How Much More In Taxes Do Liberal Want Me To Pay?

[Mr. P]

I don't see changing the method of tax collection as the answer.

Obviously the tax code is too complicated. To make it much simpler would make it much more fair. Perhaps even getting rid of the progressive income tax, and leaving a flat income tax would be fair.
Right now, the biggest problem (IMO) is that the poor pay, umm, NOTHING, in income tax. IIRC, the bottom 48% recieve more in refund than they pay in. That's only 3% away from a majority... pretty scary in a democracy.

Oh, and I'd cut government spending by about 90%. . Okay, maybe not that much, but a lot.

I agree with all except, the flat tax being fair, it's not not fair..I guess we must agree to disagree.

 

[Bullypulpit]

I am fed up and tired of hearing liberals say the "rich" need to pay their "fair share"

What do libs consider rich?

At what income level, if you are single, are you "rich" accroding to liberals?

The top producers pay about 34.3% to the Federal gfovernment. What rate would libs like to see the "rich" pay?

Please remember the follwoing BEFORE you answer
The top 50% of income earners pay a whopping 96.5% of federal income taxes, while the lower 50% pay just 3.5%.
The top 25% pay 83.88% of federal income taxes
The top 10% pay 65.8% (these are people with an adjusted cross income of about $95,000 or higher)
The top 5% pay 54.4%
The top 1% pay 34.3% (these are people with an adjusted gross income of about $300,000 or higher)


These numbers are from the IRS. They should know who pays taxes and who does not

If you're not a member of the top 5% of the income heap, you're going to pay and pay and pay.

 

[CSM]

If you're not a member of the top 5% of the income heap, you're going to pay and pay and pay.

Care to tell me how much someone at the bottom of the income heap pay? oh yeah...they dont.

 

[gonegolfin]

Mr. Big Meat, the last paragraph of Mr. Buffet's speech proves my point! Our credit card isn't limitless, but will go on for decades! And at a lousy 5% interest rate! Let's cut taxes more! Your worry about inflation is a crock. There is no inflation. If anything, prices are far cheaper than 30 years ago. Cut interest rates now! Get that credit card rate down to 3% like when our President took office.

Wow. You have a lot to learn about monetary policy. I suggest you listen carefully.

Brian

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Mr. Big Meat, the last paragraph of Mr. Buffet's speech proves my point!

Umm, no it doesn't.

Our credit card isn't limitless, but will go on for decades!

According to who? Certainly not Warren Buffet. If it were decades off in the future, he wouldn't be dumping dollars here and now. He's 71, after all.

And at a lousy 5% interest rate!

Historically speaking, interest rates under a gold standard generally hover around 3.5~4%, according to Larry Parks at fame.org.

Let's cut taxes more!

Agreed, 100%! As opposed to cutting one tax (income tax) and raising another tax (inflation "stealth tax"). That requires cutting spending. In all fairness, the increase in revenues right now might be due to a lower tax rate. Or not, we don't really know for sure. It could be just another symptom of the oceans of money created in recent years.

Your worry about inflation is a crock. There is no inflation.

Go back and read some of the articles I posted under "the CPI is a crock". CPI is the consumer price index. It doesn't include stock market bubbles, the increase in house prices, food, or energy. It applies laughable "hedonic adjustments", where (for example) a TV can be said to be cheaper if the picture is 20% better, despite a 10% price increase.

It also confuses the two separate types of inflation--money supply changes vs. supply/demand issues. For example, around the late 90's/early 00's there were deflation concerns. Core CPI prices went down because of free trade with China, which is a blessing. This was enough to counteract the Fed's big increases in M3 money supply, for a while. But because the Fed conflates the two types of inflation, they continued to crank out money (gotta fight deflation!), and blew a big fat bubble in the stock market--the dot-com bubble (and later, the housing bubble). Now it's spilling over into consumer prices, and we're just getting into the third bubble--commodities.

"Inflation" used to simply mean "an increase in the money supply". And here is how much inflation we've had.



Interesting side note, Greenspan gives his "Irrational Exuberance" speech sometime in 1996. Gee, why were the markets so exuberant, Mr. Greenspan?

Ooh, speaking of which. Here's an interesting read, which translated one of Greenspan's speeches from Fedspeak jibber-jabber into plain english.

What Does Mr. Greenspan REALLY think?

If anything, prices are far cheaper than 30 years ago.

Ha ha, what??

Cut interest rates now! Get that credit card rate down to 3% like when our President took office.

Crank up the printing press and we'll all be rich eh?

Am I living in america, or a bananna republic?

 

[red states rule]

Care to tell me how much someone at the bottom of the income heap pay? oh yeah...they dont.

The nonproducers are feeding off the nonproducers

The bottom 50% pay a measly 3% of all Federal Income taxes

The liberal solution is to raise the taxes of the producers

 

[PsuedoGhost]

The nonproducers are feeding off the nonproducers

The bottom 50% pay a measly 3% of all Federal Income taxes

The liberal solution is to raise the taxes of the producers

So, I don't understand. We cut taxes for the uber rich, and we dont raise taxes on the poor. The government experiences budget shortfalls and starves itself down to a lean fighting machine? Or are we talking lower taxes on the rich, and raise them on the poor in order to cover the difference? Do you really want to resort back to serfdom?

