Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Or you know, you actually write down what part of the Constitution gives you the authority.

"All of this has happened before. And it will happen again."

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

"All of this has happened before. And it will happen again."

Wonderful. The point is though, it's not that hard of a requirement. Meaningless? Sure. But it's hardly anything to be up in arms about. I'm glad they're doing it.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Wonderful. The point is though, it's not that hard of a requirement. Meaningless? Sure. But it's hardly anything to be up in arms about. I'm glad they're doing it.

As things we pay lip service to, yes, I'm fine with it. But of course it's not the principle the GOP is interested in, it's the political theater. I don't see them all hot and heavy for the War Powers Act.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

While you're at it, why bother with a standing army. Obviously they aren't needed and are incredibly wasteful in a time of peace.

Yeah, way to sled down the slippery slope because that is exactly what I was saying. It is obviously the same thing, I mean I am talking about not starting a missile defense program that will do next to nothing to actually protect us from the threats out there...that is exactly like me saying we should not have a military at all. You really dug in deep there and found the truth behind what I was advocating! You must have a sixth sense about this stuff...or you are just clueless

Just keep telling yourself that your spending is good while everyone else's is bad. It helps the GOP sleep at night it will help you as well.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

As things we pay lip service to, yes, I'm fine with it. But of course it's not the principle the GOP is interested in, it's the political theater. I don't see them all hot and heavy for the War Powers Act.

Right, but if it is 100% pure political theater, who cares? It's a no-lose proposition as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Right, but if it is 100% pure political theater, who cares? It's a no-lose proposition as far as I'm concerned.

I guess. Since it's a principle which, in principle, I'd like to see an intelligent national discourse on, I don't think they're doing us any favors.

It beats flag burning, DOMA and the other idiocy they've postured on over the years, though.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Scooby - obviously, I was making the point about payroll taxes for people on the lower side of the income scale since those people are paying the bulk of their taxes to OASDI/medicare. People earning over $100k are paying much more of their taxes in the form of federal income taxes, so the payroll tax translates to a smaller portion of income as you move beyond the cap on income subject to the payroll tax. The 3% number is a reference to income tax liability of the middle 20% income group. It had nothing to do with payroll taxes. That was all clear in my previous posts, but you - as usual - choose to obfuscate.
.

No, what I find funny is how the folks on the right get to whine incessantly about income taxes while the people making 100,000 and less are paying the largest percentage of payroll taxes. Aren't they the same thing? Don't they go to the same pie? I don't see how it's a logical argument for you to rant on and on about 3% when we all know that 3% number is complete and utter BS. It's 12% unless we're accounting for the payroll holiday. Yes, the employer pays 6% of that but we all know that our wages may all be more if the employer didn't have to pay that 6% and that number is being accounted for in lower and middle class salaries. Then we take that 12% and add your 3% and now it's 15%.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

You can't count the employer contribution because it's impossible to know how much - if any - of that would be paid as income to you if the tax wasn't there. Since all corporations are greedy and only care about shareholders, I can just assume the percentage of that money going to you in lieu of being taxed is zero.

And I hardly think the 3% income tax rate paid is BS - since most people have kids, that drastically reduces their tax liability. Same thing with mortgage interest (especially early in the mortgage), state income taxes, and property taxes being deducted.

BTW, happy new year.

 

[busterman62]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

No, what I find funny is how the folks on the right get to whine incessantly about income taxes while the people making 100,000 and less are paying the largest percentage of payroll taxes. Aren't they the same thing? Don't they go to the same pie? I don't see how it's a logical argument for you to rant on and on about 3% when we all know that 3% number is complete and utter BS. It's 12% unless we're accounting for the payroll holiday. Yes, the employer pays 6% of that but we all know that our wages may all be more if the employer didn't have to pay that 6% and that number is being accounted for in lower and middle class salaries. Then we take that 12% and add your 3% and now it's 15%.

The CBO stats disagree with this. The Lowest quintile are not "paying the largest percentage of payroll taxes" link

In fact, the CBO seems to think that the Social Security system overall is progressive in nature.

