Sorry, Obama: The tax code is already more progressive than pre-Reagan

Oh, and as this highlights, if liberals want to close the deficit with tax hikes, it would logically need to fall on those not paying their fair share historically speaking: the lower and middle class

Maybe they’ll gain a taste for cutting spending……

Nah….

• Link
• Report this comment

Of course the tax code is progressive. The real issue, to any lay who has read on the topic, is simply personal income tax rates are too low, as a percentage of GNP, to continue funding the major social projects which all Americans – no matter their station in life – should be entitled to as citizens of a powerful industrialized society. Stop living in the guilded age – we are a mixed-market economy that has the potential to deliver its citizens both liberty and equality, the two should NEVER be framed as mutually exclusive goals.

• Link
• Report this comment

Maybe they’ll gain a taste for cutting spending……

As I’m sure you’re well aware, Jm, we’ve been told repeatedly by another blog host at the AJC that $3.5 T is the new “baseline” federal budget amount, which therefore “proves” that Obama and the Congressional Dems are actually frugal spenders since they’ve “only” increased spending by 1% or so over Bush’s biggest spending year. The fact that a one-time $700 B charge for TARP was included in Bush’s last year in office along with $152 B of stimulus spending doesn’t seem to matter. Somehow, some way, we need to reel spending back to the $2.5 T range if we’re going to make any headway on the deficit/debt.

• Link
• Report this comment

The dirty little secret is……..if you make 100,000 dollars or less…here in Amerika,
counting ALL taxes, the state seizes over 80% of your income.
.
The former USSR got away with confiscating 95% of wages before the people rebelled.
Maybe Obama/RomneyCare will get us to that magic number.
.
One can only hope.

• Link
• Report this comment

Should we eliminate the personal exemption and standard deduction for the 30% of filers making less than $25,000 per year. That should squeeze out enough to cover a piece of Ryan’s next round of proposed tax cuts for the 1%. What do you think, Kyle.

• Link
• Report this comment

It’s all Bush’s fault! Huh? Oops. Sorry Kyle. Thought I was on Bookman’s blog. Must have more coffee….
BTW, good assertion of facts. Can’t wait to see Aquagirl, AmVet and the other libs who haunt these blogs try and dispute/debate. Happy Hump Day everyone.

• Link
• Report this comment

Oops! 41% of returns had AGI’s of less than $25,000. Not 30%. My mistake. Anyway, if we collected another 10 percent from these 41 percenters earnings, that would give us another 69.6 billion dollars to use to fund more tax cuts for the wealthiest with.

• Link
• Report this comment

Can’t wait to see Aquagirl, AmVet and the other libs who haunt these blogs try and dispute/debate.

I guess we’ll have to let them speak for themselves, but all I’ve ever heard is the “It’s not fair” meme repeated over and over, with no real analysis backing it up. Having said that, I hope more and more of the liberal posters find their way over to Kyle’s. No fun preaching to the choir, which is the primary reason I haven’t spent much time here in the past.

Happy Hump Day everyone.

Don’t tell me you’re one of those slackers who only works M-F, dad.

• Link
• Report this comment

bruno, did you read your own post before hitting the submit button?
“Our country was founded on the principle of self reliance”. PLease, I have no interest in getting a history lesson from someone who makes up his own “facts”. Read a history book, get educated, and then get back to me.
Like it or not, Kyleen, the vast majority of the country agrees with the President on this issue of taxing the rich at a higher rate. Every poll I’ve seen indicates exactly that.

• Link
• Report this comment

PLease, I have no interest in getting a history lesson from someone who makes up his own “facts”. Read a history book, get educated, and then get back to me.

You might help your cause if you printed an actual rebuttal to my claim other than making some vague reference to history books. In case you were unaware, we had no federal income tax prior to 1862. It wasn’t until 1913 that we had a permanent income tax in place.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html/

• Link
• Report this comment

Like it or not, Kyleen, the vast majority of the country agrees with the President on this issue of taxing the rich at a higher rate. Every poll I’ve seen indicates exactly that.

And the fact that we’re turning into a nation of freeloaders makes me sick to my stomach……

Out of curiosity, AU Liberal, do you have any pride in yourself whatsoever?? Do you feel good about someone else paying your way in life?? Do you somehow feel “entitled” to others earnings simply because you were born in the same country they were??

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle,

If we charged those making more than 200k an extra 3% of their AGI, we would collect another 58.7 billion and since it would be coming from the wealthiest, Ryan could give it back to the wealthiest and it would be a tax cut that actually paid for itself.

• Link
• Report this comment

Republicans unite and demand legislation making it illegal to earn less than $50,000 per year. Down with freeloaders.

• Link
• Report this comment

What liberal/progressivists have yet to tell us is exactly how much more progressive they think it should be.

I can tell ‘ya…they want it to progress from someone else’s pocket into their own. They’re looking to gain success through osmosis. They’re permeable (full of holes).

schnirt

• Link
• Report this comment

Jam–A little off-topic tidbit for you. The origin of the “Pink Floyd” moniker:

http://news.yahoo.com/video/pink-floyd-name-traced-back-010416022.html

BTW, I saw that you punked out on the Ringo Starr/Todd Rundgren concert. How come?? I’d love to go to Doobie Bros/Chicago concert at Chastain on July 24, but money’s a little tight right now….

• Link
• Report this comment

The graph comparing 1979 to 2009 is more indicative of the massive shift of wealth in resources to the

• Link
• Report this comment

top end of the income bracket more than anything else. What was the max tax rate on the top 1% back then, well over 50% I think. It is far lower now, yet they are still paying a higher burden.

• Link
• Report this comment

Bruno

July 11th, 2012
7:57 am

The dirty little secret is……..if you make 100,000 dollars or less…here in Amerika,
counting ALL taxes, the state seizes over 80% of your income.

TH–Can you flesh that out with some raw numbers?? Sounds a tad exaggerated to me. If we’re going to win the debate on taxes, no need to state obvious whoppers.
——————————————————————————————————————–
.
I supposed that I gave you more intelectual credit than do.
Most Obama progressives can’t get their mind around the concept of “hidden” taxes.
Many Romney progressives prefer to hide this fact/concept.
.
The only obvious “whopper” would be a 20cent one(sans hidden tax)………….vice the 3dollar current one.It works that way with every consumer good.
.
You Must be a Romney supporter.

• Link
• Report this comment

About all I can add is that such metrics are but one measure, and they seem tailor made to appeal to ye olde “47% pay no Federal income tax” talking point, and aren’t terribly constructive in assessing just why it is that wealth disparity is so grotesque in the US.

sfd–I’ve never seen a comprehensive answer to the question of why we have such a large income disparity from top to bottom in our country. As Kyle shows, it’s not primarily a tax issue. IMO, it has more to do with the nature of our increasingly sophisticated technology. More sophisticated workers = better compensated workers. If this is the case, then the only way to stop the trend would be to enact burdensome minimum wage laws which would artificially reward the less sophisticated workers. Either that, or artificially limit the top end by setting maximum salaries.

Do you see that as a viable solution??

• Link
• Report this comment

As the world’s most powerful investment bank Goldman Sachs is no stranger to fighting all sorts of battles, but the city of Oakland, Cailf. is challenging the firm like no one ever has before.

Something to do with taking sides on which way interest rates will go at some point. They call them interest rate swaps. It must take a lot of LaBor to determine where interest rates will be at some point in the future. Then again. Can you just imagine if one party had an unfair advantage in such an arrangement.

What do you think, Kyle. Could such things contribute to income inequalities. We wouldn’t have any of these problems were it not for government meddling though, would we.

• Link
• Report this comment

The only obvious “whopper” would be a 20cent one(sans hidden tax)………….vice the 3dollar current one.It works that way with every consumer good.

Heyward–Can you prove your statement that 80% of all earned dollars from those making less than $100,000 per year ends up in the hands of the state or are you just flapping your gums??
.
You Must be a Romney supporter.

Not really, though I’ll vote for him every day of the week over Obama.

Just so you know, “conservatives” like you who can’t back up their wild assertions do far more harm to the conservative cause than any Lib could ever dream of doing.

• Link
• Report this comment

Taxes taxes taxes….Do you ever talk about anything else? Besides trashing Obama? Please, tell me how Romney is going to boost the economy through lower taxes and regulation? What a crock. I think the economy is doing just fine thank you. After what Bush and the Repubs did for eight years. I have a job. I’ll take one from your cookbook and say – who cares about anyone else?

• Link
• Report this comment

Wow! You’ve got the libs on the run with this article, Kyle! Good one!

40 comments since I started to form this post, and of the few libs who dared to come on board, Inciteful posts pure nonsense and deflection, AmVet posts his usual “plutocracy” one-note, and none of the rest have a single, solitary rebuttal to your column.

Of course our tax code is progressive. The libs are just not going to tell you it isn’t progressive enough after reading your latest round of facts.

• Link
• Report this comment

Bruno

July 11th, 2012
8:41 am

The only obvious “whopper” would be a 20cent one(sans hidden tax)………….vice the 3dollar current one.It works that way with every consumer good.

Heyward–Can you prove your statement that 80% of all earned dollars from those making less than $100,000 per year ends up in the hands of the state or are you just flapping your gums??
——————————————————————————————————————————
.
I’m not a “conservative” . At least in the definition that the Republican party claims.
And I don’t have to “prove” the concept of “hidden” taxes.
It’s self evident.
Some people just don’t have the intellectual capacity to grasp it.
I say this respectfully.
.
Trace the ingredients of every 3dollar Burger King whopper. From the tomato fields of south Florida to the chicken farms of Georgia for the special sauce.Factor in ALL taxes for every operation for every ingredient.You will arrive at a 3 dollar one vice a 20cent one.
.
counting the above mentioned “hidden” taxes,state,local,sales,property,excise,import,various mandates/ponzi schemes,insurance scams,etc………………………….it easy to see 80%+ of your income going to taxes.
.
I thought that you were some kind of math genius?

• Link
• Report this comment

A couple of inferences here….

1) Clearly, as some like to tout, the rich don’t pay nearly all the taxes paid in this country.

2) Yippee, we have gotten better over the years, not good enough but better. People that make large sums should pay equitable taxes. The hedge fund managers making millions should pay standard income rates, capital gains taxes should be restructured to encourage long term (5+ years) and direct equity investments and those keeping offshore tax shelters should be exposed.

