More on tax fairness

Tiredoflibs beat me to this topic in the previous post, but I’d like to expand on the issue of tax fairness.  Anyone who has been listening to the radio or watching any news show on TV is aware of the Left’s latest class warfare tactic.  In the last couple days we’ve heard Lefties from Al Sharpton to network news anchors ask the question, “is it fair for millionaires to pay less than Warren Buffet’s secretary who, like most average Americans pays 30% in income taxes?”  When Reverend Al asked Congressman Tim Huelskamp that question on Sharpton’s MSNBC show, the Rev simply wouldn’t accept the Congressman’s answer that his premise wasn’t true.  Talk about comedy gold.  And what’s even more pathetic is that Sharpton is delinquent on almost as much in federal taxes as Romney paid.  How is that FAIR, Al?

A little research completely refutes this new Leftist assertion that the average American pays an effective federal tax rate of 30%.  In fact, according to the IRS’ own data, 97% of Americans pay an effective federal rate of less than 13%.  And, what’s even more interesting about the IRS charts that NewsBusters links to are the demographics of “the wealthy”.  The charts show that there were (as of 2009) 235,413 Americans who had adjusted gross incomes of $1 million or more who paid $177.5 billion in income taxes on taxable income of $623.538 billion.  So if we increase the tax rate on those “rich” back to the 39.6% Clinton era top marginal rate that so many of our resident Progressives have called for, it would raise an additional $23.3 billion (and that’s assuming 100% compliance) a year in federal revenue — enough to run the federal government for about 2 days.  That’s barely a rounding error, but I guess it would be fair — right?  No?  OK, how about if we DOUBLE the top marginal rate on those making over $1 million.  That would raise an amount equal to about 17.6% of the current deficit or enough to run the government for about 18 days.  I think what’s FAIR is to say that we have a SPENDING problem, not a TAXING problem.

Folks, it’s time to take the gloves off — call a spade a spade and a liar a liar.

120 thoughts on “More on tax fairness

  1. neocon1 January 26, 2012 / 3:52 pm

    See the thread

    10 Responses to “Obama Wants the Rich To Pay Their Fair Shair, But Makes No Demands on His Cabinet”

    watch both videos posted……..

      • neocon1 January 26, 2012 / 4:29 pm

        Pssssst Al………..is dis fair??????

        scummy, these are the donks you love so much,,, birds of a feather?

        The civil-rights group is also addressing the $883,503 it owes in federal payroll taxes, she added.

        And it is close to finished repaying the Peabody Hotel in Memphis $106,981 owed since 2008, when NAN skipped out on its bill after its annual convention, according to its 2010 audited financial statements.

        Plus, it paid $5,500 to a Phoenix developer to settle a legal dispute over the rental of chapter offices.

        Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/rev_al_deep_in_the_red_FFFX2IRlXVlP0sh79dWyxL#ixzz1kb8smk5D

  2. Chrissy Ann January 26, 2012 / 4:19 pm

    I would love to pay only 13%!!

    • neocon1 January 26, 2012 / 4:22 pm

      chrissy

      I would love to pay ZERO like 47% of americans.

      • Chrissy Ann January 26, 2012 / 6:21 pm

        I love the widdle ducks in the Peabody. I grant you I had to give them my credit card when I made a reservation. Next time I am going in black face.

        PS: I love the Blues clubs.

  3. J. R. Babcock January 26, 2012 / 4:40 pm

    Gee, no Lefty comments on either one of these tax fairness threads. Must not have gotten their talking points yet — well, except the one that’s not true that is. Of course they may just all be at work…………Nah.

    • neocon1 January 26, 2012 / 8:29 pm

      JR

      ya just had to go and say thdt….LOL 🙂

      • neocon1 January 26, 2012 / 8:54 pm

        that

  4. Sunny January 26, 2012 / 6:11 pm

    It would be interesting to find out who pays more in taxes – Republicans or Democrats. I have no idea, but Mr. Babcock made the snarky remark about lefties being at work – nah. Such a typical remark by the rightie. So self righteous. And of course, Neo constantly worries about the 47% pay no taxes. Is it possible that there are some very wealthy people in that 47%? I am sure the 47% is made up of only liberals.

    • RetiredSpook January 26, 2012 / 6:41 pm

      I did quite a bit of research for this post, Velma. Why don’t you do some yourself and answer your own questions. I’d bet that the vast majority of the 47% who pay no federal income tax are Democrats. Prove me wrong.

      • Sunny January 27, 2012 / 2:09 pm

        Too busy right now to do research. You have more time than I do for research..

    • neocon1 January 26, 2012 / 7:10 pm

      scummy

      I am sure the 47% is made up of only liberals.
      finally you are correct about something.

      • neocon1 January 26, 2012 / 7:17 pm

        Is it me? or is the “good rev” al becoming the color of Michael Jackson ?

    • mitchethekid January 26, 2012 / 7:39 pm

      Romney pays less than 15% on a gain on his capital. He has no earned income therefore he pays zero income tax. His” income” is an increase on his already phenomenal wealth. And if Newt had his way and eliminated the capital gains tax, Romney will pay no taxes. But according to the economists on this blog, that’s fair.
      It is an utterly absurd contention to make, btw, that Democrats pay less than Republicans. First there is no way to find out and second the willingness to actually believe this idea is just another indication of why President Obama will serve a second term. Ignorance,rage, hostility and stupidity are not adaptive traits.
      Spook is correct, the argument should be about spending but it doesn’t matter in the end. The numbers are relative. Fundamentally those who earn more should not have a lower liability than those who earn less. And they certainly shouldn’t be allowed to game the system in order to protect their position at the expense of others.
      Romney, for all his wealth has never created anything. He never owned and operated a factory, he never built a product that was sold in the marketplace and he never employed anyone in the sense that most regular folks understand it. Yes, he “employed” people but they were like him.Lawyers, accountants, etc. They were entrepreneurs like himself and if Romney didn’t hire them so what. I know what your argument against me will be so don’t bother. It falls flat because you know what I am driving at.
      What’s really telling is that you all defend this behavior against your better interest. You act as if someone who is a drain on society is taking soemthing from you when in reality the thieves are folks like Mitt.
      And Neo, ADD and Autism are diseases. They are neurological in nature and are empirically verified and recognized by the AMA.

      • neocon1 January 26, 2012 / 7:46 pm

        Bmitch

        Romney pays less than 15% on a gain on his capital. He has no earned income therefore he pays zero income tax.

        Good grief another dumbed down useful idiot chimes in

        Helllllllloooooooooooo Mc Fly HE ALREADY PAID 38% BEFORE HE INVESTED the MONEY then he PAID 15% on the dividends he received on that alreadyTAXED MONEY

        no wonder a POS like Ochimpy can get elected in this country

      • neocon1 January 26, 2012 / 7:50 pm

        BmitchtheKID

        Obomber, for all his wealth has never created anything. He never owned and operated a factory, he never built a product that was sold in the marketplace and he never employed anyone in the sense that most regular folks understand it.
        he never even held a job.

