or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Cutting through the language of right wing bullshit
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Cutting through the language of right wing bullshit

post #1 of 74
Thread Starter 

Just so we are clear, broadening the base means having more people pay income taxes.  They complain many don't pay federal income taxes (while they still pay plenty of others...payroll, medicare, sales, et cetera), and broadening the base would remedy that situation they claim to be unfair.  So, what does that mean?  Folks who currently wouldn't pay federal income taxes, would pay some.  That's what we call a tax increase...on the poor.

 

 

BROADENING THE BASE = RAISING TAXES.

 

 

Didn't these folks sign some sort of pledge about that?  Oh wait, it only counts when we are talking about the rich.  Raising taxes on the poor, well shit, that doesn't count.

 

 

Once again...

 

 

 

BROADENING THE BASE = RAISING TAXES

 

 

How is it possible to broaden the base AND lower taxes for everyone, Eric Cantor, you lying sack of shit?  According to him, 45% have a federal income tax rate of 0%.  Broadening the base would make them pay something, INCREASING their tax rates.  Lowering tax rates for everyone would mean that those 45% would have a negative income tax (shockingly an idea put forth by Milton Friedman as a replacement for the entire welfare apparatus).  Cantor's response?  "oh, but if you look at it in a macro way, it's something we should discuss."  Right, lying sack of shit.  Got it.  Unless he is talking about adopting Friedman's negative income tax (which I wouldn't oppose, by the way), it is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO BROADEN THE BASE AND LOWER EVERYONE'S TAXES.  

 

 

 

Quote:
Market forces can accomplish wonderful things, he realized, but they cannot ensure a distribution of income that enables all citizens to meet basic economic needs. His proposal, which he called the negative income tax, was to replace the multiplicity of existing welfare programs with a single cash transfer — say, $6,000 — to every citizen. A family of four with no market income would thus receive an annual payment from the I.R.S. of $24,000. For each dollar the family then earned, this payment would be reduced by some fraction — perhaps 50 percent. A family of four earning $12,000 a year, for example, would receive a net supplement of $18,000 (the initial $24,000 less the $6,000 tax on its earnings).

 

 

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #2 of 74

Once again, must you?  Can we not simply discuss the issue?  

 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #3 of 74
Thread Starter 

Do you disagree?  Do you feel that broadening the base isn't code for raising taxes on the poor?  What else could it mean, if not that?  This is a rather pathetic and obvious dodge.

 

 

So, must I what?  Present facts and logical arguments, debunking the whole notion that Republicans oppose raising taxes?  Sorry that's so inconvenient for you.  

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #4 of 74

Romney and the Rs want to raise taxes on the "parasites" (by expiring Obama's payroll tax cuts), but they want to cut taxes for the "job creators" even further than Bush's tax cuts.

post #5 of 74

When it comes to ME paying, the rich and powerful always say, "Tough shit!  **** you, pay me!"

 

So my attitude about the rich and powerful bitching and moaning and paying taxes, my response is, "Tough shit!"

 

Is that class warfare?  You bet your ass it is!!!

"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #6 of 74
Northgate!
post #7 of 74

Barack Obama has deficit spent more in one term than Bush did in two.

Barack Obama has troops dying abroad in pointless wars.

Barack Obama and his party in the Senate have not passed a budget in three years.

Barack Obama promised us an economic recovery that has not arrived and jobs that never came into being.

 

However if we can get a talking point and start a thread about it every day, then perhaps none of these things will be important. People will forget that they don't have jobs, money, homes and that trillions have been spent with no solution in sight.

 

I'm sure there will be a new talking point tomorrow BR. Keep plugging away!


Edited by trumptman - 5/2/12 at 1:47pm

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #8 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

When it comes to ME paying, the rich and powerful always say, "Tough shit!  **** you, pay me!"

 

Who or what are you referring to?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #9 of 74
Thread Starter 

It's very simple math, folks.  45% allegedly pay zero dollars.  Eric Cantor says they should pay at least something, at least $1.  

 

You tell me, SDW...Is $1 bigger than $0?  Here, have a multiple choice question:

 

Bob pays $0 in federal income taxes in 2012.  The Republicans want him to pay $1 in federal income taxes in 2013.  Bob's income taxes from 2012 to 2013...

 

A) Increased

B) Decreased

C) Stayed the same

D) Must you do this whole pointing out facts things again?  I hate facts.

 

Here's a hint: while D may be true, it doesn't answer the question--so don't pick it.  

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #10 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Do you disagree?  Do you feel that broadening the base isn't code for raising taxes on the poor?  What else could it mean, if not that?  This is a rather pathetic and obvious dodge.

 

 

So, must I what?  Present facts and logical arguments, debunking the whole notion that Republicans oppose raising taxes?  Sorry that's so inconvenient for you.  

