Barney Frank Thinks The Government Has Its Own Money

[mcmick]

Barney Frank in his factually and wildly incorrect comments about the Bush tax cuts and results, stated that we should tax the rich so we "can recover" some of what they received.


He apparently does not know that government is a 100% parasite that has no money of its own nor does he apparently know that a tax cut reduces a future payment, it never gives anything except the money of "taxpayers" who have earned it, to those who have not.

In the case of those in the highest bracket, when the 2003 cuts took place,
the lowest amount of income taxes paid upon reaching that bracket "final net tax" was $96,000. After the cut, it was $84,000 a percentage cut of under 12%.

Even though the government still had a whopping $84,000 of that taxpayers' money, Frank and many libs think the taxpayer took $12,000 from the government rather than paid $84,000 to it.

The highest percentage cuts went to the lowest bracket (15% to 10%). That is a 33 1/3% cut.

Is the dollar amount much less? Of course! To be in the lowest bracket you could only have paid a tiny fraction of the highest bracket amount as your "final net tax".

Without Marxist redistribution of others' earnings, it is absolutely the fairest thing that can be done.

Two other critical factors.

With higher tax rates, before the tax cuts, the top 1% paid 35% of the total burden of income taxes (IRS data--tax returns). With the lower rates, the top 1% are paying 39.37%

In Clinton's last submitted budget, government revenues took a steep drop, then continued downward for 2 more years.

After the 2003 Bush cuts revenues soared (Congressional Budget Office, IRS, Census Bureau, every other reliable source)

There may be some liberals in the world who tell the truth about taxes and economics-I just don't know of any.

The economy was doing great before Democrats gave us the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

 

[Larkinn]

Barney Frank in his factually and wildly incorrect comments about the Bush tax cuts and results, stated that we should tax the rich so we "can recover" some of what they received.


He apparently does not know that government is a 100% parasite that has no money of its own nor does he apparently know that a tax cut reduces a future payment, it never gives anything except the money of "taxpayers" who have earned it, to those who have not.

In the case of those in the highest bracket, when the 2003 cuts took place,
the lowest amount of income taxes paid upon reaching that bracket "final net tax" was $96,000. After the cut, it was $84,000 a percentage cut of under 12%.

Even though the government still had a whopping $84,000 of that taxpayers' money, Frank and many libs think the taxpayer took $12,000 from the government rather than paid $84,000 to it.

The highest percentage cuts went to the lowest bracket (15% to 10%). That is a 33 1/3% cut.

Is the dollar amount much less? Of course! To be in the lowest bracket you could only have paid a tiny fraction of the highest bracket amount as your "final net tax".

Without Marxist redistribution of others' earnings, it is absolutely the fairest thing that can be done.

Two other critical factors.

With higher tax rates, before the tax cuts, the top 1% paid 35% of the total burden of income taxes (IRS data--tax returns). With the lower rates, the top 1% are paying 39.37%

In Clinton's last submitted budget, government revenues took a steep drop, then continued downward for 2 more years.

After the 2003 Bush cuts revenues soared (Congressional Budget Office, IRS, Census Bureau, every other reliable source)

There may be some liberals in the world who tell the truth about taxes and economics-I just don't know of any.

The economy was doing great before Democrats gave us the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Yes, the government gives you things. Or do you not drive on roads? Do you not benefit from police protection? Do you not benefit from firemen? Do you not benefit from the US military? How about the USPS?

Have fun running a business and making money without all those things. The government allows you to have the capability to run a business at all and make money at all, by creating a stable, safe environment.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes, the government gives you things. Or do you not drive on roads? Do you not benefit from police protection? Do you not benefit from firemen? Do you not benefit from the US military? How about the USPS?

Have fun running a business and making money without all those things. The government allows you to have the capability to run a business at all and make money at all, by creating a stable, safe environment.

Not the point at all. The Democrats think a tax cut is taking THEIR money. It was NEVER their money to begin with. The Government is ONLY supposed to tax for things it is LEGALLY allowed to do. You remember that pesky damn Constitution?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Not the point at all. The Democrats think a tax cut is taking THEIR money. It was NEVER their money to begin with. The Government is ONLY supposed to tax for things it is LEGALLY allowed to do. You remember that pesky damn Constitution?