3) The distribution isn’t the real issue…the problem is that we have cut taxes to the 15% of GDP range and that’s not enough. It needs to go to 21% or so per the Simpson Bowles standard.

• Link
• Report this comment

“And most middle and lower class Republicans don’t seem to care one iota.”

Because unlike liberals, they don’t wallow in wealth envy.

• Link
• Report this comment

President Obama is….. proposing that everyone receive a continuation of the Bush tax cuts on the first $250,000 of their incomes. Any dollars they earn in excess of $250,000 will be taxed at the old Clinton-era rates.
Get it? Everyone is treated exactly the same. Everyone gets a one-year extension of the Bush tax cut on the first $250,000 of income. No “class warfare.”

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/10/the_truth_about_obamas_tax_proposal/

• Link
• Report this comment

Declared income in the US? Lets take Romney for an example of someone who doesn’t pay taxes. His off shore accounts are said to be 100 million dollars. He does not declare this money on his federal income tax, thus if all rich did that the 13.4% might look more like 50% of pretaxed income. So more than half his income is not reported nor is it taxed, especially by the US. And on his declared taxes he is paying less too than the rest of us.

How much more money is going out of the country now than in 1979 since much more of it is in the hands of the 1%. We have people now just up and not only putting their money out of the country but themselves. Many like this lady, Denise Rich, that just left for Europe leave after they have no productivity left which this country guards better than any in the world and only have their spoils. The rich treat their country about like they treat their spouses. And then they try to get out of any support.

• Link
• Report this comment

JohnnyReb, you are wasting good invisible ink trying to explain S Corps to the bedwetters, have tried for the past few years to no avail. They cannot comprehend how a small business works let alone how taxed we already are. I guess that comes from living off the government teet their whole lives, be it via employment or welfare.

• Link
• Report this comment

That the owners of those businesses usually have their company setup as an S-Corp, which means business income flows to their personal tax return.

JohnnyReb–No matter how you slice it or dice it, ALL corporate taxes end up being a form of double taxation since all of the employees and shareholders end up paying taxes on the monies they receive in salary and profit. Ditto for capital gains taxes. Moneys used by investors have already been previously taxed.

The question becomes how many times should we keep taxing the same revenue?? Somehow this point is never addressed when the issue of “fairness” is raised by the Lefties.

• Link
• Report this comment

“How much more money is going out of the country now than in 1979 since much more of it is in the hands of the 1%. We have people now just up and not only putting their money out of the country but themselves.”

Smart people might just take a look at the chart Kyle showed and understand WHY people are moving their money and themselves offshore.

Might be why high earners are abandoning NY state and Maryland with their high-income surtaxes.

They are all living proof of the old adage, “At some point, you’re going to run out of other people’s money”.

• Link
• Report this comment

I am with Bruno, all you will hear from the lefties is “fairness”. They will not define what “fair” is, but they claim to know it when they see it. That is the one trick pony that Oblamer depends on to get reelected, decry the unfairness in America.

The used to long for a fair chance at opportunity, but that has not worked out so well, as the prepared and dedicated continue to reap a larger share of the pie, so they now want fairness of outcome, so they do not have to compete.

Yesterday, just about every lefty poster said something about Romney’s flip-flops and or his changing positions over the years. Here is the biggest flip-flop of all time, IMO.

In 2010, when the growth rate was something like 3.8%, Oblamer said it was not a good time to raise taxes on anyone, as we were in an economic crisis.
In 2012, when the growth rate is less than 1.5%, Oblamer wants to raise taxes on people making over $250,000.

Sounds like the Flip/Flopper is occupying the WH.

• Link
• Report this comment

His off shore accounts are said to be 100 million dollars. He does not declare this money on his federal income tax, thus if all rich did that the 13.4% might look more like 50% of pretaxed income. So more than half his income is not reported nor is it taxed, especially by the US. And on his declared taxes he is paying less too than the rest of us.

GT–You have a good point, but one that isn’t echoed by your Lib Congressmen who are in the position to actually do something about it by changing the law. Why?? Contrary to popular misconception, a substantial percentage (perhaps a majority) of the wealthy in this country are actually Democrat voters. As such, the Dems get a lot of mileage out of demonizing the rich without actually changing the rules of the game. We all saw that clearly with their renewal of the “Bush Tax Cuts” in Dec 2009 after spending the two previous years railing against them.

At some point, some of you Libs should consider making your elected leaders put their money where their mouths are. Until then, they’re playing you for fools.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXGa__ECvnM

• Link
• Report this comment

I am with Bruno

Rafe–My above song inclusion is dedicated to you ^^^^^^^^

• Link
• Report this comment

As Kyle’s chart CLEARLY shows, the top 40% of people earn 70% of the income and pay over 86% of ALL taxes.

Tib thinks the top 40% of American earners are the rich?

• Link
• Report this comment

“the cons don’t allow facts to get in the way of their precious ideology”

Brought to you by the dedicated minions of the Party of Bill Clinton, 0bama, Blago, Eric Holder, et al – you know, those people that don’t let facts (or ethics, or the rule of law, for that matter) get in the way of the Party ideology.

• Link
• Report this comment

Hey I’ve got an idea!

Let’s increase the pentagon’s budget. Oh say to a trillion a year? Will that make the world respect us again? LOL!

But sadly, we’ will have to pretty much eliminate the federal government to pay for it.

Which will thrill BP et al.

(No more cops to watch them!)

Long live the plutocracy! (The one that Doomy thinks doesn’t exist.)

Rafe, so?

You think I like it that GE is a mega-parasite?

That is your bag.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Yep, that’s right tib, YOU pay more in federal withholding taxes taxes every single year than they do. COMBINED!

Howz that make you feel? Special? LOL.”

Exhilarated, AmVet, exhilarated. Because I don’t give two hoots about what anybody else does, as long as I can take are of me and my own.

And NEVER at the expense of another.

You want equality at the point of a gun, go to a Communist country – oops! I forgot – there aren’t any successful ones around, are there? I wonder why that is . . . ?

You drool of wealth envy in each post you make. Ralph Nader got less votes than the Libertarian candidate did last time around. The support for your ideas and policies don’t even equal 1/10th of the oft-maligned Tea Party support for theirs, and I’ll take their ideas every day of the week and twice on Sundays over yours.

Out of touch doesn’t begin to describe you.

• Link
• Report this comment

Ah, taxes. This ought to test the new civility rules of the blog. Sorry if I disappoint any pugnacious admirers but I’m not sure I disagree with Kyle. Our tax code is quite progressive, Obama wants to raise taxes more for political reasons, and so forth. Lowering the tax burden would of course help everyone, but most of y’all overestimate what proportion is going to your whipping boy “parasites.”

The part I’d REALLY agree with is half of the last line…”if there’s a problem with income inequality in this country.” The attitude that there’s a bunch of leeches living off the top 1% ignores the decline in real wages for the middle class and the general slide towards CEO pay soaring over rank and file pay. It’s not the fault of the tax code but we better figure out a way to address the problem somehow. I’ve pointed out before that our government doesn’t work without a middle class, neither do most societies.

So here’s a bone for the angry folk: We need income redistribution. In conspeak that’s translated as “sending your tax dollars to ‘those people’” and y’all can’t get past that obsession. Not everyone is a top producer, that doesn’t mean it’s a good thing the guy working 8 ours a day is circling the drain. There’s a vast populace between Bill Gates and the Limbaugh stereotype of your section 8 parasite.

• Link
• Report this comment

excuse me, Boeing….

• Link
• Report this comment

Kinda hard to demonize your local Ace Hardware, hahaha, I understand, but could we keep the discussion somewhat realistic?

• Link
• Report this comment

Inciteful, I will refer you to this post, specifically points 1, 4 and 7

http://blogs.ajc.com/kyle-wingfield/2012/07/10/heres-the-deal/

Up your game, son.

• Link
• Report this comment

Inciteful, once again, I am NOT a Republican.

I’m a Constitutionalist. You’re clearly not ready to debate that.

• Link
• Report this comment

Republicans like to complain about the horrors of social security and medicare and how we simply must get rid of those unfunded entitlements yet they never say a word about getting rid of the payroll tax–only the entitlement. Why is that.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Inciteful, once again, I am NOT a Republican.”

What would you is the percentage of times that you do not vote for a Republican?

• Link
• Report this comment

once people have learned that Romney was willing to fire workers and terminate health and pension benefits while taking tens of millions out of companies, they are much more ready to understand that Romney would indeed cut Social Security and Medicare to give tax breaks to rich people like himself.

Rinse. Repeat.

• Link
• Report this comment

If Tiberius isn’t a Republican then that means he approaches every voting booth with plans to vote for the best candidate no matter the party.

Is that true Tiberious?

• Link
• Report this comment

Me a Republican robot? Hardly. I am not a member of the Republican party – never have been, never will be. My vote is based on whoever agrees more with my positions on the issues, regardless of party affiliation.

• Link
• Report this comment

Exhilarated, AmVet, exhilarated. Because I don’t give two hoots about what anybody else does, as long as I can take are of me and my own.

THIS is exactly the thinking behind the pro-crime GOP.

I am NOT a Republican.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

• Link
• Report this comment

oh, and not that I was ignoring this from Bruno–

I’ve never seen a comprehensive answer to the question of why we have such a large income disparity from top to bottom in our country.

I don’t think there is any one simple answer to that. You could go back to the weird compromises we made to form this Republic, wherein a Senate allowed dinky states to wield the same power as well-populated ones, and argue that this anti-small “d” democratic mindset permeated many legislative efforts that followed. But that’s just my birdseye view.

• Link
• Report this comment

Given the discussion about President Obama’s desire to raise taxes on “the rich” — i.e., families earning more than $250,000 a year

As a single mom working 2 jobs if 250,000 is “rich”

God the arrogance of some people.

• Link
• Report this comment

Red Herring ::
“”"”good job kyle… liberals will never admit to these facts however….they want the free stuff. we have reached the point that they can outvote us by pandering for votes via not enforcing laws, suing states that try to enforce them, etc”"”"

Lets see the ultraliberal George W gave seniors on Medicare free drugs with no funding source and Medicare Advantage that included free gym memberships and other goodies. Think seniors will give up this ultra liberal give away for the sake of the US budget under Romney or the Tyan budget???

