Tea Terrorists

I'd rather be a Maroon than a morron like you.

Yes, let's have an honest discussion about what we want and we can afford. And let's start from the basis of our federal government: the Constitution. Providing for the common defense is specifically listed as an enumerated power (Art 1, Sec 8). There is no provision for: Social Security, Aid to Dependent Children, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, etc. etc. If we seriously want these things, then follow the Constitution and the amendment process.

And you put words in my mouth. I am not for increased taxes. I am for fairness in how those taxes are allocated. When an administration lies about "millionaires and billionaires", knowing all the while that the threshold for the 35% marginal rate is $379,150, the only conclusion is that they are furthering class warfare. Only in the mind of a progressive can $379,150 = $1,000,000. Many of those at this level own sole proprietorships, and the income of that business is charged against their personal income taxes. So, while on paper he may make $300K, but his real income may only be $50,000. Increasing his tax rate does little to improve federal revenues, while putting employers in the position of not being able to grow their businesses.

As far as taxing the poor, I believe everyone who makes an income in this country should pay at least a nominal portion of that income to maintenance of the country. It's the same argument that those "eat the rich" are making, so why not make it fair? The top 5% of income taxpayers paid 58.6% of all 2010 income taxes, and the top 1% paid 38%. As much as I'd like to be in that bracket, I still think they have paid enough.

No General Welfare clause, eh? I guess you copy of the Constitution doesn't have Article I, Section 8.

I'd rather be a Maroon than a morron like you. Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Oh the sea of stupidity! If you were going to misspell the word, too, why didn't you use the one the Tea Terrorists normally use? "Moran"! LMAO

Tea Terrorist Spelling Lessons

They all know the 10-1 question is a sham. Regan got 4-1, but the cuts are always way in the future and the taxes are immediate. None of the cuts happened and spending went up AGAIN. Its the typical Lib lie....pay me now and I will stop spending later...NOT.
Starve the beast, no increase in spending or taxes.

As far as taxing the poor, I believe everyone who makes an income in this country should pay at least a nominal portion of that income to maintenance of the country. Originally Posted by Colonel Jim

They do. My god, how many times does this need to be pointed out to you?

Someone who continues to ignore something no matter how many times it's pointed out to them is an ideologue. You sir, are an ideologue.

They do. My god, how many times does this need to be pointed out to you?

Someone who continues to ignore something no matter how many times it's pointed out to them is an ideologue. You sir, are an ideologue. Originally Posted by Doove

And how many times does it have to be pointed out to you that excise, sales and payroll "contributions" are not income taxes? And we have increased the threshold so much that a family making $50,000 can avoid paying ANYfederal income taxes. You, sir are also an ideologue. Now, can we get past the talking points?

No General Welfare clause, eh? I guess you copy of the Constitution doesn't have Article I, Section 8. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Back before the "living Constitution" proponents began interpreting the document any way they wished, the General Welfare clause had a generally accepted (except by the Hamiltonians) meaning. I don't have time to recount the entire history, but some simple research will show that the first Congresses funded those projects which benefited the entire nation, not selected individuals or classes of individuals. They funded things like lighthouses which benefited the commerce of the nation, for example.

What has happened in the past fifty years is a perversion of the term "general Welfare", by transferring national wealth to people. Now, I'm not opposed to a safety net, but we have generations of people in this country who know nothing but welfare payments, ADC, food stamps, etc.

Back before the "living Constitution" proponents began interpreting the document any way they wished, the General Welfare clause had a generally accepted (except by the Hamiltonians) meaning. I don't have time to recount the entire history, but some simple research will show that the first Congresses funded those projects which benefited the entire nation, not selected individuals or classes of individuals. They funded things like lighthouses which benefited the commerce of the nation, for example.

What has happened in the past fifty years is a perversion of the term "general Welfare", by transferring national wealth to people. Now, I'm not opposed to a safety net, but we have generations of people in this country who know nothing but welfare payments, ADC, food stamps, etc. Originally Posted by Colonel Jim

dear Jim

i copied this post of yours but i could have copied any of them..or all of them

read through the posts here...of course you make sense but the entrenched zealousness of the habitue de least common denominator will not read nor consider them. their minds revert to fear of loss and lash out with non sequiturs and illogic.

too bad

And how many times does it have to be pointed out to you that excise, sales and payroll "contributions" are not income taxes? And we have increased the threshold so much that a family making $50,000 can avoid paying ANYfederal income taxes. You, sir are also an ideologue. Now, can we get past the talking points? Originally Posted by Colonel Jim

Do you agree that all the Bush tax cuts should expire? Or just those on the lower income bracket?


Do you know the difference between a regressive tax and a progressive tax.

Because of the nature of regressive taxes. ie, the poor pay a larger % of their income in these regressive taxes, you even it out with progressive taxes. How can you propose that a family barely scrapping by should pay more, while the very rich (who have gotten much more so in the last thirty years) should pay nothing more. You can not squeeze blood outta turnips.

You sir, do not have a clue as to how the tax system works.