 

[red states rule]

So, I don't understand. We cut taxes for the uber rich, and we dont raise taxes on the poor. The government experiences budget shortfalls and starves itself down to a lean fighting machine? Or are we talking lower taxes on the rich, and raise them on the poor in order to cover the difference? Do you really want to resort back to serfdom?

The amount of mney flowing into DC has INCREASED. We need to curb the insane spending.
When you cut taxes it increases economic activity and in turn increase tax revenues
The line item veto might help curb the spending

 

[Annie]

So, I don't understand. We cut taxes for the uber rich, and we dont raise taxes on the poor. The government experiences budget shortfalls and starves itself down to a lean fighting machine? Or are we talking lower taxes on the rich, and raise them on the poor in order to cover the difference? Do you really want to resort back to serfdom?

It's so confusing! The income is increasing and the deficit is being paid about 50% ahead of schedual. Go figure!

 

[red states rule]

It's so confusing! The income is increasing and the deficit is being paid about 50% ahead of schedual. Go figure!

Yes the economy is roaring along and libs are in such a pissy mood with all the good news

 

[catatonic]

Well over 0.1% of Americans literally are starving to death, yes on the verge of death.

The top 0.1% could feed them with one year's salary for over 1000 years.

Cry me a river.

Maybe they don't like to be taxed having a soul?

 

[Mr. P]

Well over 0.1% of Americans literally are starving to death, yes on the verge of death.

The top 0.1% could feed them with one year's salary for over 1000 years.

Cry me a river.

Maybe they don't like to be taxed having a soul?

:rotflmao: You don't have a clue..:finger:

 

[red states rule]

Well over 0.1% of Americans literally are starving to death, yes on the verge of death.

The top 0.1% could feed them with one year's salary for over 1000 years.

Cry me a river.

Maybe they don't like to be taxed having a soul?

The government has taken over $9 trillion dollars from the producers and has given it to the nonproducers

Libs are like having a boil on your a** - such a pain

 

[catatonic]

Tell me, if they've given it to nonproducers, why are half a million starving to death?

If I don't have a clue, why am I the last poster on the other two threads I participated heavily in?

Why is money a pain as opposed to hunger?

Did I not mention how easy this would be?

Is the real pain in your a** a soul trying to reenter after you farted it out?

 

[red states rule]

Tell me, if they've given it to nonproducers, why are half a million starving to death?

If I don't have a clue, why am I the last poster on the other two threads I participated heavily in?

Why is money a pain as opposed to hunger?

Did I not mention how easy this would be?

Is the real pain in your a** a soul trying to reenter after you farted it out?

Sine the libs started their War on Poverty in 1960's. the Feds have taken $9 Trillion from the producers and given it away to the nonproducers.

This is one war where the libs have no exit plan, no plan to win, and the last thing they want is to admit defeat.

Throwing money is the only thing libs want to do with any problem.

Libs need as many people as possible dependent on government and government programs. this siw here libs get their power from.

Like drug dealers, libs want people dependent on them for thier next "fix" i.e government check

Now you can go abck to your personal attacks since you have no counter argument to these facts

 

[catatonic]

Sine the libs started their War on Poverty in 1960's. the Feds have taken $9 Trillion from the producers and given it away to the nonproducers.

How much have they spent on starvation itself which is all I've addressed so far? As I stated, this shows that the money has been misdirected. Besides, $9 trillion amounts to 6% tax on the top 1%. Oh what a pain compared to starving to death!

This is one war where the libs have no exit plan, no plan to win, and the last thing they want is to admit defeat.

What do you mean? I think saving people from death is a war of peace, it is the right to life, along with liberty and happiness, our founding father's addressed from the foundation of this nation. You're damn right there's no exit plan. It has been won in all the industrialized nations where people don't have to starve. The plan is to take over the earth with, OMG, feeding those who are starving. Hell yes we don't want to admit defeat.

Is the red cross waging war? So demonstrate how libs differ?

Throwing money is the only thing libs want to do with any problem.

Bill Clinton had nationwide city council meetings to help fight racism and it worked well.

But if you're exxagerating, Harry Reid hasn't endorsed socialism ever. He's just talked about fair opportunity, the bedrock of America. Libs throw money at creating opportunity. That's why each and every Democrat President in the last 80 years has seen more net jobs in his presidency than each and every Republican President.

Libs need as many people as possible dependent on government and government programs. this siw here libs get their power from.

Which works exactly how? Welfare recipients, the poor, and the homeless, in case you haven't noticed, virtually never vote. And the lion's share of welfare the Blue States have voted for gets eaten up by Red States. I am asking you to explain and justify your statement.

Like drug dealers, libs want people dependent on them for thier next "fix" i.e government check

You don't get a fix. You feel dependent and its terrible. Please answer my question just above.