      • neocon1 January 26, 2012 / 7:57 pm

        Bmitch

        They are neurological in nature and are empirically verified and recognized by the AMA.

        so was homosexuality, as a pathology and insanity.
        were they right then or now?
        do you think they own stock in big pharma?? mmmmmm?

      • bardolf January 26, 2012 / 8:35 pm

        @Neo

        In the course of the 19th century, more and more doctors linked masturbation to severe mental illness. As explained in 1867 by Henry Maudsley, the greatest British psychiatrist of his time, masturbatory insanity was “characterized by … extreme perversion of feeling and corresponding derangement of thought, in earlier stages, and later by failure of intelligence, nocturnal hallucinations, and suicidal and homicidal propensities.” In other words, masturbators were mad potential killers, and it seemed only prudent to have them locked up in an asylum.

        I’m willing to bet that if brain scans were around in the 1800’s they would have been able to locate where the neurological disorder known as masturbatory insanity resided. It would have been empirically verified and recognized by the AMA.

        @Mitch is mostly right about the dubious usefulness of the Mitt for the better of the economy.

      • neocon1 January 26, 2012 / 8:56 pm

        baldork

        I bow to you, the resident expert on masturbation both verbal and otherwise.

      • n January 26, 2012 / 10:17 pm

        Neo

        No bowing, it leads to kneepads. Sorry, but GMB will support me in my claim that you have polluted this blog with obscene images more than a few times.

      • neocon1 January 27, 2012 / 12:55 am

        N

        HuH?

        bardolf January 26, 2012 at 8:35 pm #

        @Neo

        In the course of the 19th century, more and more doctors linked masturbation to severe mental illness. As explained in 1867 by Henry Maudsley, the greatest British psychiatrist of his time, masturbatory insanity was “characterized by … extreme perversion of feeling and corresponding derangement of thought, in earlier stages, and later by failure of intelligence, nocturnal hallucinations, and suicidal and homicidal propensities.” In other words, masturbators were mad potential killers, and it seemed only prudent to have them locked up in an asylum.

    • J. R. Babcock January 27, 2012 / 7:01 pm

      I have no idea, but Mr. Babcock made the snarky remark about lefties being at work – nah. Such a typical remark by the rightie. So self righteous.

      Geez, Sunny — get a sense of humor.

  5. 4moreyears January 26, 2012 / 7:33 pm

    http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2011.pdf

    Oh the tax lie continues. of the 47% who pay no fed income tax how many pay the 15% payroll tax? State income tax? Local income tax? (both of those are regressive) Sales tax? gas tax? and on and on The link above shows a better picture of who gets the money and who pays the taxes. And guess what? The poor pay dearly.

    • neocon1 January 26, 2012 / 7:42 pm

      4lessbraincells

      Oh the tax lie continues. of the 47% who pay no fed income tax

      how many pay the 15% payroll tax?
      ans = earned income tax credit…educate your self

      State income tax? Local income tax? ans = NONE of those are federal income tax

      (both of those are regressive) Sales tax? gas tax? and on ans = regressive to whom? every one? to those with NO cars?

      And guess what? The poor pay dearly. ans = HOW? they are POOR and have NO money,,,,well except for cigarettes and booze.

      • neocon1 January 26, 2012 / 7:48 pm

        4lessbraincells

        PS

        how many pay the 15% payroll tax?

        The EMPLOYER pays HALF you dolt.

      • 4moreyears January 26, 2012 / 7:53 pm

        If you even paid attention and read the post you would see that in fact the various income groups pay very close to what they get in total income. For example, the bottom 20% get about 3.5% of all income and pay about 2% of all taxes. The top 1% get about 20% of all income and pay about 21% of all taxes. In the middle 20% they get about 12% of all income and pay 10% of all taxes. You see, if you only want to talk about a particular tax, then you can slice an dice the data any way you like. But by comparing share of ALL income to share of ALL taxes you get a much better picture of the true distribution. This is like saying the the top 1% pay zero SS/MC and guess what, that represents about 50% of ALL federal tax revenue. I know it’s hard to look at the big picture if you have a small mind but the facts are the facts. Sorry Charlie.

      • 4moreyears January 26, 2012 / 7:58 pm

        Well, as you know, the cost of employment is born by the company. Any tax that the company has to pay for said employment is part of the net value of the employee to the business. If an employee is worth 50k but the company has to pay 10k in taxes, then the employee will get paid 40k. In addition, these taxes are deducible so that saving is passed through to the stockholders and end up boosting the incomes through dividends of the upper bracket boys.

      • neocon1 January 26, 2012 / 8:03 pm

        4lessbraincells

        like taking candy from a baby

        Update:
        The chart above is from the Joint Economic Committe (based on 2006 IRS data), showing the percentages of federal personal income tax paid by different groups of taxpayers:

        The top 1% of taxpayers pay about 40% of all income taxes,

        the top 10% pay 71%,

        and the top 50% pay 97% of all taxes.

        The bottom 50% pays less than 3% of all income taxes paid.

      • neocon1 January 26, 2012 / 8:04 pm

        4lessbraincells

        In addition, these taxes are deducible so that saving is passed through to the stockholders and end up boosting the incomes through dividends of the upper bracket boys.

        Absolute 100% BS

      • 4moreyears January 26, 2012 / 8:17 pm

        You still don’t get it. I am in the upper 5% and I pay more in state local, school, sales, fica, mc than I pay in fed tax. Fed income tax is only ONE TAX. We all have to pay MANY taxes. The total tax burden is the true measure of who pays what in our society. Share of income vs share of total taxes. That’s the measure not share of income vs share of trash pickup fees.

        And your idea that the employer’s share of the payroll tax is not directly passed on to employee pay is naive. ALL employee costs are related to pay. Taxes and benefits. If what you say is true then uncle sam could raise the company FICA by 50% and there would be no change in employee pay over time. Do me a favor, go back and complete your GED. Better yet, vote for Newt.

      • neocon1 January 26, 2012 / 8:22 pm

        4lessbraincells

        Do me a favor, go back and complete your GED. Better yet, vote for Newt.

        LOL
        arguing apples and oranges against a moron on the short bus is futile.
        GED?
        ha ha ha there was NO such thing even when I graduated from college………..
        go back to popping pimples in the mirror fry boy!

      • neocon1 January 26, 2012 / 8:26 pm

        4morepimples

        And your idea that the employer’s share of the payroll tax is not directly passed on to employee pay is naive.

        who said that? and proof it is?
        YOU stated In addition, these taxes are deducible
        FROM WHAT??? …..1000% BULL SHIITE

      • neocon1 January 26, 2012 / 8:28 pm

        4morepimples

        directly passed on to employee pay is naive.

        it is called…….get this …… O-V-E-R-H-E-A-D
        business 101 for dummies!

