DCUM Class warfare

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:The problem isn't revenue it's spending.

The deficit problem is obvious spending relative to revenue. Just saying that it's one is worthless.

Anonymous wrote:Yet that is always left out and we just blame people who go out and make a good living.

Who's blaming them? Where are these people? Why don't you address the PP with whom you're actually engaging?

Anonymous wrote:But we are vastly inefficient and everyone knows taht.

The question is often, "Compared to what?" The government is much more efficient in health insurance than is the private sector. Everyone would acknowledge some waste, of course.

Anonymous wrote:To then just say "give us more" and not "gives us more, please" but "gives us more or you're a selfish and an asshole that lacks compassion" will always get pushback.

Yep - plenty of that coming from...Faux news paraphrasing, not actual people.

Anonymous wrote:He's carrying on in the Bush tradition. America has big problems and huge structural changes here we have a president that doesn't want to lead us but to put people down.

Quotes?

Still no quotes?

Here's one: "Nobody wants to punish success in America," Obama said. "What’s great about this country is our belief that anyone can make it and everybody should be able to try--the idea that any one of us can open a business or have an idea and make us millionaires or billionaires. This is the land of opportunity. That’s great. All I’m saying is that those who have done well, including me, should pay our fair share in taxes to contribute to the nation that made our success possible."

He's mad! Take your gold and run for the hills before the jack-booted thugs arrive!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My "fair share" is already 1/3 of my income. Half the people in this country pay zip. That's the height of unfairness.

You realize half the people in this country make less than $48K a year right. 15% live in poverty which is less than $21k for a family of four. Let's say you make 300K, should they pay 7K of their income and be left with 14K because so you don't t have to pay 2% more? It's hard to feel bad for you (or me, because we have a lot of money, but understand we're rich because we live and were educated in America, yes we worked hard but people work hard all over the world and don't get to have what we have). I'm not jealous of you, I think you lack empathy and compassion.

So now our tax structure should be based on what YOU believe is empathy and compassion? How about we stop using tax dollars to kill babies, that's empathy and compassion. This so called moral argument that you must give more to the governement to show compassion is bullshit. I'd rather give more to Catholic Charities (I'm not even Catholic but they do great work), or the Red Cross or some other charitable organization that actually uses it, not overpaid DC federal workers who churn it down and waste it. This empathy argument is so straw man. YOU give more, give half of your income to the American government because you have more empathy than me, that's fine. See how well they spend it. It boggles my mind that after hundreds of years people still believe that the government is the best allocator of resources. Look at how the government has fucked up year on year on year. The government does not create wealth. Period.

No, our tax structure is based what we as a society have determined our government should pay for, including assisting the elderly (something we all hope to be some day) and the poor, and where we get that money. The reason some of us support the very wealthy paying a higher percentage than the poor is because of the impact. Take 33% of the person who makes 30K and they have to live off of 20K, which is next to impossible. Take the same amount off of someone who makes 300K and they have to live off 200K, quite a decent life.

And guess what we as a society DO give plenty to charitable organizations including very wealthy churches, because unlike everyone else they don't pay taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"So are you saying everyone should aspire to be a CEO or lawyer? Who will teach your children? Deliver your mail? Watch your children while you are at work? Pave your roads? Police the community? Work at your grocery store or favorite restaurant? Your attitude is frankly astounding, and rather frightening. "

My attitude is that if you want higher income, you need to go into a higher paying profession. If not, don't complain when you can't stay afloat. I couldn't afford to be a teacher; maybe in retirement. It's a luxury to pursue a profession you want if it's not super high paying.

Are you for real? If you are the same person who has responded multiple times about how you chose a high-paying profession and those did not should shut up and suck it up, I agree with the PP you quoted; you are frightening.

To you and the OP: many of us don't care how much you make. My family would be considered middle class around here, but I realize that compared to most people in this country and in the world, we are very lucky to have a home, good food to eat, clean water to drink, a good education, etc. I did all the things that the rich people on this thread are patting themselves on the back for (working hard in school, etc.), but I don't feel that I am entitled to riches and luxuries based on this. I also prefer to have a profession that I believe helps others and contributes in a notable way to society rather than to pursue a career based purely on the hope for a high salary. I would not condemn you for making a lot of money; I would condemn you for your obvious and misplaced feelings of superiority and your lack of basic humanity.

