100th of what the "rich" are contributing is more than fair..

How is it fair?

Where did you get the 35% to 10% baloney?

Sales tax does not contribute A PENNY to the army of agencies and bureaucrats that make up the Federal Govt.. All of that superstructure doesn't exist to funded by just 1/2 of America.. If that's what you think is fair -- we should start slashing the size of that whole almagamation tomorrow..

 

[earthmuffin]

Where did you get the 35% to 10% baloney?

I was under the impression you were advocating a flat tax of 10%, which would drop those in the top income tax bracket down from 35%, not including capital gains taxes and the like. (I suppose it may have been another user that suggested this and I assumed it was you.) If you are not recommending a flat tax at 10%, what are you recommending?

Sales tax does not contribute A PENNY to the army of agencies and bureaucrats that make up the Federal Govt.. All of that superstructure doesn't exist to funded by just 1/2 of America.. If that's what you think is fair -- we should start slashing the size of that whole almagamation tomorrow..

I understand sales taxes and the like are different. I just don't think it's accurate to claim that certain people pay nothing in taxes.

What do you propose we cut? I think we need to both raise revenue and slash spending, but I daresay we differ on where we believe those cuts should come from.

 

[flacaltenn]

Where did you get the 35% to 10% baloney?

I was under the impression you were advocating a flat tax of 10%, which would drop those in the top income tax bracket down from 35%, not including capital gains taxes and the like. (I suppose it may have been another user that suggested this and I assumed it was you.) If you are not recommending a flat tax at 10%, what are you recommending?

Sales tax does not contribute A PENNY to the army of agencies and bureaucrats that make up the Federal Govt.. All of that superstructure doesn't exist to funded by just 1/2 of America.. If that's what you think is fair -- we should start slashing the size of that whole almagamation tomorrow..

I understand sales taxes and the like are different. I just don't think it's accurate to claim that certain people pay nothing in taxes.

What do you propose we cut? I think we need to both raise revenue and slash spending, but I daresay we differ on where we believe those cuts should come from.

If you actually FOLLOWED the flat tax proposals, you'd KNOW that the proponents included the concept of PREBATES that would go to low wage earners. So even THAT proposal is progressive enough NOT TO HARM the lower quintile of wage earners. But in reality, it would NEVER be lower than 15% or so BECAUSE OF the exemptions included in the proposals.

Where do we cut? If you can't have the Dept of Ed DEMAND LEGITIMATE academic assessment tests or teacher performance evaluations, then CUT THE WHOLE DAMN thing. When folks bitch about National Standards, there's no accountability, and no purpose for that venture.

Same with the Dept of Commerce (save a few subagencies) because THAT'S the beating heart of corporate welfare..

Same with the TSA, MOST of the Dept of Energy, and all the agencies that have confused missions to both PROMOTE corporate causes and hold them in check thru regulation.
Not interested AT ALL in increasing taxes ON ANYONE until I see a trainload of dumptrucks carrying TONS of waste out of the District of Columbia.

 

[earthmuffin]

In 2011, the federal government's annual budget was roughly 3.6 trillion. Getting rid of the departments you mentioned by name would shave off roughly 137 billion dollars. Or just under four percent of the budget. How much that accomplish exactly?

If you actually FOLLOWED the flat tax proposals, you'd KNOW that the proponents included the concept of PREBATES that would go to low wage earners. So even THAT proposal is progressive enough NOT TO HARM the lower quintile of wage earners. But in reality, it would NEVER be lower than 15% or so BECAUSE OF the exemptions included in the proposals.

What exactly would this prebate accomplish?

Where do we cut? If you can't have the Dept of Ed DEMAND LEGITIMATE academic assessment tests or teacher performance evaluations, then CUT THE WHOLE DAMN thing. When folks bitch about National Standards, there's no accountability, and no purpose for that venture.

Why argue to test the teachers rather than look into why students are failing? I understand the there are some teachers that are inadequate, and that is definitely something that needs to be addressed, but it is not the main reason schools are failing in some areas.
And if we did get rid of the Department of Education, what would you propose in it's place? How would you manage public education? Or would you eradicate it?

Same with the Dept of Commerce (save a few subagencies) because THAT'S the beating heart of corporate welfare..

What agencies would you save and why? And why would you toss the rest?

Same with the TSA,

Why?

MOST of the Dept of Energy,

Why?

and all the agencies that have confused missions to both PROMOTE corporate causes and hold them in check thru regulation.

Like what? And is it not possible to promote business while enacting important regulation?

Not interested AT ALL in increasing taxes ON ANYONE until I see a trainload of dumptrucks carrying TONS of waste out of the District of Columbia.

But a flat tax would raise taxes on the poor. And the tons of waste you are looking for are not in the departments you named.

 

[Skull Pilot]

If you want to see the debt shrink a flat tax is the way to do it.

Indeed? Please explain how those that currently pay the most in taxes (speaking in terms of dollars, not percents) receiving a monumental cut in their tax rates, while pulling in a piddly amount from the poor, will raise revenue.

