I ALMOST feel sorry for Mitt Romney---------he keeps being honest about his real feelings toward the rest of mankind ( and womankind). He has utter contempt and derision for those who are not in the 1%, which by the way, he wants to vote for him. He even lamented he was not a Latino, which was a derisive and racial comment. Who has he NOT offended?
I mean, what's a working class, out of work, down and out, barely surviving Republican supposed to do? Vote for Romney? Vote for Obama , whom they cannot stand, but owe their survival ( albeit temporary)
to?
Who is left to vote for him but the 1%????? See, that's the problem------there ain't enough of 'em. It takes the 99% that he has dissed time and time again. Are they really as dumb as he thinks they are?
If you are out of work, you really aren't working class. That's like me saying I'm an out of money rich person. Hey that's catchy, I like it.
ReplyDeleteLike Barack Obama, speaks of the presidency in messianic terms, and insists that the president has the power to assassinate American citizens abroad and start wars without congressional authorization.
ReplyDeleteThe man you would like to be king.
Pathetic.
Authoritarian liberalism has taken over Obama administration policy. People must be forced to accept anything and everything in the name of tolerance. The only valid belief is no belief. Acting on one’s faith must be punished.
ReplyDeleteYour leader, Barack Obama.
Carol....
ReplyDelete"Shooting his mouth off is not hitting the target for Mitt Romney"
Really,Truth does hurt.
His comments have drove a stake right thru the heart of the Democrats and their campaign.
Your reaction to his off the cuff comments are very predictable,But they are the truth.
You cite the 1% as being his only supporters,the 47% he speaks of leaves 53%.
I for one am not in the 1% but rather in the 53& who are sick and tired of his Liberalism and continued bullshit.
His grand plans of redistribution of wealth to support and enable a segment of the population which will not do for themselves is a farce.Doing so on the backs of a struggling middle class is a total sham,and no matter what you may think the middle class are going to be the losers.
I for one think that Obama and the Liberals have done major harm to the American Middle Class Way of Life and they must GO.
Carol I think that you are going to find come Nov. that I do not stand alone.
Hello Carol, Hello??? Earth to Carol,,,
ReplyDelete"This week as I watched breaking news as our embassies were stormed in the Middle East and then around the world, bomb threats, university evacuations, Congress passing a Continuing Resolution to continue spending and to fund Obamacare for 6 months, the announcement of another quantitative easing that will be indefinite rather than fixed. The problems we face as a country seem overwhelming and often times impossible."
"Ours is a “choice between two fundamentally different visions for the future:” one where we adhere to the Constitution, the checks and balances, and maintain the rights of the citizens as ordained by our Creator not by our government or one where we allow a statist government, allow breaches in the rule of law to occur without checks or balances, where freedom will slip away at the cost of security and whatever the government decides we are entitled to have. Simply put the choice is freedom or serfdom."
"** In Egypt, the news reported their government was fully aware of the angry mob descending on our embassy - and even called to alert our officials of the danger - but refused to offer any military or police protection;
** In Libya, the thugs who killed four American citizens - in the worst of the riots - have not yet been brought to justice;
** In Pakistan, government officials have imprisoned Dr. Shakil Afridi as "punishment" for tipping the U.S. Government off to the location of Osama bin Laden."
"In Libya, four Americans were killed, and our U.S. Ambassador's lifeless body was dragged through streets to loud cheers.
Now, violent Anti-American riots have broken out in nearly 20 countries."
"Not only that, but we're over $16 TRILLION in debt!
And a whopping 71% of the American people agree we simply cannot afford to continue the madness."
And Carol, you talk about a private speech that happened months ago. Carol, get your head out of your B___.
Liberals think that because they qualify for something that they NEED it and that they DESERVE it. Neither of which is necessarily true. Many people don't NEED food stamps but they accept them anyway. It allows them to buy more expensive food instead of rice, soup, bread.
ReplyDeleteAll sorts of people are in on the scam. Doctors wives work the minimum required weeks then go on unemployment. Some families exist on the dole for generations. Give away free stuff and people are going to take it.
DeleteIt starts at the Federal level. Over employment. To many departments, to many useless jobs.
And lawyers in love. Suing everything that moves while having judges support the hollow motions so the court can "stay in business."
1773-2009 This will all end of course. One way or another. With a giant thud, or a mature adjustment to the roles of the takers.
While there is certainly some degree of fraud in our charity programs, there is plenty of corporate feeding at the government trough too. Policy decisions are shaped by lobbyists working to get the best advantage they can get from the government. Sometimes that includes cash transfers, tax breaks, or fat government contracts. These things may not be best for the whole of the country, but they sure make a few rich. Our standard of living, on all levels, is financed by the government
DeleteHere's a good blog on the "Mitt Meltdown". What about the film showing him telling his fundraisers that 47% of Americans are government moochers?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cnn.com/2012/09/17/opinion/raines-romney-media/index.html?iid=article_sidebar
Funny how that 99% dropped to 47% in one day.
