Republicans reveal true nature

[bone]

Quote from Free Thinker:

its a common meme with the republican spinmeisters that the poor should pay more taxes while they cut taxes for the wealthy.

The fact is that you don't know how to add and subtract for shit. If it ain't re-posting the morning DNC talking points you are lost in terms of thinking on your own.

Do the simple math directly from the White House OMB current account budget deficit and the IRS website under tax receipts. Just use those two sources. Money in versus money out.

 

[CaptainObvious]

Whether the working class pay taxes or not is irrelevant to this particular issue. It's about hypocrisy. The republican argument is cut spending, period! Raising taxes won't solve our budget problems is the daily mantra from the right. The big boyz got their tax break years ago, and got it extended last December. So far, so good. The working class got a little break this year with a SSN cut of a couple percent, which for the record I though was idiotic considering the fund is going broke, but that's not relevant either to this issue. So now the Prez wants to extend this little cut for the little man. Holy shit, the repubs are in an uproar. So what's the problem? It's all about spending, not revenue generation, so why the objection to this extension?

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Random.Capital:

Virtually all American, except those at the very bottom of the income scale, are taxed too low for current spending levels.

Then spending levels should come down to match revenues.

Duh

 

[bone]

Quote from CaptainObvious:

Holy shit, the repubs are in an uproar. So what's the problem? It's all about spending, not revenue generation, so why the objection to this extension?

Please quote, word for word, the specific Republican legislature and his or her specific objection the specific legislation.

OBVIOUSLY, you cannot.

What is it about progressives and their objections to facts ?

 

[Roark]

Quote from Lucias:

Republicans couldn't pass a budget deal. But, now they are ready to raise taxes on the poorest people.

They also continue to spout the lie that 50% pay no taxes. The fact is that the poorest working people pay more then the richest because all of their income goes to consumables. If you drive a car then you pay tax. If you get a paycheck then you are paying taxes. If you buy food then you pay tax.

So, the reality is that if a guy is only making say 15k then he has to spend all of that and nearly everything has some tax on it. The guy making 200k is able to save most of his check and doesn't spend as much on taxed consumables.

There are other arguments against taxing the poor. First, the poor can only make enough to get by now and so if you tax them then they will just need more money to survive: so you only increase inflation.

I think we need to tax the ultra rich the most -- not the poor and not the guy making 200k. Buffet wants to be taxed and really he's right he's so rich that it isn't going to change anything. Tax the ultra rich. They have the most wealth and the most say-so in the government. Let them pay all the taxes. Why not?
http://www.slate.com/id/2302131

Added to ignore list for being an idiot.

 

[bone]

Quote from CaptainObvious:

Holy shit, the repubs are in an uproar. So what's the problem? It's all about spending, not revenue generation, so why the objection to this extension?

Bullshit on you, Slate, Salon, NPR, and the AP:

"Many NPR affiliates repeated the same line in its news bulletins yesterday, telling listeners that many of the same Republicans who wouldn’t let the Bush tax cuts expire are now eager to start the payroll tax again. They’ll tax the poor, but not the rich.

The problem? Neither the AP nor NPR presented a single quote from a Republican who explicitly advocates the return of the payroll tax. All the quotes from Republicans in the original AP story discuss the policy implications of the payroll tax, but do not actually express a position on whether it should stay suspended.

The AP story is nothing more than an attempt to assist President Barack Obama as he tries to use a payroll tax holiday to boost his flagging popularity, and campaign against House Republicans in his bid for re-election.

The “smoking gun”? The second-to-last paragraph in the AP story tells us:

Many Democrats also are ambivalent about Obama’s proposed tax cut extension. They are more focused on protecting social programs from deep spending cuts. Some worry that a multiyear reduction in the tax designated for Social Security could undermine that program’s health and stature.

That’s 945 words into a 1,037-word article. A deliberate political hit under the false cover of objectivity."

 

[bone]

Quote from CaptainObvious:

Raising taxes won't solve our budget problems is the daily mantra from the right.

And you are another progressive who is bad at math. Take the White House OMB current account deficit figures and the IRS individual income tax adjusted gross income figures.

TAX THE RICH AT 100 % AND IT WOULD MEAN DICK. NOTHING. TAKE IT ALL.

 

[ElectricSavant]

I just wanted to post a clarification about income taxes that might help some readers...maybe not.

but...

Lets say you earn exactley 100K and you are filing "married filing separatley" for the year 2011:

( $ 8,500   minus    0 )      x .10 :         $   850.00 
( 34,500    minus    8,500 )  x .15 :           3,900.00 
( 69,675    minus    34,500 ) x .25 :           8,793.75 
( 100,000   minus    69,675 ) x .28 :           8,491.00
                                      Total:  [b]$22,034.75[/b]

...so you can see that if some say that they are the 28% tax bracket it does not mean that they pay 28% of the 100k...it actually is 22.03%

Now...

On Fox news you often will hear that the top 1% earners pay 38.02% of ALL INCOME TAXES, they are talking about total dollars...naturally if you have a percentage of a bigger number the answer will be more dollars. Then of course there is all of the double talk about millionaires should pay more taxes....then there is the 250k threashold talked about in the next breath...People that earn 250K are not rich...or millionaires...If the top tax rate was 100% to all of the millionaires it still would not be enough money to satisfy...

Therefore...

I think the correct arguement should be about the RATE not the resulting dollars. The maximum rate is 35% (not seen in the above scenario). So the more one earns - the higher the rate....this does not seem fair as the higher earner recieves the same amount of service from the government than the others.

Please excuse me if I am simply posting obvious points, but here in ET are many readers from all over the world that may get something from this post.

Carry on...

ElectricBelievesInTheFlatConsumptionTypeOfTaxAndASmallerGovernmentSavant

 

[Random.Capital]

Quote from Free Thinker:

Rick Perry: Middle Income Americans Don't Pay Enough Income Taxes

In a way, he's absolutely correct.

For the level of services being demanded, middle income Americans do not pay their share of taxes.

 

[Random.Capital]

Quote from bone:

TAX THE RICH AT 100 % AND IT WOULD MEAN DICK. NOTHING. TAKE IT ALL.

You'd get a lot more traction if you spent less time posting so hysterically and calling people names.

That said, I agree with you that current spending levels cannot be maintained by only increasing taxes on "the rich" (call it the top 5%).

You can build a perfectly viable society by raising taxes to support something approaching current spending levels, and you can also built one by keeping taxes where they and spending a lot less, a lot more smartly. Main Street needs to make up its mind on which path it wants to take.