Why Republicans?

[greasemonkey]

BYW - when I was saying the "1%", it was not meant to be numerically correct. It is a 'saying', kinda like the Bikers that wear the 1% badge, there are a lot more bad bikers than 1%.

Only in this case there are a lot less than 1%...

No you were not. You were clearly arguing specifics. You did it numerous times. It looks like now you have finally opened the provided links and thought about it enough to realize you were wrong. Instead of admitting it you now say you meant something else? Please stop with the silliness.

So you are saying that the very small group of the richest people in America are paying their fair share?

The people that own ~90% of all assets in America pay less than ~10% of the total tax bill.

Super Rich see federal taxes drop

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

As a person in the middle class, I pay ~38% of my total income, while the super rich that own most everything, pay less than 10%(in most cases nothing)...
that is just not fair.. anyway you cut it.

Here you go again. Please pay attention to what you have read on this thread and especially what YOU have typed. You had claimed you are in the top 1% of earners. That would not put you in the middle class. Stop with the silliness please. Its embarrassing for you.

On the more important issues above lets remember that it is called and INCOME TAX. That is tax that you pay on your INCOME. It is not called a wealth tax. The super rich pay the % that their income bracket places them in. The taxable year 2010 would have seen those with incomes over 373k pay 35% FEDERAL income (of course there is state and local and property...etc also).
So let's assume for a second that you were telling the truth lots0 and you make for example 400k. Lets look at a group of people and how much they would pay in FEDERAL taxes alone in 2010 tax year:

*This is TAXABLE income* after deductions and such investment gains are taxed ON TOP of these numbers:

Mr Rich: (made 2,000,000 in 2010): $700,000
Lots0: (made 400,000 in 2010): $140,000
Mr. High income: (made 180k in 2010): $59,400
Mr. Upper middle: (made 100k in 2010): $28,000
Mr. Average (made 60k in 2010): $15,000
Mr. Low income (made 30k in 2010): $4,500

NOW, with tax credits for mortgage interest, children and so forth Mr. Low income will actually recieve more money BACK than he put in. He will make money on this deal and pay NEGATIVE taxes.
Mr. Average will likely get his taxable income level down to the point where any child tax credits and such will also put him into the NEGATIVE tax range. People in this range USUALLY receive tax refunds that put them into the negative tax range or at least darn close to breaking even.
So lets look at the top 4 brackets. Remember that passive income loss is unavailable for claim. NO child tax credit allowed. No Roth IRA investing allowed..etc, etc, etc for the top few groups> AND they are going to be taxed on investment profits another 15% too!!!!! Wow, thats a lot of money that they are having just TAKEN from them.
Stare at the numbers, Lots0. You have the audacity to say that the guy making 2mill per year is not paying HIS fair share???? How is it fair that he pays over 3x the COMBINED taxes of the rest of this group? Why does he have to pay so much more??? That isn't fair enough? It is GROSSLY UNFAIR that he is forced to pay the bill for everyone. What does he get extra from the country that you don't? Does he have his own roads? Private parking spaces in public areas? Nope. He gets nothing more in return. Actually, he gets far less because he will not get things from the govt.
If you think it is still not enough and that it is unfair to him then you are in a sad mindset.

NOW, you keep talking as if taxing these people's income is not enough. You want to tax their overall wealth too. So, in the above circumstance, after the guy making 2mill. per year is taxed by state and local and property (will be more than yours) then he is left with probably less than 50% of what he made. Let's say he is left with 1mill for ease of numbers though. If he bough property, stocks and other investments with 900,000$ of that money every year for 10 years then he would likely have a value of about 10mill$ after 10 years... and you want to tax him on what he is WORTH now also on top of what he has earned???
WTF???

And I still stand by that. I am poor(when compared to the super rich) and I pay a larger percent of my income in taxes than the super rich.

You pay peanuts compared to the super rich. They pay a fortune compared to you. What a joke of a comment. If you, lots0, were to make a million dollars a year and I was to make 30,000 per year and we both went to a fine restaurant would you be ok with me being charged $15 for my Lobster dinner because of my income and you paying $500 for the exact same dinner because of your income? No, that would be ridiculous. So is your assumption that you pay more when you don't even have anything remotely close to the same amounts being confiscated by the government.

 

[greasemonkey]

There is something about politics that makes people very, very cranky. Especially when it comes to commenting on another that thinks differently than you. It just brings out the worst in some people as evidenced in this thread. People are being less than tolerant and actually showing too much disrespect for other points of view.

And that is why, I do not "do politics".

Carry on, folks!!

I agree Jod and I am one of the culprits o being cranky.

The reason is because this is a different type of opinion. If you think a certain sports team is better than it doesn't affect me. If you like a different color than it doesnt affect me. Even if you have different religious beliefs it largely doesn't affect me.