Delete1773-2009
William,
DeleteI have found it puzzling, this image of someone with an AGI in the low $300Ks protesting in solidarity with someone clocking in at $15K. I guess 'We are the 99%' is catchier than 'We are the 47% (or 48% or whatever), yes?
Jean
One thing I think is for certain Jean. At the end of this election cycle we will know exactly where our country stands.
DeleteOf course we all understand the division, but the percentage of takers may have been established at over 50%.
Katie bar the door it that is the case.
1773-2009 We will need many prayers for our country if that is the case.
Actually to be accurate it's 49% that pay no federal income tax.
ReplyDeleteAre you paying your fair share???
Yeah, I pay at least my fair share, probably much more. Did you read the article?
DeleteMick,
DeleteInteresting. What is fair share, in general, and how do you determine that? I'll simplify things, first, by suggesting you base the fair share rates on AGI, and second by providing AGI brackets(for 2009, the latest I could find). The % figure represents the fraction of all tax returns filed (about 138 M for 2009):
1% - $343,927 and higher
2 to 5% - $154,643 to $343,926
6% to 10% - $112,124 to $154,642
11% to 25% - $66,193 to $112,123
26% to 50% - $32,396 to $66,192
lower 50% - $32,395 and lower
So. What percent of the AGI should each bracket pony up, and why?
Absolutely.
ReplyDelete"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," Romney could be heard saying. "There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it."
According to the Census Bureau, 49% of Americans live in a household that receives a government entitlement, Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, disability, Social Security, or housing assistance.
The quote. Pretty accurate as it also reflects his approval rating.
Social Security is not an entitlement.
DeleteIt's not? You try to take it away or even amend it so that people only receive the amount of money they actually contributed and see if people don't say that they are entitled to it....
DeleteThe position seemed to make sense to me. Lower taxes and less government are probably not going to be important issues to those in the lower half. The only problem, of course, was speaking the (gasp) truth. The Obama camp is smarter. They do not say "Let's put out the promise that we'll tax the stuffings out of a small percentage of the population, and tell the rest of the gullible that we're going to give it to them. What can we lose? We're only going to irritate abut 1% (ok, maybe 2%) of taxpayers (actually, tax return filers)" in the vicinity of a recording device.
DeleteBut, of course, Obama takes a pragmatic campaign strategy assessment by Romney and morphs it into an allegation that Romney would only be president of some of the people. Not exactly the same thing, huh?
Jean
Carol my dear, you've really got to give a break from reading Kinky "Angry Hair" Schultz.
ReplyDeleteI'll make my bed with MR, though not my first choice, compared to Two Faced In Chief.
I thought Debbie vastly improved her 'do for the convention. But that's about the only positive note.
DeleteCue:
http://www.kessels.com/catsounds/angry1.wav
Enjoy.
Jean
A good debate and worth thinking about. Have a look through the microscope at the Australian experience of the past 5 years or so of Socialist government
ReplyDelete.
Previously had a decade long period of Conservative government, war in Iraq and natural disaster aplenty. At the end of the period the government had repaid the 94B of debit it had inherited from the Socialists and had a huge surplus.
The situation now is that there is a fiscal debit level higher than at any time in the history of the nation. There is also continuing economic growth and this has persisted for 20 years without a break. Unemployment 5% Inflation under 3% and the Socialist government is pouring money it does not have into welfare programmes many of us could do without. All this to try to hang onto power in the election due towards the end of next year.
Now I must remain neutral on this site as I am a guest without a vote. I will say however that nearly 80 years experience has taught me the truth in the old adage "God helps those who help themselves". A continuation of the welfare state can lead only to more fiscal debit.
Cheers from Aussie.
Kingston,
DeleteClearly there are differences in the breadth of circumstances between the U. S. and our friend down under. That said, though, there does seem to be a lesson learned that merits studying. Interesting, BTW. I hadn't been aware of what sounds like dire straits for the Aussies.
Jean
Jean my thanks for your interest.
DeleteOddly enough we are only one of seven nations to hold the AAA rating from all 3 of the big rating agencies. My post above tells you about inflation and unemployment. Our fiscal debit is less than 200 Billion but when the Socialist came to power it was zero and there was a large surplus in the kitty.
The Government has been terminally unpopular for almost 2 years and in true Socialist style they are spending or making spending promises like drunken sailors.
Terms of trade are worsening and export prices for commodities are falling rapidly and the Aust currency continues to appreciate quite rapidly.
This is not a litany of woe guaranteeing a catastrophic outcome. It is however a red light warning that spending must be reduced and the Conservatives are the only mob capable of that.
One final thought, we have a bicameral parliament (as with your Hill) The House relies on the support of 4 independents and a Green to give the government a majority and the Senate relies on a cross bench of Green senators. The greens are left of Labor and are a party of extremists responsible for the Carbon Tax, and expensive Dental scheme and many other revenue deficient programmes.
Hope this helps. If not I shall consult the leader of the opposition, otherwise known as her indoors or the ball and chain!!.