Gunny-

I don't think Democrats think tax dollars are there money - I think the believe tax dollars are OUR money. Oorah!

 

[Larkinn]

Not the point at all. The Democrats think a tax cut is taking THEIR money. It was NEVER their money to begin with. The Government is ONLY supposed to tax for things it is LEGALLY allowed to do. You remember that pesky damn Constitution?

No, they really don't. But keep up with the ridiculous caricatures of Democrats. They are amusing, if horribly inaccurate.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The economy was doing great before Democrats gave us the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Might wanna check again.....the deregulation of the markets, which in turn led to the predatory lending, which in turn led to the housing bubble bursting, which in turn led to the mess that we are in now, WAS NOT done by Dems.

It was done by Reps and that idiot in the White House Bush Jr.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Might wanna check again.....the deregulation of the markets, which in turn led to the predatory lending, which in turn led to the housing bubble bursting, which in turn led to the mess that we are in now, WAS NOT done by Dems.

It was done by Reps and that idiot in the White House Bush Jr.

I dare you to prove that.

 

[Toro]

Barney Frank in his factually and wildly incorrect comments about the Bush tax cuts and results, stated that we should tax the rich so we "can recover" some of what they received.


He apparently does not know that government is a 100% parasite that has no money of its own nor does he apparently know that a tax cut reduces a future payment, it never gives anything except the money of "taxpayers" who have earned it, to those who have not.

In the case of those in the highest bracket, when the 2003 cuts took place,
the lowest amount of income taxes paid upon reaching that bracket "final net tax" was $96,000. After the cut, it was $84,000 a percentage cut of under 12%.

Even though the government still had a whopping $84,000 of that taxpayers' money, Frank and many libs think the taxpayer took $12,000 from the government rather than paid $84,000 to it.

The highest percentage cuts went to the lowest bracket (15% to 10%). That is a 33 1/3% cut.

Is the dollar amount much less? Of course! To be in the lowest bracket you could only have paid a tiny fraction of the highest bracket amount as your "final net tax".

Without Marxist redistribution of others' earnings, it is absolutely the fairest thing that can be done.

Two other critical factors.

With higher tax rates, before the tax cuts, the top 1% paid 35% of the total burden of income taxes (IRS data--tax returns). With the lower rates, the top 1% are paying 39.37%

In Clinton's last submitted budget, government revenues took a steep drop, then continued downward for 2 more years.

After the 2003 Bush cuts revenues soared (Congressional Budget Office, IRS, Census Bureau, every other reliable source)

There may be some liberals in the world who tell the truth about taxes and economics-I just don't know of any.

The economy was doing great before Democrats gave us the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

If one thinks that the economy was doing great before the collapse of Fannie and Freddie, then either one doesn't know much about economics or one should take their eyes off the talking points and pay less attention to the political spin.

 

[dilloduck]

Yes, the government gives you things. Or do you not drive on roads? Do you not benefit from police protection? Do you not benefit from firemen? Do you not benefit from the US military? How about the USPS?

Have fun running a business and making money without all those things. The government allows you to have the capability to run a business at all and make money at all, by creating a stable, safe environment.

And whose money does it use to accomplish those things ?

 

[KMAN]

Yes, the government gives you things. Or do you not drive on roads? Do you not benefit from police protection? Do you not benefit from firemen? Do you not benefit from the US military? How about the USPS?

Have fun running a business and making money without all those things. The government allows you to have the capability to run a business at all and make money at all, by creating a stable, safe environment.

You do realize that we did not always have an income tax right? What do you think we did before there was an income tax????????

 

[Larkinn]

You do realize that we did not always have an income tax right? What do you think we did before there was an income tax????????

Umm, we were taxed on other things besides income, and there were lots of tariffs.

 

[NOBama]

Umm, we were taxed on other things besides income, and there were lots of tariffs.

When was that, before we kicked the King's ass outta Dodge?