Are you one of the 53%

[Neotrotsky]

Yes I am one of the 53% that pay Fed tax, and im proud that a small portion of that amount feeds a support system for the 47% of my fellow Americans, which might provide enough to feed their family and keep the lights on. Most have 8hr a day jobs who makes minimum wage or below the mean, the money everyone seems to be up in arms about is minuscule in comparison to military spending 1/5000 +\- 2. Spending policies by our government is misguided in purpose when killing hundreds of thousands rather than sustaining the growth and development of our own citizens to keep America great.

As a small business owner and ex corporate exec Ive paid what was expected by my country. I also pay FICA, Social Security, and Payroll taxes just to name a few, at 42 Ill never see SS or a number of programs, my point is simply to say Suck it Up. Our success is in how we respect each other and our communities. Work doing what you love, take care of yourself and those closest to you, then involve yourself into the betterment of your community. The fact is, the cost of these taxes are peanuts, the issue is far more complex. The question is misleading, in that picking a side relates to picking sides like its the Super Bowl, when really its just class warfare. Real nice.


ChaosAgent iPad Tapatalk

small portion- how much actually gets to the people
Not to mention, a lot of stuff should be done by the states
not the Federal

Cost small compared to military?

Didn't Papa Obama’s proposed spending on welfare (2010) will eclipse Bush’s war spending by more than $260 billion.
Under President Obama, government will spend more on welfare in a single year than President George W. Bush spent on the war in Iraq during his entire presidency. According to the Congressional Research Service, the cost of the Iraq war through the end of the Bush Administration was around $622 billion. By contrast, annual federal and state means-tested welfare spending will reach $888 billion in FY 2010. Federal welfare spending alone will equal $697 billion in that year.

Perhaps Papa Obama decided not to spend as much
do tell



Again, the problem is gov't spending overall



--------------------------

Join the OWS
"Obama's Wall-street Stooges "

 

[SFC Ollie]

 

[rightwinger]

CBO as it says look it up

You miss the main point
Gov't spending is the problem from both sides

No matter how much the Left wants to blame Bush
When it comes to spending, Papa Obama is far from "frugal"

His spending and plans have not worked so far
there is no reason to trust him with even more of our money



Join the OWS "Obama's Wall-street Stooges "

No, I get the point. But don't come to me with some bullshit like the Iraq War is a bargain compared to the stimulus. That's a bunch of nonsense.

And the $709 billion dollar figure Bill cited isn't to date.... it's from over a year ago. That's why I asked for a valid source.

Well it was to cover Bush's time in office, was it not,,,,

Do you have ideas that it is less?

Just to keep things in perspective

the Iraq War years in which Bush was President (2003-2008)
spending on the war was $554B.

Federal spending on education over that same time period was $574B.

Yeah it was Bush's fault

-----------------------------





Join the OWS "Obama's Wall-street Stooges "

So your point is that money spent on wars is better spent than money spent on education?

 

[Neotrotsky]

No, I get the point. But don't come to me with some bullshit like the Iraq War is a bargain compared to the stimulus. That's a bunch of nonsense.

And the $709 billion dollar figure Bill cited isn't to date.... it's from over a year ago. That's why I asked for a valid source.

Well it was to cover Bush's time in office, was it not,,,,

Do you have ideas that it is less?

Just to keep things in perspective

the Iraq War years in which Bush was President (2003-2008)
spending on the war was $554B.

Federal spending on education over that same time period was $574B.

Yeah it was Bush's fault

-----------------------------





Join the OWS "Obama's Wall-street Stooges "

So your point is that money spent on wars is better spent than money spent on education?

no


but when you think of the poor results we get for the money spent on education


-------------------------------------------------------

Join the OWS "Obama's Wall-street Stooges "

 

[NYcarbineer]

Keep in mind, the 53% includes all the households who $1 in federal income tax, or $10, or $100, or a couple hundred, or a few hundred.

 

[Big Fitz]

Keep in mind, the 53% includes all the households who $1 in federal income tax, or $10, or $100, or a couple hundred, or a few hundred.

