Tea Party

[ShadowBolt]

I wish I could go to San Antonio with Glenn Beck but I'll be in Round Rock with the other hard working people that think the F'ing government is spending too much of our money. If Chairman Obama has his way they will tax the Hell out of us to pay for all this crap. Bush spent money like a democrat in a whore house and Chairman Obama will make what Bush spent look like nothing. We have seen our business go down 40% since the fist of the year but we don't want Uncle Sam doing anything for us or getting in our way. Things are already starting to turn around just in the last month and if they leave us alone the American worker will pull us out of this crap in the next six months. Send a message to Washington tomorow. I doubt the left wing media will even report on this.


JJ

[jeffburch]

Well at least GB is a step closer in the right direction.
Remember, he used to be over on the other channel.
He's no Alex Jones tho.

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

jb

[ShadowBolt]

Well at least GB is a step closer in the right direction.
Remember, he used to be over on the other channel.
He's no Alex Jones tho.

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

jb

The only problem with Alex Jones is he has been in on every nutcase deal in the last ten years.

JJ

[Fbody383]

A little something for ya -

During a period of economic malaise in1979, the late Milton Friedman counsels Phil Donahue on the vacuity of demonizing greed. Enjoy.

http://blog.kir.com/archives/2009/02/greed_in_perspe.asp

Remember, O-Bama thinks a married school teacher and firefighter with two kids and a dog are rich.

Heard earlier in the week top 10% earners pay 70%-ish of income taxes?

Enough is enough - taxed enough already?! YES!

[BlueFirePony]

Heard earlier in the week top 10% earners pay 70%-ish of income taxes?

Enough is enough - taxed enough already?! YES!

Top 1% pays 40% of Income taxes but only earn 22% of adjusted gross income (AGI) (income > $388k)
Top 10% pays over 70% but only earn 46% of AGI (> $108k)
Top 25% pays over 85% but only earn 68% of the AGI (> $64k)

So if you are making over $64,000 you are paying a disproportionate percentage of the tax burden compared to your income.

At the rate of increase over the last two decades, the burden on the top 10% has grown from 54% in 1986 to 71% in 2006.
The largest jump was from 1991 to 2000 55.8% - 67.3. During that same period the rest of the top 25% were not spared and their burden went from 77.3% to 84%!!

Bush helped drop it back to 64.8% in 2001 and kept in under 66% until you-know-who got elected in 2004 when it skyrocketed up to 70% in 2 short years!!!

The argument that the "richest x%" have more disposable income therefore they should pay more taxes drives me nuts!

[ShadowBolt]

Heard earlier in the week top 10% earners pay 70%-ish of income taxes?

Enough is enough - taxed enough already?! YES!

Top 1% pays 40% of Income taxes but only earn 22% of adjusted gross income (AGI) (income > $388k)
Top 10% pays over 70% but only earn 46% of AGI (> $108k)
Top 25% pays over 85% but only earn 68% of the AGI (> $64k)

So if you are making over $64,000 you are paying a disproportionate percentage of the tax burden compared to your income.

At the rate of increase over the last two decades, the burden on the top 10% has grown from 54% in 1986 to 71% in 2006.
The largest jump was from 1991 to 2000 55.8% - 67.3. During that same period the rest of the top 25% were not spared and their burden went from 77.3% to 84%!!

Bush helped drop it back to 64.8% in 2001 and kept in under 66% until you-know-who got elected in 2004 when it skyrocketed up to 70% in 2 short years!!!

The argument that the "richest x%" have more disposable income therefore they should pay more taxes drives me nuts!

I could not have said it beter myself.

JJ

[Todd Covini]

http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/local/southeast_texas_tea_party_draws_hundreds_to_protes t_government_spending_04-15-2009.html

Large rally about a mile from my house today across from the post office. About 1500 person rally.

[jeffburch]

Band-aid on a head shot.
Too little, too late.
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm
jb

[AI#97]

Band-aid on a head shot.
Too little, too late.
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm
jb

Wonder how many layers of tin foil that guy's hat has? Probably couldn't penetrate it with a .50BMG....

[Al Fernandez]

At the risk of sounding like a tree hugging hippy from Calfornia... the fundamental logic that the more income you have the higher proportion of tax you ought to pay is valid IMHO. You can argue exact percentages all day long, but the wealthy should bear a larger burden than the poor.

[ShadowBolt]

At the risk of sounding like a tree hugging hippy from Calfornia... the fundamental logic that the more income you have the higher proportion of tax you ought to pay is valid IMHO. You can argue exact percentages all day long, but the wealthy should bear a larger burden than the poor.