Also a liberal governor of Massachussetts got together with Ted Kennedy to bilk Medicaid out of 8 and half billion dollars of waivers for excess payments to Massachusetts so it it could provide free health care to all who could not afford private insurance. I am sure if elected Romney will end that give away.

A certain Republican icon who was president in 1986 passed legislation to provide free emergency room care to all including illegals with no funding source. I am sure Republicans are ready to cut that along with nonpublic funded Obamacare.

• Link
• Report this comment

nitpicky point, but I feel I gotta make it:

President Obama’s desire to raise taxes on “the rich”

I see many cites to “the rich” in news/opinion pieces, generally from the right.

I have not yet seen any specific stump speeches where President Obama actually uses that phrase to describe people earning above 250K per year.

Just seems kind of dishonest to put “the rich” in quotes, if the President isn’t actually calling this demographic by that (apparently slanderous?) name.

(Then again, maybe the President *is* saying this, and I’m just missing it, in which case I’ll gladly play Emily Litella here. But what I usually hear is “the wealthiest Americans”, or suchlike.)

• Link
• Report this comment

Ok, I’m off to convince illegal immigrants they should risk incarceration and deportation so they can do something that will have zero positive influence on their lives: vote!

• Link
• Report this comment

fair and balanced, why don’t you approach 2012’s problems with CURRENT points.

All you’re doing is providing more deflection by not even discussing what CURRENT politicians have for solutions to CURRENT problems.

We live in the present, fair and balanced. You should try it, too.

• Link
• Report this comment

Not completely true, AND you know it.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle, the rich have access to legal tax dodges, which the middle class and poor do not.

You forgot to mention this. I guess it just slipped your mind, right?

• Link
• Report this comment

“If Tiberius isn’t a Republican then that means he approaches every voting booth with plans to vote for the best candidate no matter the party.

Is that true Tiberious?”

ABSOLUTELY, Finn! You finally get me!

Took you a while.

• Link
• Report this comment

“it’s really American to avoid paying taxes, legally,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (Republican)

• Link
• Report this comment

Steven–In case your chart-reading skills are a little rusty, the first two entries, i.e. the top 1% and the top 10%, are repeated in the “Highest Quintile” entry. Since these two groups are counted twice, the total doesn’t = 100%.

Remove the first two entries and the first column totals 101.5 and the second column totals 99.3

• Link
• Report this comment

And we all know that the United States Supreme Court is utterly and forever infallible.

(Except that traitorous Chief Justice! LOL)

Grow a spine and help us reclaim OUR sovereignty back from the corporate owned territory called Washington DC. Or better yet, just keep cowering and get out of the way.

Occupy that.

I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country. ~Thomas Jefferson

The man was obviously no neocon…

• Link
• Report this comment

Look at your dwindling tax-collections.
Viva la Revolution—————————————

‘Every election season America is presented with a series of false choices. Should we launch preemptive wars against this country or that one? Should every American neighborhood live under this social policy or that one? Should a third of our income be taken away by an income tax or a national sales tax? The shared assumptions behind these questions, on the other hand, are never cast in doubt, or even raised. And anyone who wants to ask different questions or who suggests that the questions as framed exclude attractive, humane alternatives, is ipso facto excluded from mainstream discussion.

And so every four years we are treated to the same tired, predictable routine: two candidates with few disagreements on fundamentals pretend that they represent dramatically different philosophies of government.
.
Ron Paul

• Link
• Report this comment

The point you MISS about Jefferson, AmVet, (and why am I NOT surprised about THAT) is that Jefferson wouldn’t have ever DARED to use the power of Government to accomplish that statement, but rather, the combined power of the INDIVIDUAL, always striving to succeed ON THEIR OWN to do so.

Context is so important when discussing concepts, rather than cherry-picking quotes.

• Link
• Report this comment

Was Jefferson a nice guy when you met him?

• Link
• Report this comment

“where you will NEVER spend all the money they have ”

And you know this – how – jefferson?

Do you know Romney’s plan for his wealth when he passes away?

Please, jefferson. Enlighten us as to Mitt Romney’s estate planning.

• Link
• Report this comment

“If I had tons of money, I would keep it in AMERICAN banks because that’s what a good AMERICAN would do. Tax avoidance at Romney’s level, where you will NEVER spend all the money they have is just plain greedy, AND that is a character flaw.”

Maybe that is what you would do.

But you would not have tons of momey for long.

Inflation would whittle away at your principle, leaving you reduced purchasing power every year. On top of that you will be asked to pay taxes on the interest you earned which does not even match the rate of inflation.

Then, the bamk will take those funds you have given them and make poor decisions on who should get the loans, becasuse it was so easy to acquire the money to make the loan in the first place. They will not worry about defaults because the government will be there to step in and make things whole.

Then your taxes will climb higher as you are the one with the money, so you will be the one to make folks whole, as the government produces nothing.

But at least you will be able to look down upon others, who tried to do more with their assets than lend them to folks who make bad choices.

• Link
• Report this comment

Gee, and I was so hoping for Inciteful and Uh Oh to apologize to me after falsely claiming I was a Republican due to my voting patterns.

I’m crushed . . .

• Link
• Report this comment

The point you MISS about Jefferson, AmVet, (and why am I NOT surprised about THAT) is that Jefferson wouldn’t have ever DARED to use the power of Government to accomplish that statement, but rather, the combined power of the INDIVIDUAL, always striving to succeed ON THEIR OWN to do so.

An on the spot, made up out of thin air, unsubstantiated theory. And as compelling and convincing as blaming sunspots to “explain” climate change.

And why you NEVER show your work. Not the first quote – from him or anyone else about him – or otherwise verifiable piece of evidence, data, fact, etc…

Your opinions are not facts.

That you side with the monied corporations over our government, that you would like to crush (or at least drown in bathtub) is the key point…

Long live the United Corporations of America!

• Link
• Report this comment

AmVet, you come on he every day and blast Romney, but you claim not to like the Flip-Flopper in Chief either, so just to add a little humor to this blog, please tell us for whom you intend to vote.

I don’t think, Unsafe at Any Speed, is running this time. Is it Gary Johnson, Cynthia McKinney, or are you writing in someone?

• Link
• Report this comment

He who governs least, governs best. Thomas Jefferson

• Link
• Report this comment

Off topic: House is voting today for the 31st time to repeal Obamacare. The 1st 30 times were votes to repeal part or all of the new law that was ruled constitutional a few weeks ago.

What a waste of time, but if it riles the base and gets talk radio going as well as a few columns written, what the heck.

• Link
• Report this comment

What liberal/progressivists have yet to tell us is exactly how much more progressive they think it should be.

They won’t, but I will: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

In short: Progressives want to take all your money, and give you back what they determine you need.

• Link
• Report this comment

See that is the problem- any health care solution passed by a Republican cannot possibly be seen as a budget buster. Now if Obama agreed to give free drugs to the elderly and gym membersjps to get reelected the right would be going beserk. If he agreed to pass eight and half billion dollars of excess and unreimbursed Medicaid to fund Romneycare, SCOTUS would tell him its unconstitutional and if he gave free emergency room care to illegals he would never get past Congress and never reelected.

You made my point Tiberius -nonissue if Republicans give away free health care with no source of funding. Don;t even expect Romney to solve the problem caused by other Republicans and himself as governor. I am glad there are more important issues.

• Link
• Report this comment

Liberals don’t understand.

They think there is something they can state, print, put on TV, lie about, promise that won’t come true, etc. that will somehow sway voters not to go for Romney. There is not.

The voting will be against Obama no matter what comes out, true or not about Romney.

Liberals think Obama tied or ahead of Romney. They will tell you the polls show that. What they won’t tell you, for example, is the latest Washington Post poll showing a tie was the result of polling 9% more Democrats than Republicans. In other words, Romney is up by 9 points.

• Link
• Report this comment

To the extent that our host argues that the president lacks economic competence, I do not challenge. The tone of the essay suggests that a “progressive income tax” is good or desirable, and I disagree with that suggestion.

The “progressive” element of the income tax is the primary cause for the nearly-incredible complexity of the code – due to the multiplicity of rules necessary to keep people from employing the infinite means of “shifting” income to those with lower marginal rates. The essay does not invite competing essays on tax theory, and I suspect we have all hashed out our thoughts on alternative tax bases anyway.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius

One point on Jefferson is that in spite of his much professed reverence for the Constitution, he did an end run around it, so he could pull off the Louisiana Purchase. Like most politicians, he had a bit of the hypocrite in him.

On the subject at hand

I think most, of course not all, would agree the tax system is a mess, no matter where you fall on the political spectrum. In my opinion, we need to start over. Tax all income, earned and unearned, at the same rate, and tax everybody a flat %. Do away with all credits, deductions and subsidies. If two people both make “X” dollars, they both pay “Y” in taxes. Given the mess we’re in now, this would require quite a few years to phase in.

This will, of course, never happen. Too many of the rule makers profit from the status quo.

• Link
• Report this comment

Great post .

• Link
• Report this comment

I suggest you read the collective works known as The Federalist Papers, AmVet.

You mean the ones that you cannot even produce a convincing quote from?

OK…

YOU made a statement about Thomas Jefferson completely in opposition to EVERYTHING known about the man, and you expect us to suddenly believe YOUR OPINION?

Actually that “statement” was a direct quote, straight from the man’s own pen and mouth. But maybe you can show us where it is a forgery, written by an alien form Venus!

Try again and this time come up with SOMETHING.

More LOLs…

• Link
• Report this comment

Hillbilly D, no one is perfect, but Jefferson, with all his faults and 18th century habits, is still a darned sight better than every liberal on this planet – combined!

• Link
• Report this comment

“is still a darned sight better than every liberal on this planet – combined!”

Turning out more drama than a soap opera

Give that man an Emmy

• Link
• Report this comment

Aquagirl-

You mean the way Georgia subsidizes the mass transit in those states via federal dollars?

Or the way Geogia taxpayers pay more in federal taxes than those states do since they pay higher state and local taxes, and those taxes serve as dedudctions, giving them a lower effective tax rate for the SAME amount of income?

Thought so……

• Link
• Report this comment

Aquagirl

Thanks. Interesting to see which states are at the top an how they vote

• Link
• Report this comment

Aquagirl

The problem with your rant, and one of Finn’s favorites, about the Red States receiving more tax dollars than they provide to the Fed government is this. How can a state, with a majority population, of people who are unprepared, poorly educated, and unmotivated, produce enough income to pay a significant amount of taxes. The minority of residents in those states have to work doubly hard to just keep their state on the chart.