Cheers from Aussie
Radical topic switch:
DeleteEver see anything like this? Apparently in your backyard, so to speak. I will say, if that thing happened close to where I might be standing, I'd probably, um, have an involuntary reaction for which I'd be embarrassed, but from a safe distance, I bet it would be an awesome sight.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012/09/19/rare-fire-devil-caught-on-film/
'ball and chain!'? I thought we discussed that honor thing.
Jean
As always Kingston, there is a neat a tidy flavor to what conservatives sell. People here in this country continue to believe that trickle down economics is something that works. Rationally, it makes sense to me that when top income tax rates are 70%, you are likely going to see an increase in investment when you lower those rates. When your top rate is 35%, however, I think it's utter bullshit to wail that a 5% move in either direction is going to be life saving or the equivalent of a ball chain.
DeleteWhilst you have 80 years of living proof that anything socialist is a recipe for the end of humanity, I have about thirty years of proof that allowing the majority of your wealth to be controlled by just a teeny fraction of the population leads as much to growth of social programs as anything else. Buried in Mitt's comments and buried in the psyche of many posters on this site is an attitude that if you aren't rich, it's because you are a slacker asshole.
Lou's comment here is that 49% of America receives some type of entitlement and a general conservative view is that we can't afford any entitlement programs. What is the likely outcome of that? Suppose we end SS, suppose we end medicare, food stamps and everything else. I don't know what utopia that will bring and neither does anyone else here apparantley. Regardless, they believe, it will be better then what we have now. In my 45 years of life, I have come to believe that the majority of Americans have a vastly inflated view of themselves and their abilities. Because we are a nation of laws, we are a nation of enormous freedom. Yet, for most people under the age of 70 here, there is a feeling that THEY are what is great . not those who came before and certainly not the government who is in fact keeping them down.
It's fucking childish.
Max and Jean
DeleteAgain my thanks for your comments above. Jean first. : Link: to the burning "Willy Willy" was well worth while as the event is quite unusual even in this country of contrasts and odd ball events. The accompanying explanation from the Prof was accurate and gave readers a graphic description of the event.
The "Ball and chain" comment, perhaps you did not read my response to your first attempt at remonstrating with an Aussie using Aussie humour!!.
Now for Max.
Max I can offer opinions but in fairness to my position as a guest on a foreign site I do not feel able to be too dogmatic when discussing American politics. As a rational human being I compare the socialised health care we have had here for about 20 odd years and compare it with what I know of Obama care. Our system has its faults but it does ensure that absolutely no one misses out on hospital treatment at any stage of their life. There are so many ways to become:"entitled" to free medicine that only the wealthy are paying. Yes it costs but the "exempted" are so many and the few pay only a moderate levy on top of their assessed federal income tax, (we do not by the way have state income tax here). The levy amounts to 1.5percent of their final taxable income. In my case (had I been liable,) this would have amounted to 560 dollars (Aust) last financial year.For this amount I would receive full care including operating and doctors fees.
Now the Obamacare programme makes sense when compared not to Australia but to the system which was previously in place. We have seen instances of people losing their entire life savings trying to pay hospital bills. Members on this site in private correspondence have related horrendous stories and the only apparent winners are the insurance companies and the rapacious hospital system which apparently itemises every aspirin and minor dressing. So yes something needed to be done and at the risk of offending some friends I think Obamacare has merit...
As you point out, I have getting on for 80 years experience of various governments. WW2 in UK was pretty much a system of socialised existence made necessary by the privations and exigencies of war. Immediately post war however the people threw out the Conservatives and installed a Labour government who promptly nationalised most of the nation. This experiment failed and a return to conservative values was little better. I decided at 16 years to scarper . Alone and knowing no one in Australia I arrived here at the beginning of a long period of conservative government which saw rewards for hard work, full employment, the opportunity to save and above all the freedom to decide for oneself the direction in which to travel.
Perhaps because I was reasonably successful ,perhaps because of a conservative upbringing or perhaps due to blind good luck I consider the Socialisation of a society a cop out for those generally unwilling to work for their own improvement. I could not of course say that about my American friends, I am sure they are all hard working people who would never sponge off their government.
Cheers from Aussie
Kingston,
DeleteInteresting. Thank you for sharing. You probably know this, but in case you didn't, the republican party line on healthcare reform was not so much that it isn't or wasn't needed, but on what eventually transpired. The approach to many (well, me, anyway), was to hurry up and cobble the bill together, trump up the situation as an immediate, dire emergency, supporting that rush to pass a bill, and ram it through. There was an interesting shenanigan, perfectly legal, in getting the bill passed, but that's another story. The key to this bill, I think, was 'front-loading it with goodies', to use a phrase from National Public Radio, and you can surmise the intent for that. This bill initially had a certian cost associated with it. Our Congressional Budget Office initially pegged the cost, and since then has come back twice to adjust it. The law has barely begun to be implemented, and already the 'adjustments' begin. Yesterday, it was reported that even though some have received premium refunds from their insurance companies, the long term effects of this law may actually increase premiums. I'm waiting for the DC spin to put this in a better light by declaring that even if premiums go up, overall costs will go down.
