How the "takers" voted [W:287]

[obvious Child]

re: How the "takers" voted [W:287]

If you are really concerned about that 47% not paying income tax then it is simple how to fix it:

Let the Bush tax cuts expire
Eliminate the standard deduction
Eliminate exemptions
Eliminate the child tax credit
Eliminate the Earned Income Tax Credit
Make AMT rules the standard rules
Make all social security taxable
Make all muni bonds taxable
Make combat pay taxable

A significant number of people don't pay income taxes purely because of the Bush-Obama tax cuts. So in many ways, those not paying taxes for that reason should vote Republican because it's Republicans that are the cause for why they pay no income tax.

You cannot reasonably complain about people not paying income taxes and then support the extension or even further reduction of income taxes.

 

[Missed AB]

re: How the "takers" voted [W:287]

If you are really concerned about that 47% not paying income tax then it is simple how to fix it:

Let the Bush tax cuts expire
Eliminate the standard deduction
Eliminate exemptions
Eliminate the child tax credit
Eliminate the Earned Income Tax Credit
Make AMT rules the standard rules
Make all social security taxable
Make all muni bonds taxable
Make combat pay taxable

A significant number of people don't pay income taxes purely because of the Bush-Obama tax cuts. So in many ways, those not paying taxes for that reason should vote Republican because it's Republicans that are the cause for why they pay no income tax.

You cannot reasonably complain about people not paying income taxes and then support the extension or even further reduction of income taxes.

To be honest, I think you have a valid point. However it is missing some important components. The government must balance the budget and taxes are to be adjusted for government demand for money. I would suggest what you wrote, eliminate all tax loop holes, deductions, treat all income the same for every dollar over the poverty line for everyone.

Remove the automatic tax deduction and require the tax payer to write a check every month. Your take home pay would be your salary, and it would be your responsibility to pay the government for these services.

When people realize how expensive government is, now that they need to pay for these once free services and write a check to the government for taxes, they will demand smaller government. It will be painful, but it may be the best approach for the long term security of this country.

 

[TurtleDude]

re: How the "takers" voted [W:287]

If you are really concerned about that 47% not paying income tax then it is simple how to fix it:

Let the Bush tax cuts expire
Eliminate the standard deduction
Eliminate exemptions
Eliminate the child tax credit
Eliminate the Earned Income Tax Credit
Make AMT rules the standard rules
Make all social security taxable
Make all muni bonds taxable
Make combat pay taxable

A significant number of people don't pay income taxes purely because of the Bush-Obama tax cuts. So in many ways, those not paying taxes for that reason should vote Republican because it's Republicans that are the cause for why they pay no income tax.

You cannot reasonably complain about people not paying income taxes and then support the extension or even further reduction of income taxes.

you are correct. no one should have more taxes until and unless the government drastically cuts its wasteful spending and that proves the revenues are not enough. But we need to scrap the current system that allows the many the power to vote up rates of others.

 

[rjay]

re: How the "takers" voted [W:287]

you are correct. no one should have more taxes until and unless the government drastically cuts its wasteful spending and that proves the revenues are not enough. But we need to scrap the current system that allows the many the power to vote up rates of others.

Or vote down rates, particularly when the country is at war. Giving ourselves a tax-break at a time we all should be sharing in the pain of going to two wars was immoral. Two wars that the vast majority supported. Instead of sharing the pain as a country, we decided that only those in the Service, and their families will feel the pain.

Sure, we will clap when we see men in uniform, we will shout slogans like "I support Our troops", and "Thanks for your service", hell, we will even buy bumper stickers. The main thing is we get our tax cuts so our lives can go on. No sense letting two wars inconvenience our lives in any way.


Remember in the old days when we as a country went to war. The whole country shared in the sacrifice. Boy glad those days are behind us.

Lets enjoy our Bush tax cuts.

 

[jwzg]

How the "takers" voted

We shouldn't have been at war in the first place.

 

[jwzg]

How the "takers" voted

Ya but you kind of equated those making less than 50k a year to those who live off the government, I didn't follow how the two groups are the same.

Because many of those get back more than they pay in taxes.

 

[rjay]

re: How the "takers" voted [W:287]

We shouldn't have been at war in the first place.

In Afganistan? In Iraq?