Yes, leaving the bottom 47% EARNING $1, $10 or hundreds of dollars by 'doing their taxes'. Meanwhile the top 10% of all taxpayers pay about 60% of the tab.

How the fuck is that fair?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Keep in mind, the 53% includes all the households who $1 in federal income tax, or $10, or $100, or a couple hundred, or a few hundred.

Yes, leaving the bottom 47% EARNING $1, $10 or hundreds of dollars by 'doing their taxes'. Meanwhile the top 10% of all taxpayers pay about 60% of the tab.

How the fuck is that fair?

What's unfair is to tax the money people need for the basic necessities of life. The argument is then what should reasonably qualify as necessities.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Keep in mind, the 53% includes all the households who $1 in federal income tax, or $10, or $100, or a couple hundred, or a few hundred.

Yes, leaving the bottom 47% EARNING $1, $10 or hundreds of dollars by 'doing their taxes'. Meanwhile the top 10% of all taxpayers pay about 60% of the tab.

How the fuck is that fair?

It may not be 'fair' that someone with kids might pay 1/4 of the income tax I pay, all else being equal,

but it's futile to argue against that and foolish to think it will ever change.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sure

gov't spending is the problem


Of course Bush did have 911, two wars and overall avg did better than Papa Obama so far


If fact ....

CBO: Eight Years of Iraq War Cost Less Than Stimulus Act
- According to CBO numbers in its Budget and Economic Outlook published this month, the cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom was $709 billion for military and related activities, including training of Iraqi forces and diplomatic operations.
- The projected cost of the stimulus, which passed in February 2009, and is expected to have a shelf life of two years, was $862 billion.


Papa Obama leftist policies just don't work

Only a fool would believe that we are only one tax on the rich or one spending cut from some program from fixing our problems

hooray for our side... while the misbegotten, stupid, unnecessary, counterproductive Iraq war has cost $709 Billion (to date)... it's a bargain compared to Obama's Stimulus Package... I feel so proud to be on the side that throws money down the toilet slightly less fast than the other side...

out of control gov't spending is both sides
along with crony capitalism

but you are correct
when it comes to statism and spending
the Left can not be outdone
they have no equals

Sure it does, the Progressive Right Wing neo-cons in Iraq and educators for NCLB.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sure

like Papa Obama spending almost as much as Bush did in eight years
in less than four, has nothing to do with it...

The economy crshing in part because of the GOP Congress's dereliction of duty from 1994 to 2006, then the dems in 2007 to 2010: we are all at fault.

Sure

gov't spending is the problem


Of course Bush did have 911, two wars and overall avg did better than Papa Obama so far


If fact ....

CBO: Eight Years of Iraq War Cost Less Than Stimulus Act
- According to CBO numbers in its Budget and Economic Outlook published this month, the cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom was $709 billion for military and related activities, including training of Iraqi forces and diplomatic operations.
- The projected cost of the stimulus, which passed in February 2009, and is expected to have a shelf life of two years, was $862 billion.


Papa Obama leftist policies just don't work

Only a fool would believe that we are only one tax on the rich or one spending cut from some program from fixing our problems

I certainly agree BHO has not done as well as he should have, but he was having to take care of the Congressional mess from 1994 to 2008. Left and Right Wing progressivist programs have shattered the economy along with common American greed, from the poorest to the richest.

 

[Big Fitz]

Keep in mind, the 53% includes all the households who $1 in federal income tax, or $10, or $100, or a couple hundred, or a few hundred.

Yes, leaving the bottom 47% EARNING $1, $10 or hundreds of dollars by 'doing their taxes'. Meanwhile the top 10% of all taxpayers pay about 60% of the tab.

How the fuck is that fair?

It may not be 'fair' that someone with kids might pay 1/4 of the income tax I pay, all else being equal,

but it's futile to argue against that and foolish to think it will ever change.

oh yes, wise sahib! The tax code is written in stone, is it not? It is futile to argue against something that never can change!.

Did you crack your skull on the shallow end again?

Life ain't fair. Anyone who tells you otherwise, is selling something.

 

[flacaltenn]

Keep in mind, the 53% includes all the households who $1 in federal income tax, or $10, or $100, or a couple hundred, or a few hundred.