From what I've looked at for the government's ability to estimate and predict costs, it doesn't bode well. The two previously largest social engineering programs, Social Security and Medicare, have been 'fixed' a gazillion times, which should suggest something. I'm afraid that this so-called fix on healthcare costs will follow that same path, and to borrow and paraphrase from the bard 'Once more into the abyss (as opposed to the breach)'. This one definitely ought to ba able to push us over the edge. That, or the debt. But then, they're intimately related, yes?
Apologies for the dirge-like post.
Have a nice day.
Jean
Explain this: most of the now infamous 47% are actually seniors, a group which votes mostly Republican. "Seniors are the biggest beneficiaries of the government," said Veronique de Rugy, senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center, a free-market think tank at George Mason University in Virginia. "These are also the ones who overwhelmingly vote for Romney."
ReplyDeletehttp://money.cnn.com/2012/09/18/news/economy/romney-seniors-benefits/
Mick
DeleteI am sure you are correct but consider perhaps the blanket coverage of "Entitlements". Here in Australia the means testing is farcical. Many assets are not included (Family home and some investments) those which are counted are at a value for scrap metal. My wife and I receive some of these entitlements yet we drive around in a 2 year old Jaguar (bought new 2 years ago for 50G) but "valued" for means testing at $15G. Our home on 10 acres and not inconsiderable savings still allow a part age pension. I think the problem is one of over entitlement and sloppy administration. Perhaps your country has similar problems.
Cheers from Aussie
Mick
DeleteYou let a serious discussion of any type of Social Security cutbacks occur in Washington and watch how fast those people who, you call republicans and actually depend on Social Security change allegiance....
Mick,
DeleteRespectfully, I read the article, but there wasn't much in it. It would be interesting to see a breakdown from the IRS tables for those who pay zero FIT by age and work status.
' "Seniors are the biggest beneficiaries of the government," said Veronique de Rugy ' means what?
As a group, Jean, as compared to other age groups. They include Social Security recipients and retired military who recieve pensions and VA benefits as well as those drawing disability and retired government employees.
DeleteMick,
DeleteThose who receive SS do have a claim to at least a portion of it (the amount they and their employer paid int), and retired military who receive a pension fall in the same category, I think. Even retired government employees, although depending on how cushy (if at all) those bennies are, they might merit revisiting. Not the same as those who work, or can but don't, and still reap the portion of government-funded benefits (roads, protection, subsidies) that can be attributed to FIT.
For MR to say someone is NOT paying taxes is just beyond ludicrous-----he has not provided his Federal tax returns yet.
ReplyDeleteHe is such a farcical character------the worst, the very worst part is that he takes himself seriously.
He sort of ambles up to a podium,(while I expect an SNL skit) looks around, and opens his mouth. Noise comes out , but nothing of substance eminates from his mouth, or brain. Somebody needs to work on his programming--------there's a glitch somewhere.
LMAO.
ReplyDeleteHe provided the required tax returns or did you forget. You as well as the rest of the radical left just want more to hammer him on.
You should be afraid of O as when he bankrupts the nation your SS will be toast.
Carol,
ReplyDeleteI agree with Iouman about Romney's taxes. I think the IRS probably has gone over his with a fine tooth comb by now, and if by chance he did not pay and FIT, I'd be willing to bet it's because tax laws are what they are. I bet he actually did have FIT obligations.
If you're going to make sarcastic comments about Romney, keep in mind our wonderful Demagogue-in-Chief going to an oh-so-important fundraiser in Las Vegas last week, or appearing on the smarmy 'The View', or going to ANOTHER fundraiser (in NY?) with, I think, Jay-Z and Beyonce.
Glitch in the programming? Gee, didn't he say something about Egypt not being an ally, and one of his State Department staff saying Egypt is?
Sorry, I realize you were talking about Romney, but you know, it doesn't hurt to compare and contrast, no?
Jean
Jean, compare and contrast is what it is all about! I welcome it-------you have great insight, we don't have to agree, but I respect your opinion.
DeleteRomney should have phrased his statement differently--------He should have said,
ReplyDelete"There is a vast difference between a wealthy person, such as myself, who hires accountants and attorneys to find loopholes to avoid paying any taxes legally, as opposed to a 47% segment of the population who pay no taxes because they have no money."
Gee, I just don't know how I get so confused by what Romney keeps trying to say. He must be confusing himself too because, after every speech, his team has to go behind him and clarify what he was TRYING to say.
President Obama’s declaration that his nomination marked “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”
DeleteEgo has no bounds. The difference between the two may be small, hopefully R will slow government spending and heal the economy. O certainly has proved he will not or cannot do the job.
p.s. Carol maybe he was referring to Obama who is a 1 percenter. Obama certainly fills the description.
DeleteAt least R pays taxes.
DeleteAn astonishing 46.4% of Americans paid no Federal Income Tax in 2011, leaving the rest of us to pick up the ever growing tab for Federal programs.
