PDA

View Full Version : Economics Hey, lets loot from others to help out the 47% that don't pay taxes anyway!


chris
04-13-2011, 01:51 PM
........Noted the president, "This is not because we begrudge those who've done well — we rightly celebrate their success. Rather, it is a basic reflection of our belief that those who have benefitted most from our way of life can afford to give a bit more back......


"Rather, it is a basic reflection of our belief" .....give me a break. It's called suck-up to the liberal base that believe that anybody making more that $250K is evil!

Looters! Legal stealing from one group to give to another group.

"Who is John Galt?"



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42566545/ns/politics-white_house/

WASHINGTON — Forcefully rejecting Republican budget cutting plans, President Barack Obama on Wednesday proposed lowering the nation's future deficits by $4 trillion over a dozen years with a package that includes reducing spending on politically sensitive health care programs and raising taxes on high-earning Americans.

"It's an approach that puts every kind of spending on the table, but one that protects the middle-class, our promise to seniors, and our investments in the future," said Obama in a speech at George Washington University.

The plan also proposes cuts to domestic spending and the defense budget. "We need to not only eliminate waste and improve efficiency and effectiveness, but conduct a fundamental review of America's missions, capabilities, and our role in a changing world," said Obama.

"It's an approach that achieves about $2 trillion in spending cuts across the budget. It will lower our interest payments on the debt by $1 trillion," added the president. "It calls for tax reform to cut about $1 trillion in spending from the tax code."

The president's plan, outlined in a seven-page White House fact sheet, draws many of its ideas from the December recommendations of Obama's bipartisan fiscal commission, which proposed $4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years.

As in the commission's plan, three quarters of the deficit reduction would come from spending cuts, including lower interest payments as the debt eases. One quarter would come from additional tax revenue.

Obama's plan falls short of the more than $5 trillion in cuts over a decade proposed by House Republicans, and dismissed by Democrats as draconian.

Amnorix
04-13-2011, 01:54 PM
I'm fine with raising taxes so long as there is also a reasonably dramatic cut in spending.

I'm particularly pleased with something I read elsewhere that had mandatory spending cuts under certain circumstances (deficit above 2.8% of GDP or somesuch -- I only skimmed the article). I think, unfortunately, that built-in cuts are an absolute requirement because Congress/President have historically shown no ability to self-govern on deficit issues.

I also note that I am greatly cheered by the fact that the deficit is AT LONG, LONG LAST getting some serious attention. Wahtever the result of these talks, it should at least help the situation, rather than continuing the ostrich approach that has been in vogue for the last decade.

teedubya
04-13-2011, 01:57 PM
We are broke at home... how about this... let's stop being the world's policemen? Stop all wars... and let's get our shit figured out here at home.

Cave Johnson
04-13-2011, 02:13 PM
"Who is John Galt?"

Not you, buddy.

ROYC75
04-13-2011, 02:15 PM
I'm fine with raising taxes so long as there is also a reasonably dramatic cut in spending.

I'm particularly pleased with something I read elsewhere that had mandatory spending cuts under certain circumstances (deficit above 2.8% of GDP or somesuch -- I only skimmed the article). I think, unfortunately, that built-in cuts are an absolute requirement because Congress/President have historically shown no ability to self-govern on deficit issues.

I also note that I am greatly cheered by the fact that the deficit is AT LONG, LONG LAST getting some serious attention. Wahtever the result of these talks, it should at least help the situation, rather than continuing the ostrich approach that has been in vogue for the last decade.


Sadly, It's the only real solution to our problem.

Donger
04-13-2011, 02:16 PM
"Gotta spread that wealth around."

mlyonsd
04-13-2011, 02:17 PM
Yes, class warfare. Now there's another brilliant new idea from the democrats. Didn't see that coming.

Amnorix
04-13-2011, 02:23 PM
Yes, class warfare. Now there's another brilliant new idea from the democrats. Didn't see that coming.


What, like most Republican proposals couldn't be described as variations on "Porking the Poor"?

I agree we need to curb entitlement programs, especially their projected growth numbers, so the poor are going to be porked to some degree, but don't pretend that Republicans dole out their "gifts" even-handedly.

Cave Johnson
04-13-2011, 02:30 PM
Yes, class warfare. Now there's another brilliant new idea from the democrats. Didn't see that coming.

75% spending cuts AIN'T ENOUGH.

Saul Good
04-13-2011, 02:30 PM
What, like most Republican proposals couldn't be described as variations on "Porking the Poor"?

I agree we need to curb entitlement programs, especially their projected growth numbers, so the poor are going to be porked to some degree, but don't pretend that Republicans dole out their "gifts" even-handedly.

Gifts? If I'm standing next to you, and you get robbed at gunpoint, the thief takes everything out of your wallet and throws the empty wallet back to you before leaving, should I complain that the robber gave you a wallet but didn't give me anything? I would consider myself lucky that I didn't get robbed in the first place, but that's just me.

mlyonsd
04-13-2011, 02:43 PM
What, like most Republican proposals couldn't be described as variations on "Porking the Poor"?

I agree we need to curb entitlement programs, especially their projected growth numbers, so the poor are going to be porked to some degree, but don't pretend that Republicans dole out their "gifts" even-handedly.
Sure, some might, but if you think someone that doesn't pay taxes is getting 'porked' when their benefits are cut we have a different definition of what the word means. I might add until all tax rates are even the rich are always the ones that will get porked.

And as long as there is an elevated income tax where the higher end keeps making up for the lower end you will never get spending under control.

mlyonsd
04-13-2011, 02:43 PM
75% spending cuts AIN'T ENOUGH.
Fine, then raise rates across the board. Of course to do that you'd have to be serious about debt reduction and not care what it meant politically.

Hydrae
04-13-2011, 02:50 PM
Personally I am getting tired of hearing governmental types at all levels talk about "finding new revenue sources." Have they not figured out yet that the well is dry and there are no new revenue sources available without dire consequences to the economy. We need to reduce the size of government, period.

Oh, and stop giving money to other countries when we can't pay our own bills.

Cave Johnson
04-13-2011, 02:52 PM
Fine, then raise rates across the board. Of course to do that you'd have to be serious about debt reduction and not care what it meant politically.

You do know that most of the wage growth in the last 1-2 decades is at the high end of the spectrum, right?

Broad based tax increases, at least in my mind, only make sense when everyone is sharing in the gains.

KC Dan
04-13-2011, 02:54 PM
You do know that most of the wage growth in the last 1-2 decades is at the high end of the spectrum, right?

Broad based tax increases, at least in my mind, only make sense when everyone is sharing in the gains.You do realize that those with wage growth (such as myself) are pretty much the only ones paying federal income taxes? Our rate is also higher. How high is too high for people who actually DO pay taxes?

Amnorix
04-13-2011, 02:55 PM
Gifts? If I'm standing next to you, and you get robbed at gunpoint, the thief takes everything out of your wallet and throws the empty wallet back to you before leaving, should I complain that the robber gave you a wallet but didn't give me anything? I would consider myself lucky that I didn't get robbed in the first place, but that's just me.

Your analogy isn't analogous to much of anything.

The government of the United States needs to be funded. Whatever system we have will take money from some portion of its people pursuant to some plan. The burden of that system will fall in some way on the various citizens.

The question is what is the best system for distributing that burden across the citizens?

Taxation isn't stealing, sorry.

Amnorix
04-13-2011, 02:56 PM
Sure, some might, but if you think someone that doesn't pay taxes is getting 'porked' when their benefits are cut we have a different definition of what the word means. I might add until all tax rates are even the rich are always the ones that will get porked.

And as long as there is an elevated income tax where the higher end keeps making up for the lower end you will never get spending under control.

Progressive income taxes doesn't equal deficit spending. That makes no sense.

Bill Gates paying a dollar more (hypothetically) in taxes than I do doesn't mean he's getting porked. That also makes no sense.

RedNeckRaider
04-13-2011, 02:57 PM
Personally I am getting tired of hearing governmental types at all levels talk about "finding new revenue sources." Have they not figured out yet that the well is dry and there are no new revenue sources available without dire consequences to the economy. We need to reduce the size of government, period.

Oh, and stop giving money to other countries when we can't pay our own bills.

As simple as this sounds it will never happen. Our government is a total embarrassment filled with worthless pigfuckers cut from the same cloth and claiming to oppose the other party. The reality is, it is just a fight over who gets to milk the cow~

Cave Johnson
04-13-2011, 03:01 PM
You do realize that those with wage growth (such as myself) are pretty much the only ones paying federal income taxes? Our rate is also higher. How high is too high for people who actually DO pay taxes?

Yes, the top 10% are the only ones that pay taxes. ;)

notorious
04-13-2011, 03:02 PM
Personally I am getting tired of hearing governmental types at all levels talk about "finding new revenue sources." Have they not figured out yet that the well is dry and there are no new revenue sources available without dire consequences to the economy. We need to reduce the size of government, period.

Oh, and stop giving money to other countries when we can't pay our own bills.

This.


/DC

dirk digler
04-13-2011, 03:06 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-presidents-budget-proposal/2011/04/13/AFEfAcWD_blog.html

Here’s the basic outline of the White House’s long-term budget proposal:

Top line: $4 trillion in deficit reduction over 12 years, backed by a “trigger” that begins making across-the-board cuts in discretionary spending and tax expenditures if debt if we’re not on track by 2014.

That’s achieved through:

Discretionary spending cuts: Increases the non-security spending freeze to the freeze-plus-cuts proposal favored by the deficit commission. That nets roughly $800 billion. Lops a further $400 billion off of the security-related discretionary spending.

Health care: Directs the Independent Payment Advisory Board to hold cost growth in Medicare to GDP plus 0.5 percent rather than GDP plus 1 percent. To make that achievable, IPAB gets new powers, including the ability to restructure Medicare’s insurance so it pays differently for treatments of different value. Also shortens the patent on biologic drugs from 12 years to seven years, implements the recommendations from the National Governors Association working group on Medicaid, and does a few more things. Total savings: $480 billion.

Non-Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security mandatory spending: Makes $360 billion in cuts.

Tax reform: Raises $1 trillion by clearing certain expenditures from the tax code. Also assumes the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for income over $250,000. The breakdown of spending cuts to tax increases in the proposal is 3:1.

Social Security: Supports negotiations to close the Social Security shortfall consistent with the principles laid out in the budget.

My initial impression is that this looks a lot like the Simpson-Bowles report

KC Dan
04-13-2011, 03:07 PM
Yes, the top 10% are the only ones that pay taxes. ;)You are correct they are not the only ones but as this chart shows (2008), they do pay ~70% of the taxes. How much is too much IYO?

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

Amnorix
04-13-2011, 03:13 PM
We also need to index Social Security increases not to increases in WAGES, but strictly to increases in COSTS. I was absolutely stunned to learn recently that SS is partly linked to something other than consumer costs. WTF. The point isn't to keep them keeping up with workers, it's to keep them out of poverty, which means that only costs matter, not how much of a raise Bob down the street got at work!

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/

Cave Johnson
04-13-2011, 03:14 PM
You are correct they are not the only ones but as this chart shows (2008), they do pay ~70% of the taxes. How much is too much IYO?