Yes, leaving the bottom 47% EARNING $1, $10 or hundreds of dollars by 'doing their taxes'. Meanwhile the top 10% of all taxpayers pay about 60% of the tab.

How the fuck is that fair?

It may not be 'fair' that someone with kids might pay 1/4 of the income tax I pay, all else being equal,

but it's futile to argue against that and foolish to think it will ever change.

The only unfair part of that is that the GOVT can USE tax policy to influence the number of kids people have. Either by expanding or cutting those subsidies..

 

[Big Fitz]

Keep in mind, the 53% includes all the households who $1 in federal income tax, or $10, or $100, or a couple hundred, or a few hundred.

Yes, leaving the bottom 47% EARNING $1, $10 or hundreds of dollars by 'doing their taxes'. Meanwhile the top 10% of all taxpayers pay about 60% of the tab.

How the fuck is that fair?

What's unfair is to tax the money people need for the basic necessities of life. The argument is then what should reasonably qualify as necessities.

Excuse me? But when does need give you the right to someone else's labor or wealth?

That is called a justification of slavery.

So, massah... who do you wish to enslave to your or someone else's 'need' today?

Doan whip me none, massah! I's be a good slave fo you!

 

[Big Fitz]

Yes, leaving the bottom 47% EARNING $1, $10 or hundreds of dollars by 'doing their taxes'. Meanwhile the top 10% of all taxpayers pay about 60% of the tab.

How the fuck is that fair?

It may not be 'fair' that someone with kids might pay 1/4 of the income tax I pay, all else being equal,

but it's futile to argue against that and foolish to think it will ever change.

The only unfair part of that is that the GOVT can USE tax policy to influence the number of kids people have. Either by expanding or cutting those subsidies..

I will toss out the same challenge I give to Carbie he runs from every time:

I am in favor of ending ALL subsidies and tax breaks to ALL citizens and corporations and everyone pays their fair share in a single flat tax for all.

What could be more fair than that?

You willing to sign on to that, or is social engineering still more important than fairness and equality under the law.

Still chanting Social Justice instead of Equal Justice?

 

[flacaltenn]

It may not be 'fair' that someone with kids might pay 1/4 of the income tax I pay, all else being equal,

but it's futile to argue against that and foolish to think it will ever change.

The only unfair part of that is that the GOVT can USE tax policy to influence the number of kids people have. Either by expanding or cutting those subsidies..

I will toss out the same challenge I give to Carbie he runs from every time:

I am in favor of ending ALL subsidies and tax breaks to ALL citizens and corporations and everyone pays their fair share in a single flat tax for all.

What could be more fair than that?

You willing to sign on to that, or is social engineering still more important than fairness and equality under the law.

Still chanting Social Justice instead of Equal Justice?

The only diff between Social Justice and Equal Justice is that the types that support the former have to PERPETUATE a class difference to stay in biz..

Now to be fair -- ERADICATING class diffs is a fools errand. But working to REDUCE them sure isn't.... So MY question to NYCarbo would be -- Aren't we ALL working to minimize class diffs? And I don't mean just sheer redistribution schemes.. Biggest impact on class diffs is education.. Want to make the case that the NYCarbo team does a better job?

 

[NYcarbineer]

It may not be 'fair' that someone with kids might pay 1/4 of the income tax I pay, all else being equal,

but it's futile to argue against that and foolish to think it will ever change.

The only unfair part of that is that the GOVT can USE tax policy to influence the number of kids people have. Either by expanding or cutting those subsidies..

I will toss out the same challenge I give to Carbie he runs from every time:

I am in favor of ending ALL subsidies and tax breaks to ALL citizens and corporations and everyone pays their fair share in a single flat tax for all.

What could be more fair than that?

You willing to sign on to that, or is social engineering still more important than fairness and equality under the law.

Still chanting Social Justice instead of Equal Justice?

Your 'plan' is based on the faulty premise that income being taxed the same is 'fair'.

Do you want to end all religious exemptions? All charitable deductions?

Oh, btw I'll tell you what would actually be more 'fair' than what you propose, and what proves that not even your plan is 'fair' despite your repeatedly claims.

A set dollar amount tax for every citizen, regardless of income.

