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.
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?
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 ?
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 wouldnât let the Bush tax cuts expire are now eager to start the payroll tax again. Theyâll 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 âsmoking gunâ? The second-to-last paragraph in the AP story tells us: Many Democrats also are ambivalent about Obamaâs 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 programâs health and stature. Thatâs 945 words into a 1,037-word article. A deliberate political hit under the false cover of objectivity."
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.
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: Code: ( $ 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
In a way, he's absolutely correct. For the level of services being demanded, middle income Americans do not pay their share of taxes.
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.