• Link
• Report this comment

“the vast majority of the country agrees with the President on this issue of taxing the rich at a higher rate. Every poll I’ve seen indicates exactly that.”

Pretty sad isn’t it?

The “vote your neighbor to go to work and make more money” ideology……..

It will be the demise of this country along with the ignorance that is breeding from within……one had to love a recent interview with revelers on the 4th when asked “who did we gain independence from?”…….and many had no clue……one even said Russia………

Sad…….

• Link
• Report this comment

And I assume paying 15% or less on your taxes when you are worth several hundred million is progressive. Of course that percent is going up under Obamacare to fund the excesses of Medicare passed by the Republicans under Bush with no funding source. Unless someone on the right is proposing another funding source? How about a special tax on the elderly for excess use of the healthcare system?

• Link
• Report this comment

You’re a liar, AmVet, and the worst thing is, you know you’re a liar, but you don’t even care.

OOPS!

Kyle, I believe that a certain blogger is in egregious violation of your Rule #1 – “Anyone who comes onto the blog with personal attacks and little to nothing of substance to say will be banned permanently.”

Also Known as: Ad Hominem Abusive.

A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person’s claim or claims. This line of “reasoning” is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim.

More “statements”…

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. ~Thomas Jefferson

Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. ~Thomas Jefferson

(Thought those Titans of Criminal Malfeasance and Negligence sure do hide behind that giant American flag at 10 Wall Street, huh?)

• Link
• Report this comment

AquaGirl: Not everyone is a top producer, that doesn’t mean it’s a good thing the guy working 8 ours a day is circling the drain. There’s a vast populace between Bill Gates and the Limbaugh stereotype of your section 8 parasite.

sfd: But I do think the upper incomes should be taxed higher, and I think a minimum wage should be set to enable a person to live decently and independently, if they put in an honest 40 hours a week.

AquaGirl and sfd–There are two basic ways to measure wealth (or anything for that matter). In terms of “relative” wealth comparison, there’s no doubt that those at the top live waaay better than those at the bottom. In terms of “absolute” wealth, however, you’re going to be hard pressed to convince me that those living near the bottom are truly suffering in this country. By any objective measure you wish to choose, e.g. housing quality, food and water quality, access to technology, access to education, the “poor” in our country are living extremely well. As a kid, our family of 7 lived in a small house with one bathroom, one rotary phone, and one small black and white TV, and we were considered lower-middle class. Today, even those who are classified as lower class live better than that.

The bottom line is that relative poverty and absolute poverty are two completely different animals. While the former may bother you on a personal level, I’m more concerned with the latter.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Call him by his blog name.”

I did. You must have missed it. My OPINION is that he is lying and that he KNOWS he’s lying.

Now, maybe YOU can follow the rules and actually post on the topic at hand, instead of constantly initiating contact with me, Uh Oh. Rules 1, 4 and 7 directly apply to your posting habits.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tax all income, earned and unearned, at the same rate, and tax everybody a flat %. Do away with all credits, deductions and subsidies. If two people both make “X” dollars, they both pay “Y” in taxes. Given the mess we’re in now, this would require quite a few years to phase in.

Just curious–would you fund FICA/Med this way as well? Or would you continue having a separate withholding tax for those programs alone?

(Full disclosure–I used to support a flat tax, for about a month or two, when then-former-gov. Jerry Brown was kicking it around as a Presidential candidate. I don’t any more, but I can understand the appeal.)

• Link
• Report this comment

When you look at 1979 there are some expenses that didn’t exist back then. You can call them unnecessary but to be a part of society you almost have to have them. Not a tax but an expense is a expense.

Now I pay for Cable TV (basic package), Internet, Cell Phone. I cancelled my land line. In 1979 you were really only paying for a Phone land line.

• Link
• Report this comment

Rafe,

Actually, the top 1% are able to account for almost 1/4 (22%) of ALL income taxes collected by paying only 13.4% of their income. The bottom 10% of the “highest quintile” only account for 16% of all income tax collected while sacrificing OVER 50% of their income.

I’m using Kyle’s numbers here.. If the top 10% pay an average of 36% of their income. This means that the bottom 10% of the highest quintile has to pay an average of 64% to reach an overall quintile average of 50%…

You could bring those numbers closer together and still collect more money… giving relief to the middle class at the same time.

• Link
• Report this comment

I will remind those who continue to focus on someone’s voting habits, and who misrepresent Thomas Jefferson’s beliefs, and center their entire world of blogging around one particular poster, that the topic du jour is posted above by Kyle, and I suggest you people focused on everything else head back to that topic.

So you can follow Kyle’s new rules.

Your attention towards everything else BUT the topic is showing your inability to defend your positions against Kyle’s assertions.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Government big or small has little to do with the economic conditions of our times, it is the private sector that does.”

Huh? That is so far off the mark it is scary……..if gov’t gets too big in relation to what the private sector can bear, the economy goes absolutely nowhere.

Think of it like this Junior (the private sector) has a good job making decent money and is able to enjoy life to it’s fullest (good economy)…….no major bills he can’t handle, trips, entertainment, etc etc. Then he gets the news that Mom and Pop (gov’t) have decided to retire and move in with him and they have limited funds. Junior suddenly has less disposablle income to work with, and that gov’t that just moved in is very opinionated and bossy. Now Junior (economy) isn’t able to live life quite to it’s fullest because of the new obligations………

After about a month, Junior learns that his broth and sister have both lost their jobs and Mom and Pop have invited them to come live with Junior (economy)…..who is the sole bread winner at this point (economy slowing way down now due to excessive burdens of additional obligations).

A month later, brother and sis invite the cousins to come stay as well, and M&P TELL Junior it is ok, as he still has a job and they do not………..

I hope you now get the point of why too big gov’t absolutely has a bearing on the economy, if not…..

• Link
• Report this comment

sfd

I probably would support the same for FICA/Medicare, even though that isn’t how they were originally intended. Both systems have gotten away from the “pension” set-up. I don’t think my idea, which really isn’t my idea anyway, would be without problems. I think it would serve as a sort of “re-set” and then as shortcomings arose, maybe they could be dealt with. Perhaps we’d see that we needed to put some progressivity back in. I think the major problem with the current tax system is the different rates between earned and unearned income. I don’t really know when the difference started or when they became so big. I’d be interested if anybody knows.

• Link
• Report this comment

Quit calling people names

Also stating generic borad brushing such as liberal this, liberals that is not substantive seeing that people of all political stripes come in various shades and no broad brushing will change that or add to the conversation.

Thanks. Now back to the programming at hand

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle

How many individuals would be impacted by a change of those making over 250K?

• Link
• Report this comment

“Anyone feeling trickled on?”

I feel more coming down than I do coming up.

• Link
• Report this comment

Ragnar @ 1039 – are you thinking ‘fair tax’?
then what we would do without all those people in the imperial / industrial tax complex?

• Link
• Report this comment

Taxes should never be greater than 10%! All taxes including state, local, federal and state income, property, payroll, everything included should never be more than 10%, and, that on everyone regardless of their income! From the CEO who makes $1 million or more, to the minimum wage earner, everyone should pay a fair amount, everyone pay the same percentage! What is wrong with our current system is that 50% of the population “does not have a dog in the fight” and pay nothing, actually most of those get a payment from the rest of us! SO WHAT DO YOU THINK THEY WILL VOTE FOR? MORE AND MORE SOCIALIST SCUM GIVING THEM MORE AND MORE THAT THE GOVERNMENT CONFISCATES FROM OTHERS!

• Link
• Report this comment

zeke

Why don’t you ask the low ranking enlisted personnel, many who have out their life on the line for you, who they are voting for this election?

You do know that many of the low ranking personnel fit the same category you seem to demean, right?

• Link
• Report this comment

Taking break so thought I’d check back. Bruno, no, I work however long is required to get the job done. Sometimes its M-F, sometimes its 7/7 depending on what’s going on. Amvet, I used to think you were a receipient of DADT (and you may still have been) and just have an axe to grind, but judging from your absolute lack to see beyond the obvious, conversing with you is pointless, so perhaps you got booted from whatever service you were as a matter of lack of intellect. And no way junior, you don’t scare me in the least. Feel good about yourself if you think I do. Guess I’ll just stick to more intelligent debate with Adam and AquaG. Oh well, back to work. Ammie – you should try it.

• Link
• Report this comment

Just one and I’ll concede that one to you………..

False equivalence. That has nothing to do with the point that I made.

Poor tib says I misrepresent Jefferson by quoting………………. Jefferson.

Three times.

While he comes up with a big fat goose egg by way of factual reply.

Unless two unprovoked personal insults count!

Hysterical.

It seems inevitable.

He is gonna be a three strikes and you’re out kinda guy…

• Link
• Report this comment

military

• Link
• Report this comment

Finn McCool (The System isn’t Broken; It’s Fixed)

July 11th, 2012
9:36 am

So, CEO pay has NOTHING to do with how well a company does. A CEO can drive a company into the ground and then exit with a golden parachute.

And the CONS are ok with this.

I do not think all conservatives are ok with it but what to do about the situation? It seems you are advocating the government needs to step in and right regulations or put caps on pay or whatever. I am totally against this idea. It is up to the owners of the corporation (stack holders). If they do not like what the CEO’s pay and benefits are then they can vote with their pocketbook.

• Link
• Report this comment

“that was always intended as a pay-as-you-go old age *insurance* program.”

And look at it now……..far from a pay-go system, it’s become a coverall system.

• Link
• Report this comment

Alrighty din! I’ve been called worse.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius

You are a name caller and it is prohibited

So spin all you like

Just don’t sue me, bro

• Link
• Report this comment

“In 2009, Americans paid lowest tax rates in 30 years to federal government…”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-2009-americans-paid-lowest-tax-rates-in-30-years-to-federal-government/2012/07/10/gJQAWc5bbW_story.html

• Link
• Report this comment

I think the new rules have upset a certain namejacker. Somebody pass Kyle the can of whoop@$$.

I used to think you were a receipient of DADT

What the hell is that? And is it some kind of intended insult? I was a “recipient” myself because I didn’t have to pick up the slack for gay people who would have been kicked out of our unit if we hadn’t hidden them from the witch hunts.