I believe the word is amoral. Breathtaking really.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"We don't own a home. Have previously, but not now. Residents of Texas, so no state income tax. Give cash to church, we don't bother tracking, minimal cash donations to other charities like St Judes, then donate house hold items to Salvation Army. So yes, standard deduction is better for us.

That quite frankly blows my mind. We already pay six figures in income tax, can't imagine what we'd pay if we settled for the standard deduction. You don't track your cash charitable contributions? I guess they're not hundreds every month.

If you pay 6 figures in income tax, you make at least 3x as much as me. We donate $75-$125 month. I'm guessing from your statement that you donate thousands of dollars each month?

[Anonymous]

A little off topic, but pertinent to the discussion of why everyone should pay some federal income tax if they earn wages. We have close to 50% of the population paying no federal income tax. Those individual's have no incentive to elect leaders who will be good use our federal monies prudently. We have a tremendous amount of waste in our system that most of us would never allow in our own budgets. It is time for all American's to demand accountability for spending and sadly, that will never happen as long as close to half take out but don't pay in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A little off topic, but pertinent to the discussion of why everyone should pay some federal income tax if they earn wages. We have close to 50% of the population paying no federal income tax. Those individual's have no incentive to elect leaders who will be good use our federal monies prudently. We have a tremendous amount of waste in our system that most of us would never allow in our own budgets. It is time for all American's to demand accountability for spending and sadly, that will never happen as long as close to half take out but don't pay in.

First, it's not always half. It varies year to year. For instance, it was under 40% in 2007.

Second, most (but not all) are ederly or families making under $20k/yr. I honestly don't know how anyone can think they can afford to pay taxes. Are you assuming they are lazy, maybe work part time? Possibly you missed the news, but unemployment is high right now, not just because people are too lazy to work.

Check out this data from 2009:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001289_who_pays.pdf
$75,000-$100,000 9.2% Tax Units with Zero or Negative Individual Income Tax Liability
$100,000-$200,000 3.5% Tax Units with Zero or Negative Individual Income Tax Liability
$200,000-$500,000 2.0% Tax Units with Zero or Negative Individual Income Tax Liability
$500,000-$1,000,000 2.0% Tax Units with Zero or Negative Individual Income Tax Liability
Over $1,000,000 1.5% Tax Units with Zero or Negative Individual Income Tax Liability

These are the folks that need to start paying their fair share.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A little off topic, but pertinent to the discussion of why everyone should pay some federal income tax if they earn wages. We have close to 50% of the population paying no federal income tax. Those individual's have no incentive to elect leaders who will be good use our federal monies prudently. We have a tremendous amount of waste in our system that most of us would never allow in our own budgets. It is time for all American's to demand accountability for spending and sadly, that will never happen as long as close to half take out but don't pay in.

First, it's not always half. It varies year to year. For instance, it was under 40% in 2007.

Second, most (but not all) are ederly or families making under $20k/yr. I honestly don't know how anyone can think they can afford to pay taxes. Are you assuming they are lazy, maybe work part time? Possibly you missed the news, but unemployment is high right now, not just because people are too lazy to work.

Check out this data from 2009:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001289_who_pays.pdf
$75,000-$100,000 9.2% Tax Units with Zero or Negative Individual Income Tax Liability
$100,000-$200,000 3.5% Tax Units with Zero or Negative Individual Income Tax Liability
$200,000-$500,000 2.0% Tax Units with Zero or Negative Individual Income Tax Liability
$500,000-$1,000,000 2.0% Tax Units with Zero or Negative Individual Income Tax Liability
Over $1,000,000 1.5% Tax Units with Zero or Negative Individual Income Tax Liability

These are the folks that need to start paying their fair share.