A flat tax is not only morally unjust, our system would collapse. The money brought in from a flat tax simply would not be enough.

Take some time and do some research.


And I've already done the math here

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/233672-its-time-for-a-flat-tax.html#post5599801

I don't see how the system would collapse as I am only suggesting a change to the income tax to make it fair and to remove all the bullshit that makes the tax code a political football

I don't think that 10 cents on the dollar is too much to ask from anyone.

 

[flacaltenn]

In 2011, the federal government's annual budget was roughly 3.6 trillion. Getting rid of the departments you mentioned by name would shave off roughly 137 billion dollars. Or just under four percent of the budget. How much that accomplish exactly?

If you actually FOLLOWED the flat tax proposals, you'd KNOW that the proponents included the concept of PREBATES that would go to low wage earners. So even THAT proposal is progressive enough NOT TO HARM the lower quintile of wage earners. But in reality, it would NEVER be lower than 15% or so BECAUSE OF the exemptions included in the proposals.

What exactly would this prebate accomplish?

Where do we cut? If you can't have the Dept of Ed DEMAND LEGITIMATE academic assessment tests or teacher performance evaluations, then CUT THE WHOLE DAMN thing. When folks bitch about National Standards, there's no accountability, and no purpose for that venture.

Why argue to test the teachers rather than look into why students are failing? I understand the there are some teachers that are inadequate, and that is definitely something that needs to be addressed, but it is not the main reason schools are failing in some areas.
And if we did get rid of the Department of Education, what would you propose in it's place? How would you manage public education? Or would you eradicate it?



What agencies would you save and why? And why would you toss the rest?



Why?



Why?

and all the agencies that have confused missions to both PROMOTE corporate causes and hold them in check thru regulation.

Like what? And is it not possible to promote business while enacting important regulation?

Not interested AT ALL in increasing taxes ON ANYONE until I see a trainload of dumptrucks carrying TONS of waste out of the District of Columbia.

But a flat tax would raise taxes on the poor. And the tons of waste you are looking for are not in the departments you named.

Sorry man. You're not following along here. The "prebate" essentially EXCUSES the poor from the Flat Tax and makes it almost as Progressive as the current tax structure.. When you spend some time STUDYING the proposal --- we'll chat some more..

Thanks for totalling up my proposal.. I'll certainly take the $137Bill (tho i imagine it's more than that) because to use Washington speak --- that's a 1.4TRILL dollar reduction in the deficit.. (using the popular X10 year budget speak) And savings of about 8% are what we're looking for. Since that would not only stop the yearly GROWTH of the budget -- put us on course to REDUCE the budget year over year. I just gave you 1/2 of what we need to do to avoid financial disaster.

The other things required are to ---

1) Stop the THEFT of the Soc Sec/Medicare PREMIUMS by recinding the OBama Payroll Tax cut.. Folks need to contribute to these -- they are ENTITLEMENTS -- not welfare.

2) SLASH GREATLY -- green tax credits that give GE $100 for each washer/dryer they sell. Same with ethanol, same with wind/solar credits. Go ahead and take the $3B from the oil companies as well -- if you have to...

We can get there. We have to...

 

[earthmuffin]

Take some time and do some research.


And I've already done the math here

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/233672-its-time-for-a-flat-tax.html#post5599801

1.2 trillion? You think that would cover our bases? That's doing the math?

I don't see how the system would collapse as I am only suggesting a change to the income tax to make it fair and to remove all the bullshit that makes the tax code a political football

The system would collapse because we already don't have enough revenue. You would take those that make millions (or more) and make them pay 10% in taxes. That's insane.

I don't think that 10 cents on the dollar is too much to ask from anyone.

Then clearly you have no idea what it's like to live in poverty.

 

[earthmuffin]

Sorry man. You're not following along here. The "prebate" essentially EXCUSES the poor from the Flat Tax and makes it almost as Progressive as the current tax structure.. When you spend some time STUDYING the proposal --- we'll chat some more..

Why is it that so many people pay no income tax? You do recognize that it's because they are POOR, right? So, you would lower the tax rate for the rich, continue letting the poor avoid income taxes... and this would raise revenue?

Thanks for totalling up my proposal.. I'll certainly take the $137Bill (tho i imagine it's more than that) because to use Washington speak --- that's a 1.4TRILL dollar reduction in the deficit.. (using the popular X10 year budget speak) And savings of about 8% are what we're looking for. Since that would not only stop the yearly GROWTH of the budget -- put us on course to REDUCE the budget year over year. I just gave you 1/2 of what we need to do to avoid financial disaster.

It's not more than that. I actually rounded up. The federal budget is viewable online. If you don't believe me, google it.

Also, you fail to realize that the programs you would cut are necessary. You would have to replace them, or get someone else to pick up the slack. We could easily slash defense spending IN HALF and save three times the amount you would save by cutting the programs you mentioned.