And seeing as how they served honorably you’re a recipient too. Over a million dollars in tax money was invested in those people’s training, so the benefits go beyond the intangible “willing to serve when so many bigots aren’t.”

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle

Thanks I will check it out. While it may not be relevant to you and your overall point, it would put the numbers in more perspective for me to look at the info you provided along with wages adjusted for inflation over the same period.

Thanks again

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle
Good job

• Link
• Report this comment

If there is a problem of income inequality, and there is a problem of this inequality increasing, what does Kyle suggest to do about it, other than using the progressivity of the tax code?

Mark V–The bigger question is what you and your elected Lib officials propose. I think most conservatives are unconcerned with what the top earners make as long as those in the middle and at the bottom are living comfortably. And, as I stated earlier, by any objective measure you choose, we’re all living pretty well, even with the current economic slowdown.

• Link
• Report this comment

the top capital gains tax rate has almost always been lower than the top tax rate for wage income.

thank you for the chart. I see now that in the early days, capital gains were taxed much lower than the highest income tax brackets.

you pay the tax now to fund retirement and health benefits for today’s seniors, with the implicit promise that younger people will do likewise when you retire — but then again, liberals typically don’t like to acknowledge that, either.

That’s a bizarre thing to post. I’m well aware of how SS is funded, and has been funded throughout its history; my favorite pundits who write about this topic — folks like like Duncan Black, Digby, Sam Seder, and of course Paul Krugman — are well aware too.

• Link
• Report this comment

Thanks Tib

Since you act at times as if you run this blog, it so great to have your blessing

Stop calling people names

• Link
• Report this comment

Lets see the ultraliberal George W gave seniors on Medicare free drugs with no funding source and Medicare Advantage that included free gym memberships and other goodies. Think seniors will give up this ultra liberal give away for the sake of the US budget under Romney or the Tyan budget???

A certain Republican icon who was president in 1986 passed legislation to provide free emergency room care to all including illegals with no funding source. I am sure Republicans are ready to cut that along with nonpublic funded Obamacare.

fair and balanced–Good post @ 9:55. I doubt if it’s much consolation, but there are many of us on the right side of the aisle who are consistent in their views of government giveaway programs, and didn’t just start complaining once Obama and the Dems seized power. Not that they haven’t given us much more to complain about……..

• Link
• Report this comment

ramblin’ off topic a bit–

Any P’tree tees in your closet??

just a couple so far. Used to be a regularly scheduled family reunion would conflict–more recently, I’ve had some application snafus, and haven’t bothered.

I got a little spoiled, in that I had run a qualifier those two years, and was guaranteed to get into a seeded group. They don’t do that any more (or don’t seem to–maybe they’ve changed more recently) and not to sound like a snob, but I’d prefer to be nearer the front than with the more casual folks.

(I mean, as long as I’m capable of doing a sub 50 or sub 55 qualifier, that is.)

• Link
• Report this comment

“Anyone feeling trickled on ?”
——–

No.

Just another example of simple answers to stupid questions. Come up with something original and try again.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle, no comments whatsoever about Tib’s unprovoked personal attacks at 10:51? (read all of the relevant preceding posts and you will agree)

To wit…

People with working brains know you for the intellectually-bereft debater you are.

You’re a liar, AmVet, and the worst thing is, you know you’re a liar, but you don’t even care.

Hmmmm……..

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle Wingfield @ 11:55: Actually, I would say the same back to you. Take it up with the CBO. And practically every economist.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43373-AverageTaxRates_screen.pdf

• Link
• Report this comment

Why aren’t the poor doing more to reduce income inequality?

Probably because they’re satisfied with life as it is, where checks just show up without any effort.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle,

The bottom eleven percent of 2009 returns (or about 15 million returns) covered filers with AGI’s of less than $7000. If Republicans tax their collective AGI’s ten percent, that would give them another 5.5 billion dollars to give to the wealthiest in the next round of tax cuts. Does that sound good to you. That plus the payroll tax that comes out of wage earnings should be enough to appease the one percenters until the following year and then Ryan can do it all again. Death to millions by a thousand tax cuts for the one percent. Is that a plan or what!

• Link
• Report this comment

Page 24 of the above CBO link…the higher your income, the higher your overall tax rate.

Bite it, America-hating, free-market-fearing libtards.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Why is it that some posters cannot stay on the SUBJECT at hand, yet continuously deflect towards asking what another posters PERSONAL information is (Tiberius, that means YOU)”

see your 12:06 then read your 11:43.

Irony goes great on anything. Salads, cereal, toast

But I digress

I’m out

• Link
• Report this comment

What is a “libtard” and how is that relevant to the discussion?

• Link
• Report this comment

The tax code is not the cause of income inequality but it can certainly be utilized to either reduce or increase the effect, much like regulations.

• Link
• Report this comment

You can google “libtard” if necessary, and will instantly understand its relevance. Unless you’re a libtard.

• Link
• Report this comment

Barry

Cease the name calling, NOW

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle

10-4

That is a deal

• Link
• Report this comment

The point being, just looking at those charts that show what states give and get are meaningless if one doesn’t know how the expenditures are distributed.

True, but your dispensation of a pass based on what you think is “good/deserved” federal spending has no basis in anyone else’s reality. The list is notable because most of those net taker states are dominated by the GOP, and specifically the GOP wing that shrieks about the eeeevil imperial federal gub’mint.

Sarah Palin’s ruggedly independent Alaska is probably not in the top 5 because retirees flock to frozen tundra.

• Link
• Report this comment

Do you need a Venn diagram, Uh Oh?

Move on already.

• Link
• Report this comment

Barry

Leave it alone

• Link
• Report this comment

Amvet

Same here

Some street are one way and others are two way. It is all a perspective thing

With that said, I will work within the parameters provided

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle, you keep trying to do economic analysis. . . and failing. Stay to politics and you are on firm ground. I guess I am puzzled by this seemingly masochistic tilt against the windmills of rational thought. As to the merits of your argument, you know you are comparing apples and oranges. The issue is not what % of the taxes are paid by the wealthy but what % of their income. By that measure, which is the one most commonly used by economists (and not just your nemesis, Krugman), the burden has been shifting more and more onto the backs of the middle class. Additionally, what happens to your figures when you add all the state and local taxes which have dramatically increased while the Federal tax burden has decreased? For example, one noteworthy omission in your analysis is the sales tax, which in this country is state and/or local, which is the largest such tax and which is the most regressive.

• Link
• Report this comment

They don’t do that any more (or don’t seem to–maybe they’ve changed more recently) and not to sound like a snob, but I’d prefer to be nearer the front than with the more casual folks. (I mean, as long as I’m capable of doing a sub 50 or sub 55 qualifier, that is.)

sfd–I actually had a good number this year based on last year’s finishing time, but had to start in Group 9 ( sub-group Y) with PB. It was either that or sleep in the doghouse for the next two months. The worst part by far is having to push through all of the walkers. By mile 4, about 90% of the folks out there had given up running.

I have a great chance of “running my age” now that I’m in my early 50s. Good job on the sub-50 minute times!!

A bit off topic, but why do they run a 10k race in the middle of the summertime in one of the hottest places in the nation? Other places do their marathons in much cooler weather.

Wimps!!

• Link
• Report this comment

One of the unintended (though not unforeseen) consequences of the new rules is that several of you think you’re supposed to spend a great deal of time tattling on each other.

Ti, Am and Uh-Oh to the Principal’s office immediately!!

• Link
• Report this comment

I do not believe that re-informing the offenders of the rules and reminding them to get back on topic while not complaining at all to the host about these offenders today comprises “tattling”, Bruno.

Now as to the actual offenders . . .

• Link
• Report this comment

If two people are having an exchange and one accuses the other one of lying

pistols at dawn?

You think I’m joking? Does the AJC have an empty parking lot we can use? This will “take it to the next level”, so to speak.

• Link
• Report this comment

“True, but your dispensation of a pass based on what you think is “good/deserved” federal spending has no basis in anyone else’s reality. The list is notable because most of those net taker states are dominated by the GOP, and specifically the GOP wing that shrieks about the eeeevil imperial federal gub’mint. ”

Why those dollars are spent is the reality…………..

And Alaska has 9 military installations……Delaware has 1……CT has 1………it makes a difference.

• Link
• Report this comment

@Tiberuis…”If he would just move anywhere off of his hard-line positions”

HORSE HOOHEY

-Using the Republican notion of an Individual Mandate is NOT a hard line position
-Offering a debt ceiling deal of $4 in cuts to $1 in revenue increases is NOT a hard line position
-Rolling over on the Bush tax cut extensions is NOT a hard line position
-Offering a $700 billon stimulus package instead of the truly needed $1.2 trillion package is NOT a hard line position

I could go on and on but you get the idea. Now these on the other hand ARE hard line positions.

-”The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president- Mitch McConnell
-What I’ve said about compromise and bipartisanship is I hope to build a conservative majority in the United States Senate so that bipartisanship becomes Democrats joining Republicans-Richard Murdock
-After a minimum of two years of lower spending, THEN, and only then, will I be willing to discuss tax increases.-Tiberius

• Link
• Report this comment

While not complaining to the host………

WOW. Guess running to the AJC and Kyle is not considered the host

But again I digress and will play within the rules to the extent possible

• Link
• Report this comment

It failed in the senate so it is over.

• Link
• Report this comment

I have read at least a 20 comments about “income inequality” on this blog today but with the questions All the talk about taxes or fairness or plutocrats for the inequality. Kyle has debunked the myth about the rich are hosing us with the tax system.

If you libs really want to address and study where the wealth inequities have appeared to rise then you really need to look at the consequences of the single parent families. If you have two people in the home making minimum wage ($7.25) then the household is bringing in $32,000 per year and are in the top 60% of wage earners. $7.25 per hour for one person puts you in the bottom 10%. $7.25 is a beginning wage for people with no job experience and no skills. Two parents by the time they have worked for 5 to 10 years with no skills should be making $10 per hour. This would put the household into the top 40% of households.

What are the chances an unskilled/no education single parent household is ever going to make $20 per hr or more? Even a person with a college degree (in most fields) is going to max out around $20 but if there was another person in that household making $20 or even $10 per hour then the household is in the top 25%. Here is your permanent underclass.