You may be right. The point is, at the time, both of those wars had the vast majority of American's support. The vast majority of Americans should have been willing to take a tax hike to support those wars. Instead we took a tax cut and went on with our lives. The main thing is that we could cheer from the sidelines but other than that it had no effect on our lives. Perhaps if we all felt the pain a little, it may make us a little more cautious before we jump into future wars.

 

[jwzg]

How the "takers" voted



http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1612182046/deaandtaxpos-20

I'm not trying to sell this, but it makes a great case for the fact that we are all takers and none of us are willing to give up what we can't afford.

We are not under-taxed. We are over-governed. As soon as the libtards and conservatards figure it out, the sooner we can solve this problem.

 

[X Factor]

re: How the "takers" voted [W:287]

And you used race, not education, or facts to counter it, douche.

And you used race, not education, or facts to counter it, douche.

I didn't bring up ethnicity dip****. Leave it alone and move to another subject besides race and ethnicity and I will. Race and ethnicity have nothing to do with level of education, and it is racist to think otherwise.

And if you're gonna make a dumb claim about ethnicity at least get a clue about what you are talking about:

http://www.air.org/files/AIR-NCESracial_stats__trends1.pdf

The trends all show that black people are getting smarter, while white people are getting dumber. So stop with the ethnic crap, it is racist and is something worth reporting you to mods for being a total douche with no facts to back up your claim.

Let's see. You call TurtleDude names four successive times then threaten to report him. Are you attempting to illustrate that trend you're talking about? :lol:

 

[Wiseone]

re: How the "takers" voted [W:287]

Because many of those get back more than they pay in taxes.

So that's how we define "living off the government?" Getting back more in benefits than one pays in taxes? So for example if a family made 50K a year, paid lets say 2K in taxes but received 2.5k in benefits they are now "living off the government" the rest of their income beyond that 500 dollar difference doesn't count? Seems extremely unfair to me, and it also places me in that category of living off the government.

And I still haven't see any actual source or data for this 50K number you guys are throwing around.

 

[jwzg]

How the "takers" voted

So that's how we define "living off the government?" Getting back more in benefits than one pays in taxes? So for example if a family made 50K a year, paid lets say 2K in taxes but received 2.5k in benefits they are now "living off the government" the rest of their income beyond that 500 dollar difference doesn't count? Seems extremely unfair to me, and it also places me in that category of living off the government.

And I still haven't see any actual source or data for this 50K number you guys are throwing around.

I'm talking about cash tax refunds...not benefits. I'll bite on the source as I'm one of those who've received as much as $1000 more in refunds than what I paid in with the child tax credit as well as the "making work pay" deduction over the past 4 years. I'm not the only one either.

In addition to that, I receive all the benefits of living under the US government that you do. Liberals and conservatives alike still fail to see the spending-per-person as being evidence that we are ALL receiving more in benefits than what is paid in, and I'm sorry to burst your little liberal bubble, but your precious little proposed tax increases on the rich are only a drop in the bucket compared to our coming deficits and current debt. So, are we all living off the credit of the govt? Yes we are, and the repayment time for that debt is upon us. The question is, do you want to keep voting for leaders such as Obama who continue to sell fairy tales of "change" and "forward" by fomenting class warfare or someone who is going to ask us to sacrifice a lot and quell the social unrest that will result?

Bunch of sheep...

 

[imagep]

re: How the "takers" voted [W:287]

I'm talking about cash tax refunds...not benefits. I'll bite on the source as I'm one of those who've received as much as $1000 more in refunds than what I paid in with the child tax credit as well as the "making work pay" deduction over the past 4 years. I'm not the only one either.

In addition to that, I receive all the benefits of living under the US government that you do. Liberals and conservatives alike still fail to see the spending-per-person as being evidence that we are ALL receiving more in benefits than what is paid in, and I'm sorry to burst your little liberal bubble, but your precious little proposed tax increases on the rich are only a drop in the bucket compared to our coming deficits and current debt. So, are we all living off the credit of the govt? Yes we are, and the repayment time for that debt is upon us. The question is, do you want to keep voting for leaders such as Obama who continue to sell fairy tales of "change" and "forward" by fomenting class warfare or someone who is going to ask us to sacrifice a lot and quell the social unrest that will result?

Bunch of sheep...