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

I was unaware federal personal income taxes were the only type the gub'mt levies.

Direckshun
04-13-2011, 03:15 PM
You can land a crippling blow to the deficit and the national debt by lifting the Bush tax cuts.

It's that simple. Putting the rate back at 39% instead of 36% could be a necessary step to solvency.

It's a small compromise from those that can afford it.

Amnorix
04-13-2011, 03:15 PM
You are correct they are not the only ones but as this chart shows (2008), they do pay ~70% of the taxes. How much is too much IYO?

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html


Well, since they make 50% of the income...

http://anticap.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/100902_gd_part1_pikettysaez-fig1.gif?w=600

KC Dan
04-13-2011, 03:21 PM
I was unaware federal personal income taxes were the only type the gub'mt levies.of course not, lets not get stupid here. But, they are the only taxes that the majority party in the Senate and White House want to raise now isnt it. How much is too much?

KC Dan
04-13-2011, 03:22 PM
You can land a crippling blow to the deficit and the national debt by lifting the Bush tax cuts.

It's that simple. Putting the rate back at 39% instead of 36% could be a necessary step to solvency.

It's a small compromise from those that can afford it.How about 3% across the board? Do you really want to dump the debt? That is one sure way. But that would be unfair I guess...

dirk digler
04-13-2011, 03:22 PM
You can land a crippling blow to the deficit and the national debt by lifting the Bush tax cuts.

It's that simple. Putting the rate back at 39% instead of 36% could be a necessary step to solvency.

It's a small compromise from those that can afford it.

I agree. The Bush tax cuts were never intended to be permanent anyway

KC Dan
04-13-2011, 03:25 PM
I agree. The Bush tax cuts were never intended to be permanent anywayAll of them then

Amnorix
04-13-2011, 03:25 PM
Note that the top 20% of earners earned 61% of all income as of 2006.


<TABLE style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 12px" border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD align=middle>Table 6: Distribution of income in the <NOBR>United States, 1982-2006</NOBR></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE style="BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none" class=allrules cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=3><TBODY><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TH style="BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none" class=smaller rowSpan=2> </TH><TH style="BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none" class=smaller colSpan=3>Income</TH></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller>Top 1 percent</TD><TD class=smaller>Next 19 percent</TD><TD class=smaller>Bottom 80 percent</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1982</TD><TD class=smaller>12.8%</TD><TD class=smaller>39.1%</TD><TD class=smaller>48.1%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1988</TD><TD class=smaller>16.6%</TD><TD class=smaller>38.9%</TD><TD class=smaller>44.5%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1991</TD><TD class=smaller>15.7%</TD><TD class=smaller>40.7%</TD><TD class=smaller>43.7%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1994</TD><TD class=smaller>14.4%</TD><TD class=smaller>40.8%</TD><TD class=smaller>44.9%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1997</TD><TD class=smaller>16.6%</TD><TD class=smaller>39.6%</TD><TD class=smaller>43.8%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>2000</TD><TD class=smaller>20.0%</TD><TD class=smaller>38.7%</TD><TD class=smaller>41.4%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>2003</TD><TD class=smaller>17.0%</TD><TD class=smaller>40.8%</TD><TD class=smaller>42.2%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>2006</TD><TD class=smaller>21.3%</TD><TD class=smaller>40.1%</TD><TD class=smaller>38.6%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none" class=smaller colSpan=4> </TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=left><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none" class=smaller colSpan=4>From Wolff (2010).</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Simplex3
04-13-2011, 03:25 PM
Your analogy isn't analogous to much of anything.

The government of the United States needs to be funded. Whatever system we have will take money from some portion of its people pursuant to some plan. The burden of that system will fall in some way on the various citizens.

The question is what is the best system for distributing that burden across the citizens?

I think if you want to increase taxes on the producers the moochers should take the same hit in benefits reduction. We need to quit pretending that you have to be really, truly poor to get handouts in this country.

Sannyasi
04-13-2011, 03:28 PM
All of them then

I could go for that, but the voters wouldn't.

Also of note is that the top corporate tax rate would drop to 25% under Obama's plan. Of course no one pays the top rate anyways, but still worth mentioning, perhaps.

Sannyasi
04-13-2011, 03:30 PM
I think if you want to increase taxes on the producers the moochers should take the same hit in benefits reduction. We need to quit pretending that you have to be really, truly poor to get handouts in this country.

The ratio of spending cuts to tax increases is 3:1 under Obama's plan. The ratio will be even larger after it is inevitably compromised. This seems fair to me.

dirk digler
04-13-2011, 03:31 PM
All of them then

If it was up to me I would let them all expire and the top bracket would raise back to 39% and the rest would raise 1-2%.

Amnorix
04-13-2011, 03:32 PM
I think if you want to increase taxes on the producers the moochers should take the same hit in benefits reduction. We need to quit pretending that you have to be really, truly poor to get handouts in this country.

I've said before that I think the deficit situation is such that everything needs to be in play -- defense spending, entitlement spending, discretionary spending and taxes.

Donger
04-13-2011, 03:40 PM
If the increased revenue derived from ending the Bush cuts is applied ONLY to debt reduction, fine. Do it.

FishingRod
04-13-2011, 03:50 PM
If a person pays 0% is a 3% hike in takes 3% or still 0%?

2bikemike
04-13-2011, 04:14 PM
Your analogy isn't analogous to much of anything.

The government of the United States needs to be funded. Whatever system we have will take money from some portion of its people pursuant to some plan. The burden of that system will fall in some way on the various citizens.

The question is what is the best system for distributing that burden across the citizens?

Taxation isn't stealing, sorry.

While this is true the real problem is the Government has gotten involved in doing way too much. Things it cannot afford. It isn't the Governments responsibility to make sure you have food on the table and a retirement income or even medical care. All they did when these systems were created is encourage more folks to suck off the govt. tit.

mlyonsd
04-13-2011, 04:20 PM
Progressive income taxes doesn't equal deficit spending. That makes no sense.

Sure it does. If you, making $10,000/yr have your taxes raised 3% because of congressional spending you'll be just as willing to use your vote to voice your discontent as the guy making $1 million/yr facing the same tax hike. Voters have been complacent for years because they've been taught someone else will pay for irresponsible spending. Mind you I'm not saying a flat tax would automatically eliminate deficit spending but until everyone feels the pain it causes it will continue to run out of control.


Bill Gates paying a dollar more (hypothetically) in taxes than I do doesn't mean he's getting porked. That also makes no sense.

Of course he should pay a dollar more. And he still would if the progressive tax was eliminated.

chris
04-13-2011, 04:21 PM
You can land a crippling blow to the deficit and the national debt by lifting the Bush tax cuts.

It's that simple. Putting the rate back at 39% instead of 36% could be a necessary step to solvency.

It's a small compromise from those that can afford it.


I see. That is easy to say when it is not YOUR money. :) How about you volunteering to increase your tax rate to help everyone out???

chris
04-13-2011, 04:23 PM
I agree. The Bush tax cuts were never intended to be permanent anyway


So would YOU agree to contribute more taxes to help the greater good?

mlyonsd
04-13-2011, 04:30 PM
You do know that most of the wage growth in the last 1-2 decades is at the high end of the spectrum, right?

Broad based tax increases, at least in my mind, only make sense when everyone is sharing in the gains.

Wage growth is a whole different argument but those that buy into the class warfare thing definitely should help pay for out of control spending.

I don't understand the liberal mentality of someone else should bear the greater burden. I really don't.

mlyonsd
04-13-2011, 04:59 PM
If the increased revenue derived from ending the Bush cuts is applied ONLY to debt reduction, fine. Do it.

If you mean across the board I've said this before.

Problem is once the voting public becomes complacent and isn't watching congress they'll take that extra revenue and spend it on something else.

Giving them more money is like letting a pack of 2 year olds run around with a loaded .45.

KC Dan
04-13-2011, 05:02 PM
I don't understand the liberal mentality of someone else should bear the greater burden. I really don't.You're a hard worker who thinks others should do likewise, aren't you? That's why you don't understand

petegz28
04-13-2011, 05:49 PM
If you took everything anyone made over $250k plus taxed the living fuck out of corporations you still would fall somewhere close to $1 tril short this year for the deficit

petegz28
04-13-2011, 05:52 PM
There aren't enough rich people

I've often said that I wish there were some humane way to get rid of the rich. If you asked why, I'd answer that getting rid of the rich would save us from distraction by leftist hustlers promoting the politics of envy. Not having the rich to fret over might enable us to better focus our energies on what's in the best interest of the 99.99 percent of the rest of us. Let's look at some facts about the rich laid out by Bill Whittle citing statistics on his RealClearPolitics video "Eat the Rich."

This year, Congress will spend $3.7 trillion dollars. That turns out to be about $10 billion per day. Can we prey upon the rich to cough up the money? According to IRS statistics, roughly 2 percent of U.S. households have an income of $250,000 and above. By the way, $250,000 per year hardly qualifies one as being rich. It's not even yacht and Lear jet money. All told, households earning $250,000 and above account for 25 percent, or $1.97 trillion, of the nearly $8 trillion of total household income. If Congress imposed a 100 percent tax, taking all earnings above $250,000 per year, it would yield the princely sum of $1.4 trillion. That would keep the government running for 141 days, but there's a problem because there are 224 more days left in the year.

How about corporate profits to fill the gap? Fortune 500 companies earn nearly $400 billion in profits. Since leftists think profits are little less than theft and greed, Congress might confiscate these ill-gotten gains so that they can be returned to their rightful owners. Taking corporate profits would keep the government running for another 40 days, but that along with confiscating all income above $250,000 would only get us to the end of June. Congress must search elsewhere.

According to Forbes 400, America has 400 billionaires with a combined net worth of $1.3 trillion. Congress could confiscate their stocks and bonds, and force them to sell their businesses, yachts, airplanes, mansions and jewelry. The problem is that after fleecing the rich of their income and net worth, and the Fortune 500 corporations of their profits, it would only get us to mid-August. The fact of the matter is there are not enough rich people to come anywhere close to satisfying Congress' voracious spending appetite. They're going to have to go after the non-rich.

But let's stick with the rich and ask a few questions. Politicians, news media people and leftists in general entertain what economists call a zero elasticity view of the world. That's just fancy economic jargon for a view that government can impose a tax and people will behave after the tax just as they behaved before the tax, and the only change is more government revenue. One example of that vision, at the state and local levels of government, is the disappointing results of confiscatory tobacco taxes. Confiscatory tobacco taxes have often led to less state and local revenue because those taxes encouraged smuggling.

Similarly, when government taxes profits, corporations report fewer profits and greater costs. When individuals face higher income taxes, they report less income, buy tax shelters and hide their money. It's not just rich people who try to avoid taxes, but all of us – liberals, conservatives and libertarians.

What's the evidence? Federal tax collections have been between 15 and 20 percent of the nation's Gross Domestic Product every year since 1960. However, between 1960 and today, the top marginal tax rate has varied between 91 percent and 35 percent. That means whether taxes are high or low, people make adjustments in their economic behavior so as to keep the government tax take at 15 to 20 percent of the GDP. Differences in tax rates have a far greater impact on economic growth than federal revenues.