Politics in America is different because of the vote and the polls.
We vote in our politicians and they govern largely based on opinion polls (sadly). So if I work 16 hours a day on average 7 days a week for the last 12 years of my life trying to build something for me and my family then have somebody of the opinion that it would be great just to take most of my money since "he doesn't need it all" and just pass it out to everyone else regardless of merit I do get "cranky". I get down right IRATE. It is the same as if somebody hacks into your bank account and steals your money. You get angry. So we can disagree on global warming, religion, investment strategies and so on. But as far as politics go you get to the point in America where one side is basically voting for policies that steal more of my personal property... that leads to one getting cranky and that is why it is such a hot button issue, IMO.

 

[LaurieJim]

There is something about politics that makes people very, very cranky. Especially when it comes to commenting on another that thinks differently than you. It just brings out the worst in some people as evidenced in this thread. People are being less than tolerant and actually showing too much disrespect for other points of view.

And that is why, I do not "do politics".

Carry on, folks!!

I agree Jod, this used to be one of my favorite topics but I just read and lurk now............Pity!!! as I like and respect everyone who voices their opinion on here, we all will never agree with each other but should be tolerant of different view points imo.

Laurie

 

[lots0]

gm where are the facts to support any of your fantasy?

In your posts all I see is your ranting with nothing to support your opinions, but more of your ranting...

Show me something from the IRS backing up your tv fantasy related claims.

Did you look at the link I provided from the IRS?
or the article from FORBES, a very conservative publication?

See I back up what I say... why don't you try it, with somthing other than one sided political paritisan crap.

you also seem to spend a lot of time 'responding' to my posts... don't you like teddy bears?

 

[lots0]

I agree Jod, this used to be one of my favorite topics but I just read and lurk now............Pity!!! as I like and respect everyone who voices their opinion on here, we all will never agree with each other but should be tolerant of different view points imo.

Laurie

Laurie you know I respect you and we disagree, a lot... lol
You and jod really should be a part of this discussion. we really do need smart level headed people in the political discussion, no matter what political side of the isle they stand on.

 

[greasemonkey]

gm where are the facts to support any of your fantasy?

In your posts all I see is your ranting with nothing to support your opinions, but more of your ranting...

Show me something from the IRS backing up your tv fantasy related claims.

Did you look at the link I provided from the IRS?
or the article from FORBES, a very conservative publication?

See I back up what I say... why don't you try it, with somthing other than one sided political paritisan crap.

you also seem to spend a lot of time 'responding' to my posts... don't you like teddy bears?

I like you just fine. Your misunderstanding of the taxation in America and thus your political views drive me nuts. Especially when you say things that are totally inaccurate. It isn't personal.

Here are some things for you to look at:

-------------Taxation table to verify what I said in my examples of how much people pay in FEDERAL taxes

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

------------Here is some data from back in 2009 showing how nearly 50% in the lower half of income DONT PAY TAXES and even RECEIVE MORE THAN THEY PUT IN. It is even worse now.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

In recent years, credits for low- and middle-income families have grown so much that a family of four making as much as $50,000 will owe no federal income tax for 2009, as long as there are two children younger than 17, according to a separate analysis by the consulting firm Deloitte Tax

-------------------This shows how if you make enough you are not allowed to claim losses (or writeoffs) like other people:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

If you own income property and actively participate in the management of the property and your adjusted gross income is less than $150,000, you can write off up to $25,000 in rental losses. For an adjusted gross income of $100,000 or less, you can write off $25,000 in rental losses. The amount of rental losses that you can write off is proportionately phased out between $100,000 and $150,000. For example, if your adjusted gross income is $125,000, you can write off $12,500 in rental losses in the year of the loss. If you are an active participant and your adjusted gross income is $150,000 or more, you can write off no rental losses on your tax return in the year of the loss.

------------Speaking of not getting tax credits:

If you make more than $95,000 you don't get first time homebuyer's credit:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

You also don't get to invest in a Roth IRA if you make over 179k:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

If you generally make over 150k then you don't qualify for most any tax credit.....child tax credit, adoption credit, earned income credit (EIC), child care credit, investment credit and on and on and on...

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

I've already included charts, links and graphs showing how the top 1% of earners pay more than the bottom 90% COMBINED. I have shown several of these. It's up to you to actually look at them and educate yourself but you should not be claiming I have not including references. Saying something you are unaware of is like claiming middle class is 175,000 or top 1% are multibillionaires. I haven't done that. What i am saying isn't opinion, it is fact and anything you want to check on is right at your fingertips... go and check on it. Those examples I gave are accurate and real. So please stop claiming that the rich don't pay enough in taxes.. They pay too much. Take another look at the example I gave you and think about that.

 

[BBKPoker]

Mr Rich: (made 2,000,000 in 2010): $700,000
Lots0: (made 400,000 in 2010): $140,000
Mr. High income: (made 180k in 2010): $59,400
Mr. Upper middle: (made 100k in 2010): $28,000
Mr. Average (made 60k in 2010): $15,000
Mr. Low income (made 30k in 2010): $4,500

NOW, with tax credits for mortgage interest, children and so forth Mr. Low income will actually recieve more money BACK than he put in. He will make money on this deal and pay NEGATIVE taxes.

lol, that is complete BS. Let's just start with your apparent lack of knowledge about the difference between refundable and nonrefundable tax credits. Non refundable credits are tax credits that can reduce your liability toward 0 but are not refundable if such a credit would reduce you to under 0. Refundable tax credits may be paid out if your tax liability is less than zero.