Twelve years ago, 34% of Americans paid no income taxes, and back in 1970, it was just 12%.
Carol,
DeleteAs successful as those rich are at finding these loopholes, that top couple of percent still manage to pay a sizeable fraction of the total FIT. That suggests to me that those who make so little as to not have to pay FIT are using those taxpayer-funded 'You-didn't-build-that's on someone else's dime, so to speak. At least, those YDBTs that included FIT money, yes?
YDBTs - speaking of clarifying . . .
A true, honest, forthright politician. My kingdom for a true, honest, forth... Oh, that's right. I need a kingdom first. Scratch that.
Carol, I bet we can agree we both yearn for such a thing, huh?
Jean
"An astonishing 46.4% of Americans paid no Federal Income Tax in 2011, leaving the rest of us to pick up the ever growing tab for Federal programs."
DeleteWhat is astonishing is the bullshit and dishonesty that is being sold by using this fact. Combat pay is exempt from income tax. Are these the slackers that are taking food off your table Lou? People who work but make less the 20K don't pay income taxes either. Nonetheless, they continue to pay payroll taxes. What is being sold by the quote you are using Lou is that nearly half of America is just sucking on your breast, a breast undoubtedly that is ample because folks like you and gottaloveit are such hard workers.
BTW, back in 1970, unions still existed, workers made good money and deficits were much more in control. Reagan took care of all that and reversed each one. Mitt will do exactly the same.
Geez, Max, have you been living in a cave? Everyone knows that the economy was just peachy right up until Jan 20th, 2009. 1970s ... Sheesh.
DeleteQuit bringing up facts like over a third of that 46% pay payroll taxes & SSI, and almost everyone else in that 46% is either a senior citizen who spent their working life paying into the system (in many cases, much more then they'll ever get out) or they're Vets or disabled.
You're wrecking the talking point ...
But Max,
DeleteOf the 60+ M who pay little or no FIT, how many are getting combat pay? 0.5 M? Payroll tax, as in SS and Medicare is a separate issue, and only one who claims they pay no taxes at all is inaccurate or dishonest. And what does FICA have to do with the issue? It's everyone forced retirement fund and medical insurance premium. An ample breast? Umm, not so much, given our National debt, no? We now see $16T as a number we would like to reach. A desire that is a dubious hallmark of the current administration, yes?
1970 and unions? Isn't it true that back in those days the rest of the world either didn't have the infrastructure to manufacture and transport, or else a sizable fraction was under "From each according to his ability to each according to his need" socialistic rule (that be the communist countries), so the rest of the world had no choice but to pay the going rate for U. S. goods. Things have changed, yes? And a bunch of people are willing to work for a lot less in other places to make those things, huh? On that unions thing, I think that is a case of a failure to face up to the competition and evolve.
It's Reagan's fault?
Medicare and SS are separate issues? - Lou's point is that people who pay no income tax are leaving the tab for everyone else. You can judge for yourself whether that is an honest assertion.
DeleteThe size of the debt has an enormous amount to do with Republicans. The idea that deficits don't matter truly started with Reagan an no Republican since then, except perhaps Newt, has been genuinely serious about cutting it. Through endless bullshit explanations, Republicans continue to preach that we can just cut social programs, cut spending, give MORE tax cuts and magically pay down our debt. I'm sorry Jean, you can spin this any way you like, but Republicans do not want to and will not pay agree to pay down debt rung up by someone else.
Your last point is also specious. What has changed are our trade agreements with the rest of the world. Thanks in part to people like Nixon, we cleaned up our pollution and set standards. With our "Free Market" trade agreements, however, we opened the doors wide to countries who feel no such need to set standards. When you live in a dirt shack, an offer of .30 cents an hour truly is a boost. Taking your line of thinking to a logical conclusion, it would appear what would make you most happy is for the standard of American workers to keep falling until they join the third world. Then you could feel justified for being so smart, no?
pfunky,
DeleteReally, that's a pretty incredible comparison. People pay SS, Medicare taxes equals Federal Income taxes. That mean the people not paying Federal Income Tax are thinking about supporting the largess of the Federal Government? Welfare, military an all you know.
Don't tell anyone but Medicare and SS are in the red with the taxpayers (those that pay Federal Income Tax) picking up not only their contributions but also the red. Who was it again that insisted the SS taxes being collected for the last 2 years be less than the standard amount to stimulate the economy. I feel stimulated and you should too.
Never said it was "equal" Lou nor did I imply it. But the argument that all the folks receiving some kind of government assistance are not contributing or haven't contributed at all is incredibly intellectually dishonest.
DeleteMy grandmother used to say, "numbers never lie, but liars love to use numbers."
Yep.
pfunky, has the 80 year old collecting SS and medicare contributed to each fund? Yes they have. Have they gotten their money back? Yes as well as 10 times what they contributed.
DeleteIs the person making 50K a year paying no Federal income tax paying for their government when they pay no federal income tax? The SS and Medicare they pay is distributed immediately to the current people collecting the benefits. The shortfall is covered by those paying Federal Income Tax. Are they paying for the military? Are they paying for the EPA? How about the all the other Federal departments? Are they contributing to pay for SNAP?