So far as Congress' ability to prey on the rich, we must keep in mind that rich people didn't become rich by being stupid



Read more: There aren't enough rich people http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=286217#ixzz1JRzDFDus

chiefsnorth
04-13-2011, 06:00 PM
We are broke at home... how about this... let's stop being the world's policemen? Stop all wars... and let's get our shit figured out here at home.

The two wars have cost about a trillion dollars in total over ten years.

This is approximately how much Obama raised spending in 2009.

Perspective is important. He is raising spending annually by almost ten times as much as both wars cost annually

alnorth
04-13-2011, 06:01 PM
If the increased revenue derived from ending the Bush cuts is applied ONLY to debt reduction, fine. Do it.

Pretty much. Entitlements and defense spending is plenty high enough and probably need to be reduced to a manageable level. I do not support tax increases at this point unless 100% of the increase is devoted to the debt, but I would support an increase for that limited purpose. I don't subscribe to this religious fervor that some people seem to have that tax increases = always bad under any circumstances for any purpose, and tax breaks = always good.

Mizzou_8541
04-13-2011, 06:07 PM
I'm fine with raising taxes so long as there is also a reasonably dramatic cut in spending.

I'm particularly pleased with something I read elsewhere that had mandatory spending cuts under certain circumstances (deficit above 2.8% of GDP or somesuch -- I only skimmed the article). I think, unfortunately, that built-in cuts are an absolute requirement because Congress/President have historically shown no ability to self-govern on deficit issues.

I also note that I am greatly cheered by the fact that the deficit is AT LONG, LONG LAST getting some serious attention. Wahtever the result of these talks, it should at least help the situation, rather than continuing the ostrich approach that has been in vogue for the last decade.


But is it too late? I have a daughter on the way and I seriously fret over the state of affairs in the world.

mlyonsd
04-13-2011, 06:09 PM
You're a hard worker who thinks others should do likewise, aren't you? That's why you don't understand
Besides that my wife and I are people that would pay more with a flat tax so I have skin in the game I'm pushing.

The fundamental basics of how voters would MAKE politicians do the right thing if everyone felt the same pain is the only real way the republic will survive. Anything else and just throw us on the heap with the rest of them.

petegz28
04-13-2011, 06:11 PM
According to Dick Morris, the top 2% of wage earners are responsible for 33% of all spending. So let's take more of what they have cause we don't need them spending that much.

HonestChieffan
04-13-2011, 06:13 PM
Face it. Its all Lies and bullshit.

This last go round was slight of hand so Boehner could say win, Reid could say win, and Obama could take credit. The real reduction in real spending was a paltry 14 bil. Not the 100 we were promised, not the 60 plus they said, not the 38 they took credit for...14. These people are all professional liars.

Dont spoon me this crap out 10 years. SHOW ME THE MONEY. Next year. Now. We are freaking broke and every body better nut up and take a hit.

Im sick of all these phony bastards.

petegz28
04-13-2011, 06:16 PM
Face it. Its all Lies and bullshit.

This last go round was slight of hand so Boehner could say win, Reid could say win, and Obama could take credit. The real reduction in real spending was a paltry 14 bil. Not the 100 we were promised, not the 60 plus they said, not the 38 they took credit for...14. These people are all professional liars.

Dont spoon me this crap out 10 years. SHOW ME THE MONEY. Next year. Now. We are freaking broke and every body better nut up and take a hit.

Im sick of all these phony bastards.

You're exactly right. The bottom line is ALL of them are going to have to come to grips with is until there is serious spending cuts everything else is trivial BS.

The days of class warfare and threats of not wanting to feed the children have to come to an end. It's like dealig with a bunch of kids who spent too much of their parents money and now want to say they will spend less if their parents give them more.

dirk digler
04-13-2011, 06:21 PM
Face it. Its all Lies and bullshit.

This last go round was slight of hand so Boehner could say win, Reid could say win, and Obama could take credit. The real reduction in real spending was a paltry 14 bil. Not the 100 we were promised, not the 60 plus they said, not the 38 they took credit for...14. These people are all professional liars.

Dont spoon me this crap out 10 years. SHOW ME THE MONEY. Next year. Now. We are freaking broke and every body better nut up and take a hit.

Im sick of all these phony bastards.

lol I wondered when people here would start talking about this.

mlyonsd
04-13-2011, 06:25 PM
Face it, this proposal is DOA.

It is nothing more than Obama planting a flag where the 2012 election will be fought. He's doing nothing but playing to his base so he and Michelle can keep flying to NY for a late night supper, then doing it in AF1.

It's as serious as Kristy Alley winning DWTS.

HonestChieffan
04-13-2011, 06:28 PM
lol I wondered when people here would start talking about this.

Most people don't know, don't care, and are not going to say squat.

Dems got raped, R's got raped. Its not partisan. They all joined together to deliver a damn lie. Pencil pushing lying bastards all. Its a scam. And we are the victims.

The debt rises by billions every week. And these sob's tell us what they have planned ten years from now. F*** that. Ten years my ass.

Saul Good
04-13-2011, 06:31 PM
When I am convinced that congress spends our money wisely, I will consider supporting tax increases. I doubt I ever support a tax increase.

dirk digler
04-13-2011, 06:31 PM
Face it, this proposal is DOA.

It is nothing more than Obama planting a flag where the 2012 election will be fought. He's doing nothing but playing to his base so he and Michelle can keep flying to NY for a late night supper, then doing it in AF1.

It's as serious as Kristy Alley winning DWTS.

It was basically the Simpson-Boyles plan. Of course both sides didn't really like it because things that they both love will be impacted.

dirk digler
04-13-2011, 06:40 PM
Most people don't know, don't care, and are not going to say squat.

Dems got raped, R's got raped. Its not partisan. They all joined together to deliver a damn lie. Pencil pushing lying bastards all. Its a scam. And we are the victims.

The debt rises by billions every week. And these sob's tell us what they have planned ten years from now. F*** that. Ten years my ass.

Wow the honeymoon sure didn't last long.

mlyonsd
04-13-2011, 06:43 PM
It was basically the Simpson-Boyles plan. Of course both sides didn't really like it because things that they both love will be impacted.Just as much as Ryan's did.

dirk digler
04-13-2011, 06:52 PM
Just as much as Ryan's did.

Ryan's plan goes alot farther than any plan out there especially when you are talking about privatizing Medicare and cutting Medicaid drastically.

HonestChieffan
04-13-2011, 06:56 PM
Ryans plan will be watered down, cut and gutted in a back room. Ryan will be the last to know.

Direckshun
04-13-2011, 07:20 PM
I see. That is easy to say when it is not YOUR money. :) How about you volunteering to increase your tax rate to help everyone out???

Other than the fact that that's illegal...

Direckshun
04-13-2011, 07:22 PM
Read more: http://www.wnd.com

I'm fine, thanks.

HonestChieffan
04-13-2011, 07:29 PM
Your analogy isn't analogous to much of anything.

The government of the United States needs to be funded. Whatever system we have will take money from some portion of its people pursuant to some plan. The burden of that system will fall in some way on the various citizens.

The question is what is the best system for distributing that burden across the citizens?

Taxation isn't stealing, sorry.


Spread it across all wage earners. NO free rides. That would be a nice start. Taxing all is not stealing, its shared burden. Right?

petegz28
04-13-2011, 07:31 PM
I'm fine, thanks.

Can you refute the article or are you going to hide from the facts as usual?

alnorth
04-13-2011, 07:33 PM
Face it, this proposal is DOA.

It is nothing more than Obama planting a flag where the 2012 election will be fought. He's doing nothing but playing to his base so he and Michelle can keep flying to NY for a late night supper, then doing it in AF1.

It's as serious as Kristy Alley winning DWTS.

Frankly, I'll believe that when a budget that is extremely, radically, different from what Obama talked about today is passed and signed.

Paul Ryan's budget is what is DOA. I'm not sure what will pass or if anything remotely like what Obama wants will pass, but I am strongly confident that the house budget has no chance in hell.

Direckshun
04-13-2011, 07:35 PM
Can you refute the article or are you going to hide from the facts as usual?

I'm pretty comfortable hiding from WND.

petegz28
04-13-2011, 07:38 PM
I'm pretty comfortable hiding from WND.

In other words you can't refute the argument made in the article.



Typical

Direckshun
04-13-2011, 07:38 PM
I'm pretty pleased with the President's plan.

It involves desperately needed spending controls (plus a fucking trigger, which I love) on healthcare spending, a good amount of defense spending, and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.

All while closing corporate loopholes and rewriting tax codes to prevent those with accounts to get out of huge chunks of their tax obligations.

The only real partisan objection I can see to this plan would be to object to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. Making defense and healthcare more efficient and affordable, while also closing corporate loopholes, is something either party would hang their hat on if they could accomplish it.

Direckshun
04-13-2011, 07:39 PM
In other words you can't refute the argument made in the article.

Typical

I didn't bother reading the article. Because who gives a shit about WND.

petegz28
04-13-2011, 07:42 PM
I didn't bother reading the article. Because who gives a shit about WND.

Or you read it and can't refute it, more likely, so you play your stupid game

Direckshun
04-13-2011, 07:42 PM
Or you read it and can't refute it, more likely, so you play your stupid game

My game is not giving a shit about fringe assholes.

petegz28
04-13-2011, 07:43 PM
I'm pretty pleased with the President's plan.

It involves desperately needed spending controls (plus a fucking trigger, which I love) on healthcare spending, a good amount of defense spending, and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.

All while closing corporate loopholes and rewriting tax codes to prevent those with accounts to get out of huge chunks of their tax obligations.

The only real partisan objection I can see to this plan would be to object to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. Making defense and healthcare more efficient and affordable, while also closing corporate loopholes, is something either party would hang their hat on if they could accomplish it.

Those who go without paying? You mean like his buddy Imelt?

Do you have any fucking clue what raising taxes on corporations does, professor? Or has the mass exodus of jobs escaped your keen observation?

petegz28
04-13-2011, 07:44 PM
My game is not giving a shit about fringe assholes.

I guess the factual math in the article didn't jive with your obamenomics?

Direckshun
04-13-2011, 07:46 PM
Those who go without paying? You mean like his buddy Imelt?

Yup.

Do you have any ****ing clue what raising taxes on corporations does, professor? Or has the mass exodus of jobs escaped your keen observation?

I'm talking about eliminating corporate loopholes.

If you're making the argument that corporate loopholes are necessary to keep the economy afloat, good luck.

notorious
04-13-2011, 07:47 PM
When they get rid of entitlements, that will be a good start.


Besides, when has it ever been considered right to descriminate between people. Black, White, Red, Male, Female, Rich, Poor, etc.


Why is it OK that the rich should pay a higher percentage of their income? I want ONE answer that isn't tied to an emotional reaction.

Direckshun
04-13-2011, 07:47 PM
I guess the factual math in the article didn't jive with your obamenomics?

I don't know. I didn't read it. I don't give a shit about WND.

Go check Drudge to see if he posted anything more credible.

Direckshun
04-13-2011, 07:47 PM
Why is it OK that the rich should pay a higher percentage of their income? I want ONE answer that isn't tied to an emotional reaction.