• Link
• Report this comment

Thulsa, I basically agree with most of what you say on % of income. As to 0% tax for low income people, that is income tax and does not speak to the regressively high percent of their income they pay in sales and similar taxes. However, because they have zero Federal income tax and the wealthy pay a reduced % for interest and dividend income, that is why to I referred to an ever increasing tax burden on the middle class.

• Link
• Report this comment

So why sell out the White House to Romney ? He will think he can buy anything with his un-American off shore accounts, used to hide or avoid paying his share. Rather traitorous. Why kind of person would support such a scoundral ?

• Link
• Report this comment

Uh Oh continues to display a shocking insistence on not staying on topic and not posting anything of substance.

Why is he still here?

• Link
• Report this comment

It’s really easy, if you don’t like how this blog is run go somewhere else.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius – pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed

July 11th, 2012
1:04 pm

“CUT SPENDING FIRST. Prove to us that you can. Make it stick for a MINIMUM of two years, and then I’ll gladly talk about tax hikes in certain areas.”

I think most conservatives would agree with you 100%.

• Link
• Report this comment

Did Kyle say “fair share”. That’s so out of character for one that has previously expressed such contempt for the phrase.

• Link
• Report this comment

Bruno- Ain’t that the truth, only when the air is so heavy you can barely breathe it should it be considered a “marathon.”

REPORT: Pelosi made up to $5 million on Asian investments in 2011…

DNC Chair Whackerman Schulz! Invested in Swiss Banks, Foreign Drug Companies, Bank of India…

Know what I mean?

Why would the libs worry over obozo’s tax hike, their money is, uh, elsewhere.

• Link
• Report this comment

“The risk is factored in by the higher potential reward.”

Possibly, but folks would have to weigh that risk against a lower roi is taxes are raised…………

• Link
• Report this comment

@Tiberius…at this point your inane blather is comical…for example

“No one believed that it was a serious proposal except for the President.”

Hummmmm…now who is the guy in charge of making SERIOUS PROPOSAL’S?

“His first sign in over 3 years of being a pragmatist.”

You sound like Murdock…bipartisanship is when they do it your way.

“Stimulus didn’t work.”

If I may paraphrase another blogger…

You’re a liar, Tiberius, and the worst thing is, you know you’re a liar, but you don’t even care.

• Link
• Report this comment

If they don’t cut a deal, the bush tax cuts expire.

The senate failed to pass the President’s attempt to keep the middle class tax cuts so we have to rely on congress to act.

• Link
• Report this comment

Get with the program Finn…..changing the roi equation will invariably change behaviors……it’s the reason money moves from vehicle to vehicle in the first place………

• Link
• Report this comment

I’m trying Kyle, but this guy is just here to be disagreeable (rule # 1) and won’t stay on topic. I warned him any number of times to stop addressing me in off-topic remarks, and he just keeps it up.

This blog will show that I have posted numerous times regarding the topic at hand, and have suggested the same to others.

Not so with Uh Oh.

Why does he get a free pass when he’s just here to be disagreeable and not even get on topic, let alone stay on topic?

• Link
• Report this comment

Aqua – spent a million training. Your source for such figures please.

I’ll give you three letters…DLI. Multiply that alone (not even adding in AIT, pay, or anything else) and multiply by three (that I knew of) and a million is a rough estimate.

I’m not sure why you would have considered any gay people in your unit as “social experimentation” unless you were conducting, um, experiments. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

And I’m really confused by your declaration that teh gay could come flying out in more manly-man dangerous situations. I was obviously never in combat arms but deployed to some questionable places in non-allied countries. Our only concern with butts was getting them home in one piece. If elite all male combat arms guys find combat operations so sexy they can’t control themselves I’ll have to take your word on that. None of the Special Forces guys I knew expressed those opinions, but then they wore pantyhose and Skin-So-Soft on a regular basis. Perhaps they weren’t telling, and I sure as hell didn’t ask.

• Link
• Report this comment

Possibly, but folks would have to weigh that risk against a lower roi is taxes are raised…………

And that’s as it should be, in my view.

The stock exchange creates little or no real investment. Let’s say John Doe buys “X” amount of shares in Coca-Cola, while somebody else is selling. The only people really affected by that are the buyer, the seller and the various brokers, etc. This transaction has zero effect on Coca-Cola, because they sold all their shares ages ago. It’s no different from a poker game.

I’ve never been a gambler and never been to Vegas but from what I understand, if you win big at the Casino out there, you pay taxes on your gain at the regular rate. The two transactions are pretty much the same, in my eyes.

And if you lose, well that’s the price of playing the game. Don’t play if you can’t afford to lose.

• Link
• Report this comment

md

July 11th, 2012
1:26 pm

“Does the inherent dishonesty of your “chart” ever bother you Kyle?”

He posted plenty of links to the source Fred…..do you have some others we need to be comparing it to?
+++++++++++++++++++++

Wow, and I didn’t even see Kyle’s mouth move. The “source” isn’t the problem md. I’m sure it’s impeccable. It’s the logic that is faulty though I’m not at all surprised that you fail to see that.

• Link
• Report this comment

If you have two people in the home making minimum wage ($7.25) then the household is bringing in $32,000 per year and are in the top 60% of wage earners. $7.25 per hour for one person puts you in the bottom 10%. $7.25 is a beginning wage for people with no job experience and no skills. Two parents by the time they have worked for 5 to 10 years with no skills should be making $10 per hour. This would put the household into the top 40% of households.

td–Outstanding point. Glad you’re here on the WIngfield blog as well.

As has been documented numerous times, single parenthood is a net negative for both the parent and the child across the board. In the “old days”, there was a sense of shame associated with it. Starting in the 90s, it has become not only accepted, but darn near glamorized in the popular media. (16 and Pregnant, anyone). In the end, Dan Quayle was right.

Of course, many of these “single moms” aren’t really single, but have a man lurking in the background. They don’t get married on paper in order to collect more government benefits.

(Ducking from flying objects coming from AquaGirl)

• Link
• Report this comment

Wow, md. You really don’t have a brain for investing do you? If someone has a percentage of their cash that they don’t mind exposing to risk with it’s potential rewards, you really think they are going to say “oh, no, taxes are 20% IF I ever sell that investment….I think I will just stick it in the bank to earn 2%.”

This is like the crazy argument that if you have industry regulations, people won’t invest their time and money in that market. I’ve known dogs that were smarter than that.

• Link
• Report this comment

Back to work, but a big Wingfield welcome to Fred!!

• Link
• Report this comment

md would prefer to pay $0 taxes on $0 dollars invested than to earn $1 on an investment and pay 20% on that $1 in taxes.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Wow, and I didn’t even see Kyle’s mouth move. The “source” isn’t the problem md. I’m sure it’s impeccable. It’s the logic that is faulty though I’m not at all surprised that you fail to see that.”

Typical insulting Fred fashion….too funny.

He basically compared data from two periods of time Fred……not much logic to it.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Wow, md. You really don’t have a brain for investing do you? If someone has a percentage of their cash that they don’t mind exposing to risk with it’s potential rewards, you really think they are going to say “oh, no, taxes are 20% IF I ever sell that investment….I think I will just stick it in the bank to earn 2%.””

Your assumptions of what you think I’m referring to does not equate to reality………

Let’s suppose one can find a better deal in another country in this global economy Finn…..with less regulations and less penalty on risk…….you think folks won’t go looking for it as we make changes over here……..

And don’t make up equations and attribute them to me, that just makes you look silly…….

• Link
• Report this comment

Our President asked those who could afford to pay more taxes to pay but it failed in the senate.

If you can afford to buy health insurance like me, stop mooching and pay up.

• Link
• Report this comment

If you don’t watch out the taxes will get crammed down your throat too… look only at rates on income, everything other than that is just trying to look clever.

• Link
• Report this comment

HD…..and it wasn’t too long ago, that many considered land to be a forever increasing asset. The old saying of “they can’t make more land” was the principle behind that………at least now, folks understand that every transaction comes with risk.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius – pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed

July 11th, 2012
1:33 pm

“It’s the logic that is faulty though I’m not at all surprised that you fail to see that.”

Rather than complain, Fred, why don’t YOU explain your disagreement with it?
+++++++++++++++++++++

Show me the “complaint” Tiberius. I’m not a talk radio listener. I require you be honest and address what I say. i don’t answer baseless accusations that obscure the facts.

• Link
• Report this comment

To say corp taxes are not paid by corps is double speak and a lie in fact.

• Link
• Report this comment

Fred @ 1:54

Maybe they meant convict.

Over the years here, I’ve been called everything from a Marxist to a Nazi. It’s amazing sometimes how people view what you say, through their own lens. I’ve found oftentimes, people on both sides read things into what I say, that aren’t really there. Goes with the territory. Besides, it’s too much to ask of anybody, to ask them to understand how my mind works.

• Link
• Report this comment

HD
That’s a holdover from the 19th century when land was the lion’s share of most people’s wealth.

We need to look at fixing that, as well.

I agree, being a landholder, but the only way government ever fixes an inequity is by putting taxes on both. Taxes never go away, just go up!

• Link
• Report this comment

@Tiberius…to answer your first question “how many over $10 million” without stopping to count 15 to 20.

As for your second question

“how many of those negotiations proceeded for MONTHS on less substantive issues being discussed back and forth, when suddenly, a great big change in the proposal was dropped on the table for consideration with just days to go before the negotiating deadline.”

On deals of that size it has happened 4 times…in none of those cases did one party simply walk and in three the deal got done after more work. In the last one it got done 2 years later.

Point is had the Repugs been serious about negotiating they would not have just walked even if, and I am not sure it is true, the revenue side of the equation got bumped by $400 billion on a $4 trillion deal.

• Link
• Report this comment

The fact that the upper quintile is paying a greater share of the tax burden seems irrelevent when you consider they are still paying a lower rate of tax on their income.

DF–How do you come to that conclusion that the upper quintile is paying a lower rate based on the numbers in the chart?? If they pay 67.9 % of the total taxes collected while earning 50.8% of all income, then obviously their overall taxation rate is higher than the other 4/5 of the population.

Doom must have gotten his instructions mixed up earlier. I told him to get some of the more intelligent Lib bloggers over here. (j/k, friend)

• Link
• Report this comment

Rafe

A lot of truth in that but if they are taxing one group and not another, one group will howl and the other remain quiet. If they tax both groups, there’s always the chance that both groups might howl. Sometimes, though not often, howling can bring a little relief.