In 1970, 12% paid no Federal Income Tax.
Twelve years ago, 34% of Americans paid no income taxes.
Today, 46.4% of Americans paid no Federal Income Tax.
People complain about the wealthy not paying their fair share. Seems the middle class isn't contributing their fair share when compared to past years.
Yeah, I think you and I have had this discussion many times on MW. I think our ultimate conclusion was the same.
DeleteAssuming your numbers are accurate, and I have no reason to believe they're not, I think the spike in entitlements can be attributed to two main things:
The first was predicted - the 75+ million Baby Boomers are getting old. Naturally, they're gonna start collecting SS and Medicare bennies. Again, this was predicted. Reagan and O'Neill were trying to figure out how to finance these programs for our aging population back in the 80s when I was a kid.
Second, there was a financial collapse 4 years ago. People who used to have insurance don't now - they get Medicaid. People who used to make enough money to feed their families can't now (in part due to prices too) - they get food stamps. If the Great Depression is our model, it's gonna take awhile to recover from that.
But I agree with you to a degree - the "Eat The Rich" stuff has got to stop. I read somewhere that the hated 1% is responsible for like 22% of the tax revenues collected. They are paying. They don't need to be vilified. Otoh, I do see the inherent unfairness of a multi-billionaire paying 15% on his millions in Capital Gains every year, while your guy making $50k a year has 24% jacked straight out of his check in the form of payroll taxes. The unfairness isn't in the gross amount paid. It's in the impact on the lives of these people. From that, Max makes a good point.
I think the conclusion that we agreed on is that if our main goal is deficit reduction, then we're ALL gonna have to pay more, not just the rich, and we're all gonna get less in the form of government services. It's just math.
pfunky,
DeleteIf you want to see a wealth of data on federal income tax, I suggest this one:
http://taxfoundation.org:81/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0#table1
Their data source is the IRS, so I would think the charts and stats are pretty accurate.
BTW, the top 1%, based on AGI, earned about 17% of the total AGI, but had 36% of the FIT tab.
Jean
pfunky,
DeleteA ps: that thing about taxing the rich and helping reduce the National Debt? Take a look at the top 1%. Their AGI for '09 was about $1.3 T. Their FIT was about $.3 T. Tax them at 100%, take ALL their income, and if the impossible happened, and the additional $1T were used to pay off some of the ND, it would be down to a little over $15T. But who would the 1% be next year? And how much money would be available to tax? The tax the rich a little bit more approach is about as good an example of pandering as it gets. Almost as good as announcing suspendion of illegal immigrants deportation 'til the P-i-C feels like it.
Jean
Max,
ReplyDeleteWhen people are exempt from paying Federal Income Tax, everyone paying picks up the tab. Are you honestly saying all 47% on non-payers are destitute and poor?
The size of the debt is the responsibility of the voting public who put the people in office. It is they who have spent the money whether it be for freebies or war or something in between. As a side note, the debt 4 years ago was 10 trillion and today it stands at 16.1 trillion. A mere 60% increase in 4 years. That's a Democrat in office by the way. Not that it matters, our illustrious congress has not passed a budget in 4 years.
You are correct in your assertion that off shoring is one of the main issues related to the current unemployment situation. It accelerated when our esteemed politicians found it to be a great foreign policy tool. Sold to the American sheeple as: we aren't a manufacturing economy, we are a service economy. Hard to sell that service thing to our trading partners isn't it.
In addition, double the taxes on the wealthy, take 90%, it still isn't a drop in the trillion in overspending every year.
DeleteOnly way to fix this mess is to cut spending across the board and broaden the tax base.
Iouman,
DeleteSee my postscript above to pfunky about taking the 1%'s money.
The outsourcing thing: from the little I've read, it isn't all political. I think a fair amount of it is harsh economic reality: cheaper manufacturing cost, or overall COGS (same applies to services, to a point). People elsewhere who were eating roots and dirt to stay alive are apparently much better off earning a few dollars a day. I'm not suggesting that is a humane situation, but on the other hand, for many of them, it is a step up.
Jean,
DeleteAlong with the political component, there is the cheap issue. Americans want cheap, manufacturers provide the cheap[est products via imports.
Can't have it both ways, cheap and American made.
If it weren't for capital gains, Lou, the rich would pay no tax at all. On that score. It's income. Period. If you think about it, we already have a flat tax....for the super rich. That is complete and utter bullshit to me.
DeleteA point that you and I and likely all conservatives and liberals will not agree on is that the income inequality is the most pressing matter. Your suggestion here of broadening the base likely means that we take away loopholes and raise taxes on everyone. Reagan did that, and 30 years later we are right back where we started. This is an honest question Lou, why should we buy that bullshit again? WHY will it be different THIS time? Reagan did all these magical things and STILL left office with the debt twice as high as when he came in. But, happily for eveyrone on the right OBAAAAAAAAAAMMMMMMAAAAAAA ran up six trillion. OBAAAAAAAMMMMMMMMAAAAAAAA was a bigger spender then any SINGLE Republican POTUS. OBAAAAAAAAAAMMMMMMMMAAAAAAAAAA is a welfare redistributor. Yawn. It's all bullshit. But it sells to a small segment of American's who think they are soooooooooooooo freaking industrious while the rest of us ride their coattails.