One could argue that your argument is an emotional argument.

(Channeling my inner patteeu.)

petegz28
04-13-2011, 07:48 PM
I don't know. I didn't read it. I don't give a shit about WND.

Go check Drudge to see if he posted anything more credible.

You read it and didn't like what it said because it doesn't jive with your bullshit

Direckshun
04-13-2011, 07:49 PM
You read it and didn't like what it said because it doesn't jive with your bullshit

Okay.

What else did I do.

petegz28
04-13-2011, 07:52 PM
Okay.

What else did I do.

A bad impersonation of Rachel maddow

notorious
04-13-2011, 07:52 PM
One could argue that your argument is an emotional argument.

(Channeling my inner patteeu.)

:D


I am not rich, but working on it (the governments definition, anyway).

I know that the rich can afford it, and that it's easy for the majority of us to justify taxing them more.

I never understood the anger and hate toward the rich. I have flown and worked with many "rich" people, and every single last one of them earned every penny they have made.

Direckshun
04-13-2011, 07:55 PM
A bad impersonation of Rachel maddow

:D

Direckshun
04-13-2011, 07:56 PM
I never understood the anger and hate toward the rich. I have flown and worked with many "rich" people, and every single last one of them earned every penny they have made.

The expiration of the Bush tax cuts is just an effort to return us to the top end tax rate of the Clinton era. Not to hate on the rich, of course. The Bush tax cuts are the single biggest exploder of the deficit.

I don't think you could reasonably argue that America pounded on the rich in the 90s.

petegz28
04-13-2011, 07:57 PM
:D


I am not rich, but working on it (the governments definition, anyway).

I know that the rich can afford it, and that it's easy for the majority of us to justify taxing them more.

I never understood the anger and hate toward the rich. I have flown and worked with many "rich" people, and every single last one of them earned every penny they have made.

You could tax 100% of everything everyone made over $250k and it would fund the government for all of 141 days.

petegz28
04-13-2011, 07:57 PM
The expiration of the Bush tax cuts is just an effort to return us to the top end tax rate of the Clinton era. Not to hate on the rich, of course. The Bush tax cuts are the single biggest exploder of the deficit.

I don't think you could reasonably argue that America pounded on the rich in the 90s.

Why not return the lower brackets to Clinton era rates?

Direckshun
04-13-2011, 07:59 PM
Why not return the lower brackets to Clinton era rates?

I'm not opposed to it.

Not really in favor of it, either, though. That's not the main exploder of the deficit. The top 2% are.

petegz28
04-13-2011, 08:02 PM
I'm not opposed to it.

Not really in favor of it, either, though. That's not the main exploder of the deficit. The top 2% are.

Really? I guess the bottom 50% of tax payers paying a whopping 2.9% of taxes isn't a concern?

notorious
04-13-2011, 08:04 PM
The expiration of the Bush tax cuts is just an effort to return us to the top end tax rate of the Clinton era. Not to hate on the rich, of course. The Bush tax cuts are the single biggest exploder of the deficit.

I don't think you could reasonably argue that America pounded on the rich in the 90s.


Absolutely not. But there has to be a balance somewhere. If we tax the low income bracket the same as the upper bracket, that would lead to an EXTREMELY poor population.


I guess the answer to my question is: Cut stupid spending and entitlement programs.

I would be a lot happier if I knew my money was being spent properly on things such as roads, defense, crime, etc.

Every time I write my quarterly income tax check, I think,"Yay, this $$$ is going to Beatrices retirement that she didn't pay for, this $$$ is going toward an illegal's Welfare, this $$$ is going toward (just) a minoritie's college tuition, this $$$ is going to end up in Nebraska to pay off a Senator, etc......".


It's gone past stupid, and needs to come to an end.

Direckshun
04-13-2011, 08:06 PM
Absolutely not. But there has to be a balance somewhere. If we tax the low income bracket the same as the upper bracket, that would lead to an EXTREMELY poor population.

I guess the answer to my question is: Cut stupid spending and entitlement programs.

I would be a lot happier if I knew my money was being spent properly on things such as roads, defense, crime, etc.

Every time I write my quarterly income tax check, I think,"Yay, this $$$ is going to Beatrices retirement that she didn't pay for, this $$$ is going toward an illegal's Welfare, this $$$ is going toward (just) a minoritie's college tuition, this $$$ is going to end up in Nebraska to pay off a Senator, etc......".

It's gone past stupid, and needs to come to an end.

I think you're being pretty reasonable here sans the "cut entitlement programs" madness.

If we can agree that it's a good thing to prevent our poor American population from looking like a poor Guatemalen population, then entitlement spending is the #1 weapon in combating that.

petegz28
04-13-2011, 08:08 PM
I think you're being pretty reasonable here sans the "cut entitlement programs" madness.

If we can agree that it's a good thing to prevent our poor American population from looking like a poor Guatemalen population, then entitlement spending is the #1 weapon in combating that.

I don't know where you live but we have the richest poor people in the world.

dirk digler
04-13-2011, 08:09 PM
Really? I guess the bottom 50% of tax payers paying a whopping 2.9% of taxes isn't a concern?

I don't know if that is accurate. By my calculations starting at $200,000-$500,000 and up they pay 53% and below that pays 47%.

Of course I could be wrong about that...

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/24425.html

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td valign="bottom" width="136">Adjusted Gross Income 2006
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83"> Total Number of Taxable Returns
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83"> Remaining Taxable Income
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83"> Total Taxes Paid
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61"> Share of Total Taxes Paid
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68"> Average Tax Payment of Those With a Liability
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64"> Effective Rate of Those With a Tax Liability
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap">
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap">
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> ($Thousands)
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> ($Thousands)
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap">
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap">
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap">
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> Total
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 92,713,707
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 5,460,467,126
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 1,023,920,139
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 100%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $11,044
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 19%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $1 -- $5,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 856,524
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 959,903
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 88,684
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 0.01%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $104
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 9%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $5,000 -- $10,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 3,366,091
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 6,593,825
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 654,390
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 0.1%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $194
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 10%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $10,000 -- $15,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 5,774,668
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 24,791,811
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 2,373,130
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 0.2%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $411
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 10%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $15,000 -- $20,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 5,718,790
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 46,091,776
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 4,759,278
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 0.5%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $832
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 10%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $20,000 -- $25,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 5,852,412
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 67,420,436
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 7,501,691
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 0.7%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $1,282
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 11%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $25,000 -- $30,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 5,777,020
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 91,166,552
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 10,396,566
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 1.0%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $1,800
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 11%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $30,000 -- $40,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 11,155,560
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 237,763,671
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 27,293,090
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 2.7%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $2,447
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 11%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $40,000 -- $50,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 9,329,077
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 267,238,142
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 32,509,507
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 3.2%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $3,485
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 12%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $50,000 -- $75,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 17,814,551
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 726,336,744
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 94,443,396
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 9.2%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $5,301
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 13%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $75,000 -- $100,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 10,979,416
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 656,902,758
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 90,019,371
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 8.8%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $8,199
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 14%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $100,000 -- $200,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 12,036,255
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 1,180,048,005
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 209,381,101
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 20.4%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $17,396
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 18%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $200,000 -- $500,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 3,112,958
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 731,077,382
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 177,041,086
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 17.3%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $56,872
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 24%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $500,000 -- $1,000,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 587,466
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 347,608,241
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 94,213,951
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 9.2%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $160,373
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 27%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $1,000,000 -- $1,500,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 149,994
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 161,343,642
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 44,125,225
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 4.3%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $294,180
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 27%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $1,500,000 -- $2,000,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 63,752
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 98,009,348
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 26,721,295
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 2.6%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $419,144
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 27%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $2,000,000 -- $5,000,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 98,377
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 264,780,730
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 71,647,095
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 7.0%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $728,291
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 27%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $5,000,000 -- $10,000,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 24,884
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 153,633,684
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 39,556,521
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 3.9%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $1,589,637
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 26%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $10,000,000 or more
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 15,911
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 398,700,477
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 91,013,554
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 8.9%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $5,720,166
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 23%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="4" valign="bottom" width="384" nowrap="nowrap"> Source: http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap">
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap">
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap">
</td></tr></tbody></table>

notorious
04-13-2011, 08:11 PM
The rich make more money, hence the higher percentage of taxes paid.


It's pretty simple.

dirk digler
04-13-2011, 08:11 PM
Absolutely not. But there has to be a balance somewhere. If we tax the low income bracket the same as the upper bracket, that would lead to an EXTREMELY poor population.


I guess the answer to my question is: Cut stupid spending and entitlement programs.

I would be a lot happier if I knew my money was being spent properly on things such as roads, defense, crime, etc.

Every time I write my quarterly income tax check, I think,"Yay, this $$$ is going to Beatrices retirement that she didn't pay for, this $$$ is going toward an illegal's Welfare, this $$$ is going toward (just) a minoritie's college tuition, this $$$ is going to end up in Nebraska to pay off a Senator, etc......".


It's gone past stupid, and needs to come to an end.

Ok you say cut entitlements then my question to you is what do you do with the elderly in this country?

petegz28
04-13-2011, 08:12 PM
I don't know if that is accurate. By my calculations starting at $200,000-$500,000 and up they pay 53% and below that pays 47%.

Of course I could be wrong about that...

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/24425.html

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td valign="bottom" width="136">Adjusted Gross Income 2006
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83"> Total Number of Taxable Returns
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83"> Remaining Taxable Income
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83"> Total Taxes Paid
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61"> Share of Total Taxes Paid
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68"> Average Tax Payment of Those With a Liability
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64"> Effective Rate of Those With a Tax Liability
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap">
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap">
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> ($Thousands)
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> ($Thousands)
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap">
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap">
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap">
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> Total
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 92,713,707
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 5,460,467,126
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 1,023,920,139
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 100%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $11,044
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 19%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $1 -- $5,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 856,524
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 959,903
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 88,684
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 0.01%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $104
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 9%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $5,000 -- $10,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 3,366,091
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 6,593,825
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 654,390
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 0.1%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $194
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 10%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $10,000 -- $15,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 5,774,668
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 24,791,811
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 2,373,130
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 0.2%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $411
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 10%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $15,000 -- $20,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 5,718,790
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 46,091,776
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 4,759,278
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 0.5%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $832
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 10%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $20,000 -- $25,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 5,852,412
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 67,420,436
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 7,501,691
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 0.7%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $1,282
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 11%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $25,000 -- $30,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 5,777,020
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 91,166,552
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 10,396,566
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 1.0%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $1,800
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 11%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $30,000 -- $40,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 11,155,560
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 237,763,671
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 27,293,090
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 2.7%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $2,447
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 11%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $40,000 -- $50,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 9,329,077
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 267,238,142
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 32,509,507
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 3.2%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $3,485
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 12%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $50,000 -- $75,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 17,814,551
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 726,336,744
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 94,443,396
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 9.2%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $5,301
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 13%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $75,000 -- $100,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 10,979,416
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 656,902,758
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 90,019,371
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 8.8%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $8,199
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 14%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $100,000 -- $200,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 12,036,255
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 1,180,048,005
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 209,381,101
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 20.4%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $17,396
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 18%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $200,000 -- $500,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 3,112,958
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 731,077,382
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 177,041,086
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 17.3%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $56,872
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 24%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $500,000 -- $1,000,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 587,466
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 347,608,241
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 94,213,951
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 9.2%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $160,373
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 27%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $1,000,000 -- $1,500,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 149,994
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 161,343,642
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 44,125,225
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 4.3%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $294,180
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 27%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $1,500,000 -- $2,000,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 63,752
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 98,009,348
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 26,721,295
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 2.6%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $419,144
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 27%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $2,000,000 -- $5,000,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 98,377
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 264,780,730
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 71,647,095
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 7.0%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $728,291
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 27%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $5,000,000 -- $10,000,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 24,884
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 153,633,684
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 39,556,521
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 3.9%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $1,589,637
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 26%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $10,000,000 or more
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 15,911
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 398,700,477
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 91,013,554
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 8.9%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $5,720,166
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 23%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="4" valign="bottom" width="384" nowrap="nowrap"> Source: http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap">
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap">
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap">
</td></tr></tbody></table>

I'm on the iPad so I can't see what you posted. Can you give me the gist please?

notorious
04-13-2011, 08:13 PM
Ok you say cut entitlements then my question to you is what do you do with the elderly in this country?