      • 4moreyears January 26, 2012 / 8:32 pm

        To be completely honest, I feel that after reading your posts I may in fact have lost a few brain cells.

        One last time, YOU are using the apples v oranges. THAT is why I say there is only one true measure of tax burden. The total of what you make vs the total of all taxes paid. I am sorry that’s not very clear to you. It must be hard to be so challenged.

        Oh, the taxes a company pays comes off their reported profit and guess what, that’s known as a deduction. Wow, you really need to get out of the parents basement more often.

      • neocon1 January 26, 2012 / 8:34 pm

        4morspimples

        No it is an expense.
        ps pee wee;
        there are NO basements in Fla, and your bike is not in the alamo.

      • neocon1 January 26, 2012 / 8:37 pm

        4morefries

        ummmmmmm
        the theme of the thread was????

        In the last couple days we’ve heard Lefties from Al Sharpton to network news anchors ask the question, “is it fair for millionaires to pay less than Warren Buffet’s secretary who, like most average Americans pays

        ********** 30% in income taxes?************

        speaking of GED’s…… MOTESAH?

      • neocon1 January 26, 2012 / 8:43 pm

        4moreflakes

        jeesh…….tardo 101

        Payroll taxes which are not withheld from employees are expenses of the employer.
        Two examples of payroll taxes that are not withheld from employees but which must be remitted to the government by the employer are the employer’s portion of the FICA or Social Security and Medicare taxes and the state and federal unemployment taxes.

        Since these are to be paid by the employer, these are expenses.

        They are also liabilities until the employer remits the required amounts to the government.

        DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!

      • neocon1 January 26, 2012 / 8:49 pm

        4lessbasements

        one last thing kid

        earnings – expenses = profit.
        TAXES are paid on profit by companies.
        when bonuses are paid to the” big boys”, they pay (all together) INCOME TAXES!!

      • 4moreyears January 26, 2012 / 8:55 pm

        Sorry, the title of this thread is “More on Tax Fairness.” Don’t get your panties in such a twist. Just because you think that means “Federal Tax Fairness” doesn’t have anything to do with “actual” tax fairness. This seems to be very difficult for you to grasp. Sorry, I can’t help that.

        And you are exactly correct, the company portion is an expense which is, wait for it, deducted from income/profits declared by said company. You see, if you had actually finished high school you would know this. Also, there are basements in Florida. How do I know?

      • neocon1 January 26, 2012 / 9:01 pm

        4morefries

        Also, there are basements in Florida. How do I know?

        you live in one?

        we call that the crawl space in the cheap neighborhoods.

      • neocon1 January 26, 2012 / 9:10 pm

        4beersshort

        4moreyears January 26, 2012 at 8:55 pm #

        Sorry, the title of this thread is

        3rd grade reading and comprehension 101

        Ahhhh but the CONTENT IS……Ta Da….

        A little research completely refutes this new Leftist assertion that the average American pays an effective federal tax rate of 30%. In fact, according to the IRS’ own data, 97% of Americans pay an effective federal rate of less than 13%. And, what’s even more interesting about the IRS charts that NewsBusters links to are the demographics of “the wealthy”. The charts show that there were (as of 2009) 235,413 Americans who had adjusted gross incomes of $1 million or more who paid $177.5 billion in income taxes on taxable income of $623.538 billion. So if we increase the tax rate on those “rich” back to the 39.6% Clinton era top marginal rate that so many of our resident Progressives have called for, it would raise an additional $23.3 billion (and that’s assuming 100% compliance) a year in federal revenue — enough to run the federal government for about 2 days. That’s barely a rounding error, but I guess it would be fair — right? No? OK, how about if we DOUBLE the top marginal rate on those making over $1 million.

      • RetiredSpook January 26, 2012 / 9:27 pm

        And you are exactly correct, the company portion is an expense which is, wait for it, deducted from income/profits declared by said company.

        So, FMY, is it deducted from income or profit — it can’t be both. And it also depends on what kind of company you’re talking about, a C Corp. or an S Corp/LLC/Partnership/sole proprietorship.

  6. doug January 26, 2012 / 8:04 pm

    It doesn’t matter, we already lost with Romney releasing his returns. There is no way that the majority of the public is going to be happy with capital gains tax being ‘low’ anymore. No one will bother wanting to understand why double and triple taxation is unfair, they can’t get by the simple meme the Dems and media are throwing out there.

    Romney has already destroyed the rconservative cause and he did so prior to the Florida Primary with just the release of his tax forms.

    The GOP is going to have to have a different nominee.

    • neocon1 January 26, 2012 / 9:18 pm

      This sums it up 1000% LOL

  7. mitchethekid January 26, 2012 / 9:35 pm

    Mitchthedkid, your escalating crudeness and vulgarity are going to get you banned. // Moderator

    • neocon1 January 26, 2012 / 9:53 pm

      Play the game and get banned with Mitch. // Moderator

    • neocon1 January 26, 2012 / 10:34 pm

      Bmitch

      Rep. Barney Frank(71) To Marry Longtime Partner [Not Too Long Ago This Was A Crime!]
      FoxNews | January 26, 2012 | John Brandt

  8. Jeremiah January 26, 2012 / 9:57 pm

    Seems like people actually respect firefighters…

    You’re gonna wish you had some if you don’t wake up before you leave this world.

    • neocon1 January 26, 2012 / 10:01 pm

      Jer….ROTFLMAO…… 🙂 🙂

      a good post on another site…….

      On income inequality:

      Let’s consider two people. The first is smart, hard-working, gets a good education, abstains from drugs, and doesn’t father any illegitimate children. He gets a quality education,
      gets a demanding job, and has very little leisure time.

      The second person is of below average intelligence, lazy, enjoys booze and marijuana and an occasional snort of something stronger, dropped out of high school before he graduated but after he fathered three kids by three different baby moms.

      He can’t find a decent job, and when he does get hired, he manages to get fired shortly thereafter because he is habitually late for work, is often “absent” and doesn’t seem to do much when he is there.

      The first person is making a few hundred thousand a year, and is living the American Dream.
      The second person is surviving on unemployment insurance and food stamps.

      On the question of income inequality:
      Is it “fair” that the first person earns way more than the second?
      Corollary: Would it be “fair” if their incomes were equal?

      • neocon1 January 26, 2012 / 10:43 pm

        William McBride, an economist at the conservative Tax Foundation.

        McBride says it is unfair to tax income more than once, and capital gains are taxed multiple times. If you got the original investment from wages, that money was taxed. If the stock you own gains value because the company you invested in makes a profit, those profits are taxed through the corporate tax. And if that company issues dividends, those are taxed as well.