• Link
• Report this comment

To say corp taxes are not paid by corps is double speak and a lie in fact.

Pure Fox News insanity and gibberish.

You see, I don’t pay taxes either. No one does!

We send them down the economic stream to the people who would otherwise earn our money for products and services.

In this regard, we pass those taxes onto them. And they pass them on to someone else and voila!

Republican Utopia!!!

Nobody pays taxes!!!

Individuals are merely the collectors and re-distributors!!!

• Link
• Report this comment

Honest, you guys rather compare figures than eat. I should say numbers I suppose. But one learns a lot here such as “the deceased are getting unemployment benefits”. Well, they aren’t working, That’s for sure. Pearls of wisdom, right here on the blog.

Oh, thanks, Kyle. I forgot the “jailhouse rules for rambunctious rowdies” last night. No problem. The All Stars were playing.

• Link
• Report this comment

If you don’t know a lie when it is told to you, it is no wonder you would support the GOP.

• Link
• Report this comment

To best way to deal with AmVet is to just ignore him.

• Link
• Report this comment

AmVet @2:06 pure jibberish, BTW, you never told us who you support in this Presidential election. We have heard a great deal about who you oppose.

• Link
• Report this comment

“If you don’t know a lie when it is told to you, it is no wonder you would support the GOP.”

I just explained it to you……if you still have issues, refute the math. it’s a simple equation:

income – expenses = profit

Tax falls under the second one if you need a hand.

• Link
• Report this comment

“If you don’t know a lie when it is told to you, it is no wonder you would support the GOP.”

I’d ask you to debunk anything I’ve stated with alternate knowledge of your own, Jefferson, but that would a wasted effort, wouldn’t it?

Maybe you could tell us how many corporations you’ve run? Companies you’ve owned? Product pricing you’ve been in charge of?

Any of those things, Jefferson?

No?

Nothing to back up your disagreement with my contention?

I’m shocked.

• Link
• Report this comment

“If you don’t know a lie when it is told to you, it is no wonder you would support the GOP.”

Jefferson,

Can you kindly point out the specific lie to which you refer? Please be specific sir.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tib, You’re a liar, and the worst thing is, you know you’re a liar, but you don’t even care. (Huge grin.)

B, the fuddy duddy Rafe voted against music here, so I linked AC/DC’s Rock and Roll Ain’t Noise Pollution for his listening pleasure!

Dance, Rafe. Dance.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle on social security and medicare taxes:
“you pay the tax now to fund retirement and health benefits for today’s seniors, with the implicit promise that younger people will do likewise when you retire — but then again, liberals typically don’t like to acknowledge that, either.”

If that is the case which I do not disagree why would any president and party give seniors free Medicare drugs and gym memberships unless there is an increased source of funding within those two programs?
And why are you on the antiObamacare increase in taxes to fund that Republican created deficit?

• Link
• Report this comment

Can you kindly point out the specific lie to which you refer? Please be specific sir.

Doomy, I have really, really bad news.

Dad has spoken on the matter and this is what he said:

The part about “liar,” however, I see differently. If two people are having an exchange and one accuses the other one of lying, that relates directly to the debate. The accused is of course free to demonstrate why the comment in question was not a lie. While I think it preferable to say the comment was a lie, or to say the person was lying, I am not inclined to treat “you’re a liar” differently.

i.e., inexplicably he puts the onus on the person called a liar to prove that they are not. Instead of the other way around!!! In all adult discourse that I have ever been party to, I have never seen this.

Madness, but what the hell. Let the fun begin!

• Link
• Report this comment

“The tax code is designed to help the wealthy pay a lower percentage.”

The tax code is designed to use social engineering to alter peoples behavior. If your statement was true then Liberal’s wouldn’t be so opposed to a Flat tax.

JMKO

• Link
• Report this comment

AmVet,

Music on a political blog makes about as much sense, as people who complain constantly about government policy, but vote for someone who has no chance of ever influencing anything.

• Link
• Report this comment

I see it’s over YOUR head as well Tiberius. Thanks for supporting my lifestyle. But I do feel honor bound to tell you, the Emperor really isn’t wearing any clothes. You’ll take off the rose colored glasses one day and understand that. Or not. PT Barnum was only correct to a point. Joseph Goebbels seems to have taken it further and FOX and talk radio have shown that Dr. Goebbels was correct. You can fool MANY folks all the time, not just a few. Repeat a lie long enough and they will not only believe it, but defend it with their lives.

But please, keep it up. It’s a good time to be rich……….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuMQjKiaDTg

• Link
• Report this comment

RE: “You can google ‘libtard’ if necessary, and will instantly understand its relevance. Unless you’re a libtard.”

Wouldn’t a post like this be a clear violation of the rules? Given the recent emphasis on civility, how is it that posts like these are allowed to stand and those who make them are allowed to participate?

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius – pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed

July 11th, 2012
1:56 pm

“Show me the “complaint” Tiberius.”

This is too easy, Fred.

Fred ™
July 11th, 2012
1:22 pm

Does the inherent dishonesty of your “chart” ever bother you Kyle?”
++++++++++++++++++++++

Asking a question is a “complaint” to you? Really? Screw English definitions and grammar rules, and rules of logic. Tiberius has spoken. Arbitrarily he calls something a ‘complaint” so it is.

I guess on June 30th had I noted that it was the hottest day in Atlanta’s history that would be “complaining too? Really?

Wow.

• Link
• Report this comment

getalife: “When do we focus on jobs”
———–

Now THAT was laugh-out-loud funny!

Answer: Right after Obozo gets done wrecking our health care system and expanding the entitlement state to cover 51% of voters.

• Link
• Report this comment

fair and balanced, why do you insist on focusing on the failures of the past, when the goal is to solve the problems of today?

We get it. You don’t like Bush or the Republicans of the 2000’s

Move into the present with the rest of reality.

• Link
• Report this comment

@Tiberius…”If you have a steaming pile dropped on your table with a hard two week deadline to go, you have no choice but to walk away, as your opponent isn’t serious about making any deal.”

BTW..the tactic is called “hard bargaining”. The point is twofold first, to establish the lower end of bargaining range and second confirm that the other party really wants to negotiate.

Only those that really don’t want a deal choose to end the process at that point.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius – pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed

July 11th, 2012
2:34 pm

Fred, I don’t care about YOUR lifestyle (or you, really).

Why do you care about anyone else’s, so long as you don’t try to take from me to help others?
+++++++++++++++++++++++

Come on now Tiberius. Stick to the topic and the words i SAY. I know it’s hard for you as you think hyperbole is logic but……………..

I have never said I give a fat rat’s butt about your life style or any one elses. I DID state that the tax system is slanted towards us rich people and that the little chart Kyle bases his whole premises on is disingenuous.

Stick to the topic son. I told you earlier you wouldn’t be able to understand it. Don’t be obfuscating and changing the subject because I was right. Correct on both points actually, your lack of understanding AND the chart.

Now shoo. I’m done with you. You have shown you lack the ability for logical debate. perhaps later Bruno will come on and show me some fallacy in my thought but you have so far shown no ability to do so. I’ll check back in later. Now I have to cook.

Have a nice day and remember Tiberius, I can EXPLAIN it to you but I can’t UNDERSTAND it for you.

Try thinking for yourself. You’ll find it not only fun but also exhilarating almost to the point of intoxicating. Once you free your mind on one thing you’ll find yourself trying to do it on other issues. Before you know it you’ll be a free thinker and be able to laugh at the mindless fanatics on both sides of the aisle. You’ll even be able to debate on issues emotion free just using facts and thought alone. I know that’s a bit down the road for you but I think you might have the potential.

• Link
• Report this comment

Fred, YOU’RE the one arguing tax RATES, when Kyle was arguing tax PAYMENTS.

Maybe you should understand that basic difference first, son.

• Link
• Report this comment

Well, to reduce the deficit we need to increase revenue or cut spending. Duh. The political parties can’t agree on where or how to do either. Spending is always wasteful when it’s a program you don’t like and vice versa. While I believe everyone should feel some small portion of the pinch I for one think the military should be slashed. Big time. We already spend more than 41% of the world’s military budget. Let’s stop being the world’s policeman. Let’s stop invading countries that don’t need invading. Let’s stop occupying Germany and Japan with huge numbers of standing troops; I think they realize they lost the last world war. Heck, we now count them as allies. Even after serious cuts we’d still be the mightiest country in the world and would hardly be defenseless.

But that’s just my opinion. Panic has already set in over a modest 8% cut in the military budget over the next ten years caused by the jointly agreed upon Budget Control Act. Senator McCain has lamented that this is a “budget-driven defense policy.” Well yes, so what’s your point?

As for increasing revenue… well increasing the highest tax rate by letting the highest tier of the so-called Bush Tax Cuts expire will help. A little. I think small businesses should be exempt and only wealthy individuals should be affected. The latter will still be enjoying the tax cuts in the other brackets anyway. This isn’t a matter of fairness but common sense. They’re the ones who can best afford such a hit. But this is only a drop in a very large bucket.

The ultimate fix? I don’t know and I hardly believe anyone here in this forum is qualified to have all the answers either. One thing I’m sure of, any solution will require everyone regardless of party affiliation to be unhappy. We’re all going to have to make sacrifices. All of us.

• Link
• Report this comment

RE your statement: “So, even when we include the payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, which disproportionately hit lower-income workers, …”
You do realize the purpose of the Earned Income Credit was to relieve the low income earners of the burden of paying these taxes. It was expressly to reimburse them for those taxes they paid–it has over the years gone beyond that.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius – pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed

July 11th, 2012
2:47 pm

Fred, YOU’RE the one arguing tax RATES, when Kyle was arguing tax PAYMENTS.

Maybe you should understand that basic difference first, son.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

No “son’ I’m showing you the wool being pulled over your eyes. But you just don’t get it. Like I said, I never thought you would.

Bless your heart.

• Link
• Report this comment

Middle of the Road: It’s pretty easy. We need to cut spending WAY down and raise taxes SOME.

Unfortunately the Republicans don’t want to cut spending OR raise taxes. They want to cut taxes on the rich, just like the Irish did. (Remember how all the talk show hosts were holding out Ireland as the ‘perfect” model for business? We see how THAT worked out lol).

