Political ThreadsThis section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:
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.
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.
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?
“I'm afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security.”
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?????
Jim, you really need to relax and come to grips of the fact that you are now a tax slave.
I love that!!! You're right, he has figured out a way to reverse slavery!
Soon enough the light will turn on for the masses, when they too realize that we are all indeed slaves to Obama's tax man. To keep up his proposed spending if (God forbid) he has 8 years of it, he'll have to take 50% of all the wealth in the US in taxes, just to break even.
In some people's opinion, not extending tax cuts is no different than saying you're going to raise tax cuts. While I disagree with this idea, there are many delusional folks who don't get the difference.
Bush's tax cuts benefited the wealthy more than the middle-class worker. I disagreed with the tax cuts then and still feel they *helped* (noticed I didn't say "caused") put us into the situation we are in today. The country went to war which bears a massive amount of expense, and at the same time he cut taxes?
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.
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.
This has been true for quite some time. The top 1% pay nearly 40% of the tax burden alone.
Quote:
By itself, the $40 billion tax hike is twice as much as all the federal taxes paid by people in the bottom quintile combined.
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?
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
Spence, you're reached that point. Your responses no longer warrant a response.
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?
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.?
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.
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.?
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.
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?"
You are saying that they are not guilty of Drive by media.
if you hail those 4 and especially Savage, it is VERY telling about you there cool beans... new name for your boat... 'Right-wingnut '
Bryan
Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
I've always been curious about this one, "who are the hero's of liberalism?"....
I don't know...FDR seems to be highly regarded.
But the numbers of people who would consider themselves a "liberal" is really very small in this country, perhaps well under 20%.
What's interesting is that typically 50+% of people will consider themselves to be "conservative". Does this mean that there are more conservatives? Not really...everything from evangelicals to libertarians are lumped together as "conservatives" even though they often share few values.
The words liberal and conservative are just ends of a spectrum. To apply them to real people isn't ever going to provide a realistic picture of what one believes.
and FDR is famous for what? taking a managable recession into a deep depression and dragging it out with huge government programs, and increased government spending. I believe a Reagan type approach in the time of FDR would have kept it a recession and never would have been a great depression.
There is pride in private sector success, which increases productivity. Depending on Uncle Sam to bail us all out, is silly. We need to knuckle down and work harder and if we fail, we get back up, and try again... Each time we fail, we learn and improve ourselves.
Failure is one of the steps we take on the road to success, few hit a home run their first time at bat.
You must have been sleeping through history class. You're not serious are you?
Quote:
taking a managable recession into a deep depression and dragging it out with huge government programs, and increased government spending. I believe a Reagan type approach in the time of FDR would have kept it a recession and never would have been a great depression.
It's funny how most (not all I agree, but most) have given praise to FDR for his handeling of the Depression for the past 50 years, yet it's not until we have another liberal President and a bad recession that had Reagan been in charge things would have cleaned themselves up right quick!
Sounds like revisionist history to me.
Quote:
There is pride in private sector success, which increases productivity. Depending on Uncle Sam to bail us all out, is silly. We need to knuckle down and work harder and if we fail, we get back up, and try again... Each time we fail, we learn and improve ourselves.
Failure is one of the steps we take on the road to success, few hit a home run their first time at bat.
There's nothing in this statement that anyone, regardless of party of idiology is going to disagree with.
The words liberal and conservative are just ends of a spectrum. To apply them to real people isn't ever going to provide a realistic picture of what one believes.
-spence
Don't tell a Republican that though. To them, a liberal is any person who even slightly disagrees with them.
The word Conservative is a neutral term - neither insulting or complimenting. However, the Republican based has successfully coined the word liberal to be an insult, and as such, they throw it around every chance they can get.
Just watch any commentary on FoxNews, or any post on here by buckman.
Don't tell a Republican that though. To them, a liberal is any person who even slightly disagrees with them.
The word Conservative is a neutral term - neither insulting or complimenting. However, the Republican based has successfully coined the word liberal to be an insult, and as such, they throw it around every chance they can get.
Just watch any commentary on FoxNews, or any post on here by buckman.
Hybrid Mode