 

This from the man who accused me of "spin" in the other thread.   BR, the fact is that you've presented one view of what broadening the base means.  One view.  Sure, one can look at it as "a tax increase."  One could try to make the argument that Republicans don't really oppose tax increases.  But that would be spin.  Considering you just accused me of it earlier...isn't that...wait for it....HYPOCRISY?  lol.gif

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Romney and the Rs want to raise taxes on the "parasites" (by expiring Obama's payroll tax cuts), but they want to cut taxes for the "job creators" even further than Bush's tax cuts.

 

Don't get into that....you're better than this.  Let's discuss the real issues:  

 

1.  Do you think it's a problem that only 53% of Americans pay income taxes?  

2.  Do you think that doubling capital gains on "the rich" makes sense economically and fiscally? 

3.  Do you think that our tax system needs to be revised to ensure everyone (or nearly everyone) pays something?  Should it be simpler and encourage production rather than discourage it?  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

When it comes to ME paying, the rich and powerful always say, "Tough shit!  **** you, pay me!"

 

So my attitude about the rich and powerful bitching and moaning and paying taxes, my response is, "Tough shit!"

 

Is that class warfare?  You bet your ass it is!!!

 

 

Spoken (written) by someone who truly won't let the logical part of him get past the emotional part.  It's easy to picture some guy with Romney's money or more sitting around getting pissed off that he has to pay $5,000,000 in taxes instead of $3,000,000.  Screw them, you say!   But these people are not the problem when we're discussing "the rich" paying more.  We're talking about a lot of small businesses, for one thing.  Many report on personal returns, so this affects those employers big time.  Secondly, what does raising taxes on the rich (the Buffett rule) actually accomplish?  Answer...nothing.  It raises $4.7 billion a year at most.  That's enough to fund the government for about three hours.  And what effect will raising taxes on the rich (by whatever amount) have on economic growth?  There choices are "net positive" or "net negative."  Hint:  It can't be the first one.  

 

You see, "eat the rich" sounds great and feel great to we middle class slobs.  But it makes no fiscal or economic sense.  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

It's very simple math, folks.  45% allegedly pay zero dollars.  Eric Cantor says they should pay at least something, at least $1.  

 

You tell me, SDW...Is $1 bigger than $0?  Here, have a multiple choice question:

 

Bob pays $0 in federal income taxes in 2012.  The Republicans want him to pay $1 in federal income taxes in 2013.  Bob's income taxes from 2012 to 2013...

 

A) Increased

B) Decreased

C) Stayed the same

D) Must you do this whole pointing out facts things again?  I hate facts.

 

Here's a hint: while D may be true, it doesn't answer the question--so don't pick it.  

 

Yes, BR, we get it.  I've already stated that one could view that as a "tax increase."  But the only purpose in one doing that would be to beat Conservatives over the head for "wanting to raise taxes."   One would only do that to avoid having a real discussion of what tax policy should be.  Ahem. 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #11 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Who or what are you referring to?

If the rich and powerful make risky bets that don't pay off, well, they get bailed out.  Me?  I got to jail AND I still have to pay off my bets.  If the rich and powerful make more money, they get a tax break.  If I work any overtime, I get a tax ding!  If the rich and powerful decide to destroy the economy over their greedy practices, they get a pat on the back and are encouraged to keep going forward.  If I destroy my family's economy, then tough luck asshole.

 

So what am I saying?  Am I saying that I should get special prove ledges too?  No.  The opposite, actually.  If I have to pay.  THEY have to pay.  If I make bad decisions, then I suffer the consequences.  THEY should too.

 

The minute the rich and powerful pout about "class warfare" just remember one thing.... you can bet they're waging some war on your ass.  And you're losing.  Badly.

 

YOU always have to pay.  THEY never have to.  And they've convinced half the nation to do their bidding for them when they offer ZERO reward for doing so.

"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #12 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

If the rich and powerful make risky bets that don't pay off, well, they get bailed out.  Me?  I got to jail AND I still have to pay off my bets.  If the rich and powerful make more money, they get a tax break.  If I work any overtime, I get a tax ding!  If the rich and powerful decide to destroy the economy over their greedy practices, they get a pat on the back and are encouraged to keep going forward.  If I destroy my family's economy, then tough luck asshole.

 

So what am I saying?  Am I saying that I should get special prove ledges too?  No.  The opposite, actually.  If I have to pay.  THEY have to pay.  If I make bad decisions, then I suffer the consequences.  THEY should too.

 

The minute the rich and powerful pout about "class warfare" just remember one thing.... you can bet they're waging some war on your ass.  And you're losing.  Badly.

 

YOU always have to pay.  THEY never have to.

 

They do pay.  That's where you are utterly, completely wrong.  They pay more than you ever will.  And you hate them for it. 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #13 of 74

Then I guess we better start taxing rice and beans.  Because, you know, Sean Hannity says no one ever goes hungry in this nation and that half don't pay anything.  So, yes, let's protect Romney's tax break and tax those beans.

