Are you one of the 53%

[JakeStarkey]

One, Dragon is correct: no ifs, ands, or buts.

Two, National Health Care: some western nations have been doing this for a very long time with no or little problems.

 

[Listening]

Soc Sec and Medicare ARE NOT "accounting gimmicks".

The use you are making of them in this argument most definitely is an accounting gimmick. The separation of taxes into income tax, capital gains, and Social Security/Medicre tax may have legitimate functions, but considering whether people are paying their fair share is not one of them.

There is only one way to evaluate that:

1) Calculate the total federal tax liability of a person in given circumstances.

2) Calculate the person's total income for the same year.

3) Divide the result of 1 by the result of 2.

This will give us the percentage of the person's income that the government takes in taxes.

Also, the only way to consider whether it's appropriate to raise a given person's taxes, assuming taxes need to be raised, is this:

1) Calculate the person's after tax income (2-1 in the above).

2) Analyze what the person will have to give up if his/her taxes are increased, not just as a dollar amount but in terms of purchases.

If the person will have to give up a little investment in financial derivatives, his taxes can be raised with no significant harm done to anyone.

If the person will have to give up buying a vacation home or taking a round the world cruise, his taxes can be raised with minor harm to his lifestyle.

If the person will have to give up medical care or a college education, raising his taxes will do serious harm.

If the person will have to give up food, raising his taxes is simply unconscionable.

Thee are multiple ways to evaluate that depending on what you consider your fair share. And once again we lack such a standard.

If a person has to give up food ? How would you know what they have to give up ?

Does everyone optimize every food dollar ? I doubt it. If you mean it might cut into their food budget, why not do the numbers there ?

Please provide me a budget with an example of how someone would have to give up food and we will soon establish a floor so low that it will be shown that many people who currently don't pay any taxes could "afford" to put out a little to help pay for the services they likely adsorb disproporationately.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Absolutely not true. Missouri taxes food sales,

Prepared foods, IE fast food.

taxes electric and natural gas, personal property and real property.

Flat out not true.

{Domestic use means the portion of metered water service, electricity, electrical current, natural, artificial or propane gas, wood, coal or home heating oil that is used for non-business, non-commercial or non-industrial purposes. All of these items are exempt from sales and use tax under Section 144.030, RSMo. }

Frequently Asked Questions - Sales Tax Taxability and Exemptions

I pay 1/7 of my net income on just real prop taxes and insurance for my home. Consumption tax is certainly regressive.

Again, your point is made on blatant falsehood.

 

[Dragon]

If the choices are to roll Soc Sec and Medicare into the General Fund and stop accounting for them as Insurance programs or do away with them ---- I'd rather kill them. Because then we know this country doesn't have the authority or ability to prescribe "one size - all fits" solutions and FORCE folks to participate. If we can't all participate EQUALLY in those programs -- I'm not gonna participate either.. Good luck with Universal Health Care after you do that..

Those programs are NOT Revenue sources for the Federal Govt.. And they are NOT TOYS for the Clown College to perform with..

Dude, you're just not getting it. All of the above is a rich person's evaluation. A rich person, whose tax bite is pretty trivial in terms of what it costs him as a lifestyle impact, can afford to set aside his FICA portion and say, "Well, that's granting me SS benefits down the road, so I don't really have to think of it as a tax right now." But for someone living from paycheck to paycheck that's just not a calculation that's affordable. For someone like that -- and that arguably describes ALL of the so-called "47%" -- the only thing that matters is "I got to pay this right now." Years from now? That's just not something they have the leisure to worry about.

If you raise these people's taxes you will hurt them drastically. That is, or should be, the only consideration that matters.

 

[flacaltenn]

If the choices are to roll Soc Sec and Medicare into the General Fund and stop accounting for them as Insurance programs or do away with them ---- I'd rather kill them. Because then we know this country doesn't have the authority or ability to prescribe "one size - all fits" solutions and FORCE folks to participate. If we can't all participate EQUALLY in those programs -- I'm not gonna participate either.. Good luck with Universal Health Care after you do that..

Those programs are NOT Revenue sources for the Federal Govt.. And they are NOT TOYS for the Clown College to perform with..

Dude, you're just not getting it. All of the above is a rich person's evaluation. A rich person, whose tax bite is pretty trivial in terms of what it costs him as a lifestyle impact, can afford to set aside his FICA portion and say, "Well, that's granting me SS benefits down the road, so I don't really have to think of it as a tax right now." But for someone living from paycheck to paycheck that's just not a calculation that's affordable. For someone like that -- and that arguably describes ALL of the so-called "47%" -- the only thing that matters is "I got to pay this right now." Years from now? That's just not something they have the leisure to worry about.