The only credits that are currently refundable are:

Earned income tax credit:

For low income workers. You receive a full credit if single/no children and earning under 7500 for $457. If your income is $7500-$13460 you receive a pro-rated credit, over $13460 you are ineligible.

If married/children you receive a full credit of 3k with 1 kid, 5k with 2 kids and 5600 with 3 kids if your combined household income is under $21500.

Married w/ no kids full credit = $12500 and less, 1-3 kids $21460 and less. No kids and over that you get a pro-rated credit based on income and become ineligible if combined income is over $18470, 1 kid eliminated at 40,500, 2 kids 45,300, 3 kids 48,300.

Health Coverage credit:

Essentially available to laid off workers as a tax credit worth up to 80% of premiums. Which means you need to be 1.) unemployed 2.) on some sort of COBRA or post work coverage from being recently unemployed and 3.) not covered by your spouse's health care plan.

Making Work Pay Credit
Pretty much enjoy a $400 credit if you are self-employed and $250 if you are retired or otherwise ineligible.

First time homebuyer's credit


If you bought a house between Jan 1 and May 1 you got a credit of up to $6500.

Mortgage interest is NOT a refundable credit. Kids affect your Earned Income Tax Credit, but I just frankly find your entire argument pretty specious if you are arguing that there is some major loophole in the tax system because people with multiple kids and income under 30k (to use your example) are receiving a refundable credit.

And beyond that how many people do you know with combined household income of under 30k that have a mortgage period, much less people who have combined household income of under 30k, multiple children AND a mortgage?

Seriously, what kind of argument is that lollllllllllllll

 

[BBKPoker]

I just thought about it what the worst case "abusable" scenario is where someone would receive the most money as a result of refundable tax credits:

Someone has 3 kids, combined household income of $22,000 or less, and gets laid off during the year forcing them to pay their own/their children's healthcare costs. They finish the year with non refundable tax credits completely eliminating whatever minimal tax liability they would have.

In this case, the government would pay 80% of their healthcare costs, give them their $250-$400 in stimulus money as well as an earned income tax credit of $5600k. So essentially they would be refunded for most (but not all) of their health care costs and receive ~6k in cash.

Yeah, that's an absurdly crazy socialist notion clearly. Don't know why society would have a vested interest in protecting these obviously lazy bottom feeders who are leeching off the wealthy by being so rude as to be completely broke with kids to feed.

Compassionate conservatism right?

LOL!!!!!

 

[greasemonkey]

lol, that is complete BS. Let's just start with your apparent lack of knowledge about the difference between refundable and nonrefundable tax credits. Non refundable credits are tax credits that can reduce your liability toward 0 but are not refundable if such a credit would reduce you to under 0. Refundable tax credits may be paid out if your tax liability is less than zero.

The only credits that are currently refundable are:

Earned income tax credit:

For low income workers. You receive a full credit if single/no children and earning under 7500 for $457. If your income is $7500-$13460 you receive a pro-rated credit, over $13460 you are ineligible.

If married/children you receive a full credit of 3k with 1 kid, 5k with 2 kids and 5600 with 3 kids if your combined household income is under $21500.

Married w/ no kids full credit = $12500 and less, 1-3 kids $21460 and less. No kids and over that you get a pro-rated credit based on income and become ineligible if combined income is over $18470, 1 kid eliminated at 40,500, 2 kids 45,300, 3 kids 48,300.

Health Coverage credit:

Essentially available to laid off workers as a tax credit worth up to 80% of premiums. Which means you need to be 1.) unemployed 2.) on some sort of COBRA or post work coverage from being recently unemployed and 3.) not covered by your spouse's health care plan.

Making Work Pay Credit
Pretty much enjoy a $400 credit if you are self-employed and $250 if you are retired or otherwise ineligible.

First time homebuyer's credit


If you bought a house between Jan 1 and May 1 you got a credit of up to $6500.

Mortgage interest is NOT a refundable credit. Kids affect your Earned Income Tax Credit, but I just frankly find your entire argument pretty specious if you are arguing that there is some major loophole in the tax system because people with multiple kids and income under 30k (to use your example) are receiving a refundable credit.

And beyond that how many people do you know with combined household income of under 30k that have a mortgage period, much less people who have combined household income of under 30k, multiple children AND a mortgage?

Seriously, what kind of argument is that lollllllllllllll

Who are you talking to?