    • mitchethekid January 26, 2012 / 11:33 pm

      You’re working very hard to be taken off this blog. // Moderator

      • neocon1 January 26, 2012 / 11:54 pm

        bmitch

        Autism is just a behavioral problem. Best cured by repeated beatings.

        glad it worked for you, but the drooling from the beatings has got to go.
        work on it will ya…and the rocking back n forth? whew!

      • neocon1 January 27, 2012 / 12:02 am

        bmitch

        Jesus freak such as yourself is not something I am clamoring for.

        then what
        a MoohaMAD freak?
        I blow you up infidel.

        Or

        a satan freak?
        i will steal your soul.

        or

        a Scientologist freak?
        nanu nanu lizard men from orka

        or

        a moonie freak?
        sell everything and give it to meee

        do tell bomber Bmitch.

  9. mitchethekid January 27, 2012 / 12:34 am

    I don’t ascribe to any religion. I find them dogmatic, repressive, dictatorial and offer nothing to me that reason doesn’t provide far better. In other words, I will not surrender my mind or my free will.
    But this doesn’t imply that I don’t have a sense of the transcendent. I just don’t like religion. And I especially don’t like in your face christianists. Loons for Jesus who claim that you are infringing on their “rights” if you tell them to take a hike or quit proselytizing to people who aren’t interested. What I find even more repulsive is those that claim that they and they alone have the market cornered on absolute truth. People who claim that this is a “christian” nation. That some being deigned the United States. Mormons claim that Utah is the landing pad. Christians say it’s Israel. Hence our foreign policy. And Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Daoists,etc etc etc don’t agree at all. Who’s right? Who’s wrong? Who cares!
    Frankly, the entire vestigial antediluvian thought process is the cause of more human misery than disease and pestilence. To some, it’s still believe what I do or I’ll kill you so you can find out for yourself. Religious freaks believe what they do because it’s easier. They demand uniformity and despise dissent and independent thinking. Thinking for yourself is work and since you value work, you should understand.

    • neocon1 January 27, 2012 / 1:05 am

      Bmitch

      wellllll if you are right and I am wrong then I lived a good life and helped many.

      If Jer and I are right and you are wrong then you will pay a high price.

      atheism is the devils playground and abortion, communism, nazi ism and the left in general is it’s product which always leads to death.

      • mitchethekid January 27, 2012 / 1:45 am

        Life leads to death pal.
        Religion began as an awareness of death and was a system of beliefs; rooted in magic and superstition, which offered a rationalization for living. I mean, according to ALL religions if there is no god, what’s the point, right? You infer some sort of an afterlife which supposedly is “better” than actually being alive. But this belief you hold is binary. Heaven, hell. Man god. Good, bad. You live in a world of duality in which there is no in between. Or alternatives. That’s your choice to believe that and I’ll bet that you believe it because as a child you were told to. I doubt you thought about it enough to arrive at that conclusion on your own. If you did, you’d be far more tolerant of other people and other ideas than you are. And you wouldn’t be so incredibly crude and hostile towards those that are not like you. You have to believe what you do because you are intellectually weak and your faith is fragile.
        An example of this is to not understand the difference between atheism and being agnostic. I explicitly said that I had a sense of the transcendent. I do not believe that humans have the physical capacity to understand the nuances of what is; at it’s core, a concept of a divine being. We can only try to understand this concept in our own terms and in our own language. But we have created elaborate systems in our attempt to understand within our own parameters. It would be like trying to understand a rock using a pencil. Or a bicycle. I hope you get my point.
        God is an idea of man, not the other way around. The existence of which can neither be proved nor disproved. But if all religions were to suddenly be erased from human experience and started over none of them would develop in the same way. But the laws of the universe, both physical and quantum would remain the same. Is this testable, repeatable mechanical operation an expression of a divine transcendent being? Maybe. Maybe not. It doesn’t matter to me and my subjective experience of living. I’m not worried about what happens after I die because at that point there is no more “me” having a reflective expereince of the continuity of time and of being alive.
        But maybe these ideas are not only a threat to your world view but also represent an enlightenment; a liberalism if you will that you despise so much. And if so, ask yourself why. Nobody wins, nobody looses. We all just live and die. Except death is forever and as such is a very scary thought. Hence the comfort that religion offers. I prefer to think for myself.

      • neocon1 January 27, 2012 / 1:58 am

        Bmitch

        . If you did, you’d be far more tolerant of other people and other ideas than you are. And you wouldn’t be so incredibly crude and hostile towards those that are not like you. You have to believe what you do because you are intellectually weak and your faith is fragile.

        quite the contrary,
        through confidence and knowledge of my self and my God is the reason I have little room for Dbags and morons = liberals.

        I view you leftys to be the weak who needs OPM and big brother to wipe your candy ass from cradle to grave, raise your bastard kids, and let you murder them if you dont want them.

        You are the AIDS carrying syphilitic typhoid marys of modern day through your fithy perversiond and needles in your arms.
        Righteous indignation is a sign of strength and character something you would know nothing about.

        Intellectually weak?
        shhhh dont tell those who pay me big money for my services.

    • neocon1 January 27, 2012 / 1:07 am

      They demand uniformity and despise dissent and independent thinking.

      you are talking about the cult of islam and others.

    • Amazona January 28, 2012 / 12:18 pm

      mitchie brags about rejecting whatever weird definition of “religion” he has developed—when he describes “religion” it never has any relationship to any religion I am familiar with, but is just a sorry collection of straw men invented and collected to justify a different belief system—–because he calls it …dogmatic, repressive, dictatorial…

      And at the same time he vehemently defends and apparently supports a political model which can best be described as dogmatic, repressive, dictatorial

      He rejects a God-based belief system in favor of a man-based belief system, and then postures as being above all belief systems. The real difference is one of ego—one ascribes divinity to God, one to man, and mitchie prefers the latter, somehow being able to place himself in the elevated status of superiority. One requires the admission of humility, of being less than God, and lets the egoist pretend that he IS God.

  10. Jeremiah January 27, 2012 / 1:40 am

    Had some what? Fire or respect? Believe me, respect from a paranoid, Aspergers ridden Jesus freak such as yourself is not something I am clamoring for.

    Respect? No, none from me.

    Fire? Well, there will be plenty of that. So, I don’t think you’ll be in want there. The only problem you’ll run into I think, is that there won’t be any 911 service, and the fire has infinite burn time. So, you may want to rethink where you stand in life.

    • mitchethekid January 27, 2012 / 1:58 am

      You trying to scare me or convince yourself? I reject religion so don’t waste your time threatening my reason with ghost stories about a voodoo hoodoo guy who was locally popular 2000 yrs ago. Supposedly. You see Jeremiah, you are totally deluded into believing that your rationalization for being alive is the only “true” one. And the literalism at which you take it is again a sign of just how weak your faith really is. Have you ever had any doubt? If not, then you cannot have any faith. It is cognitively impossible. How do you respond to people of other faiths who are as insistent as you? What would you do if you met a Shinto Jeremiah? Or a Buddhist? Or any other system of beliefs. Surely you are not that arrogant to believe that you and you alone have the key to the universe. That idea goes against the teachings of Christ.