Everyone of every income class and every political/economic ideology is a class warrior to someone else.

 

[Wiseone]

re: How the "takers" voted [W:287]

I'm talking about cash tax refunds...not benefits. I'll bite on the source as I'm one of those who've received as much as $1000 more in refunds than what I paid in with the child tax credit as well as the "making work pay" deduction over the past 4 years. I'm not the only one either.

In addition to that, I receive all the benefits of living under the US government that you do. Liberals and conservatives alike still fail to see the spending-per-person as being evidence that we are ALL receiving more in benefits than what is paid in, and I'm sorry to burst your little liberal bubble, but your precious little proposed tax increases on the rich are only a drop in the bucket compared to our coming deficits and current debt. So, are we all living off the credit of the govt? Yes we are, and the repayment time for that debt is upon us. The question is, do you want to keep voting for leaders such as Obama who continue to sell fairy tales of "change" and "forward" by fomenting class warfare or someone who is going to ask us to sacrifice a lot and quell the social unrest that will result?

Bunch of sheep...

What gave you the impression I had that opinion? Perhaps you should argue against me and not the stereotypical liberal you've got in your head.

 

[Marilyn Monroe]

re: How the "takers" voted [W:287]

that claim of yours is as racist as anything I have said. and I have not violated the rules

I was thinking the same thing.

 

[jwzg]

re: How the "takers" voted [W:287]

Everyone of every income class and every political/economic ideology is a class warrior to someone else.

Yes, which is why no one has the cajones to stand up and say "enough is enough".

What gave you the impression I had that opinion? Perhaps you should argue against me and not the stereotypical liberal you've got in your head.

If you don't, you have my apologies. Your reply was coy, and I was calling you out on it.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

re: How the "takers" voted [W:287]

There is no reason even to consider the notion of paying off the debt. For one thing, the people who hold that debt want to keep it. I own a chunk of it, and if I'd wanted it invested somewhere else, I would have put it there. The Chinese are in the same boat. If they had anything better toi do with their dollars, they would have done it and not bought Treasury securities at all.

 

[jwzg]

re: How the "takers" voted [W:287]

There is no reason even to consider the notion of paying off the debt. For one thing, the people who hold that debt want to keep it. I own a chunk of it, and if I'd wanted it invested somewhere else, I would have put it there. The Chinese are in the same boat. If they had anything better toi do with their dollars, they would have done it and not bought Treasury securities at all.

Help me with this and if I'm wrong, I'll stand corrected. By 2025 or so, it appears that we will only be able to afford payments on debt interest and entitlements. Linky Now, you may argue with the source, but your little bit of interest you made on Treasury securities is going to mean exactly jack shi# in this case, and your kids will have to pay the price for our generations' indulgence to boot.

What makes China and other sovereign governments different from you as an individual is that they can leverage their military assets to...uhhh...basically become debt collectors.

 

[imagep]

re: How the "takers" voted [W:287]

Help me with this and if I'm wrong, I'll stand corrected. By 2025 or so, it appears that we will only be able to afford payments on debt interest and entitlements. Linky Now, you may argue with the source, but your little bit of interest you made on Treasury securities is going to mean exactly jack shi# in this case, and your kids will have to pay the price for our generations' indulgence to boot.

What makes China and other sovereign governments different from you as an individual is that they can leverage their military assets to...uhhh...basically become debt collectors.

If China was to attack us, then there would be ZERO chance of them getting paid at that point. We are one of their largest trading partners, I can't see them willing to do that anyway, they need us as much as we need them.

Regardless, the type of securities that they have are not "on demand" type securities. They would either have to sell them on the open market and take whatever they get, or they would have to wait until they gradually expires over a long period of time to cash them in. And I seriously doubt that they would even be interested in purchaseing US debt if they weren't fairly confident that US Treasuries were the safest investment in the world.

As far as your link, we can ALREADY only afford the interest on the debt as we have a budget surplus, so anything happening in 2025 will not be much different than what is happening today.