You quoted me but your reply makes no sense. I never mentioned anything about which credits were refundable or not refundable. I was showing the difference in earners and how much they pay in taxes. You don't think people pay ZERO or NEGATIVE taxes because of credits? Wake up and read then. I have already posted links but here is yet another for you.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

April 14, 2010

It turns out that nearly half of all Americans don't have to pay any federal income tax. In 2009, 47 percent of all filers paid nothing. It's a number that's gone up significantly in just a couple of years. Robert Siegel talks to Roberton Williams, who's been crunching the numbers at the Tax Policy Institute in Washington. According to Williams, millions escape filing because their incomes are too low or they're eligible for deductions, credits and exemptions.

There is no BS at all. A family of 4 making $50,000 will not pay taxes. This is because of tax credits and exemptions.
I also included plenty of links showing that if you make over a certain threshold then you are not eligible for (as an example) the child tax credit. You cannot claim passive income losses if you make over a certain amount and so on.
What is to be compassionate about? Roughly half of US citizens pay ZERO or NEGATIVE taxes.... Negative taxes are when you actually profit from the tax situation (i.e. get 'back' more than you contributed).
This post started with Lots0 complaining that the poor paid more and the rich paid less. I clearly and concisely pointed out the errors of that claim. The rich pay more, WAY more. They are not eligible for most tax credits or even allowed to invest in Roth IRAs.
You went so far off topic that you should start a new thread or something. I am still responding to, and proving wrong, the statement that the rich pay less and the poor pay more.

 

[Rhyzz]

The UK is facing a similar situation with taxes. The last Labour government saw fit to bring in a 50% income tax bracket for those earning more than £150,000 a year (I think). It's just absurd, these kind of taxes do nothing but force rich people to hire an accountant to move the cash offshore and into gold reserves. There are legal loopholes to get out of paying tax yet they don't want to fix them, they just want to keep on taxing people more.

The rich didn't can't be expected to get us out of this mess. They pay a fair percentage of their income just like all of us but there has to be a limit. Why would you blame a rich man or woman for moving offshore to protect the futures of their children and childrens children? I certainly wouldn't want more than 50% of my income going into the system when it could be investing in my childrens future.

Cuts are the only way forward i'm afraid and whilst I don't agree with tax breaks for the rich to 'encourage investment', you do need a good balance to make sure that they remain honest and want to help with rebuilding the economy.

I also disagree with cuts to healthcare in the US. The one, single most important thing that any country should invest in (along with education up to the age of 18) is the health and wellbeing of it's people.

 

[lots0]

GM o your source 'moneychimp' the charts are obviously wrong.

As the article from Forbes (a very conseritive publication) that I posted points out that the real tax rate for the super rich is less than 10%, moneychimps chart shows it at 35%... which is lafable...

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

After you add in all the deductions to people who don't have 'earned' income and only have 'Dividend' income the super rich pay nothing or next to nothing.

Why would several of the Richest people in America say in public that they don't pay their fair share?

Super rich see federal taxes drop dramatically

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

What The Top U.S. Companies Pay In Taxes

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Super Rich Rarely Pay Taxes

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[felicie]

Yes America, Corporations Do Pay Taxes

Apr 14 2011 2:26pm EDT
Yes, America, Corporations Do Pay Taxes

American businesses have long complained that our 35 percent corporate tax rate—the second-highest in the developed world—makes them less competitive globally.

Critics respond that most U.S. corporations pay much less than that to Uncle Sam—in General Electric’s case, reportedly nothing—because of various loopholes.

Today the Business Roundtable addressed that argument by releasing a study on the average effective tax rates for the world’s 2,000 largest corporations. The effective tax rate is the share of global pretax income that actually is paid in taxes to various levels of government in the U.S. and abroad.

This study, conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers, found that U.S. corporations paid an average effective tax rate of 27.7 percent from 2006 to 2009, compared with an average of 19.5 percent for foreign-based corporations. The U.S. effective tax rate was the sixth-highest among the 61 countries that are home to large corporations, behind Japan, Morocco, Italy, Indonesia, and Germany.

“We’ve got a tax system that we think is one of the world’s least competitive,” said Business Roundtable President John Engler, a former Michigan governor.

High corporate taxes make American companies less likely to bring their $1 trillion in overseas profits back to the U.S., he said. That means these companies aren’t creating the jobs they otherwise would create here, he said.

Lowering the corporate tax rate is needed to “bring capital home,” he said. A temporary tax break for bringing foreign profits back to the U.S. isn’t good enough, Engler said. True corporate tax reform is needed so the return of profits here “would happen easily and routinely,” he said.

President Barack Obama has called for reducing the corporate tax rate but eliminating various loopholes. Many members of Congress agree this is needed, but Representative Dave Camp, the Michigan Republican who heads the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, thinks corporate tax reform needs to be done alongside individual income tax reform. Otherwise, small businesses—whose profits mostly are taxed at individual income tax rates—would be disadvantaged.

Read more: ]http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/capital/2011/04/14/yes-america-corporations-do-pay-taxes[/URL]

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[greasemonkey]

GM o your source 'moneychimp' the charts are obviously wrong.

As the article from Forbes (a very conseritive publication) that I posted points out that the real tax rate for the super rich is less than 10%, moneychimps chart shows it at 35%... which is lafable...