      • neocon1 January 27, 2012 / 2:09 am

        I reject religion

        That idea goes against the teachings of Christ.

        yup,
        Christ is not “religion” and does not condone it. He was a Jew and a rabbi who rejected religion.
        Faith in HIM is all you need, the rest is of man.

  11. Jeremiah January 27, 2012 / 4:17 am

    Surely you are not that arrogant to believe that you and you alone have the key to the universe. That idea goes against the teachings of Christ.

    Arrogant? No, not at all. Just stating fact.

    Maybe it is the fact that Christ’s power and authority threaten your desire to travel down a sinful road. But it’s not His fault that you have been tripped up by Satan, because, again, that is the choice you made for yourself.

    Arrogance is going against God’s authority … God can choose, too, you see. But His choices are dependent upon your choices …. He chose to give you life, and now He has given you free reign to choose which path you want to take, and in His Word is His manual provided for you free of charge to lead you in the way that you ought to go, His Son too, was given for you to pay the penalty for your sin … He took the burden that you would have had to pay nailed it to the Cross … that’s why anytime you see a cross, it is representative of your shame, every man’s shame from Adam to the last man to live. So, what goes against the teachings of Christ is your unwillingness to accept the sacrifice made to pay for your sin, and and unwillingness to live for Him.

    John 14:6 – Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no man cometh unto the Father but by Me.” (emphasis added for clarification)

    That’s what I would say to anyone who may not be Christian who wants to argue with Scripture … and you can’t argue with it. God’s Word is the final authority. Period.

    No, you don’t have any reason to fear hell … but you have every reason to fear the One who can send you there. Scripture states, “Fear not the one who can destroy the body, rather fear the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”

    Scripture also states, “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”
    Many souls have already found this to be true firsthand, and it’s unfortunate, but no one’s fault except there own.

    I rest my case, and therefore, won’t take up anymore of your time.

    Thank you!

  12. Cluster January 27, 2012 / 7:59 am

    Excellent thread Spook, and worthy of a national conversation, if we could just wade through the ideologues. Asking the top wage earners to kick in an extra 4% will accomplish nothing. It is the worst form of pandering to continue the mantra of “tax the rich”. These are serious times and we need serious people, and any politician that demonizes the rich, is not serious (think: Obama).

    If we were serious about generating more revenue to the federal government, we would be flattening the tax code and eliminating loopholes and exemptions, but keep in mind, every one of those loopholes represents a lobbyist and a payoff to a politician, so it’s highly unlikely that you will ever hear a flat tax proposal from a democrat, or at least these current democrats. The current liberal screed of tax the rich is all for show but so many liberals have bought it hook line and sinker. I then have to comment on this:

    I find them (religion) dogmatic, repressive, dictatorial and offer nothing to me that reason doesn’t provide far better. In other words, I will not surrender my mind or my free will. – mitch

    Mitch, I too am not a big follower of organized religion, BUT I am a devoted follower of Christ. Many organized religions in my opinion do get it wrong, but that is because those religions, and organizations, are lead by men who are fallible, so don’t conflate the Word of Christ and his influence with that of the interpretation of man. Your Creator gave you your mind and your freewill and Christ came here personally to show us all the standard. If you would simply quiet your mind, and from your soul ask Christ to be a part of your life, you can find an inner peace and joy that is unmatched.

    • mitchethekid January 27, 2012 / 9:24 am

      Thanks Cluster. You sound sincere and respectful.
      But think outside a paradigm. You are assuming that there is a creator. Again, the world of duality, the world of opposites. Beginning, ending. Creator, created. Man created god in his own image. The mythology of Narcissus is an analogy that comes to mind. Jesus said “I am the way”. I don’t interpret that as referring to himself, but rather to each individual. In that case me.

      • Cluster January 27, 2012 / 10:14 am

        Mitch,

        I don’t know how anyone could look at the vast complexities of life and our universe and consider it to be a random sequence of events. To me, that involves a greater leap of Faith than anything I can imagine.

        There is a Higher Power, and yes man has constructed that image, that’s why I don’t subscribe to many organized Faith’s. I believe that man ultimately gets it wrong, and injects their own biases. I honestly think that there is no conceivable way that man can comprehend what that Higher Power is, but we can understand what Jesus taught us, and that is a personal relationship with God through Jesus – personal being the key word.

    • RetiredSpook January 27, 2012 / 9:10 pm

      Excellent thread Spook, and worthy of a national conversation, if we could just wade through the ideologues.

      It’s sort of veered off into a discussion of religion, something I seldom feel compelled to get involved in, although you and I are on pretty much the same page. About all we can do for people like Mitch is pray for him and hope we never have to share a fox hole with him.

  13. js03 January 27, 2012 / 10:21 am

    The 16th Amendment to the Constitution is what started the income tax in 1913.

    The income-tax question is one that will not down. For the best of reasons this is true. Way down in the hearts of the masses of mankind there lurks a strong sense of justice, on which is founded the opinion that vast accumulations of wealth in the hands of individuals or corporations should help to support the Government under which they are acquired, by which they are protected and without which they would vanish.

    And why not? Why tax the widow’s mite and the orphan’s bread, and not tax these accumulations? Why lay tribute on what we eat and wear, and leave untaxed millions in the hands of those who can never personally consume it, and with whom it is surplus?

    If there ever was a time when the concentrated wealth of the land should bear its share of our enormous expenses of government it is now.

    There is a necessity of an income tax now that did not exist when our Government was conducted economically. In all the history of the Government of the United States there never was such an era of prodigality as that on which we have fallen. The Prodigal Son in his most prodigal day was parsimonious when compared with some exhibitions of extravagance that have characterized our Government in recent times.

    (the full faith of the people of the united states was that the income ttax was to be applied by the federal government to tax those who had a lot of wealth that was never taxed…instead of the bread off the table of the poor)

    • js03 January 27, 2012 / 10:36 am

      esssentially…the taxes on bread and food and clothes was sufficent tax on the poor as reflected by the article above from the SATURDAY EVENING POST in 1913…

      the failure of the federal government to follow the spirit of the constitutional amendment has resulted in a stupid conflict…the income tax was never originally intended to be applied to everybody in the nation…as a way to increase revenues during the 2nd World War…they temporarily increased the taxation to every income in the nation, the poor and the wealthy…but they never returned to the original stance…that the injustice of taxing the poor was never the intent of the government when they presented the states with the income tax amendment…that tax was designed to be used to take a fair share of the money that the wealthy shxt holed and stashed away for thier own little greedy purposes…before the amendment the fed. govt only had the consumption tax…and everyone paid it, even those whose entire pay checks went to feed and cloth tthier families…

      so this dispute today…that the rich dont pay thier fair share…is the same arguement they had originally…in 1911-1913…why? because the rich run the government…they made loopeholes to evade paying the taxes…companies GE that dont pay a dime in taxes…yet they take a lions share of money out of the pockets of economy…those are the ones that need to pay taxes…

      dont complain about the 40% of americans who dont pay taxes…they should never have to…most of them are poor…and taking taxes out of thier checks every week is a dishonorable act…just like leaving huge megacorp’s like GE tax free..when you tax the widow mite and the orphans bread…where is the justice in this sytem!!

