And you think that when 49% of the country pays 3% of the federal taxes, while 1% of the country pays over 50% of the federal taxes, that it isn't taxation without representation for those 49% to vote themselves more government goodies at everyone else's expense?
I got news for you, that's what the Tea Party and the November 2010 election was about.
There are people saying ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! We are NOT going to just shut up and keep paying for a bloated entitlement system.
You are totally out of touch. You think it's the 1960s and Johnson's "Great Society" is still a great idea.
Welcome to 2011, dude. The welfare state cannot be sustained indefinitely. They are now borrowing and printing worthless money just to try and hold off that day when it collapses.
Your living wage is not something that can be sustained forever.
The only people saying enough is enough is the extremely rich... who through loopholes and credits... end up paying less than I do in taxes at $100k. Them... and people like you who actually believe the "poor little rich folk" propaganda that gets spewed from the Corporate Controlled Media.
Dude, according to Obama, YOU ARE RICH, you poor clueless sap!
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-SavgJlBLA"]‪Obama: families making $97,000 are "upper class" and should pay more taxes‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]
You are an idiot! Obama HAS STATED THAT THOSE MAKING 97K ARE "THE RICH!"
And what are you whining to me for? My husband makes under 75K while I am looking for a job (and since I have been a stay at home mom since 1994) I doubt our combined salaries will get us UP to 100K.
Yet, I have ABSOLUTELY NO ILLUSION that my taxes WILL GO UP under Obama.
You can be stupid and believe Obama will not raise YOUR taxes. But the last time taxes were raised, (retroactive to Jan 1) in 1993, guess what?
HERE ARE THE FACTS!
The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 [WHEN REAGAN CUT TAXES] to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988.
A middle class of taxpayers can be defined as those between the 50th percentile and the 95th percentile (those earning between $18,367 and $72,735 in 1988). Between 1981 and 1988, the income tax burden of the middle class declined from 57.5 percent in 1981 to 48.7 percent in 1988. This 8.8 percentage point decline in middle class tax burden is entirely accounted for by the increase borne by the top one percent.
Several conclusions follow from these data. First of all, reduction in high marginal tax rates can induce taxpayers to lessen their reliance on tax shelters and tax avoidance, and expose more of their income to taxation. The result in this case was a 51 percent increase in real tax payments by the top one percent. Meanwhile, the tax rate reduction reduced the tax payments of middle class and poor taxpayers. The net effect was a marked shift in the tax burden toward the top 1 percent amounting to about 10 percentage points. Lower top marginal tax rates had encouraged these taxpayers to generate more taxable income.
The 1993 Clinton tax increase appears to having the opposite effect on the willingness of wealthy taxpayers to expose income to taxation. According to IRS data, the income generated by the top one percent of income earners actually declined in 1993. This decline is especially significant since the retroactivity of the Clinton tax increase in that year limited the ability of taxpayers to deploy tax avoidance strategies, temporarily resulting in an increase in their tax burden. Moreover, according to the FY 1997 Clinton budget submission, individual income tax revenues as a share of GDP will be lower during the first four years of the Clinton tax increase, which include the effects of the 1990 tax increase, than under the last four years of the Reagan tax changes (FY 1986-89). Furthermore, according to a study published by the National Bureau for Economic Research,[
2] the Clinton tax hike is failing to collect over 40 percent of the projected revenue increases.
Incidentally, the claim that unrealistic supply side Reagan Administration revenue projections caused large budget deficits during the 1980s is false. Nonetheless, this false allegation is often used against current tax reform proposals. The official Reagan revenue projections immediately following enactment of ERTA did not assume huge revenue increases, and were actually quite close to the CBO revenue projections. Even the Democrat-controlled CBO projected that deficits would fall after the enactment of the Reagan tax cuts. The real problem was a recession that neither CBO nor OMB could foresee. Even so, individual income tax revenues rose from $244 billion in 1980 to $446 billion in 1989
The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform
What this means is, when taxes were cut it REDUCED THE TAX BURDEN ON THE MIDDLE CLASS, while when taxes were raised, IT RAISED THE TAX BURDEN ON THE MIDDLE CLASS, WHILE THE TOP TIER SIMPLY EMPLOYED STRATEGIES TO AVOID IT!
Now THIS IS REALITY! You can rattle off your fantasies about how Obama will close the loopholes, but his hundreds of waivers for preferred companies to avoid Obamacare prove it to be just that, A FANTASY!
The loopholes will go no where! And those who can't avoid the loopholes WILL SIMPLY LEAVE THE COUNTRY.
Tim Horton's has already done so.
Obama's tax hike will NOT have the effect that you fantasize about. It will not hurt the rich you dream about "getting even" with. It will hurt and is DELIBERATELY TARGETED AT YOU!
You'll feel it first before I will, you moron!