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

After you add in all the deductions to people who don't have 'earned' income and only have 'Dividend' income the super rich pay nothing or next to nothing.

Why would several of the Richest people in America say in public that they don't pay their fair share?

Super rich see federal taxes drop dramatically

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

What The Top U.S. Companies Pay In Taxes

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Super Rich Rarely Pay Taxes

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

I see what you are trying to say, Lots0. 3 of your links were the exact same AP story, which is good. It points out that the rich are paying way more than the rest. Here are some quotes from that very story:

The Internal Revenue Service tracks the tax returns with the 400 highest adjusted gross incomes each year. The average income on those returns in 2007, the latest year for IRS data, was nearly $345 million. Their average federal income tax rate was 17 percent, down from 26 percent in 1992.

Over the same period, the average federal income tax rate for all taxpayers declined to 9.3 percent from 9.9 percent.

That means that the rich are paying almost double the percentage rate that others are paying and on top of that the actual dollar amount difference is staggering. As has been stated several times, the top 1% pay as much as the bottom 90% COMBINED. Doesn't sound fair.

There are so many breaks that 45 percent of U.S. households will pay no federal income tax for 2010, according to estimates by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank

The chart on money chimp was not wrong. They pay 35% of their taxable income. Here is a different chart showing the same thing:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

I think perhaps you are getting on the wrong track with the terms like "taxable Income" This is not the exact amount you earned. And passive earnings are considered under Capital Gains and are not considered the same as earned income.... and rightfully so. It would hurt the economy badly if you started again to penalize people for investing. You must realize that the money that people have invested has already been taxed. When investing you are putting that money at some risk and should be rewarded for doing so, not penalized. 15% is a huge amount to collect on investment income that you take a risk to earn (or lose).


EXAMPLE:
Also, lets say you own a business and you received 2mill in 2010. You cannot logically be taxed on that 2 million. You have costs associated with earning that money so your taxable income may only be 750k in taxable income for example. You WILL be taxed 35% of that amount. Now if you had another 750k in investment income then you would be charged another 15% for that amount. When combined you might errantly say that the total money acquired was "only" taxed at 14% as follows:

2 mill in business earnings + 750k investment earnings = $2,750,000.
Tax was 35% of 750k taxable income (262,500) + 15% of invest. income (112,500)
So "only" 375,000 in taxes paid....14%

However the taxable income was only 750k. So you could STILL change semantics and say "he only paid 25% on his total income ($375,000 on 1.5mill). But you would be adding capital gains in with earned income. So it is just a matter of semantics.

These people ARE taxed at 35% of their income and 15% of their investment income.

And with all the deductions others are paying far less of a percentage in other brackets and the total amount is a not even on the same planet.

 

[paul02085]

LOL at people complaining that wealthy people dont pay their share. FACT- the top 5% wealthiest people in the US pay 60% of the total taxes taken in by the govt and the top 25% pay 86% of the total.

Of course facts get in the way when trying to justify taking money from people for yourself. Right?

 

[greasemonkey]

LOL at people complaining that wealthy people dont pay their share. FACT- the top 5% wealthiest people in the US pay 60% of the total taxes taken in by the govt and the top 25% pay 86% of the total.

Of course facts get in the way when trying to justify taking money from people for yourself. Right?

Thank you Paul!!!!
It is extremely frustrating when somebody has the audacity to complain that the Rich don't pay and the poor do... when in fact the complete opposite is true and provable.... its not an opinion to be had, facts are facts. I like your examples and I have said a thousand times my favorite "top 1% pay as much as bottom 90% COMBINED." The fact that some people believe the opposite just shows how susceptible humans can be when handed bad info so often.

 

[lots0]

Oh the poor super rich... they pay so much.
We should all be so greatful to them...

If the Super Rich pay so much why do some of them say they are not paying their fair share?

[Eric Schoenberg former investment banker and one of the Richest people in America]
"I simply point out to people, `Do you think this is reasonable, that somebody in my circumstances should only be paying 1 percent of their income in tax?'"

So why would Mr. Schoenberg say he is not paying his fair share? Maybe because he (and the rest of the super rich) are not...

 

[BingoT]

This little guy knows something.
To the US government
Expired Image
And this guy too.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[jod5413]

Nice one, Tom. Not.

 

[Stovetopp]

One thing I don't understand about the Republicans
If they believe so much in individual freedom and initiative, WTF can't I spend my money anyway I want ...., even in gambling, smoking rope, snifting that white stuff ,whoring etc??

 

[felicie]

One thing I don't understand about the Republicans
If they believe so much in individual freedom and initiative, WTF can't I spend my money anyway I want ...., even in gambling, smoking rope, snifting that white stuff ,whoring etc??

\

Lol is there anything in this world NOT the fault of republicans? And tell me why are the democrats so Against individual freedom and initiative? I'll tell you why.