The link also says "Under that scenario, revenues through 2085 would always stay above the costs of entitlement programs and interest payments on the national debt." So if you are worried about the debt, maybe you should hope that we go off the fiscal cliff so that our government will remain solvent for the next 75+ years. Returning to the last tax rates and spending level that we had a balanced budget under might not be so horrible.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

re: How the "takers" voted [W:287]

Help me with this and if I'm wrong, I'll stand corrected. By 2025 or so, it appears that we will only be able to afford payments on debt interest and entitlements. Now, you may argue with the source, but your little bit of interest you made on Treasury securities is going to mean exactly jack shi# in this case, and your kids will have to pay the price for our generations' indulgence to boot.

No, the kids and grandkids aren't going to pay off the debt either, just as we haven't paid off the WWII debt. Or the WWI debt. Or the last of the Civil War debt. And since I didn't just buy these Treasuries yesterday, they are actually paying what looks like rather attractive interest by current standards. US debt itself is meanwhile a valued and sought after commodity that plays an important role in the domestic and international economies. As nioted, efforts to snuff it all out would be met with considerable resistance.

As for the CBO projections, keep in mind the fine print noting that they were done based on the law as it applied in June 2011 with no changes to that status ever to occur at any point over the next 75 years. So, that's permanent Bush tax cuts, permanent payroll tax holiday, permanent AMT patch, permanent doc-fix, and so forth. Realisitic? And as the fine print also notes, if these laws were allowed to expire as scheduled, there would always be more than adequate revenue to pay for entitlements and interest on the debt. That isn't likely to happen either, but it should help to underscore the fact that projections are mathematical tools and aids, not some sort of physical artifact unearthed by archeologists. Projections can and do bend and bounce around as the result of even rather small changes in initial or continuing assumptions. Hence, the point to take away from the CBO data is not that By 2025 or so, it appears that we will only be able to afford payments on debt interest and entitlements. It is that the short-term steps necessary to combat and recover from the Great Bush Recession will cause problems of their own if they are left to run over the long term, and that we will need to be mindful of that fact going forward. Going forward in the short-run means running a balancing act as we decide how much economic loss we can presently afford to take in order to achieve some measure of fiscal gain.

What makes China and other sovereign governments different from you as an individual is that they can leverage their military assets to...uhhh...basically become debt collectors.

Yes, that's true in toy-soldiers-in-the-playroom world. It's not true in the real world. While China has done the military nasty a few times with small populations in its own backyard, it is not about to adopt the Genghis Khan approach to international economics. For one thing, China has at least $1.1 trillion invested in US government debt and some sort of also impressive amount invested in US real estate and corporate debt and equities as well. The value of those assets will not be improved by attacking them. For another thing, China depends on large trade surpluses with the US to help support the jobs of its emergent urban middle class without whose political support the Communist Party of China would have a much more difficult time remaining in power. Damage to the US economy translates all but immediately into damage to the Chinese economy. The Chinese know this, whether they talk openly about it or not.

Things that actually make national governments different from households would include a taxing authority, a currency-issuing authority, and freedom from the life-cycle curve that ultimately forces the rest of us settle all our debts.

 

[CriticalThought]

re: How the "takers" voted [W:287]

another Guy pronouncement that has no support in the facts. Populist psychobabbling nonsense

God, what a pot calling the kettle black moment if I ever saw one. I don't think I have ever seen you post evidence to support any statement you make.

 

[TurtleDude]

re: How the "takers" voted [W:287]

God, what a pot calling the kettle black moment if I ever saw one. I don't think I have ever seen you post evidence to support any statement you make.

common sense seems to be a foreign concept to the far left--especially big government socialists who want to call themselves "Libertarian" based on the idea that "freedom comes from government handouts"

 

[wolfman24]

re: How the "takers" voted [W:287]

It seems to me the republicans better figure out who the true "takers" are out there.

"States like New Mexico, Mississippi and West Virginia take a lot. States like Oregon and Iowa take fairly little. And then there are the takers in the middle, places like the great state of Virginia, where, from 1990-2009, “the federal government spent $1.44 trillion but collected less than $850 billion in taxes” (source).

Disappointed presidential hopeful Mitt Romney (along with Bill O’Reilly and others on the political right) has insisted that President Obama owes his reelection to the welfare moms and food stamp dads who wanted to be sure their sugar daddy stayed in office so he could keep funneling money away from society’s makers to these shiftless takers.