If you raise these people's taxes you will hurt them drastically. That is, or should be, the only consideration that matters.

I realize the bite that SS and MedCare taxes take. Your anger about that should be directed at FDR and the PROGRESSIVES that FORCED these programs on workers. You do know that the original promise was that SS premiums would never exceed 3% of income don'tcha? Broken promises don't matter to you? Stealing Excess FICA doesn't matter to you? General mismanagement of these funds don't matter to you?

Can't excuse those folks from a program that is touted as the PINNACLE OF PROGRESSIVE political achievement. The BEST that the New Deal had to offer. I'd excuse them. I'd certainly even structure a BETTER program that allows them to KEEP THAT MONEY instead of it being mere "insurance".. But no way we're gonna make the benefits of that program MORE progressive than it already is..

NO true conservative wants to raise their taxes. We just want the dishonest class warriors to stop talking about "fair share" when WE already excused the 47%. YOU didn't excuse them by and large. The nasty BUSH tax cuts raised the number of excused from about 39% to 47% --- that's a lot of working poor aint' it bud?

 

[Dragon]

I realize the bite that SS and MedCare taxes take. Your anger about that should be directed at FDR and the PROGRESSIVES that FORCED these programs on workers.

I have a much more immediate target: those who would pretend that the taxes lower-income people pay don't exist on a pretext, and use that as a flimsy excuse for arguing that they are undertaxed, or conversely that the rich are overtaxed.

That is not only a lie, but a malicious lie, too.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Progressivism is a process not an ideology. Right wing progressivism would make the poor and the working classes the culprit and scapegoats of the current economic crisis so that the wealthy can skate.

Not going to happen.

 

[rdean]

Are you someone who actually pays taxes so the other 47% can get government assistance for nothing??

I am.

ETA, I'm talking about Federal Withholding Taxes............just to make myself clear. Some have a problem u n d e r s t a n d i n g. (did I type that slow enough?)

Everybody pays taxes moron.

What is wrong with you people.

The problem with Republicans is the number is too big. They won't be happy until 90% of the country is in poverty. That's their plan.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Are you someone who actually pays taxes so the other 47% can get government assistance for nothing??

I am.

ETA, I'm talking about Federal Withholding Taxes............just to make myself clear. Some have a problem u n d e r s t a n d i n g. (did I type that slow enough?)

Everybody pays taxes moron.

What is wrong with you people.

The problem with Republicans is the number is too big. They won't be happy until 90% of the country is in poverty. That's their plan.

I see rdean is checking in to let us all know that he is still an idiot......

 

[Listening]

But for someone living from paycheck to paycheck that's just not a calculation that's affordable. For someone like that -- and that arguably describes ALL of the so-called "47%" -- the only thing that matters is "I got to pay this right now." Years from now? That's just not something they have the leisure to worry about.

If you raise these people's taxes you will hurt them drastically. That is, or should be, the only consideration that matters.

First, where is that written ?

Second, who decides ? You ?

Not going to happen.

If you use services, you should help pay for them. That is the only consideration that matters.

 

[Charles_Main]

Are you someone who actually pays taxes so the other 47% can get government assistance for nothing??

I am.

ETA, I'm talking about Federal Withholding Taxes............just to make myself clear. Some have a problem u n d e r s t a n d i n g. (did I type that slow enough?)

I have been on Both sides of the Line in the Past. Currently I pay a little, but not much.

 

[Care4all]

But for someone living from paycheck to paycheck that's just not a calculation that's affordable. For someone like that -- and that arguably describes ALL of the so-called "47%" -- the only thing that matters is "I got to pay this right now." Years from now? That's just not something they have the leisure to worry about.

If you raise these people's taxes you will hurt them drastically. That is, or should be, the only consideration that matters.

First, where is that written ?

Second, who decides ? You ?

Not going to happen.

If you use services, you should help pay for them. That is the only consideration that matters.

if you have the money to pay for the services, you wouldn;t be qualifying for the services (ie child tax credit and EIC credit), would you?

 

[Listening]

if you have the money to pay for the services, you wouldn;t be qualifying for the services (ie child tax credit and EIC credit), would you?

You could have some money to partially pay for those services...couldn't you ?

And you didn't answer the orginal question.

Who decides ?

 

[Synthaholic]

Are you someone who actually pays taxes so the other 47% can get government assistance for nothing??

I am.

ETA, I'm talking about Federal Withholding Taxes............just to make myself clear. Some have a problem u n d e r s t a n d i n g. (did I type that slow enough?)