This sounds horrible, but they should have thought of that. It's not my job or the goverment's job to take care of them.




What they paid into SS is what they should be allowed to take out. No more, no less.


Why should I be punished for another person's lack of foresight?

petegz28
04-13-2011, 08:13 PM
Ok you say cut entitlements then my question to you is what do you do with the elderly in this country?

Cut does not mean eliminate.it's not necessarily the entitlement but how the entitlement is abused, exploited and mis-managed

Direckshun
04-13-2011, 08:15 PM
This sounds horrible, but they should have thought of that. It's not my job or the goverment's job to take care of them.

What they paid into SS is what they should be allowed to take out. No more, no less.

Why should I be punished for another person's lack of foresight?

You understand what happens when this occurs, right?

What countries care for their elderly with programs similar to SS?

What countries don't?

Which ones would you rather live in?

petegz28
04-13-2011, 08:15 PM
This sounds horrible, but they should have thought of that. It's not my job or the goverment's job to take care of them.




What they paid into SS is what they should be allowed to take out. No more, no less.


Why should I be punished for another person's lack of foresight?

If the fed gov would spend ss on ss and nothing more it wouldn't be so bad.

petegz28
04-13-2011, 08:17 PM
You understand what happens when this occurs, right?

What countries care for their elderly with programs similar to SS?

What countries don't?

Which ones would you rather live in?

You preach this shit then support Obama reducing tax breaks on charitable donations. LMAO

Direckshun
04-13-2011, 08:19 PM
You preach this shit then support Obama reducing tax breaks on charitable donations. LMAO

Hey, look over there.

notorious
04-13-2011, 08:20 PM
You understand what happens when this occurs, right?

What countries care for their elderly with programs similar to SS?

What countries don't?

Which ones would you rather live in?


I know it sounds bad, but I would rather use my own money to take care of my own grandparents and parents. That is the support system that we should depend on, not the government.

Once again, why is it OK for me to be forced to pay for another person's lack of foresight?

Disclosure: I already know that the goose is cooked when it comes to entitlements since so many people are dependent on them, so my ideas are a waste of air.

dirk digler
04-13-2011, 08:21 PM
This sounds horrible, but they should have thought of that. It's not my job or the goverment's job to take care of them.




What they paid into SS is what they should be allowed to take out. No more, no less.


Why should I be punished for another person's lack of foresight?

It does sound horrible :p

petegz28
04-13-2011, 08:22 PM
I know it sounds bad, but I would rather use my own money to take care of my own grandparents and parents. That is the support system that we should depend on, not the government.

Once again, why is it OK for me to be forced to pay for another person's lack of foresight?

Disclosure: I already know that the goose is cooked when it comes to entitlements since so many people are dependent on them, so my ideas are a waste of air.

No they aren't. We need to get back to where the entitlements are used the way they are intended instead of used to buy votes and take care of illegals.

notorious
04-13-2011, 08:25 PM
Ok you say cut entitlements then my question to you is what do you do with the elderly in this country?

It does sound horrible :p

Asshole is my middle name. LMAO

HonestChieffan
04-13-2011, 08:50 PM
I'm not opposed to it.

Not really in favor of it, either, though. That's not the main exploder of the deficit. The top 2% are.

I think you play a good game but you are not stupid enough to honestly believe the deficit is not more directly related to spending than a tax rate on 2% of the people.

HonestChieffan
04-13-2011, 08:55 PM
I don't know if that is accurate. By my calculations starting at $200,000-$500,000 and up they pay 53% and below that pays 47%.

Of course I could be wrong about that...

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/24425.html

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td valign="bottom" width="136">Adjusted Gross Income 2006
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83"> Total Number of Taxable Returns
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83"> Remaining Taxable Income
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83"> Total Taxes Paid
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61"> Share of Total Taxes Paid
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68"> Average Tax Payment of Those With a Liability
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64"> Effective Rate of Those With a Tax Liability
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap">
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap">
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> ($Thousands)
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> ($Thousands)
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap">
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap">
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap">
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> Total
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 92,713,707
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 5,460,467,126
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 1,023,920,139
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 100%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $11,044
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 19%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $1 -- $5,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 856,524
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 959,903
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 88,684
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 0.01%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $104
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 9%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $5,000 -- $10,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 3,366,091
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 6,593,825
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 654,390
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 0.1%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $194
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 10%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $10,000 -- $15,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 5,774,668
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 24,791,811
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 2,373,130
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 0.2%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $411
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 10%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $15,000 -- $20,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 5,718,790
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 46,091,776
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 4,759,278
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 0.5%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $832
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 10%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $20,000 -- $25,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 5,852,412
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 67,420,436
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 7,501,691
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 0.7%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $1,282
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 11%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $25,000 -- $30,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 5,777,020
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 91,166,552
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 10,396,566
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 1.0%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $1,800
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 11%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $30,000 -- $40,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 11,155,560
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 237,763,671
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 27,293,090
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 2.7%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $2,447
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 11%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $40,000 -- $50,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 9,329,077
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 267,238,142
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 32,509,507
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 3.2%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $3,485
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 12%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $50,000 -- $75,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 17,814,551
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 726,336,744
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 94,443,396
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 9.2%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $5,301
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 13%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $75,000 -- $100,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 10,979,416
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 656,902,758
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 90,019,371
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 8.8%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $8,199
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 14%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $100,000 -- $200,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 12,036,255
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 1,180,048,005
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 209,381,101
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 20.4%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $17,396
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 18%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $200,000 -- $500,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 3,112,958
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 731,077,382
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 177,041,086
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 17.3%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $56,872
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 24%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $500,000 -- $1,000,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 587,466
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 347,608,241
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 94,213,951
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 9.2%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $160,373
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 27%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $1,000,000 -- $1,500,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 149,994
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 161,343,642
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 44,125,225
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 4.3%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $294,180
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 27%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $1,500,000 -- $2,000,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 63,752
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 98,009,348
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 26,721,295
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 2.6%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $419,144
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 27%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $2,000,000 -- $5,000,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 98,377
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 264,780,730
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 71,647,095
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 7.0%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $728,291
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 27%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $5,000,000 -- $10,000,000
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 24,884
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 153,633,684
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 39,556,521
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 3.9%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $1,589,637
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 26%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="136" nowrap="nowrap"> $10,000,000 or more
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 15,911
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 398,700,477
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="83" nowrap="nowrap"> 91,013,554
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap"> 8.9%
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap"> $5,720,166
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap"> 23%
</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="4" valign="bottom" width="384" nowrap="nowrap"> Source: http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="61" nowrap="nowrap">
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="68" nowrap="nowrap">
</td> <td valign="bottom" width="64" nowrap="nowrap">
</td></tr></tbody></table>


The narrative helps understand the chart...

Useful Facts on Who Pays the Nation's Taxes

by Scott A. Hodge

Since the release of President Obama's FY 2010 budget, which calls for raising the top two income tax brackets, we have received quite a number of requests for data on the share of taxes paid by the so-called rich. I thought it would be helpful to post the most recent IRS figures on the distribution of the income tax burden.

As the first table below shows, in 2006 Americans filed more than 138 million tax returns totaling roughly $8 trillion in adjusted gross income (AGI). However, nearly 46 million tax filers (one-third of all filers) had no income tax liability after benefiting from the credits and deductions available to them. Among the lowest income groups, more than half of the filers had no liability at all. More than $2.5 trillion in AGI (one-third of all AGI) was not subject to income taxes that year.

As the second table shows, the government was reliant on the remaining 92 million tax filers for raising the necessary amount of income taxes to pay for government programs. In 2006, these actual tax payers had roughly 5.4 trillion in AGI and paid more than $1 trillion in income taxes. The average tax payment was $11,044 and the average effective tax rate was 19 percent.

In 2006, there were roughly 4 million taxpayers with incomes above $200,000—the target group for Obama's higher taxes. These taxpayers account for 39 percent of total AGI among actual taxpayers but pay 53 percent of all income taxes. The vast majority of these upper-income taxpayers—91 percent—earn between $200,000 and $1 million. These taxpayers account for half of the AGI and roughly half of the taxes paid by the "rich."

There were about 353,000 taxpayers with incomes above $1 million. They had a total AGI of $1 trillion and accounted for $273 billion in income taxes in 2006, 27 percent of all income taxes. Just 15,911 taxpayers had incomes above $10 million. They paid $91 billion in income taxes, 9 percent of all income taxes. Their average tax payment was $5.7 million.

petegz28
04-13-2011, 08:58 PM
The narrative helps understand the chart...

Useful Facts on Who Pays the Nation's Taxes

by Scott A. Hodge

Since the release of President Obama's FY 2010 budget, which calls for raising the top two income tax brackets, we have received quite a number of requests for data on the share of taxes paid by the so-called rich. I thought it would be helpful to post the most recent IRS figures on the distribution of the income tax burden.

As the first table below shows, in 2006 Americans filed more than 138 million tax returns totaling roughly $8 trillion in adjusted gross income (AGI). However, nearly 46 million tax filers (one-third of all filers) had no income tax liability after benefiting from the credits and deductions available to them. Among the lowest income groups, more than half of the filers had no liability at all. More than $2.5 trillion in AGI (one-third of all AGI) was not subject to income taxes that year.

As the second table shows, the government was reliant on the remaining 92 million tax filers for raising the necessary amount of income taxes to pay for government programs. In 2006, these actual tax payers had roughly 5.4 trillion in AGI and paid more than $1 trillion in income taxes. The average tax payment was $11,044 and the average effective tax rate was 19 percent.

In 2006, there were roughly 4 million taxpayers with incomes above $200,000—the target group for Obama's higher taxes. These taxpayers account for 39 percent of total AGI among actual taxpayers but pay 53 percent of all income taxes. The vast majority of these upper-income taxpayers—91 percent—earn between $200,000 and $1 million. These taxpayers account for half of the AGI and roughly half of the taxes paid by the "rich."