      • neocon1 January 27, 2012 / 11:18 am

        taxes are not about justice they are for government services.
        In Fla we have no income tax we have a sales tax, all pay all pay the same rate, rich pay much more, the poor not so much through purchasing power.

        We all use the schools, the roads, sewer and water, we all expect the police and fire dept to show up when we call 911 we all expect our military to protect us, we all use the electricity, garbage pick up, sidewalks etc etc etc.

        So why should every one not contribute something? The widows, poor, down and out, all can contribute something through proper taxation.
        Through a sales – consumption tax all contribute yet not equally.

        Im not being a hard head here, believe me I get into a LOT of homes during the year black, white, asian, mexican and I know who is on the dole and who is not. In 99.5% of the “poor” on the dole homes they have cell phones, big screen tv’s, computers, cars (usually older) and to the person they smoke. usually a bag full of empty beer cans accompany s the cigarette butts.

      • js03 January 27, 2012 / 12:08 pm

        taxes on the poor serve no purpose neo…

        they take 35.55 out of a young adults check every week…the guy gets home and spends the rest of his/her money buying food for his kids, and putting what they need aside for rent and electricity…that 35.55 would do this family good…but the government takes it…

        ya…they give it back…next year…its not like the young’un actually owed taxes…is it…matter of fact…you seem to think the government needs that youngun’s money more n’ the kid that needs fed daily…

        do you see the morality of it all…there is NO reason that the government should be taking money out of peoples checks who dont and will not owe taxes…not only does it hurt the widow and the orphan…becuase neither of them benefit much from paying taxes they dont owe…

        it also creates a useless bureacracy…a waste of tax dollars…processing 40 million tax returns…and sending refunds back to each and every one of them

        beyond that…if the american people were presented with an amendment for income taxes based on the facts of how the sytem is run today…it would never pass… the abuse of the system only benefits the most wealthy…the very people that the income tax amendment was supposed to bring justice to originally…

        no…there is no justice in taxing the poor…just like there is no justice is lying to the people

      • js03 January 27, 2012 / 12:10 pm

        funny to see you protecting GE though….the trillions they make…and pay no tax on…and you go defending taxes on the poor…

        im surprised at you neo

      • js03 January 27, 2012 / 12:21 pm

        “In Fla we have no income tax ”

        this is taking it all back to step 1, no?

        originally, the fed govt relied on nothing but consumption taxes…right…you only pay taxes on what you spent in the store…just like florida…

        but florida has sales and use tax, intangible tax and corporate income taxes…its designed much different than the federal tax system…much more efficient also…it taxes the rich…exempts the poor…and overall…eliminates the need for income tax on citizens…you cant compare apples with prunes…

      • neocon1 January 28, 2012 / 8:32 am

        js

        there is no protecting GE on my part. Im sorry it came out that way. Just the liberal mantra that corp X paid no taxes is a shell game by them. I was merely pointing out large corporations pay hundreds of millions of taxes on many many fronts….possibly avoid taxes on profits if their books show they had none.

        I would like to see a national tax system much like we have in Fla.
        My main point was and not to sound cruel but if the poor have funds for big screen TV’s, cigarettes, cell phones, beer, etc then they have funds to contribute to our society as a whole like the rest of us.
        🙂

  14. mitch January 27, 2012 / 11:10 am

    Cluster:
    I appreciate your perspective and although I tend to agree rather than not, from my perspective Jesus is not a necessary component to arrive at such conclusions. That’s my entire point. To claim that one idea or one religion has a monopoly on absolute truth is the height of secular arrogance. It was also the cause of the Inquisition, the Crusades and the butchering of indigenous peoples all over the world and all in the name of Christ.

    • neocon1 January 27, 2012 / 11:25 am

      Bmitch

      idea or one religion

      Jesus is not an idea or religion.
      ——————————————————————————————-
      the Crusades and the butchering of indigenous peoples all over the world and all in the name of Christ.

      as today we were engaged with the murderous cut throat cult of Isam the crusades was a war with islam nothing more.
      —————————————————————————————-
      Inquisition
      sinful man not following the teachings of he who they CLAIMED to follow again organized *religion*

    • Cluster January 27, 2012 / 11:27 am

      Christ had nothing to do with the Inquisition, that is entirely the actions of man. And I would like to ask you though where you derive your morals from if in fact you turn your back on the teachings of our Creator through his Son Jesus.

      To claim that one idea or one religion has a monopoly on absolute truth is the height of secular arrogance.

      I never claimed that, and would never claim that. I detest those who feel the need to piously lecture everyone else on their failings and claim to know the Truth as equally as I detest those who diminish the Word based on the actions of men who wear that label, as you just did.

      Faith is really quite simple and pure, and it is solely between you and your Savior. No one else need be present.

      • neocon1 January 27, 2012 / 11:40 am

        Faith is really quite simple and pure, and it is solely between you and your Savior. No one else need be present.

        Yet lack of faith is paraded through the streets, shouted from the roof tops, while telling us to shut up and sit down.
        amazing how that works in a deceived mind.

      • mitch January 27, 2012 / 1:32 pm

        I don’t need to be “saved”. Get it? I reject the entire concept. I reject the entire concept of original sin. Got that as well? I reject religion. I don’t need it and I certainly don’t need a belief system rooted in paternal subservience to be a moral human being.
        If there is any redemption that I need, I will provide it. Not some unprovable faith based fantasy.
        But, as I have said, just because I don’t need religion, especially the religion of the bible; new testament especially, doesn’t imply that I don’t accept the possibility of a transcendent experience, beyond the physical but I don’t have the very human weakness to anthropromorphize it. I have rid myself of that prediliction.
        I will say though, that I do have a fondness for mysticism because it has the language of quantum physics.

      • Cluster January 27, 2012 / 1:49 pm

        Mitch,

        You’re getting entirely too defensive about Faith. If you believe that there is a Creator, then all you need to do is quiet your mind and ask Him to have a presence in your life – period. You don’t need to be saved.

        If you don’t believe in a Creator, then like I said, that’s a greater leap of Faith.