Now you can go abck to your personal attacks since you have no counter argument to these facts

Isn't saying I have no counter agrument a personal attack? I indeed have pages and pages up my sleeve. The question is, do you even care?
I google starving Americans for images. There's pictures of KFC and a Christianity image about people starving for salvation. Americans are so callous, the media doesn't even cover the half million on the verge of death.

The personal attack was to address the grander question of caring. I'm perfectly ready to debate this.

 

[Annie]

QUOTE=red states rule]Sine the libs started their War on Poverty in 1960's. the Feds have taken $9 Trillion from the producers and given it away to the nonproducers.

How much have they spent on the war of starvation? As I stated, this shows that the money has been misdirected. Besides, $9 trillion amounts to 6% tax on the top 1%. Oh what a pain compared to starving to death!

This is one war where the libs have no exit plan, no plan to win, and the last thing they want is to admit defeat.

Saving people from death is a war of peace, it is the right to life, along with liberty and happiness, our founding father's addressed from the foundation of this nation. You're damn right there's no exit plan. It has been won in all the industrialized nations where people don't have to starve. The plan is to take over the earth with, OMG, feeding those who are starving. Hell yes we don't want to admit defeat.

Is the red cross waging war? So demonstrate how libs differ?

Throwing money is the only thing libs want to do with any problem.

Bill Clinton had nationwide city council meetings to help fight racism and it worked well.

Harry Reid hasn't endorsed socialism ever. He's just talked about fair opportunity, the bedrock of America.

Libs need as many people as possible dependent on government and government programs. this siw here libs get their power from.

Which works exactly how? Welfare recipients, the poor, and the homeless, in case you haven't noticed, virtually never vote. And the lion's share of welfare the Blue States have voted for gets eaten up by Red States.

Like drug dealers, libs want people dependent on them for thier next "fix" i.e government check

You don't get a fix. You feel dependent and its terrible. Please answer my question just above.

Now you can go abck to your personal attacks since you have no counter argument to these facts

Isn't saying I have no counter agrument a personal attack? I indeed have pages and pages up my sleeve. The question is, do you even care?
I google starving Americans for images. There's pictures of KFC and a Christianity image about people starving for salvation. Americans are so callous, the media doesn't even cover the half million on the verge of death.

The personal attack was to address the grander question of caring over futile arguments that I am poised to destroy.

[/QUOTE]
I was trying to edit this so that it would make sense, but it's way too messed up. I didn't want to screw up catatonic's point, if he has one, but this is way over the top for representing Redstates points...

 

[catatonic]

I'll re-edit it myself. I'm sorry I took for granted that the liberal arguments and the conservative arguments could easily be told apart.

I'm very cooperative.

My point is that it's easy to stop starvation and we should care, and that those starving suffer much more than any pain caused by adding a little government.

Also, I am trying to have a dialogue so I can see what the strongest point of the rest of this forum has. Then we can compare strongest points objectively.

 

[MissileMan]

I'll re-edit it myself. I'm sorry I took for granted that the liberal arguments and the conservative arguments could easily be told apart.

I'm very cooperative.

My point is that it's easy to stop starvation and we should care, and that those starving suffer much more than any pain caused by adding a little government.

Also, I am trying to have a dialogue so I can see what the strongest point of the rest of this forum has. Then we can compare strongest points objectively.

The federal goverment is responsible to provide the opportunity to achieve "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". I know of no where in the COTUS where they are required to don a Robin Hood outfit and steal from citizens to fund handouts for people too lazy to eke out their own living.

Frankly, I'm tired of paying for other people's kids so they can produce a litter of genetically-diverse, future-deadbeats.

 

[catatonic]

The federal goverment is responsible to provide the opportunity to achieve "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". I know of no where in the COTUS where they are required to don a Robin Hood outfit and steal from citizens to fund handouts for people too lazy to eke out their own living.

Frankly, I'm tired of paying for other people's kids so they can produce a litter of genetically-diverse, future-deadbeats.

OK. Myth#1 - taxes are stealing.
only if against the commerce clause. Every state at some point agreed to the commerce clause to join the Union. Taxes are barter between the wealthy and poor for the things the Constitution allows for.. and yes, when "the general welfare" is mentioned in the Constitution, it means exactly that. Look it up in the Federalist Papers if you like. The fact that "general welfare" was paid for by small means in the 1800s and large means in the 1900s is not a double standard... it is a function of population density.
Myth#2 the government redistributes wealth.
No, it just is responsible for general welfare whenever the people themselves fail to provide it. You can start donating to the starving anytime you like, and I assure you government will back down.
Myth#3 these people are too lazy to eke out their own living.
The fundamental difference between the homeless and ordinary people is that the homeless don't have as solid of social networks to rely on. Many people would be homeless, but their parents or friends or church or other provide sustainence. Many people don't get sustainence from these groups, and that is the most common distinction. It has little at all to do with laziness or ability.
Myth#4 welfare recipients create a litter of genetically-diverse, future-deadbeats.
Most welfare recipients get off welfare as soon as they can, which is about a year. Very few welfare recipients are lifelong welfare recipients and even fewer pass it to their kids.