There were about 353,000 taxpayers with incomes above $1 million. They had a total AGI of $1 trillion and accounted for $273 billion in income taxes in 2006, 27 percent of all income taxes. Just 15,911 taxpayers had incomes above $10 million. They paid $91 billion in income taxes, 9 percent of all income taxes. Their average tax payment was $5.7 million.

Ah, nice. I wondered what he was trying to get at there? So, $2.5 trillion you say? Roughly $2.5 tril not subjected to any income tax? Even at 10% that's $250 bil right there. About oh what, 6 time more than the mythical cuts from last week? But hey, why tax them when you can tax the rich more?

Direckshun
04-13-2011, 09:01 PM
I know it sounds bad, but I would rather use my own money to take care of my own grandparents and parents. That is the support system that we should depend on, not the government.

Actually, that's not the system we should depend on, where many elderly either need their kin to support them, or else be hopelessly impoverished.

That's the answer to your question.

dirk digler
04-13-2011, 09:04 PM
The narrative helps understand the chart...

Useful Facts on Who Pays the Nation's Taxes

by Scott A. Hodge

Since the release of President Obama's FY 2010 budget, which calls for raising the top two income tax brackets, we have received quite a number of requests for data on the share of taxes paid by the so-called rich. I thought it would be helpful to post the most recent IRS figures on the distribution of the income tax burden.

As the first table below shows, in 2006 Americans filed more than 138 million tax returns totaling roughly $8 trillion in adjusted gross income (AGI). However, nearly 46 million tax filers (one-third of all filers) had no income tax liability after benefiting from the credits and deductions available to them. Among the lowest income groups, more than half of the filers had no liability at all. More than $2.5 trillion in AGI (one-third of all AGI) was not subject to income taxes that year.

As the second table shows, the government was reliant on the remaining 92 million tax filers for raising the necessary amount of income taxes to pay for government programs. In 2006, these actual tax payers had roughly 5.4 trillion in AGI and paid more than $1 trillion in income taxes. The average tax payment was $11,044 and the average effective tax rate was 19 percent.

In 2006, there were roughly 4 million taxpayers with incomes above $200,000—the target group for Obama's higher taxes. These taxpayers account for 39 percent of total AGI among actual taxpayers but pay 53 percent of all income taxes. The vast majority of these upper-income taxpayers—91 percent—earn between $200,000 and $1 million. These taxpayers account for half of the AGI and roughly half of the taxes paid by the "rich."

There were about 353,000 taxpayers with incomes above $1 million. They had a total AGI of $1 trillion and accounted for $273 billion in income taxes in 2006, 27 percent of all income taxes. Just 15,911 taxpayers had incomes above $10 million. They paid $91 billion in income taxes, 9 percent of all income taxes. Their average tax payment was $5.7 million.

Yes I read that hcf and I assumed that was taken into account in the chart I posted.

petegz28
04-13-2011, 09:05 PM
Actually, that's not the system we should depend on, where many elderly either need their kin to support them, or else be hopelessly impoverished.

That's the answer to your question.

Yes, we should be a socialist society where everyone lives in mediocrity and go broke cause we want to take care of everyone else. It isn't like Europe has any financial problems right now with that model.

notorious
04-13-2011, 09:05 PM
Actually, that's not the system we should depend on, where many elderly either need their kin to support them, or else be hopelessly impoverished.

That's the answer to your question.

Or retire on their own money. That would be the first option, of course.


People should never depend on the Gov. for retirement.


Explain to me why I am required, by law, to support another person that is not my child nor handicap?

petegz28
04-13-2011, 09:06 PM
Yes I read that hcf and I assumed that was taken into account in the chart I posted.

So let me ask you this then, if we got rid of the mortgage interest deduction should we also get rid of the child care credit and make everyone pay at least 10% in tax regardless of income? Handicapped and possibly elderly aside.

petegz28
04-13-2011, 09:07 PM
Or retire on their own money. That would be the first option, of course.


People should never depend on the Gov. for retirement.


Explain to me why I am required, by law, to support another person that is not my child nor handicap?

Because FDR said so?

dirk digler
04-13-2011, 09:08 PM
Asshole is my middle name. LMAO

I don't think you are an asshole we just disagree.

Our population is getting older and tens of millions of baby boomers are about to retire and go on Medicare and then eventually go to Nursing Homes funded by Medicaid. If we cut a ton of money out of those programs what happens to those people?

It is not like most elderly people can afford to pay a nursing home a $100,000..

petegz28
04-13-2011, 09:09 PM
I don't think you are an asshole we just disagree.

Our population is getting older and tens of millions of baby boomers are about to retire and go on Medicare and then eventually go to Nursing Homes funded by Medicaid. If we cut a ton of money out of those programs what happens to those people?

It is not like most elderly people can afford to pay a nursing home a $100,000..

Damn shame we had all those abortions, heh? Just think, those could be working stiffs funding the SS for the Baby Boomers? Instead they are replaced by non-tax paying illegals who are also sucking off the teet.

notorious
04-13-2011, 09:13 PM
I don't think you are an asshole we just disagree.

Our population is getting older and tens of millions of baby boomers are about to retire and go on Medicare and then eventually go to Nursing Homes funded by Medicaid. If we cut a ton of money out of those programs what happens to those people?

It is not like most elderly people can afford to pay a nursing home a $100,000..

I know, I know. Disagreements are what drive a quality discussion like we are having. :)


Of course the goose is cooked. Programs have been set in motion in which there is no escape. I am speaking more on principle then real world scenarios.


It is impossible to implement my ideas with the current situation. It would take decades if not centuries to ween people off the government support system on their way to growing truely independant.

dirk digler
04-13-2011, 09:13 PM
So let me ask you this then, if we got rid of the mortgage interest deduction should we also get rid of the child care credit and make everyone pay at least 10% in tax regardless of income? Handicapped and possibly elderly aside.

I don't know if I would get rid of the child care credit a lot of low income people depend on that. I know I did for a while.

dirk digler
04-13-2011, 09:16 PM
Damn shame we had all those abortions, heh? Just think, those could be working stiffs funding the SS for the Baby Boomers? Instead they are replaced by non-tax paying illegals who are also sucking off the teet.

Works both ways IMO. Probably the majority of those abortions might have been kids born into poverty and the state takes care of them anyway.

Not that I am saying abortion is a good thing so I hope no one assumes that

notorious
04-13-2011, 09:18 PM
Works both ways IMO. Probably the majority of those abortions might have been kids born into poverty and the state takes care of them anyway.

Not that I am saying abortion is a good thing so I hope no one assumes that

According to the books, abortion is a good way to cut long-term loss.

It is a terrible, horrific thing to say, but it saves the country money.

dirk digler
04-13-2011, 09:20 PM
I know, I know. Disagreements are what drive a quality discussion like we are having. :)


Of course the goose is cooked. Programs have been set in motion in which there is no escape. I am speaking more on principle then real world scenarios.


It is impossible to implement my ideas with the current situation. It would take decades if not centuries to ween people off the government support system on their way to growing truely independant.

I don't know I think some government support is ok like Medicare. After seeing the costs of taking care of my grandma up till she died there is no way in hell she could have afforded to pay for it. We are talking $200,000-$300,000

notorious
04-13-2011, 09:24 PM
I don't know I think some government support is ok like Medicare. After seeing the costs of taking care of my grandma up till she died there is no way in hell she could have afforded to pay for it. We are talking $200,000-$300,000

Yeah, Health Care is a completely different animal in which I do not believe there is any correct answer for.


I believe that the democrats were truely doing what they think is right for the country when they passed "Obamacare". There are plenty of negatives that come with the positives, though.

petegz28
04-13-2011, 09:27 PM
Works both ways IMO. Probably the majority of those abortions might have been kids born into poverty and the state takes care of them anyway.

Not that I am saying abortion is a good thing so I hope no one assumes that

I think you are also assuming they would be born into poverty. If my 39 years of experience has taught me anything, it has taught me that the poorer people usually keep the baby and the would-be teen mom in the suburbs is the one rushing off to the abortion clinic.

HonestChieffan
04-13-2011, 09:29 PM
I don't think you are an asshole we just disagree.

Our population is getting older and tens of millions of baby boomers are about to retire and go on Medicare and then eventually go to Nursing Homes funded by Medicaid. If we cut a ton of money out of those programs what happens to those people?

It is not like most elderly people can afford to pay a nursing home a $100,000..

Neither can the top 2% pay it for everyone else. Maybe people don't have to go to nursing homes. Maybe they wouldn't if they didn't have the government footing the bill. Maybe they would be cared for by family if family knew the nursing home was their responsibility? Maybe its too easy for junior and sis to send the old woman off to a home...it doesn't cost them anything..right?

petegz28
04-13-2011, 09:30 PM
Yeah, Health Care is a completely different animal in which I do not believe there is any correct answer for.


I believe that the democrats were truely doing what they think is right for the country when they passed "Obamacare". There are plenty of negatives that come with the positives, though.

The bad part of Obamacare was not the intent. But we know what they say about good intentions and all.

The biggest problem with our medical care is multi-faceted:

1. Piss-poor diet, fast food culture
2. No exercise
3. Hypochondriac society, we take a pill for any and everything now
4. A government willing to bail you out of your bills thus creating an entitlement mindset

notorious
04-13-2011, 09:32 PM
The bad part of Obamacare was not the intent. But we know what they say about good intentions and all.

The biggest problem with our medical care is multi-faceted:

1. Piss-poor diet, fast food culture
2. No exercise
3. Hypochondriac society, we take a pill for any and everything now
4. A government willing to bail you out of your bills thus creating an entitlement mindset

I agree.


I apologize for getting us off-subject, too.

dirk digler
04-13-2011, 09:37 PM
Yeah, Health Care is a completely different animal in which I do not believe there is any correct answer for.


I believe that the democrats were truely doing what they think is right for the country when they passed "Obamacare". There are plenty of negatives that come with the positives, though.

I agree.

petegz28
04-13-2011, 09:40 PM
I agree.

The problem with that is if the Dems were really doing what they thought was best for the country they would have read the damn bill first before signing off on the most expensive entitlement program in our history.

dirk digler
04-13-2011, 09:40 PM
I think you are also assuming they would be born into poverty. If my 39 years of experience has taught me anything, it has taught me that the poorer people usually keep the baby and the would-be teen mom in the suburbs is the one rushing off to the abortion clinic.

As Stevie likes to point out I believe there has been 20 million abortions in the African American community. I have to think 98% would have been born poor.

petegz28
04-13-2011, 09:42 PM
As Stevie likes to point out I believe there has been 20 million abortions in the African American community. I have to think 98% would have been born poor.

So 98% of the black community lives in poverty?

HonestChieffan
04-13-2011, 09:44 PM
So 98% of the black community lives in poverty?

Hell ya. Dam Mexicans took the jobs, yo.

dirk digler
04-13-2011, 09:45 PM
Neither can the top 2% pay it for everyone else. Maybe people don't have to go to nursing homes. Maybe they wouldn't if they didn't have the government footing the bill. Maybe they would be cared for by family if family knew the nursing home was their responsibility? Maybe its too easy for junior and sis to send the old woman off to a home...it doesn't cost them anything..right?