This. Stop with the "50% or Americans pay no tax" nonsense. Nickels and dimes from those families making <$50,000 are a spit in the ocean -- and won't amount to anything significant for you, me, or our country. I don't care about your empathy or compassion; you're acting stupid. You (maybe another) keep posting this same comment completely ignoring actual facts as pp has shown. Your ignorance is appalling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A little off topic, but pertinent to the discussion of why everyone should pay some federal income tax if they earn wages. We have close to 50% of the population paying no federal income tax. Those individual's have no incentive to elect leaders who will be good use our federal monies prudently. We have a tremendous amount of waste in our system that most of us would never allow in our own budgets. It is time for all American's to demand accountability for spending and sadly, that will never happen as long as close to half take out but don't pay in.

First, it's not always half. It varies year to year. For instance, it was under 40% in 2007.

Second, most (but not all) are ederly or families making under $20k/yr. I honestly don't know how anyone can think they can afford to pay taxes. Are you assuming they are lazy, maybe work part time? Possibly you missed the news, but unemployment is high right now, not just because people are too lazy to work.

Check out this data from 2009:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001289_who_pays.pdf
$75,000-$100,000 9.2% Tax Units with Zero or Negative Individual Income Tax Liability
$100,000-$200,000 3.5% Tax Units with Zero or Negative Individual Income Tax Liability
$200,000-$500,000 2.0% Tax Units with Zero or Negative Individual Income Tax Liability
$500,000-$1,000,000 2.0% Tax Units with Zero or Negative Individual Income Tax Liability
Over $1,000,000 1.5% Tax Units with Zero or Negative Individual Income Tax Liability

These are the folks that need to start paying their fair share.

This. Stop with the "50% or Americans pay no tax" nonsense. Nickels and dimes from those families making <$50,000 are a spit in the ocean -- and won't amount to anything significant for you, me, or our country. I don't care about your empathy or compassion; you're acting stupid. You (maybe another) keep posting this same comment completely ignoring actual facts as pp has shown. Your ignorance is appalling.

Maybe you didn't read what I wrote??? I was refering to those making over 75k that aren't paying any taxes. 1.5% of poeple making over a million dollars in 2009 paid no federal income tax.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A little off topic, but pertinent to the discussion of why everyone should pay some federal income tax if they earn wages. We have close to 50% of the population paying no federal income tax. Those individual's have no incentive to elect leaders who will be good use our federal monies prudently. We have a tremendous amount of waste in our system that most of us would never allow in our own budgets. It is time for all American's to demand accountability for spending and sadly, that will never happen as long as close to half take out but don't pay in.

First, it's not always half. It varies year to year. For instance, it was under 40% in 2007.

Second, most (but not all) are ederly or families making under $20k/yr. I honestly don't know how anyone can think they can afford to pay taxes. Are you assuming they are lazy, maybe work part time? Possibly you missed the news, but unemployment is high right now, not just because people are too lazy to work.

Check out this data from 2009:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001289_who_pays.pdf
$75,000-$100,000 9.2% Tax Units with Zero or Negative Individual Income Tax Liability
$100,000-$200,000 3.5% Tax Units with Zero or Negative Individual Income Tax Liability
$200,000-$500,000 2.0% Tax Units with Zero or Negative Individual Income Tax Liability
$500,000-$1,000,000 2.0% Tax Units with Zero or Negative Individual Income Tax Liability
Over $1,000,000 1.5% Tax Units with Zero or Negative Individual Income Tax Liability

These are the folks that need to start paying their fair share.

This. Stop with the "50% or Americans pay no tax" nonsense. Nickels and dimes from those families making <$50,000 are a spit in the ocean -- and won't amount to anything significant for you, me, or our country. I don't care about your empathy or compassion; you're acting stupid. You (maybe another) keep posting this same comment completely ignoring actual facts as pp has shown. Your ignorance is appalling.

Maybe you didn't read what I wrote??? I was refering to those making over 75k that aren't paying any taxes. 1.5% of poeple making over a million dollars in 2009 paid no federal income tax.

I agree with you. I was (inartfully) using your data to try to stop the pp parrot who keeps squawking about the <$50,000 families who don't pay their "fair share."