You are talking about welfare. That is a totally different subject than taxation. Again, you do not understand how the tax system works or you would not confuse those two entirely different subjects. It is very hard to have an honest math debate with a person , if that person thinks 2+2=5. That is wtf you are trying to convince me.

Below is hopefully an example you can understand...

http://www.freeby50.com/2008/08/tota...al-family.html

For a family of four with earned income of $60,000 you can expect a federal tax bill of $2,573. The deduction and exemptions are $10,700 and $13,600 so your taxable income is $35,700. The federal tax rate for married filing jointly on that is $4,573. Plus such a family would get the child tax credit for each child for 2 x $1000 totaling $2,000. So the total tax is $2,573.

The combined social security and Medicare tax rate is 7.65%. So for income of $60,000 you'd be giving $4,590 to SS and Medicare.

Finding the state & local tax figure is a bit harder since theres 50 states and countless local governments all with different tax systems. Nationally the median tax rate paid by a family making $60k is around 8-9% or $4,800 to $5,400. However depending on location it can vary a lot from 5% or $3,000 at the low end to 13%, $7,800 for higher tax areas.

So combining the federal tax of $2,573, the Social Security/ Medicare of $4,590 and the local and state taxes of $5,400 you would have a total tax bill of $12,563 or 20.9% of income.

The typical total tax rate for a family of 4 making $60,000 is about 21%

However given the broad range of tax rates for different state and local governments the rate will vary significantly. With a federal bill of $7,193 and state / local rates from 5% to 13% you are looking at a range of $10,193 to $14,993. That equates to a range of 16.9% to 24.9% depending on location

Do you know the difference between a regressive tax and a progressive tax.

Because of the nature of regressive taxes. ie, the poor pay a larger % of their income in these regressive taxes, you even it out with progressive taxes. How can you propose that a family barely scrapping by should pay more, while the very rich (who have gotten much more so in the last thirty years) should pay nothing more. You can not squeeze blood outta turnips.

You sir, do not have a clue as to how the tax system works.



You are talking about welfare. That is a totally different subject than taxation. Again, you do not understand how the tax system works or you would not confuse those two entirely different subjects. It is very hard to have an honest math debate with a person , if that person thinks 2+2=5. That is wtf you are trying to convince me.

Below is hopefully an example you can understand...

http://www.freeby50.com/2008/08/tota...al-family.html Originally Posted by WTF

my point exactly

my point exactly Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Your pointy head does not count as a point.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...TaxRate40.aspx


Democrats argue that taxes on the rich should be raised because others need the money. This wins votes from the legions of voters who aren't rich.
Republicans argue, with great piety, that high taxes crush incentives and should be reduced, and that only then will the American way see a new dawn.
Politicians talk this way because they generally talk about only one tax: the federal income tax, which offers graduated rates from 10% to 35%.
Politicians rarely talk about what real people experience: the true maze of taxes and government benefits. If someone put them all together, we could see what our actual tax burden was. We could see who pays at the highest or lowest rates. Discussions of tax policy wouldn't be a waste of time.
Well, two researchers did it.
In a study for the National Bureau of Economic Research, Boston University economists Laurence J. Kotlikoff and David Rapson have found that our all-in marginal tax rate is 40%, give or take a bit. Yes, you read that right: 40%.

I realize it will be difficult... but try to quit flattering yourself! * It doesn't take a Robert Jastrow to undertand progressive vs regressive taxation!!

I don't have much disagreement with your views on taxes as far as they may have an effect on helping to fund something close to a balanced budget... at least on a temporary basis.* But I am distressed at your usual* immediate reaction to "real" cuts in wasteful government spending! *It's pretty obvious that both pains will be required to make any "real" difference in our totally out-of-control debt problem!!

I am TOTALLY with you on unfunded War expenses!! * WTF are we accomplishing in Afghanistan? * WTF did we accomplish in Iraq? * WTF do we think we can accomplish in Yemen? * WTF is there to accomplish in Libya?

Without getting into the weeds... there are entire government departments and agencies which have been a total waste... without any "real" benefit or services to the states or country, other than to employ government workers.* That needs to change.* The incredible amount of corruption within much of local, state, and most of all, Federal departments/agencies also needs to be highlighted, eradicated, and prosecuted! * Government spending needs to be reduced... PERIOD!!* It would be different, if "government services" were effective or efficient... but they have usually proven to be neither!

You can call me an idiot, a moron, a mis-informed fiscal right winger all you want... you can even remain fixated on my cock if you wish... but your self-inflated ego is much like your Government... it only services itself!

And how many times does it have to be pointed out to you that excise, sales and payroll contributions are not income taxes? Originally Posted by Colonel Jim

It doesn't. I know this and am willing to freely admit this in this debate or any other.

You, sir are also an ideologue. Now, can we get past the talking points?

Why am i an ideologue? Because i refuse to accept your premise that FICA, Medicare and excise taxes somehow don't count as contributions to the federal government? Say it with me: everyone with an income pays some form of federal taxes. Or continue to be an ideologue.