"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #14 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

If the rich and powerful make risky bets that don't pay off, well, they get bailed out.  Me?  I got to jail AND I still have to pay off my bets.

 

I totally agree. This is wrong. But the ones to blame are the ones that offered and provided the bailout. Those are the ones that need to be chased down with torches and pitchforks.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #15 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

They do pay.  That's where you are utterly, completely wrong.  They pay more than you ever will.  And you hate them for it. 

I hate them because their unmitigated and unrepentant greed has just about destroyed this country.  And they all got a free fucking pass!!!  And they've convinced guys like you to stick up for them.

"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #16 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

I totally agree. This is wrong. But the ones to blame are the ones that offered and provided the bailout. Those are the ones that need to be chased down with torches and pitchforks.

Don't blame the folks who set fire to the house?  Blame the ones who brought the water to douse the flames?  **** me!

"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #17 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Don't blame the folks who set fire to the house?  Blame the ones who brought the water to douse the flames?  **** me!

 

First, I'm not saying that the companies that gambled don't deserve blame. They should be made to pay for extinguishing their own fire and rebuilding their own house. Of course they do and they set fire to their own house (if you wish to use that analogy). But this analogy is a bit off and a little, pardon the pun, inflammatory.

 

These companies took some very large risks indeed. My guess is that they had a reasonable belief that the government would bail them out (which proved to be true of course) if they ever went too far. When the losses and risks started to show they went to the government to save them instead of taking the losses themselves. The government happily handed over this money (it's not their money after all). And said "Don't do that again." *wink* *nudge* They didn't need to do this. They could have said, "Nope. You take the loses yourself. If that means bankruptcy, so be it."

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #18 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

I totally agree. This is wrong. But the ones to blame are the ones that offered and provided the bailout. Those are the ones that need to be chased down with torches and pitchforks.

Don't blame the folks who set fire to the house?  Blame the ones who brought the water to douse the flames?  **** me!

 

The problem is that they claimed water and then poured gasoline.

 

If you spend trillions that will cause lower future economic growth and all you have to show for it is enemic economic growth, you've just doubled your problems. Obama has made the U.S. economy the $100k indebted college graduate who just discovered their doctorate in Latina Activism Poetry won't even make them shift manager at McDonalds.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #19 of 74
Thread Starter 

SDW, you say that's ONE way to interpret broadening the base.  I'm waiting for another way that doesn't involve raising taxes on the poor.  Republicans painted themselves into a corner on this one by signing those tax pledges.  What, I'm not allowed to hold them to what they pledged?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #20 of 74

And yet everyone on Wallstreet closed the day very very happy.  Fucking Obama.  

"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #21 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

I hate them because their unmitigated and unrepentant greed has just about destroyed this country.  And they all got a free fucking pass!!!  And they've convinced guys like you to stick up for them.

 

You "hate" them?  Please, explain how "the rich just about destroyed this country."  Can't wait.  Oh, and then explain how you're against the guy that didn't want to bailout companies like GM after they screwed up.  Oooops.  That doesn't count, because that helped the UAW.   Got it.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

SDW, you say that's ONE way to interpret broadening the base.  I'm waiting for another way that doesn't involve raising taxes on the poor.  Republicans painted themselves into a corner on this one by signing those tax pledges.  What, I'm not allowed to hold them to what they pledged?

 

It just depends on how one looks at it.  Typically, "No Raising Taxes" pledges refer to raising rates, creating brand new taxes, etc. I don't think I've heard of people being called out for supporting policies that end up creating more taxpayers.  Again though, you can certainly view it like you're portraying it.  Clearly, some people that pay nothing would pay something.  The question I have is why you'd be inclined to view it like that?  I really don't think that you believe Republicans generally tend to support "raising taxes" in general.  Do you?  Or are you just posting threads bashing GOP leaders in an election year?  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #22 of 74
Thread Starter 

Let's deal with facts, shall we?  Here are the pledges that have been signed.

 

Quote:

Since 1986, ATR has sponsored the "Taxpayer Protection Pledge", a written promise by legislators and candidates for office that commits them to oppose tax increases. There are separate versions at the national and state level.[3][4]

In the version for the U.S. House of Representatives, the signer pledges to:[5]

     ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses; and

     TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.

In the version for state legislators, the signer pledges that:[6]

     I will oppose and vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes.

In the 112th Congress serving from 2011–2, 238 members of the U.S. House of Representatives – a majority of that body – as well as 41 members of the U.S. Senate have signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge.[7] All except 13 sitting Republicans have signed the pledge, while three Democrats have signed it (Sen. Ben Nelson (NE) and House members Robert Andrews (NJ) and Ben Chandler (KY)).[7]

With regard to the US House of Reps signers, what you discuss in broadening the base can be argued to violate the first part depending upon the implementation--but it definitely will violate the second part.  Poor folks have enough deductions and credits to reduce their tax rates to zero.  Reduction of those deductions and credits could not be matched dollar for dollar by further reducing taxes because you aren't arguing for a negative income tax.