This particular batch we've got now, a big part of them are descendants of the 60's. They smoked rope and anything else that would burn. So much so that now sadly, they just can't live or even survive their little fat-free, smoke-free, oil-free gun-free, lead-free, common sense-free (I could go on for days but I wont) lives without their moma & popa govt. guiding them thru each and every step of the way. If it was up to the republicans only, our govt. would be the size of a tugboat instead of the Titanic and they'd have no idea what was going on in our bank accounts because after all, it'd be our own bank account and we'd still have a right to privacy. If it was up to the republicans only.

 

[footdr]

Go Ahead, I am ready to take on those that disagree with me and the CBS News Poll

According to a recent CBS News Poll; "Fifty-six percent would rather see Medicare recipients pay more in taxes than have the benefits of future retirees cut". I'm not sure what this means. Are they saying they want to raise taxes on the individuals currently recieving Medicare benefits? Which would be raising taxes on the Elderly, including income from social security, retirement benefits and income from investments. Or, are they saying they want those employed to pay higher medicare taxes on their income?Which would be raising the taxes on the Low and Middle income earns. Something Obama promised not to do. Not sure.

The most important finding from the polls are that those under the age of 65 approve of Medicare becoming a Private Insurance Plan. Ryan's plan changes nothing for those individuals who are currently 55 to 64 years old; that group approves at 47% to change the plan.

I am married to a Physician and have worked in Medical Administration and Health Information for the V.A., Private Hospitals, Nursing Homes and Private Medical Practices over the past 35 years. One thing I can assure you is that if Provider Reimbursements are cut by 35% percent; there will be few Providers or Hospitals willing to treat Medicare patients;this cut is required according to CBO, as is the individual mandate; for the PPACA to be "deficit neutral". Democrats based passage of PPACA on this CBO Score. So, changing anything they based their score on will cause it to not be deficit neutral. Waivers have already changed the scoring and they have already said the amount of revenue needed for "premium assistance" to those who can't afford coverage was under estimated, "another huge change".

Those that don't want to raise the debt limit, but want to continue the Medicare/Medicaid Program as planned are living in LALA Land.

Those that say it is worth the cost to taxpayers had better be including all persons required to submit a tax return for "ordinary income", regardless of tax bracket, to pay. Otherwise, the cost will be beared by the 51% plus that actually pay federal "ordinary" income taxes. And, the 50% plus that owe no federal income tax, many which get refunds due to the "credits" they qualify for, will pay nothing. Medicare payroll taxes must be increased not ordinary income taxes; for all of those who will eventually be eligible for Medicare to pay their fair share.

None of this really matters as I don't believe there will be many doctors or clinics or Hospitals that will remain enrolled in the Medicare Program. That will mean those without Insurance will either have to pay cash, obtain credit or obtain indivdual coverage which will cost far more than the Medicare Program paying Providers a reasonible wage for their services.

Medicare needs to negotiate reimbursements with Doctors and Hospitals. Just as Union Workers want to be able to negotiate, so should providers be allowed to negotiate their fees. Right? Don't you that are for taxpayers paying for Public Employee Unions agree? If not, you are hypocrits.

Read more:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[LaurieJim]

\

Lol is there anything in this world NOT the fault of republicans? And tell me why are the democrats so Against individual freedom and initiative? I'll tell you why.

This particular batch we've got now, a big part of them are descendants of the 60's. They smoked rope and anything else that would burn. So much so that now sadly, they just can't live or even survive their little fat-free, smoke-free, oil-free gun-free, lead-free, common sense-free (I could go on for days but I wont) lives without their moma & popa govt. guiding them thru each and every step of the way. If it was up to the republicans only, our govt. would be the size of a tugboat instead of the Titanic and they'd have no idea what was going on in our bank accounts because after all, it'd be our own bank account and we'd still have a right to privacy. If it was up to the republicans only.

I agree Felicie, a smaller govt. has always worked best in the past and its neither the Republicans nor the Democrats at 100 % fault but those that we elect to political office.

It comes down to" US "and how we vote and as I have always posted, if you don't vote, you have no right to bitch about your govt.

We will soon start to see new faces hoping to attain a major political position, so check them all out and vote for the one that you feel will lead us out of this mess and will do the best job, doesn't matter how we got here, that's water under the bridge at this point. We need to look at each one and do the research, take it serious as this isn't the time to be swayed by either parties promises for a quick fix imho.

Laurie

 

[lots0]

According to a recent CBS News Poll; "Fifty-six percent would rather see Medicare recipients pay more in taxes than have the benefits of future retirees cut". I'm not sure what this means.

It means that people don't want to lose a good Government program or have it 'reduced' and that they are willing to pay more to keep it... even though they can't afford it...

 

[lots0]

....doesn't matter how we got here, that's water under the bridge at this point.

Oh yes it does.
Why would we want the same people that got us here, still leading?

The same people that voted for two unnecessary and un-paid for wars and Prescription Drug program that was not paid for... the same people that actually took a budget surplus and turned it into the largest debt in our history?

It matters how we got here...

Only the people that led us here are saying it does not matter how we got here... propaganda 101.