Maybe most people can't afford to take off 2-3 years of their life to care for their family?

dirk digler
04-13-2011, 09:47 PM
So 98% of the black community lives in poverty?

No. I am just making an assumption that the majority of abortions in the AA community probably are young and poor.

petegz28
04-13-2011, 09:48 PM
Maybe most people can't afford to take off 2-3 years of their life to care for their family?

You're starting to approach the "life should be fair" territory

HonestChieffan
04-13-2011, 09:52 PM
Maybe most people can't afford to take off 2-3 years of their life to care for their family?

Dickens as I recall said something to the effect that "they should just die and reduce the surplus population"

If they have to pay for taking care of their family, then that would be the trade off...do it at home, or pay someone else....make the call. If you just say Im to busy to take care of dear old mom, its a lot of work and no fun, lets pack her off to Happy Valley and let the government handle it.....We are a totally F*****d up society when we find it a burden to care for our family.

Not picking on you Dirk...its a sad statement for a lot of people in this country on many issues.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-13-2011, 09:53 PM
End the wars of conquest and drop the tax rates 5% across the board, watch the economy rebound. Eliminate the security industrial complex and we have our country back and booming.

Direckshun
04-13-2011, 10:07 PM
Yes, we should be a socialist society where everyone lives in mediocrity and go broke cause we want to take care of everyone else.

Is that where we live?

Everyone lives in mediocrity?

Methinks you protest too much.

dirk digler
04-13-2011, 10:07 PM
You're starting to approach the "life should be fair" territory

Life is never fair..

Dickens as I recall said something to the effect that "they should just die and reduce the surplus population"

If they have to pay for taking care of their family, then that would be the trade off...do it at home, or pay someone else....make the call. If you just say Im to busy to take care of dear old mom, its a lot of work and no fun, lets pack her off to Happy Valley and let the government handle it.....We are a totally F*****d up society when we find it a burden to care for our family.

Not picking on you Dirk...its a sad statement for a lot of people in this country on many issues.

I think paying for a in-home nurse IMO would be the preferable way to go for me instead of sending my parents to a nursing home.

But there is no doubt the " its a lot of work and no fun, lets pack her off to Happy Valley and let the government handle it.." happens a lot.

Direckshun
04-13-2011, 10:11 PM
Or retire on their own money. That would be the first option, of course.

People should never depend on the Gov. for retirement.

Explain to me why I am required, by law, to support another person that is not my child nor handicap?

Not everybody can retire on their own money.

No society, no matter how you structure it, can ever be that way.

Ever.

So we can go Guatemala, and just let them wallow in their own shit, or give them some dignity, provide them a mediocum of finances.

petegz28
04-13-2011, 10:29 PM
Not everybody can retire on their own money.

No society, no matter how you structure it, can ever be that way.

Ever.

So we can go Guatemala, and just let them wallow in their own shit, or give them some dignity, provide them a mediocum of finances.

Working out well in Europe. H that's right, we don't live there .....yet

Direckshun
04-13-2011, 10:32 PM
Working out well in Europe. H that's right, we don't live there .....yet

False dichotomy.

2bikemike
04-14-2011, 05:45 AM
Not everybody can retire on their own money.

No society, no matter how you structure it, can ever be that way.

Ever.

So we can go Guatemala, and just let them wallow in their own shit, or give them some dignity, provide them a mediocum of finances.

That is exactly where they went wrong with social security. It should have been their own money. An account for each individual paying in. They were incredibly short sighted when creating social security.

Instead we have a Government run cluster f#@$% that can't keep up with demand. A freaking Ponzi Scheme. And they put Madoff in jail for doing the same damn thing.

Of course if you think about it Social Secrurity was just another way for Govt. to take control of our lives ending personal responsibility.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-14-2011, 08:20 AM
Loot is what our economy is based on and what we do best, until that changes or everyone makes it a top priority then those that play the system have no room to complain.

Simplex3
04-14-2011, 02:00 PM
It involves desperately needed spending controls (plus a ****ing trigger, which I love) on healthcare spending, a good amount of defense spending...

Yes, first he'll reduce the waste, then he'll improve efficiency. Except that inefficiency *is* waste, so he's double and triple counting his savings. Again.

Not to mention that both side of the aisle are still counting their savings based off the planned increases, not current spending, which is a total crock.

Simplex3
04-14-2011, 02:12 PM
I don't think you are an asshole we just disagree.

Our population is getting older and tens of millions of baby boomers are about to retire and go on Medicare and then eventually go to Nursing Homes funded by Medicaid. If we cut a ton of money out of those programs what happens to those people?

It is not like most elderly people can afford to pay a nursing home a $100,000..

It's a hard fact, but it's too late to have enough kids and get them into the workforce in time to pay for the boomers. They're screwed. The feds could tax those of us who will be working at 100% and not be able to afford all the medical procedures the boomers will need given advancement in keeping people alive but broken. Add to it the fact that we've already almost maxed out the credit card so we can't even deficit spend to get past those decades.

I think you're going to have to start sucking it up and rubbing some dirt on it now because it's going to get ugly for all the boomers who didn't put their own money aside.

Simplex3
04-14-2011, 02:15 PM
I think you are also assuming they would be born into poverty. If my 39 years of experience has taught me anything, it has taught me that the poorer people usually keep the baby and the would-be teen mom in the suburbs is the one rushing off to the abortion clinic.

Could be that the family in the suburbs understands the actual costs and knows they can't afford it.

vailpass
04-14-2011, 02:19 PM
Hey, look over there.

I wonder what tax bracket you are in. I would never ask, that is none of my business. But I wonder.

chiefsnorth
04-14-2011, 02:24 PM
It's a hard fact, but it's too late to have enough kids and get them into the workforce in time to pay for the boomers. They're screwed. The feds could tax those of us who will be working at 100% and not be able to afford all the medical procedures the boomers will need given advancement in keeping people alive but broken. Add to it the fact that we've already almost maxed out the credit card so we can't even deficit spend to get past those decades.

I think you're going to have to start sucking it up and rubbing some dirt on it now because it's going to get ugly for all the boomers who didn't put their own money aside.

Yep... People are just going to have to accept that not only is government not intended to take care of everyone, government isn't very good at it either.

People think the government can just create things out of thin air by manipulating a spreadsheet. It doesn't work that way. Economics are not a matter of opinion, they are the laws of physics in the arena where these policies are played out. Money has to come from somewhere. Everyone can't have everything because Congress makes a law saying it's so.

vailpass
04-14-2011, 02:26 PM
Yep... People are just going to have to accept that not only is government not intended to take care of everyone, government isn't very good at it either.

People think the government can just create things out of thin air by manipulating a spreadsheet. It doesn't work that way. Economics are not a matter of opinion, they are the laws of physics in the arena where these policies are played out. Money has to come from somewhere.

Yes. Government is there to shield us from that which prevents us from working to take care of ourselves, nothing more.

RedNeckRaider
04-14-2011, 02:27 PM
It's a hard fact, but it's too late to have enough kids and get them into the workforce in time to pay for the boomers. They're screwed. The feds could tax those of us who will be working at 100% and not be able to afford all the medical procedures the boomers will need given advancement in keeping people alive but broken. Add to it the fact that we've already almost maxed out the credit card so we can't even deficit spend to get past those decades.

I think you're going to have to start sucking it up and rubbing some dirt on it now because it's going to get ugly for all the boomers who didn't put their own money aside.

Those programs could be paid for and we would still be banking money if our government was not run by pigfuckers who spend outrageously. Your line of thinking is exactly what the pigfuckers want you to think. I would bet large you cannot even grasp the amount of money being poured into Iraq every day. We have one base over there that is bigger than Fort Bragg, and that is one of several. Have you ever been on Fort Bragg? I will not even go into the black spending hole in Afghanistan. If a person takes the time to even glance at government spending they are shocked at the obscene waste. Yeah paying for the baby boomers is the problem :rolleyes:~

Simplex3
04-14-2011, 02:30 PM
We should be fair to the boomers. I know plenty of people in my age bracket (30's) who also don't have squat put aside for retirement. Given the massive unemployment I know a lot of people are burning up their retirement to pay their current bills. Add in the underemployment of college grads with student loans who aren't putting anything away for retirement and we have a perfect recipe for screwed.

I can tell you this, if this country starts raiding my investments or starts raising my taxes indiscriminately then it's no longer the America I know and love. I know how to Google for "best countries for American ex-patriots" and I'm not afraid to use it.

RedNeckRaider
04-14-2011, 02:34 PM
Yep... People are just going to have to accept that not only is government not intended to take care of everyone, government isn't very good at it either.

People think the government can just create things out of thin air by manipulating a spreadsheet. It doesn't work that way. Economics are not a matter of opinion, they are the laws of physics in the arena where these policies are played out. Money has to come from somewhere. Everyone can't have everything because Congress makes a law saying it's so.

They created this mess by doing just that to justify sweetheart deals, back door deals and FBI programs and I don't mean the federal bureau of investigation. I am talking about the Friends Brothers and In laws scam they have been running for years~

chiefsnorth
04-14-2011, 02:34 PM
I don't know if I could leave America. I do think about leaving such a blue state for one that is friendlier to those who work and pay their own way.

Simplex3
04-14-2011, 02:37 PM
Those programs could be paid for and we would still be banking money if our government was not run by pig****ers who spend outrageously. Your line of thinking is exactly what the pig****ers want you to think. I would bet large you cannot even grasp the amount of money being poured into Iraq every day. We have one base over there that is bigger than Fort Bragg, and that is one of several. Have you ever been on Fort Bragg? I will not even go into the black spending hole in Afghanistan. If a person takes the time to even glance at government spending they are shocked at the obscene waste. Yeah paying for the baby boomers is the problem :rolleyes:~

I agree completely that military spending is completely out of hand. There are hundreds if not thousands of federal programs that should be completely killed and I'll bet we couldn't find a single program out of them all that isn't wasting at least 10% of their funds.

But you could completely eliminate every other dollar spent by the feds and if you don't address Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid you're still running in the red. No cow can be sacred at this point.

But even those gloomy numbers don't take into account the rapid rise of medical costs, especially at end of life. Very few people just get old and die anymore. We're treated for cancer, given blood thinners because our heart is too weak, put on oxygen because our lungs don't work well enough, dosed up with boxes of pills to cover for all the parts that have crapped out and been removed by a surgeon, etc.

I imagine it's damn hard to stare death in the face, but it's probably a lot easier to demand a ton of medical care that might not help when you know it won't be paid for by anyone you know.

RedNeckRaider
04-14-2011, 02:38 PM
I don't know if I could leave America. I do think about leaving such a blue state for one that is friendlier to those who work and pay their own way.

I have paid my own way for fifty years and have never asked the government for a dime~

Simplex3
04-14-2011, 02:39 PM
I don't know if I could leave America. I do think about leaving such a blue state for one that is friendlier to those who work and pay their own way.