 

With regard to the state legislators, any effort to make someone pay more than he or she currently does is an effort to increase taxes.  Broadening the base certainly violates that part.

 

So, once again, Republicans painted themselves into a corner on this one by signing that dumb fucking pledge.  Why does that pledge not count when talking about poor people, SDW?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #23 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Let's deal with facts, shall we?  Here are the pledges that have been signed.

 

Quote:

Since 1986, ATR has sponsored the "Taxpayer Protection Pledge", a written promise by legislators and candidates for office that commits them to oppose tax increases. There are separate versions at the national and state level.[3][4]

In the version for the U.S. House of Representatives, the signer pledges to:[5]

     ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses; and

     TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.

In the version for state legislators, the signer pledges that:[6]

     I will oppose and vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes.

In the 112th Congress serving from 2011–2, 238 members of the U.S. House of Representatives – a majority of that body – as well as 41 members of the U.S. Senate have signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge.[7] All except 13 sitting Republicans have signed the pledge, while three Democrats have signed it (Sen. Ben Nelson (NE) and House members Robert Andrews (NJ) and Ben Chandler (KY)).[7]

With regard to the US House of Reps signers, what you discuss in broadening the base can be argued to violate the first part depending upon the implementation--but it definitely will violate the second part.  Poor folks have enough deductions and credits to reduce their tax rates to zero.  Reduction of those deductions and credits could not be matched dollar for dollar by further reducing taxes because you aren't arguing for a negative income tax.

 

With regard to the state legislators, any effort to make someone pay more than he or she currently does is an effort to increase taxes.  Broadening the base certainly violates that part.

 

So, once again, Republicans painted themselves into a corner on this one by signing that dumb fucking pledge.  Why does that pledge not count when talking about poor people, SDW?

 

Not that you'll reply to this because chanting bumper sticker slogans while pissing yourself is about all you do lately, but it is possible to cut the sort of credits that pay folks who haven't contributed a cent of taxes and still not raise any marginal tax rates.

 

There are loads of folks receive the child tax credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit. If you have three of so children, the two combined means the government is giving you $7-8k even if you haven't worked an hour or paid a cent.

 

That can be cut and completely honor the pledge. If someone isn't being taxed the monies to buy these votes, I mean transfer this income, then their own rates can be lower.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #24 of 74

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

Don't get into that....you're better than this.  Let's discuss the real issues:  

 

1.  Do you think it's a problem that only 53% of Americans pay income taxes?  

2.  Do you think that doubling capital gains on "the rich" makes sense economically and fiscally? 

3.  Do you think that our tax system needs to be revised to ensure everyone (or nearly everyone) pays something?  Should it be simpler and encourage production rather than discourage it?  

Well I think it is worth getting into the fact that Republicans want to cut taxes on the wealthy and raise them on the poor. But I'll address your points:

 

* People who "don't pay (federal income) taxes" are mostly people who have little or no income: the poor, the retired, students, etc.

 

• Everyone pays taxes, even if they don't pay any net federal income taxes. And all of the other taxes that people pay are regressive: payroll, state & local, sales & excise, etc. If we restructured our entire tax code - state, local, sales, etc. - and made those other taxes more fair, then we could talk about making the federal income tax less progressive as part of the whole package. Right now, it's the only tax in the country that is sure to be progressive.

 

* The reason the working poor don't pay net federal income taxes is that they use the same kinds of deductions and credits that the wealthy so skillfully take advantage of. They still have taxes deducted from their paychecks and they still file taxes, but they have so little income that even the small deductions they use bring their measly income taxes to below zero. Why do you guys complain more loudly when poor people use these deductions than when wealthy people use them? I hope it's not class warfare.

 

* Those tax deductions have been Republican alternatives to welfare. It's more than a little disingenuous to support a plan as an alternative and then later go back and say we don't like our alternative either.

 

About capital gains taxes: The evidence is absolutely clear that the economy does not improve when you cut capital gains taxes. What does happen is that you get greater inequality.

post #25 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

Don't get into that....you're better than this.  Let's discuss the real issues:  

 

1.  Do you think it's a problem that only 53% of Americans pay income taxes?  

2.  Do you think that doubling capital gains on "the rich" makes sense economically and fiscally? 

3.  Do you think that our tax system needs to be revised to ensure everyone (or nearly everyone) pays something?  Should it be simpler and encourage production rather than discourage it?  

Well I think it is worth getting into the fact that Republicans want to cut taxes on the wealthy and raise them on the poor. But I'll address your points:

 

This is your conclusion from a proposal or two put out there.

 

 

Quote:

* People who "don't pay (federal income) taxes" are mostly people who have little or no income: the poor, the retired, students, etc.