If we need 2 trillion dollars to pay for the government for a year, then we divide 2 trillion by the number of adults in the country and whatever that number is, that is your FAIR share. That means that if that number comes to 10,000 dollars, then everyone from you to me to Bill Gates to Warren Buffett owes 10,000 dollars. Or whatever the number is.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yes, leaving the bottom 47% EARNING $1, $10 or hundreds of dollars by 'doing their taxes'. Meanwhile the top 10% of all taxpayers pay about 60% of the tab.

How the fuck is that fair?

What's unfair is to tax the money people need for the basic necessities of life. The argument is then what should reasonably qualify as necessities.

Excuse me? But when does need give you the right to someone else's labor or wealth?

That is called a justification of slavery.

So, massah... who do you wish to enslave to your or someone else's 'need' today?

Doan whip me none, massah! I's be a good slave fo you!

You just rejected the legitimacy of a democratic constitutional government. So now tell me,

what government do you replace it with, and how do you get to that government?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yes, leaving the bottom 47% EARNING $1, $10 or hundreds of dollars by 'doing their taxes'. Meanwhile the top 10% of all taxpayers pay about 60% of the tab.

How the fuck is that fair?

It may not be 'fair' that someone with kids might pay 1/4 of the income tax I pay, all else being equal,

but it's futile to argue against that and foolish to think it will ever change.

oh yes, wise sahib! The tax code is written in stone, is it not? It is futile to argue against something that never can change!.

Did you crack your skull on the shallow end again?

Life ain't fair. Anyone who tells you otherwise, is selling something.

You're a fool if you think the voting bloc represented by Americans with children will ever vote away their preferential tax treatment in numbers sufficient to change that circumstance.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh, btw, sort of on the subject, Rick Perry is coming out with a flat tax plan modeled after creepy Steve Forbe's timeworn flat tax,

and guess what?

...if it does follow that model it will include a big first income/low income exemption that will result in millions of American households STILL paying no federal income taxes.

 

[Big Fitz]

The only unfair part of that is that the GOVT can USE tax policy to influence the number of kids people have. Either by expanding or cutting those subsidies..

I will toss out the same challenge I give to Carbie he runs from every time:

I am in favor of ending ALL subsidies and tax breaks to ALL citizens and corporations and everyone pays their fair share in a single flat tax for all.

What could be more fair than that?

You willing to sign on to that, or is social engineering still more important than fairness and equality under the law.

Still chanting Social Justice instead of Equal Justice?

Your 'plan' is based on the faulty premise that income being taxed the same is 'fair'.

Do you want to end all religious exemptions? All charitable deductions?

Oh, btw I'll tell you what would actually be more 'fair' than what you propose, and what proves that not even your plan is 'fair' despite your repeatedly claims.

A set dollar amount tax for every citizen, regardless of income.

If we need 2 trillion dollars to pay for the government for a year, then we divide 2 trillion by the number of adults in the country and whatever that number is, that is your FAIR share. That means that if that number comes to 10,000 dollars, then everyone from you to me to Bill Gates to Warren Buffett owes 10,000 dollars. Or whatever the number is.

Do you want to end all religious exemptions? All charitable deductions?

Yep. End them all. You able to stomach that? End the government 'charitable' programs and let people keep their own money. Charity cannot come from force anyway. This way charities people support get funded, while wastes wither on the vine and die.

If we need 2 trillion dollars to pay for the government for a year, then we divide 2 trillion by the number of adults in the country and whatever that number is, that is your FAIR share.

Except if you ended all the social spending as is constitutionally correct, the cost of government would be about 400 billion or less. So, no need for 2 trillion, therefore the burden on the citizenry shrinks.

Oh, btw I'll tell you what would actually be more 'fair' than what you propose, and what proves that not even your plan is 'fair' despite your repeatedly claims.

A set dollar amount tax for every citizen, regardless of income.

You're right. That IS the most fair. It's a regressive tax though. Is that fair? Yes, when you look at the population at large. So to compromise on fairness and equality you must look at a flat rate... like 10% for everyone. It's the least unequal or unfair, since the concept of equality and fairness are mutually exclusive.