And it would not avoid financial disaster, as something such as that is far more complex than simply lowering the deficit.

The other things required are to ---

1) Stop the THEFT of the Soc Sec/Medicare PREMIUMS by recinding the OBama Payroll Tax cut.. Folks need to contribute to these -- they are ENTITLEMENTS -- not welfare.

People are piss poor broke right now. This is not meant to last forever, it's an attempt to stimulate the economy. I might mention that failing to do so would be far more devastating in the long run. Fixing the economy has to come before fixing the deficit.

T2) SLASH GREATLY -- green tax credits that give GE $100 for each washer/dryer they sell. Same with ethanol, same with wind/solar credits. Go ahead and take the $3B from the oil companies as well -- if you have to...

We can get there. We have to...

If you plan to take away the subsidies from all forms of energy, what do you propose would happen to those systems? You don't see a possible energy crisis resulting from that?

You also failed to answer WHY you would get rid of the departments you mentioned previously.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The R said they didn't care much for facts but ...

Fact-checking Romney's "47 percent" comment - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Who Are Mitt Romney's 47%? - Politics - The Atlantic Wire

 

[whitehall]

You can't call them "takers" because they really don't have that much. You might use a football term and call them "wide receivers".

 

[flacaltenn]

Sorry man. You're not following along here. The "prebate" essentially EXCUSES the poor from the Flat Tax and makes it almost as Progressive as the current tax structure.. When you spend some time STUDYING the proposal --- we'll chat some more..

Why is it that so many people pay no income tax? You do recognize that it's because they are POOR, right? So, you would lower the tax rate for the rich, continue letting the poor avoid income taxes... and this would raise revenue?

Thanks for totalling up my proposal.. I'll certainly take the $137Bill (tho i imagine it's more than that) because to use Washington speak --- that's a 1.4TRILL dollar reduction in the deficit.. (using the popular X10 year budget speak) And savings of about 8% are what we're looking for. Since that would not only stop the yearly GROWTH of the budget -- put us on course to REDUCE the budget year over year. I just gave you 1/2 of what we need to do to avoid financial disaster.

It's not more than that. I actually rounded up. The federal budget is viewable online. If you don't believe me, google it.

Also, you fail to realize that the programs you would cut are necessary. You would have to replace them, or get someone else to pick up the slack. We could easily slash defense spending IN HALF and save three times the amount you would save by cutting the programs you mentioned.

And it would not avoid financial disaster, as something such as that is far more complex than simply lowering the deficit.

The other things required are to ---

1) Stop the THEFT of the Soc Sec/Medicare PREMIUMS by recinding the OBama Payroll Tax cut.. Folks need to contribute to these -- they are ENTITLEMENTS -- not welfare.

People are piss poor broke right now. This is not meant to last forever, it's an attempt to stimulate the economy. I might mention that failing to do so would be far more devastating in the long run. Fixing the economy has to come before fixing the deficit.

T2) SLASH GREATLY -- green tax credits that give GE $100 for each washer/dryer they sell. Same with ethanol, same with wind/solar credits. Go ahead and take the $3B from the oil companies as well -- if you have to...

We can get there. We have to...

If you plan to take away the subsidies from all forms of energy, what do you propose would happen to those systems? You don't see a possible energy crisis resulting from that?

You also failed to answer WHY you would get rid of the departments you mentioned previously.

I've already TOLD YOU why... In the case of Dept of Ed ---theres just too much whining about the FEDS imposing any kind of performance testing to ASSESS where the problems are. If the FEDS can't MEASURE student performance because it hurts the feelings of some -- they have no ROLE TO PLAY in fixing anything..

In the case of Dept of Commerce -- it is the epicenter of govt/corporate collusion. It exists to promote and subsidize industry.

And the Dept of Energy is NOT PRODUCING significant new advances in energy or accomplishing critical missions to support existing ones. It has turned into a political investment company.

I would also cut the 1/2 of the Homeland Security budget that has burst into a 55Bill/yr boondoggle.

So -- I repeat myself. And your assertion that AWFUL DAMN stuff would happen is just an assertion. It costs locals more than 1/2 of what they get from these agencies in compliance and paperwork. And obviously with only 1/2 of Americans contributing to these monstrous bureaucracies, they must NOT be vital to the success of America.

That theft of Payroll taxes to cover Soc Sec and Medicare premiums is a COMPLETE AND UTTER failure if you measure the $10/month/worker it kicks into the economy as STIMULUS.. That's not a valid reason for the theft. But when you multiply that money by 100M workers, it's enough to bankrupt the Soc Sec system 6 yrs ahead of projections.

What stimulates the economy is to promote NEW COMPANY creation, new ideas and innovation.. Not handing out candy. and hoping that candy factories will spring up like mushrooms. Stimulating consumption doesn't do what it USED TO DO. and that was to ramp up domestic production. TODAY -- when you hand out $20 all it does is bring more foreign cargo ships into the docks at Long Beach.. It's assinine and antiquated thinking..