For people with lower than average earnings, the
ratio of the lifetime benefits they receive from Social
Security to the lifetime payroll taxes they pay for the
program is higher than it is for people with higher
average earnings. In that sense, the Social Security
system is progressive. For people in the bottom fifth of
the earnings distribution, the ratio of benefits to taxes
is almost three times as high as it is for those in the top
fifth.

link

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

No, what I find funny is how the folks on the right get to whine incessantly about income taxes while the people making 100,000 and less are paying the largest percentage of payroll taxes. Aren't they the same thing? Don't they go to the same pie? I don't see how it's a logical argument for you to rant on and on about 3% when we all know that 3% number is complete and utter BS. It's 12% unless we're accounting for the payroll holiday. Yes, the employer pays 6% of that but we all know that our wages may all be more if the employer didn't have to pay that 6% and that number is being accounted for in lower and middle class salaries. Then we take that 12% and add your 3% and now it's 15%.

Ok, can I play too? What about deductions and credits? Are they done by percentages or by flat amounts?

And those who pay the most taxes can whine all they want, they pay the most net taxes and know a significant percentage is wasted so why shouldn't they complain?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Ok, can I play too? What about deductions and credits? Are they done by percentages or by flat amounts?

And those who pay the most taxes can whine all they want, they pay the most net taxes and know a significant percentage is wasted so why shouldn't they complain?

If you're rich and paying too much in taxes you have a rotten accountant.

And yes, Happy New Year.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

And those who pay the most taxes can whine all they want, they pay the most net taxes and know a significant percentage is wasted so why shouldn't they complain?

Utter garbage and all of us can and should voice our displeasure about how taxes are being spent.

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Utter garbage and all of us can and should voice our displeasure about how taxes are being spent.

Utter garbage that people who pay the most taxes can whine about it if they choose? So, you would say they can't whine about it? Is that a majority rules type of thing?

Or is it utter garbage that a significant percentage of what they contribute is wasted?

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

If you're rich and paying too much in taxes you have a rotten accountant.

And yes, Happy New Year.

Oh, but then you'd complain I was avoiding paying taxes and complain that my tax % isn't high enough.

When everybody that pays no net taxes gives up their deductions, I'll give up mine. And my accountant appears to be pretty good at what he does.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Oh, but then you'd complain I was avoiding paying taxes and complain that my tax % isn't high enough.

When everybody that pays no net taxes gives up their deductions, I'll give up mine. And my accountant appears to be pretty good at what he does.

He complains about everything.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Oh, but then you'd complain I was avoiding paying taxes and complain that my tax % isn't high enough.

When everybody that pays no net taxes gives up their deductions, I'll give up mine. And my accountant appears to be pretty good at what he does.

Nope. I'm more than willing to pay the same percentage across the board as the rich do. No deductions. As long as we include ALL INCOME in the equation. And it includes ALL FEDERAL TAXATION.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Nope. I'm more than willing to pay the same percentage across the board as the rich do. No deductions. As long as we include ALL INCOME in the equation. And it includes ALL FEDERAL TAXATION.

Even with those rules, I would still want a progressive tax structure. It's just like the draft -- you pick young males because that's where the brawn is. You tax the rich because that's where the money is. Want to bring down the rich's relative share of the tax burden? Have a more equitable distribution of wealth.

And a safe and happy new year to everyone.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Even with those rules, I would still want a progressive tax structure.

It'd remain plenty progressive if the deficit commission's idea was put into practice - eliminating most deductions/credits and lowering rates a bit.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

It'd remain plenty progressive if the deficit commission's idea was put into practice - eliminating most deductions/credits and lowering rates a bit.

Yes. I'm all for that. Even though it likely means a slight tax increase overall.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Nope. I'm more than willing to pay the same percentage across the board as the rich do. No deductions. As long as we include ALL INCOME in the equation. And it includes ALL FEDERAL TAXATION.

So you're saying that SS and Medicare should be welfare programs then? In your opinion lower income people should be able to use their congressman to steal from the rich.