Are you really leaving America? Is that your definition of what America is? I'm not saying we're there. We have a lot of very serious issues and very few serious politicians to deal with it, though.

dirk digler
04-14-2011, 02:39 PM
But even those gloomy numbers don't take into account the rapid rise of medical costs, especially at end of life. Very few people just get old and die anymore. We're treated for cancer, given blood thinners because our heart is too weak, put on oxygen because our lungs don't work well enough, dosed up with boxes of pills to cover for all the parts that have crapped out and been removed by a surgeon, etc.

I imagine it's damn hard to stare death in the face, but it's probably a lot easier to demand a ton of medical care that might not help when you know it won't be paid for by anyone you know.

Are you actually suggesting using "Death Panels"?

Simplex3
04-14-2011, 02:40 PM
Are you actually suggesting using "Death Panels"?

I'm suggesting not giving things to people they can't afford. Label it as you will.

EDIT: I believe the "death panels" would also be able to deny care that the person could afford, which I'm adamantly against.

RedNeckRaider
04-14-2011, 02:41 PM
I agree completely that military spending is completely out of hand. There are hundreds if not thousands of federal programs that should be completely killed and I'll bet we couldn't find a single program out of them all that isn't wasting at least 10% of their funds.

But you could completely eliminate every other dollar spent by the feds and if you don't address Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid you're still running in the red. No cow can be sacred at this point.

But even those gloomy numbers don't take into account the rapid rise of medical costs, especially at end of life. Very few people just get old and die anymore. We're treated for cancer, given blood thinners because our heart is too weak, put on oxygen because our lungs don't work well enough, dosed up with boxes of pills to cover for all the parts that have crapped out and been removed by a surgeon, etc.

I imagine it's damn hard to stare death in the face, but it's probably a lot easier to demand a ton of medical care that might not help when you know it won't be paid for by anyone you know.

This obscene waste has been going on for years, and to look at one aspect of waste and say gosh gee still not enough is lazy thinking and research~

Simplex3
04-14-2011, 02:43 PM
This obscene waste has been going on for years, and to look at one aspect of waste and say gosh gee still not enough is lazy thinking and research~

I'm saying you could kill every federal dollar not in the big 3 social programs and you'd still be screwed. You will *have* to do something to them as well.

RedNeckRaider
04-14-2011, 02:43 PM
Are you actually suggesting using "Death Panels"?

He is for it until he reaches an age where he may face one. Which is clearly years off which allows his arrogance~

dirk digler
04-14-2011, 02:45 PM
I'm suggesting not giving things to people they can't afford. Label it as you will.

EDIT: I believe the "death panels" would also be able to deny care that the person could afford, which I'm adamantly against.

I would guess the vast majority of the elderly couldn't afford it and probably live month to month on SS.

Sounds like your solution is sorry great grandma you fell and broke your hip you will just have to live with it

Simplex3
04-14-2011, 02:49 PM
He is for it until he reaches an age where he may face one. Which is clearly years off which allows his arrogance~

I've watched what all the great medical care did for my grandparents. A student nurse killed my grandfather by screwing up an IV. That's cost savings for you.

They spent tons and tons of money trying to diagnose something wrong with my 80 year old grandmother only to have her die anyway. They never did find anything. Certainly couldn't have been that she was in her 80's.

They spent a ton of money on blood thinners and other various treatments for my other grandmother only to have her Alzheimer's take over and leave her scared and confused for years. When she was diagnosed with cancer it was a battle in the family to not treat it.

Dying happens to all of us. Do I want to die? No. But I kissed and hugged both kids and the wife this morning. I've done everything I could to take care of them financially after I'm gone. I'm at peace with where my life is. If today was the last day I could go without regrets.

Simplex3
04-14-2011, 02:51 PM
I would guess the vast majority of the elderly couldn't afford it and probably live month to month on SS.

Sounds like your solution is sorry great grandma you fell and broke your hip you will just have to live with it

I firmly believe that getting her hip back to a point she could walk wouldn't be nearly as expensive if we weren't caring for people who were clearly terminal and people who clearly don't have anything wrong with them.

RedNeckRaider
04-14-2011, 02:52 PM
I've watched what all the great medical care did for my grandparents. A student nurse killed my grandfather by screwing up an IV. That's cost savings for you.

They spent tons and tons of money trying to diagnose something wrong with my 80 year old grandmother only to have her die anyway. They never did find anything. Certainly couldn't have been that she was in her 80's.

They spent a ton of money on blood thinners and other various treatments for my other grandmother only to have her Alzheimer's take over and leave her scared and confused for years. When she was diagnosed with cancer it was a battle in the family to not treat it.

Dying happens to all of us. Do I want to die? No. But I kissed and hugged both kids and the wife this morning. I've done everything I could to take care of them financially after I'm gone. I'm at peace with where my life is. If today was the last day I could go without regrets.
As have many of us. Fuck the rest of them right :thumb: :shake:

Simplex3
04-14-2011, 02:57 PM
As have many of us. **** the rest of them right :thumb: :shake:

I think we're at the point where you can't afford to take care of yours and all the others. Let's assume we aren't there yet. The more you let people mooch of the system the more they will, so you'll get there eventually. What's your solution for when that happens? We keep racking up debt?

I firmly believe the pendulum will swing the other way again. I think the system will go broke, people will see the dismal care they're getting from the government, and people will start planning for themselves again. It's going to be sad to watch as people are being packed into bad situations in the name of caring for them on the budget available, but it's going to be on a scale that I simply can't afford to help.

I'm not saying we can't help anyone. But we're going to have to start making some choices about whether or not someone with a car, a flat screen TV, cable, and a mobile phone is poor.

dirk digler
04-14-2011, 02:57 PM
I firmly believe that getting her hip back to a point she could walk wouldn't be nearly as expensive if we weren't caring for people who were clearly terminal and people who clearly don't have anything wrong with them.

That might be true and I definitely agree there should be an open discussion about end of life decisions in this country. 60 Minutes did a great story on this a while back about the huge costs that we run up doing all kinds of tests and what not for the dying.

Simplex3
04-14-2011, 03:01 PM
That might be true and I definitely agree there should be an open discussion about end of life decisions in this country. 60 Minutes did a great story on this a while back about the huge costs that we run up doing all kinds of tests and what not for the dying.

My mother in law went out well. She found out she had cancer, started treatment, found out after several months that things weren't improving, and just stopped treatment. She spent her last months feeling good, seeing the people she loved, and her final days at home, with family, saying goodbye. I miss her, but have an enormous amount of respect for her.

petegz28
04-14-2011, 03:04 PM
Could be that the family in the suburbs understands the actual costs and knows they can't afford it.

Well, then they sold themselves short on providers for their SS!!! :evil:

suzzer99
04-14-2011, 03:07 PM
He is for it until he reaches an age where he may face one. Which is clearly years off which allows his arrogance~

Well currently under Medicare, a Washington bureaucrat gets between me and my doctor, which (at least in Palin-land) equals "Death Panels". So why aren't current seniors crying foul not to be included in the current Ryan voucher plan? No more Death Panels. I spend my voucher how I want. Fuck the govt right? Woo hoo?

RedNeckRaider
04-14-2011, 03:08 PM
I think we're at the point where you can't afford to take care of yours and all the others. Let's assume we aren't there yet. The more you let people mooch of the system the more they will, so you'll get there eventually. What's your solution for when that happens? We keep racking up debt?

I firmly believe the pendulum will swing the other way again. I think the system will go broke, people will see the dismal care they're getting from the government, and people will start planning for themselves again. It's going to be sad to watch as people are being packed into bad situations in the name of caring for them on the budget available, but it's going to be on a scale that I simply can't afford to help.

I'm not saying we can't help anyone. But we're going to have to start making some choices about whether or not someone with a car, a flat screen TV, cable, and a mobile phone is poor.

So fuckem out of every dime they have paid over a lifetime in SS~

dirk digler
04-14-2011, 03:11 PM
My mother in law went out well. She found out she had cancer, started treatment, found out after several months that things weren't improving, and just stopped treatment. She spent her last months feeling good, seeing the people she loved, and her final days at home, with family, saying goodbye. I miss her, but have an enormous amount of respect for her.

Minus the cancer that is probably the best way to die.

It is unfortunate that most of us will never have that opportunity. We will be hooked to all kinds of machines and out of it at least until they unhook them and we die. All the while racking up hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Simplex3
04-14-2011, 03:12 PM
So ****em out of every dime they have paid over a lifetime in SS~

That ship sailed. It's gone. I know I didn't do it, I doubt you did it. Now what?

RedNeckRaider
04-14-2011, 03:17 PM
That ship sailed. It's gone. I know I didn't do it, I doubt you did it. Now what?

Lets point the finger at those that got fucked and give the government a pass! Lets drop guilt trips on them about how they don't have as much money as me and you. Those dumb mother fuckers should have been as smart as us :thumb:~

Simplex3
04-14-2011, 03:26 PM
Lets point the finger at those that got ****ed and give the government a pass! Lets drop guilt trips on them about how they don't have as much money as me and you. Those dumb mother ****ers should have been as smart as us :thumb:~

You can cry and moan and feel all you want. You can point and yell. But I'm pretty sure none of that is going to un-spend the money that's already gone, and there isn't enough money anywhere to replace it.

I'm as furious at the federal government as you are over it. I just don't have any clue what your solution is.

RedNeckRaider
04-14-2011, 03:39 PM
You can cry and moan and feel all you want. You can point and yell. But I'm pretty sure none of that is going to un-spend the money that's already gone, and there isn't enough money anywhere to replace it.

I'm as furious at the federal government as you are over it. I just don't have any clue what your solution is.

I am just being ornery because I sensed a rather caviler attitude from you. You seem like good people and I should not have been so aggressive in my replies to you. It has just become rather fashionable to take the sorry about you luck baby boomers stance and I was playing the devils advocate~

Simplex3
04-14-2011, 03:44 PM
I am just being ornery because I sensed a rather caviler attitude from you. You seem like good people and I should not have been so aggressive in my replies to you. It has just become rather fashionable to take the sorry about you luck baby boomers stance and I was playing the devils advocate~

Sorry I didn't take the bait for you. :p

And I would argue that it isn't bad luck that has kicked the crap out of SS. It's people electing (and in most cases reelecting) mentally retarded criminals to seats of power. It could mean that as a society we were a kid who teethed on a crib covered in lead paint.

RedNeckRaider
04-14-2011, 03:51 PM
Sorry I didn't take the bait for you. :p

And I would argue that it isn't bad luck that has kicked the crap out of SS. It's people electing (and in most cases reelecting) mentally retarded criminals to seats of power. It could mean that as a society we were a kid who teethed on a crib covered in lead paint.

LMAO

The Mad Crapper
06-23-2011, 09:36 AM
Researches found that if current laws and practices remain in effect, taxes on the average household would have to increase by $1,398 annually in order for states and municipalities to keep pace with their obligations. According to the report, 13 states would need to increase taxes by $1,500 per household per year.

New Jersey is in the worst shape — residents would need to pony up $2,475 per year to meet the state's $11.9 billion obligation, with California having the largest unfunded liability of $47.8 billion, of which it only has $19.5 billion in the bank.



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/big-tax-increases-needed-to-fund-state-and-local-government-employee-pensions-2011-6#ixzz1Q77TVoN4