      • neocon1 January 27, 2012 / 3:01 pm

        Bmitch

        I don’t need to be “saved”. Get it? I reject the entire concept. I reject the entire concept of original sin. Got that as well? I reject religion. I don’t need it and I certainly don’t need a belief system rooted in paternal subservience to be a moral human being.

        believe me it shows………enjoy 🙂

      • neocon1 January 27, 2012 / 3:15 pm

        that I do have a fondness for mysticism because it has the language of quantum physics.= %^$@%&&%#

    • js03 January 27, 2012 / 12:13 pm

      arent you confusing man made theology vs true religion though mitch…show us in the bible where christianity is told to butcher anybody…

      ill wont hold my breath on this one…you have nothing for me

    • Chrissy Ann January 27, 2012 / 5:41 pm

      For someone who rejects religion, you certainly spend a lot of time posting about it.

      • mitchethekid January 27, 2012 / 7:36 pm

        I’m long winded and certainty infuriates me.

    • Rdm January 31, 2012 / 1:42 pm

      As opposed to the people butchered in the name of communism?

  15. tiredoflibbs January 27, 2012 / 11:49 am

    As Matt put it so accurately, the lying dbag is at it again. He has this to say yesterday of the GOP candidates,”They believe that we should make the tax code more unequal.”

    First of all, can anyone give me any example of any GOP candidate or Republican who has said that he wants the tax code to me more unequal?

    This is a flat-out LIE. What’s even more absurd is that the United States already has the most bass-ackwards tax system among industrialized nations!

    The United States currently has the most progressive income tax system among all industrialized nations. And here are some facts that you already know, but just emphasize the ridiculousness of ObAMATEUR’s comment. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/11/tax-inequity/

    The top 1 percent of taxpayers pay 38 percent of all the income taxes despite having just 20 percent of the income.

    The top 10 percent of taxpayers pay 70 percent of the income tax while having just 46 percent of the income.

    At the other end, the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers pay just 2.7 percent of the income tax while having 13 percent of the income.

    When will it be equal? When the bottom the number of tax payers who pay no taxes is over 50% of the population. When the majority in this country finds out that they can vote in candidates (the looters) who will redistribute (steal) the wealth of the producers and give it to them (the moochers)? These are the people who are most likely to vote Democrat because of it. When everyone makes the same wage regardless of what they do if anything?

    It is time for the nation’s media to call obAMATEUR on his blatant LIES, if he were properly vetted he would never have become pResident.

    • neocon1 January 27, 2012 / 11:56 am

      , if he were properly vetted he would never have become pResident.

      marxista, terrorists, goons, thugs, useful idiots and drones do not vet each other they LIE for each other.

    • neocon1 January 27, 2012 / 12:03 pm

      tired a good article…
      here is what one responder said..

      “Adam Smith’s argument could likely be refuted by a review of where the police are needed most in today’s world.
      In any case, there is also the argument that the poor, who pay little or no income tax, use the lion’s share of government services. Many government programs exist only for the poor.”

    • js03 January 27, 2012 / 12:37 pm

      “The top 1 percent of taxpayers pay 38 percent of all the income taxes despite having just 20 percent of the income.”

      but thats not really true eh…the top 1% hold 90% of the wealth…much of it tied up in…corporations that pay no taxes…

      now it would be a different scenario..if you actually had a parallel in wealth vs income…because over 1/2 of the tax code only benefit those who have substantial wealth…not the 40% of the people who pay no taxes…and have no wealth…

      exploitation of the poor makes a man wealthy…exploitation of the truth will never do that…

      • neocon1 January 27, 2012 / 12:42 pm

        js

        …corporations that pay no taxes…

        Corporation pay MANY MANY taxes, I own one and I know.
        what they do not necessarily pay is taxes on profit. If the expenses are equal to or greater than revenues then there is no *profit* to be taxed, believe me the taxes they pay are astronomical.

      • neocon1 January 27, 2012 / 1:02 pm

        Corporate tax in the United States
        From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
        Part of a series on
        Taxation
        Taxation in the
        United States

        Taxpayer standing
        Income tax · Payroll tax
        Alternative Minimum Tax
        Estate tax · Excise tax
        Gift tax · Corporate tax
        Capital gains tax
        State and local taxation
        State income tax
        State tax levels
        Sales tax · Use tax
        Property tax
        Land value tax
        Federal tax reform[show]
        Tax protesting[show]
        Taxation by country[show]

        Corporate tax is imposed in the United States at the Federal, most state, and some local levels on the income of entities treated for tax purposes as corporations. Federal tax rates on corporate taxable income vary from 15% to 35%. State and local taxes and rules vary by jurisdiction, though many are based on Federal concepts and definitions. Taxable income may differ from book income both as to timing of income and tax deductions and as to what is taxable. Corporations are also subject to a Federal Alternative Minimum Tax and alternative state taxes. Like individuals, corporations must file tax returns every year. They must make quarterly estimated tax payments. Controlled groups of corporations may file a consolidated return.

        Some corporate transactions are not taxable. These include most formations and some types of mergers, acquisitions, and liquidations. Shareholders of a corporation are taxed on dividends distributed by the corporation. Corporations may be subject to foreign income taxes, and may be granted a foreign tax credit for such taxes.

        Shareholders of most corporations are not taxed directly on
        corporate income, but must pay tax on dividends paid t the shareholdeers

        not to mention taxes on inventory, taxes on property, taxes on belongings (computers, tools vehicles etc) licenses, govt mandated insurances, unemployment, FICA medicare, accounting etc etc etc ad nausium.

        corporation

      • js03 January 28, 2012 / 1:52 am

        but thats not really true eh…the top 1% hold 90% of the wealth…

      • RetiredSpook January 28, 2012 / 8:06 am

        but thats not really true eh…the top 1% hold 90% of the wealth…

        Not even close, JS. But even if it were true — so what? Look at the dismal accounts of poor people who have won the lottery. The vast majority are broke within a few years. A very small percentage of human beings have a knack for creating wealth, and, in the process of creating wealth, provide jobs for millions of people. Do a little research on just one segment of business: the private yacht industry, and see how many jobs are created by people with wealth. If we confiscated all the wealth of the top 1% and divided it up evenly among everyone, we’d have 25% unemployment, and within a decade the top 1% would have it all back. Mexico tried it in the 30’s and 40’s, and that’s what happened.

      • neocon1 January 28, 2012 / 9:06 am

        js03

        GE? wellllll maybe there is a reason for their 0 tax in the US
        imagine that……washington democrat corruption!!

        The head of its tax team, Mr. Samuels, met with Representative Charles B. Rangel, then chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, which would decide the fate of the tax break. As he sat with the committee’s staff members outside Mr. Rangel’s office, Mr. Samuels dropped to his knee and pretended to beg for the provision to be extended — a flourish made in jest, he said through a spokeswoman.

        That day, Mr. Rangel reversed his opposition to the tax break, according to other Democrats on the committee.

        The following month, Mr. Rangel and Mr. Immelt stood together at St. Nicholas Park in Harlem as G.E. announced that its foundation had awarded $30 million to New York City schools, including $11 million to benefit various schools in Mr. Rangel’s district. Joel I. Klein, then the schools chancellor, and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who presided, said it was the largest gift ever to the city’s schools.