 

Given the percentage who do not pay, it is clear it is much more than just those people. Likewise many people receive credits and income transfers without having contributed anything as well. Those transfers are conveniently not considered to be income.

 

 

Quote:

• Everyone pays taxes, even if they don't pay any net federal income taxes. And all of the other taxes that people pay are regressive: payroll, state & local, sales & excise, etc. If we restructured our entire tax code - state, local, sales, etc. - and made those other taxes more fair, then we could talk about making the federal income tax less progressive as part of the whole package. Right now, it's the only tax in the country that is sure to be progressive.

 

Everyone might pay taxes in those progressive blue states that need ever more dollars but it is not true that everyone pays, for example a sales tax. Also many states exempt items like food from sale tax. Understand that by definition you consider them regressive when they are actually applied equally. It is true that some taxes, take Social Security as an example, are regressive, but taxes that are applied equally are not automatically regressive. They might be to someone who wants to declare class warfare though.

 

Quote:

* The reason the working poor don't pay net federal income taxes is that they use the same kinds of deductions and credits that the wealthy so skillfully take advantage of. They still have taxes deducted from their paychecks and they still file taxes, but they have so little income that even the small deductions they use bring their measly income taxes to below zero. Why do you guys complain more loudly when poor people use these deductions than when wealthy people use them? I hope it's not class warfare.

 

The same deduction will remove you from the owing when the amount you owe is less automatically due to it being a lower percentage. If we both get a $50 deduction but your tax rate is 10% and my rate is 40% and thus I owe $200 while you owe $40, that isn't the same criteria being applied the same way.

 

Quote:

* Those tax deductions have been Republican alternatives to welfare. It's more than a little disingenuous to support a plan as an alternative and then later go back and say we don't like our alternative either.

 

Those deductions have been alternatives from what I've seen when there are flat tax proposals. What is this lately with leftists picking and choosing words and proposals in such an out of context manner. It is like cutting all the words out of a magazine and arranging them in whatever manner you desire while claiming nonsense.

 

Also there are those like myself, who believe no one ought to be exempt from the social contract. So put that broad brush away.

 

Quote:

 

About capital gains taxes: The evidence is absolutely clear that the economy does not improve when you cut capital gains taxes. What does happen is that you get greater inequality.

 

Greater inequality has occurred with the ever increasing progressiveness of our income tax system. The rich leave the income tax system by taking their money as investment income. The poor owe nothing due to their already low rate, an array of income transfer credits and their own deductions. All that gets screwed over in the name of good intentions are the middle class, working poor and uprising rich who are kept in away by crony capitalism from ever taking down the fat cats. In turn the fat cats become "too big to fail" and are guaranteed their positions for life in the name of....progressivism.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #26 of 74
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

You "hate" them?  Please, explain how "the rich just about destroyed this country."  Can't wait.  Oh, and then explain how you're against the guy that didn't want to bailout companies like GM after they screwed up.  Oooops.  That doesn't count, because that helped the UAW.   Got it.  

 

 

It just depends on how one looks at it.  Typically, "No Raising Taxes" pledges refer to raising rates, creating brand new taxes, etc. I don't think I've heard of people being called out for supporting policies that end up creating more taxpayers.  Again though, you can certainly view it like you're portraying it.  Clearly, some people that pay nothing would pay something.  The question I have is why you'd be inclined to view it like that?  I really don't think that you believe Republicans generally tend to support "raising taxes" in general.  Do you?  Or are you just posting threads bashing GOP leaders in an election year?  

I quoted the language of the pledge--it's not just about tax rates; it's also about matching every lost deduction with a dollar for dollar drop in rate.  Creating more taxpayers is a euphemism for making some people pay more.  It takes serious mental gymnastics and intellectual dishonesty to spin that as anything other than an increase in taxes.  Stop using the euphemisms.  If you want poor people to pay more money than they currently do, fucking say so.  Stop dancing around with deceptive language such as "broadening the base" and "creating more taxpayers."  Call it what it FUCKING is.  You want to raise taxes on the poor.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #27 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I quoted the language of the pledge--it's not just about tax rates; it's also about matching every lost deduction with a dollar for dollar drop in rate.  Creating more taxpayers is a euphemism for making some people pay more.  It takes serious mental gymnastics and intellectual dishonesty to spin that as anything other than an increase in taxes.  Stop using the euphemisms.  If you want poor people to pay more money than they currently do, fucking say so.  Stop dancing around with deceptive language such as "broadening the base" and "creating more taxpayers."  Call it what it FUCKING is.  You want to raise taxes on the poor.

Yup.  Thank you, BR.  

"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #28 of 74

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #29 of 74
Thread Starter 

Which is why tax pledges are dumb in the first place.  Circumstances change.  

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #30 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Which is why tax pledges are dumb in the first place.  Circumstances change.  