I thought it would be interesting to see how the real takers in our fiscal union voted. Here’s the breakdown:

President Obama won 26 states plus the District of Columbia. Mitt Romney won 24 states. Of the 27 regions that were won by President Obama, seven (or 26%) are net recipients of fiscal transfers. Of the 24 states won by Mitt Romney, twenty (or 83%) are fiscal takers."

How the

Another example of Con doublespeak. Nice post

 

[Cardinal Fang]

re: How the "takers" voted [W:287]

God, what a pot calling the kettle black moment if I ever saw one. I don't think I have ever seen you post evidence to support any statement you make.

People actually concerned about or in possession of facts and evidence don't often end up as "Libertarian - Right". That's more apt to be Nerf Ball territory, as far as I can tell.

 

[jwzg]

re: How the "takers" voted [W:287]

No, the kids and grandkids aren't going to pay off the debt either, just as we haven't paid off the WWII debt. Or the WWI debt. Or the last of the Civil War debt. And since I didn't just buy these Treasuries yesterday, they are actually paying what looks like rather attractive interest by current standards. US debt itself is meanwhile a valued and sought after commodity that plays an important role in the domestic and international economies. As nioted, efforts to snuff it all out would be met with considerable resistance.

As for the CBO projections, keep in mind the fine print noting that they were done based on the law as it applied in June 2011 with no changes to that status ever to occur at any point over the next 75 years. So, that's permanent Bush tax cuts, permanent payroll tax holiday, permanent AMT patch, permanent doc-fix, and so forth. Realisitic? And as the fine print also notes, if these laws were allowed to expire as scheduled, there would always be more than adequate revenue to pay for entitlements and interest on the debt. That isn't likely to happen either, but it should help to underscore the fact that projections are mathematical tools and aids, not some sort of physical artifact unearthed by archeologists. Projections can and do bend and bounce around as the result of even rather small changes in initial or continuing assumptions. Hence, the point to take away from the CBO data is not that By 2025 or so, it appears that we will only be able to afford payments on debt interest and entitlements. It is that the short-term steps necessary to combat and recover from the Great Bush Recession will cause problems of their own if they are left to run over the long term, and that we will need to be mindful of that fact going forward. Going forward in the short-run means running a balancing act as we decide how much economic loss we can presently afford to take in order to achieve some measure of fiscal gain.


Yes, that's true in toy-soldiers-in-the-playroom world. It's not true in the real world. While China has done the military nasty a few times with small populations in its own backyard, it is not about to adopt the Genghis Khan approach to international economics. For one thing, China has at least $1.1 trillion invested in US government debt and some sort of also impressive amount invested in US real estate and corporate debt and equities as well. The value of those assets will not be improved by attacking them. For another thing, China depends on large trade surpluses with the US to help support the jobs of its emergent urban middle class without whose political support the Communist Party of China would have a much more difficult time remaining in power. Damage to the US economy translates all but immediately into damage to the Chinese economy. The Chinese know this, whether they talk openly about it or not.

Things that actually make national governments different from households would include a taxing authority, a currency-issuing authority, and freedom from the life-cycle curve that ultimately forces the rest of us settle all our debts.

I see where you are coming from. Government Debt and Economic Growth | Economic Policy Institute does a decent job of explaining this.

I don't guess I'm necessarily as concerned with China's use of force by direct confrontation as I am their growing investment in their military and willingness to engage us by proxy. Their biggest need is not capital but resources, which we have in abundance. It's not hard to get our resources when they have us over an economic and military barrel.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

re: How the "takers" voted [W:287]

It's not hard to get our resources when they have us over an economic and military barrel.

They don't actually have us over any sort of barrel at all. China is at best a middle-income country at this point, one with a whole lot of really poor people in it -- the kind who are always on the edge of rebellion. Thanks to long-standing policies of keeping birth rates down, their population is also rapidly aging. They will need to provide major new investments in health care in coming decades while the export-driven growth they have enjoyed is already slipping from peak levels. Militarily, they are 30 to 50 years behind us, and where we spend nearly 5% of our much larger GDP on the military, they struggle to spend 2% of theirs. The best they can hope for is to become a regional power, but there are others such as Japan, India, Vietnam, Korea, and Australia who will not be entirely welcoming of such an idea. China is a very big country, and after fumbling about for rather a long time, the country has made some major strides. But many problems, issues, and obstacles remain in her path. The notion that China can behave as some sort of international dictator is not realistic.