      • js03 January 28, 2012 / 10:17 am

        stop blowing hot air…

        the truth is…income tax was extablished to tax the rich…its been used as a tool to tax the poor…you two are hooked on some illusion that we need to tax the poor…that they need to “pay thier fair share”…yet…you miss the moral right while you are defending the wrong…go figure…

        and the personnal holdings of the 1% may not total 90% of america’s wealth…but the statement is true nonetheless spook…just because they put it into corporations and use off shore accounts does not give them both controlling interest and the ability to direct the corp’s actions…90%…fact…

      • arssanguinus January 28, 2012 / 10:27 am

        INCOME tax, not wealth tax.

        And how is not taking monery from people who make it and giving it to those who don’t ‘exploitation’? Not committing robbery is exploitation?

      • RetiredSpook January 28, 2012 / 10:27 am

        and the personnal holdings of the 1% may not total 90% of america’s wealth…but the statement is true nonetheless spook

        Fake but accurate? Dan Rather — is dat you?

      • neocon1 January 28, 2012 / 12:41 pm

        js03

        you two are hooked on some illusion that we need to tax the poor…that they need to “pay thier fair share”…yet…you miss the moral right while you are defending the wrong…go figure

        I think we are getting off the track here.
        The donks are screaming and playing class warfare against the “rich” and middle class working people. Their mantra is rich paying their “fair share”.
        We are simply countering with the argument that a huge percentage of Americans do not pay so how is that “fair”.?

        the term “FAIR” means equity for all……

        Neither myself or Spook (from what I have seen ) wants to take the bread and clothes off the backs of the unfortunate through taxation.

        Yet is disingenuous to not ask those benefiting the most from OPM to pay back just a tad so when they VOTE they have skin in the game.

        My whole point that I dont want to be lost is if these people have enough funds for the products and services mentioned they can afford to pay a % of the money in taxes.
        hair DO’s nails and Gold teeth included.

    • neocon1 January 28, 2012 / 8:43 am

      scummy

      so If YOU earn $10.00 and pay 10% = $1.00 tax
      and I earn $10,000,000.00 and pay 8% = $800,000.00 tax

      YOU got screwed?
      typical loon liberal mindset.

      how much infrastructure, police, school, fire, military, all govt services did you pay for compared to me??

      Get Fn real you twit.

    • neocon1 January 28, 2012 / 8:48 am

      $5,036: The Earned Income Tax Credit granted to a family with two children, according to the 2010 IRS 1040 form. The EITC is a tax break granted to people who work for a living, which grants substantially more to families with children.

      which is a PAY OUT FAR ABOVE what they may have paid in any tax.
      I like you donks merely want ALL</B to “PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE.

      I mean isnt that only *FAIR* to the rest of us??

      • RetiredSpook January 28, 2012 / 9:05 am

        Zero Hedge had an interesting piece about a year ago that put the lie to just how bad off the poor are in America.

        Almost all welfare programs have Web sites where you can call up “benefits calculators.” Just plug in your income and family size and, presto, your benefits are automatically calculated.

        The chart is quite revealing. A one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimu wage) has more disposable income than a family making $60,000 a year.

        And if that wasn’t enough, here is one that will blow your mind:

        If the family provider works only one week a month at minimum wage, he or she makes 92 percent as much as a provider grossing $60,000 a year.

        Ever wonder why Obama was so focused on health reform? It is so those who have no interest or ability in working, make as much as representatives of America’s once exalted, and now merely endangered, middle class.

      • neocon1 January 28, 2012 / 9:12 am

        spook

        as I have stated before, in my business I get in many many homes. To a person the “POOR” have big screen TV’s, cell phones, computers, cars (older) cable TV, and 99% smoke and drink.

        of course there are usually 1-5 kids with NO known fathers around running wild while mama sits on the couch smoking and mowing down corn chips.

      • neocon1 January 28, 2012 / 10:14 am

        BINGO

    • neocon1 January 28, 2012 / 2:02 pm

      scummy……some of the 47% ??

  16. arssanguinus January 28, 2012 / 10:28 am

    IN other words, the people complaining about people ‘having wealth’ think that they should be able to tax it when its income, tax it as wealth as well, and then take half of it away when the person dies.

    • RetiredSpook January 28, 2012 / 10:35 am

      Yes, I think that pretty much sums up the Progressive view of taxation.

  17. Ricorun January 29, 2012 / 7:59 pm

    If we REALLY want to talk about tax fairness, then we need to include all other taxes and fees that an individual pays, be it levied by the federal, state, or local governments. Don’t we? If not, why not?

    • arssanguinus January 30, 2012 / 8:44 am

      If we really want to talk about fairness, we ALSO need to include all money RECIEVED BY the individual FROM the government. Do we? If not, why not?

      • neocon1 January 30, 2012 / 1:45 pm

        guinus

        absolutely

      • Ricorun February 1, 2012 / 11:56 pm

        Absolutely! Do you want to start the list, or shall I?

    • Amazona January 30, 2012 / 10:27 am

      If we REALLY want to talk about tax fairness, then we need to include all other taxes and fees that an individual pays, be it levied by the federal, state, or local governments. Don’t we? If not, why not?

      Just what “…taxes levied by federal, state or local governments” are not tied to income? And to what degree are they offset by benefits received, including tax “rebates”?

      • Ricorun February 1, 2012 / 11:51 pm

        Just what “…taxes levied by federal, state or local governments” are not tied to income?

        Are you kidding me?? Sales taxes, excise taxes, use fees, etc., etc. Every stitch of clothing you buy is subject to sales tax (which is not tied to income). In some states (e.g., Alabama), every morsel of food you eat is too (which is not tied to income). When you buy a gallon of gas — or even ride the bus — you pay excise taxes (which is not tied to income). Likewise, whenever you buy a beer or a cigar. When you register your car, pay for your driver’s license, use a toll road, etc. you pay fees (which are not tied to income). If you own property you pay property taxes (which are not tied to income). If you don’t the taxes are folded into your rent (which is not tied to income). Need I go on?

        As to the question of to what degree are they offset by benefits received, including tax “rebates”?, the answer is: those which you can claim on your income taxes. Which of those I mentioned above apply? I count one. How about you?

      • RetiredSpook February 2, 2012 / 8:45 am

        In the end, though, it’s really about disposable income. See my post from 9:05 AM on 1/28.

  18. Rdm February 2, 2012 / 9:29 am

    Problem rico, is that there is no benefit a rich person recieves that will entirely negate thier tax burden – and for poor people, there is. Absolute dollars or percentages, if there is
    More ingo (from government ) than outgo(also from government(remember that in this case absolute income is completely irrelevant) then they are effectively paying no taxes.

Comments are closed.