• Link
• Report this comment

Bruno, as to Higgs Boson, oy. Other than a brief and fairly superficial introduction to subatomic physics I really haven’t kept up. It seems to me that the subatomic arena is so different that it’s difficult to trust my thoughts since I don’t spend enough time thinking about it. In other words, it’s so different from the world we experience that if you’re not contemplating it all the time you are likely to make false assumptions. Everything is so small and so fast that time and for that matter space are inappropriate concepts. I’d agree that the name God particle is really unfortunate and invites unnecessary controversy.

• Link
• Report this comment

Well, Hillbilly D,

So, to be exact, you have 80,000 broilers living next door. Amazing! I believe most of them are blogging here today. Never saw so much clucking,crowing, scratching and ruffling of feathers!

Would you mind going next door and opening the doors? I think the whole crowd needs to get out and cool off. One can’t stay tender when hot and bothered.

• Link
• Report this comment

Aqua – your use of military acronyms I’m not familiar with, i.e., DLI, etc. I’m Navy girl, and yes, we used whatever we dang well please. As for an all-gay or whatever company, again you’re not reading correctly. What I was simply saying was I’m against anything that might negatively effect combat readiness, and there re plenty out ther who want to do “social experiments” (and I can’t believe you’re that dense that you mistook that along the lines of your response), especially when it’s not their tush at risk. I would have thought you’d thrown out the integration of coloreds into the armed forces argument in response. Kudos for not resorting to something that old.
But question, if DADT got rid of a lot of people, how would not having to pay them, give them COMRATS, per diem, etc., cost the DoD money. And as you can see, once DADT comes up Jamvet tends to move on to other avenues.
But enough before Kyle chastizes us for having at one another rather than sticking to the topic, which was the progressive tax rate. Wanna bet I pay more in the progressive tax rate than you do (ok, if you’re in the 28% bracket we’re tied).

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle

My point earlier is that if wages have stagnated when adjusted for inflation for the bottom 80% (that is an example and not meant to be a factual number) and the top 20% (ex. again) have went up, isn’t it logical that they would be paying more of the overall burden?

Not saying that is right or wrong, but seems logical, if in fact my overall assertion is correct in regards to wages.

Throw if Fred’s quick example and it does appear that while your numbers are correct, the entire picture is not being put into a correct perspective. With that said, anyone can twist a number. Both sides do it every day

• Link
• Report this comment

Republicans tried to get the Senate to vote on extending th Bush tax cuts for all Americans
———-

“But Mr. Reid objected to the request, saying he didn’t want to have the vote on the GOP’s legislation.

“It’s the help Paris Hilton legislation,” he said. “It would give people like her a tax break for doing nothing — $46 billion of the American people’s money to help Paris Hilton and others.”

———-

So why not vote on it?

Senate Democrats: Two-faced cowards.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle @ 3:22

To a degree can’t the same be said for a portion of the US woes at this time. Not blaming Republicans, Bush, Clinton, but in general in regards to our bubble and the snowball effect it had on the economy.

• Link
• Report this comment

Barry

If it makes you feel better, both Dems and Repubs block legislation today in regards to their version of that same issue.

Let’s at least bring it all on the table.

• Link
• Report this comment

Bruno, 3:28

AmVet should live near Hillbilly. 80,000 chicks next door!

• Link
• Report this comment

The Excel spreadsheet shows top 1% paid a 35.9% rate in and now pays 28.9%. That’s more progressive? 81st through 90th quartiles dropped from 23.5% to 18.8%. And corporate tax rates dropped from 11% to 5.2%. (And note that pre-tax income generally doesn’t include things like municipal bond interest, which often constitutes a big chunk of income of the highest groups and would lower their tax rate even more.)

• Link
• Report this comment

“Should I also take down the comments that refer to “Repugs” and such?”

If you did that, Kyle, there’d be maybe two liberals left on this blog who could legally post.

• Link
• Report this comment

“It would give people like her a tax break for doing nothing — $46 billion of the American people’s money to help Paris Hilton and others.”

When did MY money become “the American People’s money”, Harry Reid?

• Link
• Report this comment

Barry

We can arguing semantics and I did hear somewhat incorrectly on the radio earlier, but here you go

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/senate-democrats-block-a-vote-on-president-obamas-tax-plan/

So I was not exactly right but you can check out the link and it will talk about the Democrats as you stated as well as the games that Republicans in the Senate are playing with the same issue

• Link
• Report this comment

Republicans want to vote on Obozo’s tax plan. Democrats do not.

Very curious indeed.

I honestly don’t know why Dems would be ducking the vote.

• Link
• Report this comment

Hillbilly:

The land owner can pay considerably less in property taxes if the land is in conservation use.

A little something I learned during my search for land. 10+ acres zoned agricultural? Put it in the conservation use program. It was initially a way to discourage land owners from selling to developers. Just about every piece of land we’ve looked at has been assigned a conservation use permit.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius – pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed

July 11th, 2012
4:23 pm

getalife, arguing oranges does not win you the apples argument.
++++++++++++++++++++++++

talking to getaclue is a useless proposition. Haven’t you figured that out yet? It’s like wrestling a pig. When you wrestle a pig you have to roll around in pig crap. And the pig likes it…………….

• Link
• Report this comment

@@ 4:23

Interesting. What are the rules and regulations that allow a piece of property to be considered “conservation”?

• Link
• Report this comment

ti,

I thought you left the blog for the first time.

Just using your debate style.

• Link
• Report this comment

We need revenue from jobs.

We need demand from the middle class because they have jobs.

Jobs, baby, jobs.

Remember what you ran on in 10?

• Link
• Report this comment

“talking to getaclue is a useless proposition.”

I suggest you re-read Kyle’s new rule # 2 in it’s entirety, Fred:

“2. Anyone who refers to another commenter by anything other than the handle the latter uses will receive a ban of at least one week. This may sound like an extraordinary measure, but it is the source of most of the recent commenter fights — and, more generally, has long been a catalyst for breakdowns in commenter civility. For example, adressing “ScamVet” instead of “AmVet” would result in a ban. A shortened version of the handle may be acceptable (e.g., “yuze” instead of “yuzeyurbrane”) but only if there is no obvious intent to insult. As I will be the sole judge of that intent, I recommend you err on the side of not being too cute.

Maybe Kyle will cut you some slack due to the newness of the rules, but if not, buh-bye!

• Link
• Report this comment

Andy,

Yeah, your ilk lost 9 million jobs so……….

• Link
• Report this comment

“Going, going, going……”

………………………………….nowhere.

• Link
• Report this comment

The specific lie TD is , corps don’t pay corp taxes. They are the ONLY ones that pay them. I have never paid a corp tax and spend money day in and day out.

Cost of goods sold, is not my expense.

I have never bought a barrel or oil, but some would like to spin I have just because I buy gas.

Spin, baby.

• Link
• Report this comment

“I told my rep. we need a massive job project like the Internet, going to the moon and housing.”

Sounds like half of a good plan, the other half depends on how you are going to pay for it.

• Link
• Report this comment

“But I’m not going to lie and call it “fair” or try to even pretend I’m pulling my weight. The tax code is designed to help the wealthy pay a lower percentage.

Oh and md? I NEVER write myself a paycheck. if I did that, I would have to pay SS and other payroll taxes. I just write a “dividend” check every once and a while. ”

Umm Fred…..the tax code is designed for everybody to pay a lower percentage…..hence what is called the EITC. And in case you aren’t aware, that little diddy is a payment from the gov’t to those that paid NO tax…….so get off your high horse.

As for the part about paying yourself no salary, I wouldn’t be tooting that horn too loud if you happen to have an S corp (C’s will be paying outside of personal return), especially if there is enough profit to pay a dividend, as the irs might not like that too much:

“if the S corporation shareholder provides services to the S corporation, he or she must receive an adequate or reasonable amount of compensation for these services.”

“If” you have an S, you may want to pay attention to the “must” part of that sentence.

• Link
• Report this comment

Flip made $22Million in 2010.

His effective tax rate?

14%.

Most of you working stiffs are paying a higher effective tax rate than that.

But go ahead, worry about his millions and not your hundreds…

• Link
• Report this comment

So Romney paid $3+million in taxes in 2010. That’s more than I paid in taxes to keep this country running.

I guess I should just say……..thank you Mr. Romney.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jefferson @ 4:41. I’m sorry, but I just can’t be bothered anymore to try to debate someone who knows NOTHING about the corporate income structure.

I don’t know where you went to school but the lessons on business and the economy just didn’t take.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius,

I don’t know you but let me give you a little friendly advice. Perhaps you don’t intend it but your posts come across as snarky and combative. Perhaps you could dial it down a notch and we can all learn something from each other through discussion.

Occasionally it is merited but not every post. Please take these words in the spirit it was intended. Peace.

• Link
• Report this comment

You don’t say?

• Link
• Report this comment

“Yet you obsess over protecting/sheltering his massive wealth instead of your own family’s miniscule wealth.

Someone please explain that trickled down theory to me!”

It’s called having the honesty to admit that we all live here, we all choose everything we do,we all use the services provided, and we should all have some skin in the game……….

And then recognizing that there is a progressive tax system in place, that the tax code has built in “gifts” for just about everybody, and then take it from there………

• Link
• Report this comment

I would imagine environmentalists are in favor of the conservation use covenant.

• Link
• Report this comment

@@

What are you talking about? I just said it was good information.

But nice try at being a comedian.

• Link
• Report this comment

Unless it’s been changed, that agricultural designation comes with conditions. I believe it must be used that way for a specified period (10 years?) and if it is used for something else within that period (including sale for other use), then back taxes must be paid on what the rate would have been if not agricultural.

• Link
• Report this comment

md:

You’re correct. If the buyer agrees to the conservation use, the discount continues. If not, the taxes owed are usually worked out in the sale.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle

“Democrats: Hypocrites.”

Would it be appropriate to either call the blooger ignorant or just naive about the Republican Party?

Seems there is a lack of knowledge. Whether it is unwilling or unable to grasp that bs takes place on both sides of the aisle, isn’t the point. The point is that it can’t be put one or the other

• Link
• Report this comment

As for how much Romney makes and what is religion is, I could careless.

He will have ample to time to make more money and go to church come the 1st Wednesday in November. At least until he ramps up his “Didn’t do AGAIN in 2012. See you in 2016″ campaign

• Link
• Report this comment