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:A little off topic, but pertinent to the discussion of why everyone should pay some federal income tax if they earn wages. We have close to 50% of the population paying no federal income tax. Those individual's have no incentive to elect leaders who will be good use our federal monies prudently.

Of course they do. My kids don't contribute to my HHI, but they have a big interest in how we spend our money. Those called "takers" have more incentive to ensure that money is well spent, since they (supposedly) rely on it more.

Besides, the voting problems in this country don't result from deficiencies in incentive but in knowledge and judgment.

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A little off topic, but pertinent to the discussion of why everyone should pay some federal income tax if they earn wages. We have close to 50% of the population paying no federal income tax. Those individual's have no incentive to elect leaders who will be good use our federal monies prudently.

Of course they do. My kids don't contribute to my HHI, but they have a big interest in how we spend our money. Those called "takers" have more incentive to ensure that money is well spent, since they (supposedly) rely on it more.

Besides, the voting problems in this country don't result from deficiencies in incentive but in knowledge and judgment.

They have an incentive to want the efficient use of money. They also have an incentive to take as much as possible from those who pay taxes and have it redistributed to them.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A little off topic, but pertinent to the discussion of why everyone should pay some federal income tax if they earn wages. We have close to 50% of the population paying no federal income tax. Those individual's have no incentive to elect leaders who will be good use our federal monies prudently.

Of course they do. My kids don't contribute to my HHI, but they have a big interest in how we spend our money. Those called "takers" have more incentive to ensure that money is well spent, since they (supposedly) rely on it more.

Besides, the voting problems in this country don't result from deficiencies in incentive but in knowledge and judgment.

They have an incentive to want the efficient use of money. They also have an incentive to take as much as possible from those who pay taxes and have it redistributed to them.

Profound observation. Everyone, rich and poor, has an incentive to maximize their money.

PP said something incentives to spend wisely, and I addressed it. I don't know why you're raising this separate (and very obvious) point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"We don't own a home. Have previously, but not now. Residents of Texas, so no state income tax. Give cash to church, we don't bother tracking, minimal cash donations to other charities like St Judes, then donate house hold items to Salvation Army. So yes, standard deduction is better for us.

That quite frankly blows my mind. We already pay six figures in income tax, can't imagine what we'd pay if we settled for the standard deduction. You don't track your cash charitable contributions? I guess they're not hundreds every month.

If you pay 6 figures in income tax, you make at least 3x as much as me. We donate $75-$125 month. I'm guessing from your statement that you donate thousands of dollars each month?

Not the PP you quoted. Why is it your moral responsibility to donate any money at all when you're paying the highest rate in taxes? I consider my taxes, which are above and beyond the normal citizen, to be a donation. Otherwise, I'd consider it highway robbery, which, technically, it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Public Service Announcement to ManWithAUsername:

You have interesting points on substance to make but I just can't read your comments anymore because you harp on "Rep/Faux" stuff. It isn't helpful when you assert or assume that those on the right are all being led like a pack of wolves and that everything they do or say is a "tactic." I accept that you believe these things but it just derails the conversation when you keep saying it.

Unless the comment really calls for a discussion of "tactics," could you go back to just accepting the other side's positions for what they are and addressing those?

If, as a self-professed "conservative, you want your arguments to be treated with respect, make arguments worthy of respect. Start by basing your arguments on facts supported by evidence. When you refer to Obama--who is essentially in the Reagan, HW Bush mold--as a "socialist", you deserve nothing but scorn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm sorry you reject that premise. That's exactly right. That's why I didn't slack off in school, go PT when I had kids, etc. Do you really think I should pay for you rejecting this premise? Grow up.

Why should the rest of us be expected to support you with tax expenditures? You benefit from a stable society more than poor people do, or people in precarious positions. Pay your fair share.

My "fair share" is already 1/3 of my income. Half the people in this country pay zip. That's the height of unfairness.

Horseshit. They pay a greater share of their income in taxes. It's just in local, state, payroll, and consumption taxes. It's hard to argue respectfully with someone when they haven't the slightest grasp of what they're talking about.