 

lol.gif

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #31 of 74
Thread Starter 

I don't see why you are laughing, MJ.  Obama is quite hypocritical, if those sources are accurate.  I'd also like to see those amounts contrasted with the many tax cuts, of which 1/3 of the stimulus plan consisted,  Campaign promises are stupid, though.  We have a populace too fucking stupid and fed up with political bullshit to be told anything nuanced.  This plays right in to the Republican hands as most left-wing positions are much more nuanced than right-wing ones.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #32 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I don't see why you are laughing, MJ.

 

Just that you seemed to offered a defense ("Circumstances change.") for Obama.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Obama is quite hypocritical, if those sources are accurate.

 

Of course he is, and not just for that example.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Campaign promises are stupid, though.

 

I mostly agree. They imagine they have more power than they do to get done the things they think they can. And that's with Presidents that have an obscene amount of power. So they almost invariable go international and start bombing and invading countries and rattling their sabers because as "commander-in-chief" they have more power.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

We have a populace too fucking stupid and fed up with political bullshit to be told anything nuanced.

 

Agreed.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

This plays right in to the Republican hands as most left-wing positions are much more nuanced than right-wing ones.

 

Uh huh.

 

(Where is that fucking eye rolling emoticon when I need it?!)

 

Quit pretending that the Democrats/leftists/liberals/"progressives" are any better or different here...or that the leftist positions are more "nuanced." That's just pure bullshit. They're just as simplistic, superficial and vacuous as those from the right. They play to people's base fears, envies, and prejudices as much (or more). It's just that you happen to agree with those fears envies and prejudices.

 

This country is being torn apart by two branches of a single party who have a difference in degrees that can be measured in the single digits. We have "two" parties arguing about whether we ought to be on the 4 or 5 yard line heading toward an end zone of totalitarianism while screaming that moving even 10 yards back toward the end zone of liberty is tantamount to anarchy and will be the end of the world...Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together...mass hysteria!

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #33 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Let's deal with facts, shall we?  Here are the pledges that have been signed.

 

With regard to the US House of Reps signers, what you discuss in broadening the base can be argued to violate the first part depending upon the implementation--but it definitely will violate the second part.  Poor folks have enough deductions and credits to reduce their tax rates to zero.  Reduction of those deductions and credits could not be matched dollar for dollar by further reducing taxes because you aren't arguing for a negative income tax.

 

With regard to the state legislators, any effort to make someone pay more than he or she currently does is an effort to increase taxes.  Broadening the base certainly violates that part.

 

So, once again, Republicans painted themselves into a corner on this one by signing that dumb fucking pledge.  Why does that pledge not count when talking about poor people, SDW?

 

Based on the verbiage of those pledges, I disagree that they are breaking it--or the spirit of it.  Obviously your interpretation is different....and we know why:  Because your goal is to bash Republicans at every turn instead of actually discussing the issues at hand.   Even if I agreed they broke the spirit of the pledge, I'd still say this whole issue is nothing but a red herring.  It's fucking stupid partisan politics.  What we should be doing is discussing how to revamp our tax code to create fairer and more effective system that benefits economic growth.  

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

Not that you'll reply to this because chanting bumper sticker slogans while pissing yourself is about all you do lately, but it is possible to cut the sort of credits that pay folks who haven't contributed a cent of taxes and still not raise any marginal tax rates.

 

There are loads of folks receive the child tax credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit. If you have three of so children, the two combined means the government is giving you $7-8k even if you haven't worked an hour or paid a cent.

 

That can be cut and completely honor the pledge. If someone isn't being taxed the monies to buy these votes, I mean transfer this income, then their own rates can be lower.

 

I didn't even consider that, but you're absolutely right.   Also, BR seems to be claiming that everyone in the 47% is "poor."  But this is not true.   Up to 25% of people are solidly middle and even middle upper income.  The tax system is the problem.  It's disaster created by a Congress who has been interested in nothing other than buying voters for their next election for the past 75 years.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #34 of 74
Thread Starter 

So the spirit of the pledges is to raise taxes on some?  Yeah, not sure what you're smoking to come up with that one.  So the whole "we can't raise taxes during a recession" and "lowering taxes is the solution to everything" means dick now?  Are you out of your fucking mind? 

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #35 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Well I think it is worth getting into the fact that Republicans want to cut taxes on the wealthy and raise them on the poor. But I'll address your points:

 

* People who "don't pay (federal income) taxes" are mostly people who have little or no income: the poor, the retired, students, etc.

 

• Everyone pays taxes, even if they don't pay any net federal income taxes. And all of the other taxes that people pay are regressive: payroll, state & local, sales & excise, etc. If we restructured our entire tax code - state, local, sales, etc. - and made those other taxes more fair, then we could talk about making the federal income tax less progressive as part of the whole package. Right now, it's the only tax in the country that is sure to be progressive.