The path we are on is pure wealth redistribution upward. The wealthy, who are the investor class have an enormous say in how the fruits of labor are distributed. Right now, they all think they deserve 98% of it. What did Paul Ryan ever create? Where would Mittens be if not born into wealth? Nothing has made seethe more this election cycle than the fucking arrogance of these silver spooners telling the rest of us how good we have it. Speaking of that, how bout Mitt's wife telling us all how LUCKY we are that Mitt is sharing his greatness with us. I don't begrudge her being angry for the attacks on her husband, but talk about a freaking victim mentality. There is no BIGGER victim mentality these days then amongst the one percent.
Max,
DeleteReally, without the infamous Federal Reserve, inflation would have not redistributed the wealth. Without the need for re-election, congress would have not passed laws that changed the tax code adding loop holes for votes. As a side note how do you reduce taxes on those who pay no Federal Income Tax today?
To be clear, both parties are responsible. Yawn, well known but ignored by all as most are in denial. Congress is the group that agrees to send the money to the WH to be spent. A 7.5% escalator every year, not that it matters, we have had no budget in the last 4 years. It's the best way as no single party can be held responsible. Barack spends close to a trillion a year more than when he entered office with the escalators and a few minor additions. Congress responsible, yes. Barack responsible, absolutely as he does nothing to curb the spendfest.
Things will soon change, like it or not. Either they raise taxes and begin to tax everyone or select option 2 hyper inflation with massive printing on money. Things will change, will the ruling elite we have sent to Washington have learned anything? I suspect not.
MAx,
DeleteVictim mentality? No bigger victim than Barry the liar and decepticon and Michelle. Think this self proclaimed savior can save anything? 4 years later, the economy is in a shambles, millions have dropped out of the work force, millions on welfare, millions added to disability list. Still you want to roll the dice again with Barry the destroyer. Why do they keep the interest at zero percent? So they can pay the interest on the debt. Why did the Federal Reserve buy 61% of the treasuries at auction last year? So we didn't have a failed auction which would force interest rates higher.
So as it turns out, Barry is a liar that can only be matched by the lies of Romney. Ready to roll the dice on 4 more years? If so, I suspect the only outcome will be he hastening of the day of reckoning.
To bad Romney has a big ego, it would be better for him to extend the middle finger at the country and give it to BO as that's what we deserve.
"As a side note how do you reduce taxes on those who pay no Federal Income Tax today?"
DeleteRespectfully Lou, this question is as empty as the chair props being used against Obama. Any politician suggesting we need more tax breaks for anyone is a stupid asshole. Believe it or not, THIS liberal has to work today. More later. We agree quite a bit on the Fed.
Hope your weather is looking better there.
I'm on a sabbatical from Colorado. In Michigan where it's 60 and rains a bit every day. Trees are changing, reds and oranges. Need to see that from time to time to know there is a change of seasons. Certainly a relief from the dry.
DeleteMy question was a bit rhetorical and sarcastic. A trait I can't seem to overcome. Time to audit the Federal Reserve and get them under control. Maybe right after we address the presidency and congressional roles in government. To bad it will never happen as we continue with out heads firmly planted thinking another change will make a difference.
The Fed has not always been the evil enemy of the common man. But an inescapable fact is that the Fed, and pretty much every other branch of government, have become extremely politicized. I don't believe I have a view that there was some glory period in our history where everything was perfect. There has never been such a period and there has always been stark inequalities. The only thing that has changed over time is the group that has been most hurt by the inequalities.
DeleteA caricature that is painted of the left, by the right, is that anyone left of center wishes to create a utopia of blissful harmony. That we want to see the least able apply the whip to the most able. Respectfully, this victim talk is bullshit. No, the Democrats are not above claiming victim status, but at this time in America, there is no shortage of victim mentality at any level of income. Likewise, there is no shortage of sense of entitlement at any level of income. If you believe this is somehow restricted only to those who are not wealthy Lou, then good luck in finding a candidate to support who is going to lead this country anywhere.
While I don't believe there was a mythical time of perfection here, I do believe there have been long periods of time where the inequality was managed much better. Striving to end all inequality is not the answer and I don't believe that is remotely the goal of the left. If there is no inequality, then there is no reward for hard work and success. That said, when you allow the inequality to become so great that you begin to essentially replace hard work with the aristocracy of pull as a prerequisite for success, you lay the foundation for the conditions we have today. What we have today, in my opinion, is a brutal failure of connected elites. Bankers, businessmen, government and even educators. But, as a nation of voters and consumers, we have granted this elite status to the losers.