 

[felicie]

Gotta go with lots0 on this one laurie; The democrats are to blame, no doubt about it.

 

[lots0]

Gotta go with lots0 on this one laurie; The democrats are to blame, no doubt about it.

felicie, are you having problems discussing politics with the grownups?

Your comment is juvenile and really not appreciated.

To correct your political like twisting of the facts - I blame them all, Democrat and Republican.

I just blame the Republicans more.... because they were in charge when we started two unnecessary wars then the Republicans took a surplus and turned it into the largest debt in our history.

...and now the Republicans are trying hard to finish us off by driving the Country right over the economic cliff... by cutting government spending in the middle of our recovery of the largest recession in our history(caused by Republican's wars, Republican economic policy and Republican caused debt)...

 

[LaurieJim]

Oh yes it does.
Why would we want the same people that got us here, still leading?

The same people that voted for two unnecessary and un-paid for wars and Prescription Drug program that was not paid for... the same people that actually took a budget surplus and turned it into the largest debt in our history?

It matters how we got here...

Only the people that led us here are saying it does not matter how we got here... propaganda 101.

What I meant Lots0 is that we can't go back and change the past, thus water under the bridge, we could dwell on this till the cows come home, still doesn't change the fact that this nation will be doomed if we don't look for future political ideas and leaders to get us out of this huge fricked up mess and we are going to need strong leaders with real backbone that will drop the hammer and say enough is enough "The American people have spoken".

Laurie

 

[lots0]

What I meant Lots0 is that we can't go back and change the past, thus water under the bridge, we could dwell on this till the cows come home, still doesn't change the fact that this nation will be doomed if we don't look for future political ideas and leaders to get us out of this huge fricked up mess and we are going to need strong leaders with real backbone that will drop the hammer and say enough is enough "The American people have spoken".

Laurie

Oh I agree, Laurie.
But I think it is a mistake to forget how we got here... and a HUGE mistake to let the same people that got us here continue to lead our country.

 

[slotplayer]

Oh I agree, Laurie.
But I think it is a mistake to forget how we got here... and a HUGE mistake to let the same people that got us here continue to lead our country.

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[LaurieJim]

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

We should never ignore history and thats not what I was saying, Lots0 knows me well enough to understand what I was posting, there are events, many tragic events such as the Holocaust and the Vietnam war that should never be forgotten.

Here is a video I thought you would find interesting Lots0, a friend of mine is in the chopper, its very moving for those that remember or served and shows both sides, I know this is a slight derail on my part but wanted to share neverless.




Laurie

 

[felicie]

felicie, are you having problems discussing politics with the grownups?

Your comment is juvenile and really not appreciated.

To correct your political like twisting of the facts - I blame them all, Democrat and Republican.

I just blame the Republicans more.... because they were in charge when we started two unnecessary wars then the Republicans took a surplus and turned it into the largest debt in our history.

...and now the Republicans are trying hard to finish us off by driving the Country right over the economic cliff... by cutting government spending in the middle of our recovery of the largest recession in our history(caused by Republican's wars, Republican economic policy and Republican caused debt)...

No lots0 I'm just real tired of arguing with you about something you'll obviously never get. have a good one. (and get a sense a humor would you?)

 

[greasemonkey]

I just blame the Republicans more.... because they were in charge when we started two unnecessary wars then the Republicans took a surplus and turned it into the largest debt in our history.

...and now the Republicans are trying hard to finish us off by driving the Country right over the economic cliff... by cutting government spending in the middle of our recovery of the largest recession in our history(caused by Republican's wars, Republican economic policy and Republican caused debt)...

1). The republicans caused the surplus however, don't forget that. It was the Republicans that caused the balanced budget act. They forced it down Clinton's throat. As a matter of fact he vetoed it a few times before having a political gun put on his head by the Republicans to finally sign it. He was vehemently against it but now somehow gets credit for balancing the budget that the republicans had to force him to sign against his will.

2). Aside from the Military spending, which I happen to agree with you on Lots0, most all of the other spending increases were brought about by the Democratic congress after 2007. Democrats gained a 233-198 majority in 2007. Prior to that there wasn't the enourmous complaints about the economy.
Now Lots0, I will not be defending GWBush's every fiscal policy... clearly there were issues, but he wasn't a true CONSERVATIVE either. He may have been Republican but he was a big govt., big spending Republican... not a conservative. I would never back McCain either. That isn't the point. All of them are wrong just as the Democratic platform is wrong now. Higher taxes, more govt = worse economy, restricted growth, more unemployment.

3) Govt. spending prolonged the Great depression. govt. spending now is doing the same. You cannot cripple an economy by stopping social spending. You CAN cripple an economy by employing more govt. spending. That spending comes directly out of tax payers pockets. IT allows for less spending and buying... Less expanding of business and less jobs... less investing, less money in circulation...etc,etc... Govt. spending does not stimulate because it is less money to be spent in people's pockets.

4) The Democrats voted for the war as well. it wasn't just republicans although many of the spineless politicians would like to rewrite their stance now.