You're an imbecile.

 

[Dragon]

First, where is that written ?

Second, who decides ? You ?

Yes. As a human being, with free will, a mind, a conscience, and compassion, I am entitled and empowered to make moral decisions, such as this. As are you, of course, and everyone else. It's not "written" anywhere -- nothing is. We make the decisions, we make the moral judgments, we are the authority -- there is no other.

If we disagree, then it becomes my will -- and my powers of persuasion -- against yours. Do you think you can persuade more people to side with your position, which is basically that those of lesser means should be ground under the heels of the rich and reduced to serfdom, than I can to side with mine, which is that everyone is entitled to a chance at a decent life?

You're welcome to try. But in fact, I've already won.

 

[Listening]

Yes. As a human being, with free will, a mind, a conscience, and compassion, I am entitled and empowered to make moral decisions, such as this.

If we disagree, then it becomes my will -- and my powers of persuasion -- against yours. Do you think you can persuade more people to side with your position, which is basically that those of lesser means should be ground under the heels of the rich and reduced to serfdom, than I can to side with mine, which is that everyone is entitled to a chance at a decent life?

You're welcome to try. But in fact, I've already won.

You are allowed to vote.

I'd say that based on the last election (the one that took place two years after the GOP was declared dead and buried for the next two decades) and the prospects of the one that is about to follow, that you won't win anything wit the sorry way you framed up your argument.

You only reach those conclusions out of selfservitude.

My position could just as easily be that the U.S. Constitution does not give anyone the right to ride on the backs of others (or it could be a host of other positions that are better framed than your silly statement above) and it seems you are losing that battle.

 

[Dragon]

You are allowed to vote.

I'm allowed to do more than that. In fact, I'll agree with Mr. Jefferson on this one:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident. . . That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

As for elections, when corporate campaign donors hold veto power over who can run for office, so that certain positions unacceptable to big business are not allowed onto the ballot, or become lies when they do show up (as in 2008), one may not draw too many conclusions about the results of them regarding public opinion. Remember that the Republicans won in 2010 with the votes of a little over 20% of Americans, no more. This follows from the 41% voter turnout in that election.

I'll let you in on something I know about what happened that year. Hardly anyone who voted for Obama in 2008 voted Republican in 2010. The nation did not change its mind. The majority of the people still wanted what Obama promised to do when he campaigned that year. The difference was that many of them had discovered he had no intention of keeping most of his promises. So while hardly anyone switched sides and voted Republican in 2010 who voted Democratic in 2008, many who voted for Obama in 2008 did not vote at all in 2010. And that accounts entirely for the Republican victory. It was no mandate, no sign of the people's support. It was a victory by default, no more.

That may to some extent happen in 2012, or it may not. If it does, I would suggest you not take too much comfort in it. The same people who voted (and canvassed and phone called and knocked on doors) for Obama in 2008, or many of them, are now protesting in the streets and organizing for purposes outside of the standard electoral process. Now, enough of them may vote for damage-control purposes to give the Democrats a victory that will surprise you -- that's certainly a mathematical possibility.

But whether it does or not, the fact remains that a great many people have become disillusioned with the electoral process in its current corrupt form, and have turned their attention to extra-electoral methods. Those methods have already changed the dialog (or this thread wouldn't even exist). They may succeed in opening up the electoral process and putting things on the ballot that wouldn't be there otherwise, and pushing through the real progressive reforms that a majority of the people want. Or they may not.

But the end of that road, if they don't, is revolution. We're ripe for it. And in the end, Jefferson was right.

 

[editec]

ARe any of you 53%ers willing to make less money in order NOT to be taxed?

No?

Didn't think so.

Now ask yourselves how many of the 47% would be ready to change places with you.

Think there might be a few willing to pay taxes to have YOUR life?

 

[bripat9643]

ARe any of you 53%ers willing to make less money in order NOT to be taxed?

No?

Didn't think so.

Now ask yourselves how many of the 47% would be ready to change places with you.

Think there might be a few willing to pay taxes to have YOUR life?

How much money I make is a result of my efforts, not a result of how much the the government decides to tax me. You put the cart before the horse, so your syllogism is bullshit.

 

[rdean]

Are you someone who actually pays taxes so the other 47% can get government assistance for nothing??

I am.

ETA, I'm talking about Federal Withholding Taxes............just to make myself clear. Some have a problem u n d e r s t a n d i n g. (did I type that slow enough?)

Everyone pays taxes. Sales tax, payroll tax and so on.

Republicans lie so much, they believe their own dishonest bullshit. Is it stupid or the inbreeding?