When I look at what is driving this election, I see nothing but spoiled petulance. While I don't oppose auditing the Fed, it won't solve anything. It won't fix the attitudes that led to the deification of Alan Greenspan and by default, all leaders of business. Jobs? Anyone who believes their choice in POTUS will fix this shortage is not smart enough to choose a leader. Not much will change with this election regardless of who we vote for at the level of POTUS. congressional and senatorial elections are probably much more important.
Max,
DeleteThe dual purpose of the Federal Reserve, manage the money supply and assist in full employment ensures the Fed's failure.
Th problem with the Fed is they are not responsible to anyone or any elected government body. The House oversees not manages the Fed and cannot review the books. The Fed loans money to foreign countries without approval from any elected government body.
You are correct Max, all groups claim the victim status. But the Dem's play it much better than any other group.
As to equality, everyone gets a fair shot. not governments job to ensure people are motivated to get off their fat carcass and get a job and get a little ambition to get ahead. It takes the individual to do that. The difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals believe government can level the playing field. Conservatives look to government to get out of the way and not interfer with the playing field so they can make progress.
As to POTUS, the reason Obamma needs to go is to get him out of the way of business. Should he be re-elected, I'm out and will close the business permanently and collect Social Security. Not really ready for retirement but will as I'm tired of government interference and over regulation.
"The difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals believe government can level the playing field. Conservatives look to government to get out of the way and not interfer with the playing field so they can make progress."
DeleteI don't believe reality supports this Lou. I believe that conservatives believe all liberals are looking for government to create an equality of outcomes. Convincing them otherwise is something that most are just not interested in hearing. As to the second part, good luck. Carter started massive deregulation and pretty much every industry that has been deregulated has followed a similar trajectory - initial big expansion, attraction of ridiculous overinvestment, ridiculous payouts for a select few at the heads of those industries, followed by a big collapse. I get it Lou, I've heard the argument for 30 years that government IS the problem and the that solution is to make it so weak an inneffective that it fails to do anything. You believe it, I don't.
Embedded in you fourth para there is the current storyline of our economy. If you aren't doing well, it's because you are lazy. it's not completely false, but it's not completely true either. If you look at what sorts of things you personally would do to help your children succeed, it would probably include instilling them with a work ethic, encouraging them to study and make some sacrifices yourself if it helps them get ahead. As a nation, however, we don't feel this way towards each other and generically toward future generations. You chastise the poor for taking handouts, but there is little to no outrage from the right when a pompous asshole like Jamie Dimon continues to receive a massive payout when his company records a multi billion dollar trading loss on his watch. "The Market" does no better job of cleansing out idiots then the government does. Yet, we are told, it's the welfare queen on food stamps who is really to blame.
Meh, these political spats are meaningless. Bottom line Lou, our country has become a nation of selfish brats with a vastly overinflated sense of importance. You can close your business and movie stars can threaten to leave the country if they don't get what they want. Will that change anything? I don't think so.
Business closes will make no difference to you however to me I may live a few extra years without the stress. It isn't just regulations, it's regulations that make little sense but to the groups being pandered to. i.e. the EPA's new rules forcing coal fired power plants to close. Great idea until it hits 100 and we get rolling blackouts.
DeleteGreat idea to limit fracking. Save something, make that wind and solar more competitive by raising the cost of natural gas.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering a crackdown on farm dust, so senators have signed a letter addressing their concerns on the possible regulations.
"If approved, would establish the most stringent and unparalleled regulation of dust in our nation's history." It further states, "We respect efforts for a clean and healthy environment, but not at the expense of common sense. These identified levels will be extremely burdensome for farmers and livestock producers to attain. Whether its livestock kicking up dust, soybeans being combined on a dry day in the fall, or driving a car down the gravel road, dust is a naturally occurring event."
When the companies that supply motor fuel closed the books on 2011, they paid about $6.8 million in penalties to the Treasury because they failed to mix a special type of biofuel into their gasoline and diesel as required by law.
But there was none to be had. Outside a handful of laboratories and workshops, the ingredient, cellulosic biofuel, does not exist.
In 2012, the oil companies expect to pay even higher penalties for failing to blend in the fuel, which is made from wood chips or the inedible parts of plants like corncobs … The law, aimed at reducing the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, its reliance on oil imported from hostile places and the export of dollars to pay for it, includes provisions to increase the efficiency of vehicles as well as incorporate renewable energy sources into gasoline and diesel. The EPA said, what's the problem, you pass the tax on to the consumer.
Yep,
I won't miss the EPA one bit.
That is government over reach at it's best.
yeah, I get it.
DeleteNeither of my parents lived to collect SS and take advantage of Medicare--------and they are not the only ones either. Is it an "entitlement" if you never get it? Who gets it if they didn't? I hope it was someone who really, really needed it----that would make me happy.
ReplyDeleteWho gets it if they didn't
DeleteYour kidding of course. There is no money in SS or Medicare. The money collected every week was spent in the general fund as it was collected. There is no surplus, individual account, just smoke and mirrors.