The state of the economy has nothing to do with how fair the tax code is to the individual!

-spence

They're not doing so well now are they? Im not sure if you noticed but the retail, auto, travel, airlines, restaurant, housing and stock market are all in the crapper.
How "fair" is it to raise taxes now? Seems contrary to common sense.

In short, the Obama plan would redistribute more than $131 billion per year from the top 1 percent of taxpayers to all other taxpayers. In 2009, for example, Tax Policy Center figures show that after the income-shifting in the Obama plan, the top 1 percent of taxpayers would pay a greater share of the total federal tax burden than the bottom 80 percent of Americans combined. In other words, 1.13 million Americans would pay more in all federal taxes than 128 million of their fellow citizens combined.

These figures do not include the impact of Obama's proposal to apply Social Security payroll taxes on incomes above $250,000. According to Tax Policy Center estimates, this plan would increase the tax burden of top earners by an additional $40 billion in 2009 alone and more than $629 billion over the next ten years. By itself, the $40 billion tax hike is twice as much as all the federal taxes paid by people in the bottom quintile combined.
To put the Obama plan in context, it is important to understand how divided America's tax burden already is between a large group of Americans who pay little or nothing and a shrinking group of upper-income taxpayers who shoulder the lion's share of the burden. For example:

In 1999, about 30 million tax filers had no income tax liability after taking advantage of their credits and deductions. By 2006, the number of non-payers had grown to nearly 44 million, one-third of all income tax filers.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, in 2005, the top 20 percent of households paid 86.3 percent of income taxes while the bottom 80 percent paid a collective 13.7 percent of the income tax burden. The top 1 percent of households paid 38.8 percent of income taxes.
Looking at all federal taxes, in 1990, the bottom 80 percent of households paid 42 percent of the tax burden while the top 1 percent of households paid about 16 percent. By 2005, the share of all federal taxes paid by the bottom 80 percent of households had fallen to 31 percent, while the share paid by the wealthiest households had risen to nearly 28 percent.
A recent Tax Foundation study found that in 2004, the nation's tax and spending policies redistributed more than $1 trillion in income from the top 40 percent of American households to the bottom 60 percent of households.

It has nothing to do with fairness, taxes would only be fair if your individual tax contribution was computed based your personal consumption of benefits.

The reality is that taxation is a variable used to manage a system, it's quite impersonal when you think about it.

-spence

man are you in denial

You're not paying attention.

Fairness is a personal thing. I perceive my taxes to be fair or unfair, but the Government couldn't really care less what I think.

-spence

I agree just ask Nancy Peliosia or Coupe Deval or John Kerry or Barney Frank

Since you decided to use the BOLD command....

This has been true for quite some time. The top 1% pay nearly 40% of the tax burden alone.

According to the numbers at taxpolicycenter.org (yo, I got the site from your own post) the bottom quintile in 2007 had a mean household income of about 12,000 per year. So in other words, these people don't pay taxes anyway.

I have to say that your anger seems to be fueled by partisan hack job hit pieces that can't even stand up to a few minutes with the Google. This article that I'd note you didn't post a link to, is just citing business as usual hoping you'll get a rise out of it.

RIJIMMY, do you really understand anything you're bitching about?

-spence

:lurk:
Posted from my bad azz superhightech iPhone/Mobile device

:rotflmao::rotflmao: That's the first time I've seen that one.

Stalinism The term implies an inherently oppressive system of extensive government, employment of extrajudicial punishment(sounds famliar), and political "purging", or elimination of political opponents(fairness doctorine, card check) and it involves a "state using extensive use of propaganda to establish a personality cult around an absolute dictator(OBAMA)" to maintain control over the nation's people and to maintain political control for the Party.


Fascism is a radical, authoritarian nationalist ideology that aims to create a single-party state with a government led by a dictator who seeks national unity and development by "requiring" individuals to subordinate self-interest to the "collective interest" of the nation.

WAKE UP!!!!!

The February 17th, 2009, episode of Jeopardy
Alex Trebek

For $200
"A Marxist stage before communism which is characterized by government control over the economy....

no one even attempted to answer.

Then Alex says, "Ooohhh, what is socialism? We were going for socialism.

we aren't just "slouching toward" we're on a well waxed sled going down a steep hill...hope you wore your helmets, the crash is going to hurt...