 

* The reason the working poor don't pay net federal income taxes is that they use the same kinds of deductions and credits that the wealthy so skillfully take advantage of. They still have taxes deducted from their paychecks and they still file taxes, but they have so little income that even the small deductions they use bring their measly income taxes to below zero. Why do you guys complain more loudly when poor people use these deductions than when wealthy people use them? I hope it's not class warfare.

 

* Those tax deductions have been Republican alternatives to welfare. It's more than a little disingenuous to support a plan as an alternative and then later go back and say we don't like our alternative either.

 

About capital gains taxes: The evidence is absolutely clear that the economy does not improve when you cut capital gains taxes. What does happen is that you get greater inequality.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I quoted the language of the pledge--it's not just about tax rates; it's also about matching every lost deduction with a dollar for dollar drop in rate.  Creating more taxpayers is a euphemism for making some people pay more.  It takes serious mental gymnastics and intellectual dishonesty to spin that as anything other than an increase in taxes.  Stop using the euphemisms.  If you want poor people to pay more money than they currently do, fucking say so.  Stop dancing around with deceptive language such as "broadening the base" and "creating more taxpayers."  Call it what it FUCKING is.  You want to raise taxes on the poor.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Yup.  Thank you, BR.  

 

By that logic, higher levels of employment (hence more taxpayers) is a "tax increase."  Right?  Secondly, you're again proceeding from the false assumption that everyone who pays zero taxes or negative taxes is poor.  This is false.   There are large number of taxpayers with significant incomes (middle class and above) that end up paying nothing or nearly nothing because of various credits and deductions.   

 

Now, if you want to make the argument that some Republicans wish to have a person that currently pays -$2,000 and makes $30,000 a year pay something....(and that means they favor raising taxes on these people), that's fine.  The problem with you beating Republicans over the head, though, is that we can't even have the discussion about who should pay what.  In other words, why don't we talk about how much money one has to make in order to start paying taxes?  Why don't we talk about a hybrid flat-progressive system, where everyone pays, say, 3% and then more based income?  Answer:  We can't, because you're too busy accusing anyone with an R behind his name of being a hypocritical, lying, poor-hating, sack of shit.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #36 of 74
Thread Starter 

SDW:  So you are saying blah?  By that logic, <insert non sequitur>.  

 

Logic.

 

k9WCj.jpg

 

 

Why all the euphemisms, then, SDW?  "These people making $30,000 a year must pay more taxes.  They need higher taxes."  Why can't you and your Republican brethren just come out and say it?  

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #37 of 74
Thread Starter 

You want to have a serious talk about reform?  Fine, I propose what your guy, Milton Friedman, wanted. Replace welfare with a negative income tax. 

 

Ball is in your court.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #38 of 74

BRussell:

 

 

Quote:
Well I think it is worth getting into the fact that Republicans want to cut taxes on the wealthy and raise them on the poor.

 

Ehh...that's not necessarily true.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:
But I'll address your points:

 

Quote:

* People who "don't pay (federal income) taxes" are mostly people who have little or no income: the poor, the retired, students, etc.

 

 

See above.  Yes, mostly...but not exclusively by far.  And there are millions of people who make $30,000 year (or there a bouts) that are paying nothing.  Are these people "poor?"  No.  They are not well off or even perhaps middle class, but they are not "poor."   And here's what bothers me personally:  When I was 23, I took my first teaching job at $30,000 a year.  Now, that was 13 years ago, but nonetheless.  I paid thousands in taxes at that time.  Worse still, my now ex-wife entered the workforce as a private school teacher a year before me.  She was making less than $20,000 a year....maybe even $17,000.  Did SHE pay taxes?  You bet.  So tell me...how is that all of a sudden we have people making $20-30K and paying negative taxes?  

 

 

Quote:
• Everyone pays taxes, even if they don't pay any net federal income taxes. And all of the other taxes that people pay are regressive: payroll, state & local, sales & excise, etc. If we restructured our entire tax code - state, local, sales, etc. - and made those other taxes more fair, then we could talk about making the federal income tax less progressive as part of the whole package. Right now, it's the only tax in the country that is sure to be progressive.

 

Agreed, though I'm not really arguing against a progressive system.  I'm skeptical of a flat tax because of the high rates that have been proposed.  

 

 

Quote:
* The reason the working poor don't pay net federal income taxes is that they use the same kinds of deductions and credits that the wealthy so skillfully take advantage of. They still have taxes deducted from their paychecks and they still file taxes, but they have so little income that even the small deductions they use bring their measly income taxes to below zero. Why do you guys complain more loudly when poor people use these deductions than when wealthy people use them? I hope it's not class warfare.

 

You're not going to find too many "wealthy" people who actually pay nothing in taxes, or get more than they paid.  Even if those people are paying capital gains rates, they are paying a significant percentage.  And understand, I'm not faulting people for following the laws.  I just think the level of who we consider "poor enough to pay zero or negative taxes" is out of whack.  My link above demonstrates this clearly.  