 

[jod5413]

Laurie,

Your video was really touching, but a bit simplistic. I wish our government could be so black and white, but....it is not. Too many greedy and pompous fools, to many starry eyed beginner politicians, too many sociopaths in government. Too much greed.

I truly hope my country can survive and clean up the mess and eventually prosper, for all of our citizens, not just the top echelon of the population.

It takes all of us, no matter what our beliefs, to compromise and support the kindest solutions to our country's ills.

Or, you could just go to the neighborhood bar and get chit-faced on tequila!!

 

[LaurieJim]

Laurie,

Your video was really touching, but a bit simplistic. I wish our government could be so black and white, but....it is not. Too many greedy and pompous fools, to many starry eyed beginner politicians, too many sociopaths in government. Too much greed.

I truly hope my country can survive and clean up the mess and eventually prosper, for all of our citizens, not just the top echelon of the population.

It takes all of us, no matter what our beliefs, to compromise and support the kindest solutions to our country's ills.

Or, you could just go to the neighborhood bar and get chit-faced on tequila!!

Are you buying the first round Jod ? If so I say lets get chit faced, you can keep the worm


Laurie

 

[jod5413]

Are you buying the first round Jod ? If so I say lets get chit faced, you can keep the worm


Laurie

After a couple or three drinks, that worm tastes purty darn good!!

 

[slotplayer]

Technically, the recession is long over, however, with the rise in oil another one is just around the corner.

I liked the video. Like the song even more, been singing it ever since I heard it earlier tonight.

Too many greedy and pompous fools, to many starry eyed beginner politicians, too many sociopaths in government. Too much greed.

It a hugely greedy, selfish society. Next generation is even worse.

 

[felicie]

After a couple or three drinks, that worm tastes purty darn good!!

I'm in I'll buy. After a couple or three drinks, Anything tastes purty dam good.

 

[felicie]

We should never ignore history and thats not what I was saying, Lots0 knows me well enough to understand what I was posting, there are events, many tragic events such as the Holocaust and the Vietnam war that should never be forgotten.

Here is a video I thought you would find interesting Lots0, a friend of mine is in the chopper, its very moving for those that remember or served and shows both sides, I know this is a slight derail on my part but wanted to share neverless.




Laurie

Thanks Laurie - Have a blessed Easter

 

[BBKPoker]

What is to be compassionate about? Roughly half of US citizens pay ZERO or NEGATIVE taxes.... Negative taxes are when you actually profit from the tax situation (i.e. get 'back' more than you contributed).

Dunno what else to say other than that this is a completely incorrect distortion of reality, especially because you aren't even getting your qualifiers correct, so allow me to correct you.

About 46% of households have NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX LIABILITY. This is a very big difference from the approximately 10% of households that have what you are attempting to claim from reading your posts which is that they pay NO NET FEDERAL TAXES.

The reason why is because the lowest income earners have salary/income increases that do not keep pace with inflation. As a result, most poor families generally pay more in payroll taxes (something you are completely ignoring) than they receive in benefits such as the Earned Income Tax credit (which I already posted extensively about). In fact, 75% of Americans pay more in payroll taxes than they do in federal income tax, for the vast majority of working America it is one of the most substantial taxes you will pay during the year.

When you are referring to households that make roughly 35-50k you are talking about the middle class that is supposedly getting this lopsided free ride that apparently is a glaring indicator that the tax system is super broken (and it is, but income tax vs payroll tax isn't the reason). In this income range the income tax rate is an average of about 3%. If you begin to look at the other federal taxes a household pays though this is hardly the picture. The payroll tax rate is currently 9.5%. There are gas taxes, excise taxes and corporate taxes on investments which puts us over 14% in federal taxes and that is before you even begin to talk about state and local taxes (sales, property, schools etc). And then there's the complexity of about tangential issues such as differentiation in discretionary income among different income levels and how that qualifies. You can't just pull an excel sheet and talk about numbers completely out of context, especially when the numbers/stats you are quoting are incorrect and ignore the federal payroll tax which is the biggest burden for the vast majority of Americans. I'm sure it sounds very nice as a soundbite though.

Seriously though, pretending that the payroll tax doesn't exist and claiming half the country pays no net federal taxes is completely and utterly wrong on its face.

 

[BBKPoker]

What is to be compassionate about? Roughly half of US citizens pay ZERO or NEGATIVE taxes.... Negative taxes are when you actually profit from the tax situation (i.e. get 'back' more than you contributed).

Quoting your incorrect assertion before you edit it, because this statement is as laughably false as the statement lotso made that you were raking him over the coals for re: the income levels of the top 1% of earners.

 

[lots0]

...Govt. spending prolonged the Great depression.

Where did you get that from?
Every historical source, including the financial ones ALL disagree with that statement.
The "New Deal" saved this Country... and that was all government spending.

Besides, without the "New Deal" we would not have a Highway System, National Power Grid (the first in the world), access to National Parks and over 100,000 miles of paved roadways.... Ya that Government spending is really 'bad'...

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.