1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

If You Paid, Pay or Will Pay Taxes:

Discussion in 'Politics, Elections & Legislation' started by JBrooks, Feb 26, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. JBrooks

    JBrooks TS Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    3,707
    If you paid, pay or will pay taxes voting for any Democrat is not very wise. Why? Well, Obama keeps saying he is only going to raise taxes on the "top 2%". Well, that is just bull shit. Here is an article from the Wall street Journal that points out that if Obama and Democrats took ALL the money earned by EVERYONE making over $75,000, he couldn't pay this years expenditures.

    Your kids are sooo screwed.

    "President Obama has laid out the most ambitious and expensive domestic agenda since LBJ, and now all he has to do is figure out how to pay for it. On Tuesday, he left the impression that we need merely end "tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans," and he promised that households earning less than $250,000 won't see their taxes increased by "one single dime."


    This is going to be some trick. Even the most basic inspection of the IRS income tax statistics shows that raising taxes on the salaries, dividends and capital gains of those making more than $250,000 can't possibly raise enough revenue to fund Mr. Obama's new spending ambitions.

    Consider the IRS data for 2006, the most recent year that such tax data are available and a good year for the economy and "the wealthiest 2%." Roughly 3.8 million filers had adjusted gross incomes above $200,000 in 2006. (That's about 7% of all returns; the data aren't broken down at the $250,000 point.) These people paid about $522 billion in income taxes, or roughly 62% of all federal individual income receipts. The richest 1% -- about 1.65 million filers making above $388,806 -- paid some $408 billion, or 39.9% of all income tax revenues, while earning about 22% of all reported U.S. income.

    Note that federal income taxes are already "progressive" with a 35% top marginal rate, and that Mr. Obama is (so far) proposing to raise it only to 39.6%, plus another two percentage points in hidden deduction phase-outs. He'd also raise capital gains and dividend rates, but those both yield far less revenue than the income tax. These combined increases won't come close to raising the hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue that Mr. Obama is going to need.

    But let's not stop at a 42% top rate; as a thought experiment, let's go all the way. A tax policy that confiscated 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000 in 2006 would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That's less than half the 2006 federal budget of $2.7 trillion and looks tiny compared to the more than $4 trillion Congress will spend in fiscal 2010. Even taking every taxable "dime" of everyone earning more than $75,000 in 2006 would have barely yielded enough to cover that $4 trillion.

    Fast forward to this year (and 2010) when the Wall Street meltdown and recession are going to mean far few taxpayers earning more than $500,000. Profits are plunging, businesses are cutting or eliminating dividends, hedge funds are rolling up, and, most of all, capital nationwide is on strike. Raising taxes now will thus yield far less revenue than it would have in 2006."

    The Democrats have a simple plan. Take money from people who earn it and give it to those who don't to buy for their votes.
     
  2. halfmile

    halfmile Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    15,639
    Location:
    Green Bay Wisconsin
    The big problem is that the people who should know better prefer Kool-Aid.

    HM
     
  3. JBrooks

    JBrooks TS Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    3,707
    More Pork

    "Among the recipients of federal largesse is the Polynesian Voyaging Society of Honolulu, which got a $238,000 "earmark" in the bill.

    The group organizes sea voyages in ancient-style sailing canoes like the ones that first brought settlers to Hawaii.

    The sailing club has a powerful wind at its back in the person of Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee."
     
  4. Savage99Stan

    Savage99Stan Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,081
    Taxes will go up as soon as Bush's tax cuts expire. Obama will say that he didn't cause them to go up, he inherited this problem along with the rest that he blames on the previous administration, unfortunately, not blaming the one before that which is where most of the recent problems began.
     
  5. R.Kipling

    R.Kipling Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2007
    Messages:
    1,765
    This is the way I see it: All of a sudden, you finally recognize that your accountant has stolen $1 million dollars from you, over 6 years. You kick his ass to the curb, and bring in new blood. Then, two years later you discover that your new accountant has stolen another $700,000 leaving you in debt.

    For all this, you decide to award your new accountant with a $1.4 million dollar bonus (writing him a check from your credit card promotion) .....Oh, and you hand the newbie your wallet and piggy-banks on your way to the movies, with the wife and kids............mind boggling.......

    We'll discuss your new accountant moving his poor, illegal relatives into your guest room next time.

    IMHO,
    Kip
     
  6. highflyer

    highflyer TS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,474
    I can't believe that Obama would lie to us.
     
  7. highflyer

    highflyer TS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,474
    25,000 dollars per tax payer. That would be 50,000 dollars for me and my wife. That seems like a lot. And what am I getting for that? I'm getting screwed by the government.
     
  8. Surfside6

    Surfside6 TS Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2006
    Messages:
    115
    Our Tax System Explained: Bar Stool Economics
    Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
    The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
    So, that's what they decided to do.
    The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
    The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
    But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
    They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
    And so:
    The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
    Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
    'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'
    'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I got'
    'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
    'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'
    The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
    The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
    And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. Professor of Economics University of Georgia
    For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
     
  9. bigdogtx

    bigdogtx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    10,650
    JB, you are wrong,,,,there were no "earmarks" in the PORK bill,,,,hussein said so,,,,there wasn't an earmark for ACORN in the PORK bill or the omnibus spending bill,,,,at least clinton didn't lie until after at least a year in office!!!!!
     
  10. daddiooo

    daddiooo TS Supporters TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    4,004
    Location:
    GEORGIA
    JBrooks,

    I post and read here off and on all day and what I got out of this is bend over and grab your ankles. Do you suppose we could request that they at least they use a condom on us? LOL

    Dave
     
  11. JBrooks

    JBrooks TS Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    3,707
    Well they should, they set aside $335,000,000 for just such things:

    "By Kathleen Gilbert

    WASHINGTON, D.C., January 28, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Just one day after millions of dollars in contraception and abortion handouts in Obama's nearly $1 trillion economic stimulus package were made public and immediately discarded, news has come to light of another $335 million set aside for condoms and sexually explicit "STD prevention" programs."
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.