The Bank of England and No.10 at war: We can't afford Budget spending spree, Governor tells Brown By Sam Fleming and Benedict Brogan
Last updated at 8:35 AM on 25th March 2009


The Governor of the Bank of England stunned Downing Street yesterday by warning against a giveaway Budget next month.
Mervyn King said public finance deficits were too high for big tax cuts or bumper spending increases on April 22.
The extraordinary warning to Gordon Brown not to blow billions on a second 'fiscal stimulus' came perilously close to breaching the convention that the head of the Bank does not question Government policy.

Mr King's intervention was especially embarrassing for the Prime Minister because it came as he was using a speech to the EU Parliament in Strasbourg to call for 'the biggest fiscal stimulus the world has ever seen'.
The governor's warning underlined mounting concerns - both inside and outside Government circles - about the scale of public borrowing.


I don't know why they just don't print a coupla fresh trillion...that's what we're doing...YES WE CAN!!!!

Spence, you're reached that point. Your responses no longer warrant a response.

and obviously is now the recipient of bad gramatical attacks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device-a device provided by team Obama and the socialist society of Amerika

lovers quarrel....:cheers:

Come on guys make up and fight some more :buds:

Why can't you respond to my response to your cut and paste? I call out your argument as complete BS stating facts as evidence and it doesn't warrant a response? Are you mad?

Either I'm wrong or I'm right.

Sounds like I may be right.

-spence

[QUOTE=spence;676370

Fairness is a personal thing. I perceive my taxes to be fair or unfair, but the Government couldn't really care less what I think.

-spence[/QUOTE]



And therein lies the problem-- Taxation without proper representation.

Yet when the economy bounces back and all these industries are making money again you won't want to raise taxes then either. Then it will be; "well, the economy is just getting going again you can't raise taxes now!" Then after things have been good for a while it'll be the same thing. Have you ever said that it would be a good time to raise taxes?

At what point would you say we have paid enough?????

The flip side of course is how little it not enough?

The tax cut mantra of conservatives gets pretty silly at times. Not all tax cuts are good, if that was the case we'd have zero Government revenues and anarchy would soon ensue.

So Buck, how much are you comfortable paying?

-spence

Here's a "tax fairness" question I like to hear some opinions on. The news today is full of municipal gov. employees either losing their jobs or taking unpaid furloughs due to local budgets in the red. The municpality where I work has already gone through a couple of rounds of cuts and there's really nothing left to cut but people. Residents have never passed a Prop.2 1/2 override yet they still want their public safety, trash pick-up, roads plowed and repaired,small class sizes, etc. Do you feel it's right for a community to "balance the books" on the shoulders of municipal employees rather than have residents "pay their share" for the services they receive with a relatively small RE tax increase.?

It's a difficult question as there are really two issues here.

1) How to address short-term budgetary shortfalls
2) How to address long-term budgetary imbalance

You'd have to question if most communities are really very good at running a business.

-spence

Well lets see: I pay income tax, property tax, I just paid a 5% tax for my sons truck, a 5% tax on most goods I buy, excise tax on boats, cars and trucks. tax on the cell phones, tax on fuel, tax on cable. Fees, fees and more fees on my daughters state college education. Do you want me to go on Spence, or maybe like 50% of my income is enough.

I don't think I have ever heard anyone but you ask if maybe we don't pay enough....

We have passed several overrides in Mansfield. I was shocked when the last one failed.

the question should not be when have we been taxed to much, the question should be why are we SPENDING too much.

It's funny. Listing off the names of taxes is like listing off the names of all the plays a football team uses - Up the middle, off tackle, toss, sweep, trap, counter, go, post, flank, slant, hook, flat... a lot of the plays are very similar (just like many taxes are very similar in rate) but personnel resource allocation is adjusted (just as specific tax revenues are often allocated for specific purposes - think, gas tax for infrastructure).

You really do adhere to the "FoxNewsChannel School of getting a groundless point across", attempt to overwhelm your opponent with mundane facts then spin and manipulate those "facts" in an attempt to prove a weak point. Then there's also the aspect of never actually answering any question someone asks you but presenting the illusion you did - that must be taught in the advanced class.

I agree 100%. What need is there for Pelosi's government issued plane to be upgraded just so she can fly to San Francisco non-stop and why aren't there limits on the amount of travel she can do? Why do Congressmen need to travel to Israel to "survey the destruction?"

So you're comfortable paying 50%?

You didn't answer the question.

-spence

If you think the gas tax money is only spent on infrastucture then your misinformed. I think like 45% maybe goes there.

Spence,
Yes, if I thought that we needed 50% to cover the actual cost of what the government needed, then yes I would be OK with 50%.

But, No, I am not ok with 50%.
What I want to know is... are you ok with me spending 50%?