 

 

Quote:
* Those tax deductions have been Republican alternatives to welfare. It's more than a little disingenuous to support a plan as an alternative and then later go back and say we don't like our alternative either.

 

You know, I can see that...but I've honestly never heard it presented that way.  Also, I'm not against credits that reduce one's tax burden for various reasons.  It's when 47% pay nothing or less than nothing that I have a problem.  Are we really claiming that 47% of the nation is "poor?"  

 

 

 

Quote:
About capital gains taxes: The evidence is absolutely clear that the economy does not improve when you cut capital gains taxes. What does happen is that you get greater inequality.

 

That is about as wrong as you can get.  The 1997 cap gains cut was followed by one the strongest economies in 50 years, for example.  Cutting cap gains clearly encourages investment and economic activity.  I'm frankly surprised you'd actually argue otherwise. 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #39 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

SDW:  So you are saying blah?  By that logic, <insert non sequitur>.  

 

Logic.

 

k9WCj.jpg

 

 

Why all the euphemisms, then, SDW?  "These people making $30,000 a year must pay more taxes.  They need higher taxes."  Why can't you and your Republican brethren just come out and say it?  

 

I think I just did say it.  And really...are you serious?  You're asking why politicians would choose to use the phrase "broaden the tax base" instead of "we want people making $30,000 to pay something?"  That's no different than Democrats calling tax hikes "revenue enhancements."   Welcome to politics.  It sucks.  You're gonna love it here.  

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You want to have a serious talk about reform?  Fine, I propose what your guy, Milton Friedman, wanted. Replace welfare with a negative income tax. 

 

Ball is in your court.

 

 

1.  I love how you post things like this with the implication that we're ignorant of such things.  

2.  Is someone actually proposing replacing welfare with a negative income tax?  For Realz?   

3.  You're a progressive, correct?  Do you agree with everything Keynes wrote?  FDR?  TR? Stalin?  ;)  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #40 of 74
Thread Starter 

The breakdown of the 47%:

 

 

 

Quote:
About half of households within that 47 percent do not end up paying federal income tax because they qualify for enough breaks to cancel their tax obligations out. Of that group, 44 percent are claiming tax benefits for the elderly, like an exemption for Social Security payments. And 30.4 percent are claiming credits for “children and the working poor,” like the child-care tax credit. The remainder get breaks for investment income, spending on education, itemized deductions, and a mish-mash of other things. When combined, it’s all enough to cancel out their income tax requirements.

So, 10% of Americans are claiming tax benefits for the elderly.  7% are claiming credits for children and the working poor.  That's 17% of Americans not having to pay federal income taxes.  That's 36% of the people you are bitching about.

 

 

 

Quote:

 The other half of households are just too poor to pay them. The Tax Policy Center provides a handy example: A couple with two children earning less than $26,400 per year pays no income tax if it takes standard deductions and common exemptions, for instance. “The basic structure of the income tax simply exempts subsistence levels of income from tax,” TPC’s Roberton Williams writes.

That pool of too-poor households has grown much bigger because of the recession and its aftermath: Average incomes have kept on declining even though the recession has officially ended, and millions of households have lost one or both of their wage-earners. Households are earning about 10 percent less than they did in 2007. About 12 percent of families live in poverty. That means a lot of folks simply aren’t eligible for income tax.

12% of families are in poverty--15% of Americans in 2010.  Add those to the previous 17% and you are at 32% of Americans either claiming benefits for the elderly, children and the working poor, or being in poverty.  32% of Americans.  That covers 68% of your 47% number you complain about.  You want to squeeze blood from those stones, SDW?  If not, shut up about 47%.  Your issue is with 15%.  And remember, of that 15% figure, there are plenty of folks who can't even afford their own health insurance.

 

 

But ugh, all that math.  So much easier to just get riled up about 47% of Americans not paying federal income taxes (but still paying regressive payroll, medicare, gas, state, & local taxes), isn't it?  Understanding why 47% don't pay federal income taxes requires math, patience, and thought.  Knee-jerking and saying, 'NOT FAIR, I HAD TO PAY TAXES' requires none.  Republicans want the country to do the latter.

 

Finally, 

 

 

 

Quote:
In short, it is not that they are not paying their taxes. It is that the country’s tax structure lets them off the hook. Indeed, you can draw a straight line between the Bush tax cuts and the growing number of households exempted from income tax. For instance, the 2001 cuts, extended under the Obama administration, doubled the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000 and expanded eligibility for the Earned Income Tax Credit among married taxpayers. Additionally, the Bush tax cuts lowered income taxes in every bracket, making it easier for a household’s liability to get fully offset by deductions and credits. And on top of all that, the stimulus bill introduced a host of further tax cuts.

 

Gee, when you pass tax cuts for everyone, is it no wonder that some folks' burden gets pushed down to zero?  Thinking is hard, though.  Frothing about 47% is so much easier, isn't it SDW?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Cutting through the language of right wing bullshit