THEY SAY THEY SUPPORT THE MIDDLE CLASS...BUT....

So you can't prove your point. I'm shocked, Assup. You brought it up. I guess you are the true liar. As for me, you got nothin'.

<<< Assup // COG >>>

You got nothing? I know you have, but what have I?

does your foster mamma know where you are?

and the right leaning "media?" Or is your point that "everybody lies, so it's OK!"

If that's the case, then nobody can whine about media bias anymore. (Snick, like THAT'S gonna happen). Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

So you have no proof that it was edited.

I don't watch TV. I don't even have TV. I get my news from the WSJ and the NYT.

I disagree with rightscoop.com's notion that Elizabeth Warrens's statement is even remotely newsworthy. Why don't they stick to relevant statements and opinions worthy of criticism? I'm sure there must be a rather target-rich collection.

I know it may look to some like she's disingenuously weaseling out of a simple question, but it's one with no clear answer. Sociologists and demographers are not in agreement on what should reasonably be considered "middle class" income boundaries. Warren probably figured that any number she offered would just be met with a "gotcha" question of some sort. After all, the interviewer seems to insinuate that policy should be crafted in such a way that it denotes specific income ranges. With respect to income tax brackets, that obviously must be done. For many other policy proposals, the idea would simply be ridiculous.

Many people think that by implication, the point at which a family transitions from middle class to "upper middle class" occurs at about the $250K income level, since that's the point beyond which Obama wanted to end the Bush tax cuts for the "wealthy." If you're pulling down $300K while living in Oklahoma City or Omaha, you can live fairly well. In San Francisco or Manhattan? Not so much.

Speaking of Manhattan, a very liberal Democrat named Jerry Nadler started floating the idea a couple of years ago that tax brackets ought to be adjusted for the cost of living in each area or district. That way, high income earners in his congressional district would get a break to compensate them for the higher cost of living.

Great idea! Let's make the tax code even more complex and fucked up than it already is.

As usual Captain M is the voice of reason.

How can you claim you support "the middle class" if you are unwilling to define what you mean by middle class ??????????

How can you claim you support "the middle class" if you are unwilling to define what you mean by middle class ?????????? Originally Posted by Whirlaway

read captain midnights reply. that is the how and why.

Speaking of Manhattan, a very liberal Democrat named Jerry Nadler started floating the idea a couple of years ago that tax brackets ought to be adjusted for the cost of living in each area or district. That way, high income earners in his congressional district would get a break to compensate them for the higher cost of living.

Great idea! Let's make the tax code even more complex and fucked up than it already is. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Or we could just eliminate income taxes altogether and go with a consumption tax. The FairTax.

I did read CMs thoughtful reply......he agrees with Senator Airhead ......which is a dodge.......Sen. Airhead doesn't want to define the middle class, much like the left never wants to tell us "how much taxes is enough"................

read captain midnights reply. that is the how and why. Originally Posted by WTF

Or we could just eliminate income taxes altogether and go with a consumption tax. The FairTax. Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

+1000!!!

That would end all this bullshit nonsense, but it would cripple the legislature's ability to dole out perks to their friends and owners, and severely cut down their illegal outside income.

I did read CMs thoughtful reply......he agrees with Senator Airhead ......which is a dodge.......Sen. Airhead doesn't want to define the middle class, much like the left never wants to tell us "how much taxes is enough"................ Originally Posted by Whirlaway

What is it about my previous post that you're having so much trouble understanding?

The entire line of questioning is completely fatuous, as you should easily be able to comprehend if you actually think about it for just a moment. But you started a thread (about raising taxes on the middle class) just a few days ago without having any understanding of that issue either, so I guess I'm not surprised.

Remember?

See @ http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=638025

Or we could just eliminate income taxes altogether and go with a consumption tax. The FairTax. Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

Philosophically and in principle, I prefer a consumption tax such as the FairTax because it hobbles the economy less and produces less of what we refer to as "deadweight loss" than the income tax. But if we completely replaced other taxes with the FairTax, which is what its creators envisioned, we'd also have to cut spending drastically. Good luck with that!

I think we will have a consumption tax of some sort soon enough, although it will be added to our fucked-up tax code, not used to largely repalce it. In my view, that's the primary reason our 10-year growth outlook is so poor. We'll long be suffering under the burden of dramatically elevated and entrenched levels of government spending.

That's what the metastatic expansion of a welfare/entitlement state tends to do.

It is you CM who doesn't comprehend (or maybe doesn't want to admit) that Obama raised taxes on the middle class when he struck a deal on the fiscal cliff.

And to try to complicate defining "middle class" is a dodge. Sen. Warren has the intellectual capacity to craft a definition, but she refused. She didn't want to be held to that definition...she wanted her wiggle room........

It is you CM who doesn't comprehend (or maybe doesn't want to admit) that Obama raised taxes on the middle class when he struck a deal on the fiscal cliff. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Really?

It should be fun to watch you try to explain how. Are you still going to try to make some sense of that ridiculous thread to which I linked in my previous post?

As the opening statement of the thread clearly states...." expiration of the reduction in the payroll tax rate." Everyone's taxes went up; even those of the middle class.

Really?

It should be fun to watch you try to explain how. Are you still going to try to make some sense of that ridiculous thread to which I linked in my previous post? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Philosophically and in principle, I prefer a consumption tax such as the FairTax because it hobbles the economy less and produces less of what we refer to as "deadweight loss" than the income tax. But if we completely replaced other taxes with the FairTax, which is what its creators envisioned, we'd also have to cut spending drastically. Good luck with that!

I think we will have a consumption tax of some sort soon enough, although it will be added to our fucked-up tax code, not used to largely repalce it. In my view, that's the primary reason our 10-year growth outlook is so poor. We'll long be suffering under the burden of dramatically elevated and entrenched levels of government spending.

That's what the metastatic expansion of a welfare/entitlement state tends to do. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

The FairTax has been studied and is designed to be revenue neutral. It also requires the repeal of the 16th Amendment. So we will have to cut spending regardless of the tax system. Overall, the FairTax is our best chance to reinvigorate the economy and keep Congress in check.

www.fairtax.org