We will have to agree to disagree. Why should I pay more of a percentage of my money than the next guy? The poor do not have a tax burden! The only fair tax is a sales tax. If you make a lot of money and spend it you pay a lot in taxes.
F'ing Calfornia fruit.

JJ

[Al Fernandez]

Everyone with a gross (not adjusted) over $11,950 (by my quick and dirty calcs) will owe the Fed something. Thats pretty damned poor to break into the "zero fed taxes" club!

The rich should pay more because they have more to loose from a peasant revolution! :lol:

[Todd Covini]

Al,
(I'm trying to save you here, buddy.) :wink:

Are you advocating the flat tax, where the rich pay more and the poor pay less? (Same % of earnings.)

OR

Are you advocating that the rich should pay a greater % of earnings than the poor?

I think it's getting lost in translation.

-=- T

[ShadowBolt]

Al,
(I'm trying to save you here, buddy.) :wink:

Are you advocating the flat tax, where the rich pay more and the poor pay less? (Same % of earnings.)

OR

Are you advocating that the rich should pay a greater % of earnings than the poor?

I think it's getting lost in translation.

-=- T

Sounds like a Pinko that thinks a person that makes a good living should pay more percentage than someone else. Yes a guy that makes $200,000.00 a year should pay 50% and the person that makes $40,000.00 should only pay 20%? WHY?


JJ

[Fbody383]

At the risk of sounding like a tree hugging hippy from Calfornia... the fundamental logic that the more income you have the higher proportion of tax you ought to pay is valid IMHO. You can argue exact percentages all day long, but the wealthy should bear a larger burden than the poor.

The following characterizations are for the purpose of this discussion only; but I've been surprised before about someones true beliefs. Not that it's necessarily wrong, but different than I expected.

Agree with Jerry, this is too socialistic/communistic for my tastes. If you believe the rich should bear a bigger burden, how much is that? We're way past 60/40.

No offense Matt, but Al do you want the entity that runs the post office in generally in charge of capital allocation? You don't think they did enough damage with mortgages? Social In-Security? Healthcare?

Approximately 50% of wage earners will pay NO income tax; is that fair? Congress wants to raise the earnings cap for SSI but without increased payments to those making bigger contributions over time; is that fair?

I bust my butt, have annually maxed out a 401(k) since my mid 20's, live in a house I can afford and have no revolving debt; why should my taxes go up to pay for someone who has made poor choices with their financial resources?

I manage spending on my hobbies prudently - which is why I currently borrow a trailer.

And since I'm pissed off now, where does Joe Biden, Mr. Vice President, get off saying anything about shared sacrifice after giving a whopping 0.6% or so of his income to charity?

Al, do me a favor, write out a check to the Treasury Department for a couple thousand more dollars, just to help out the small guy.

ps - I edited out the original thoughts about socialized medicine, health costs due to fat, alcohol, smoking...

Characterization off

[AllZWay]

If I quit working...can Al support me too. :P

There should not be a penalty for success and rewards for being lazy. :evil:

[Todd Covini]

Excellent! So we all agree then.
No more demonizing the oil companies for the high profits, high business acumen and high taxes they pay!!! WooHoo! :lol:

[AllZWay]

Excellent! So we all agree then.
No more demonizing the oil companies for the high profits, high business acumen and high taxes they pay!!! WooHoo! :lol:

No....that was theft...not success. :P

[evarner]

Maybe tax percentages should be based on IQ... :roll:

[Fbody383]

Excellent! So we all agree then.
No more demonizing the oil companies for the high profits, high business acumen and high taxes they pay!!! WooHoo! :lol:

Exactly; nor criticizing creative people like Gates and Jobs who were able to build businesses with such value that they begin to look like monopolies.

If the return on captial employeed is so good, why aren't there more oil companies? Because ROCE is less than most regulated utilities for the oil majors and most new money has an IRR hurdle approaching 20%.

This is still the greatest company in the world; all you need is the right idea and persistence. No guarantees but no artificial limits; for now.

[edrock96GT]

If I quit working...can Al support me too. :P

There should not be a penalty for success and rewards for being lazy. :evil:

Thank you, my thoughts exactly! If I decide to bust my ass or discover some hidden talent that makes me more money, and my only reward is to support the next guy who said "screw it"....why would anyone bother?

"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of someone else's money."
-Margaret Thatcher

[mitchntx]

The ONLY thing for sure is ...

If you bust your ass and make a lot of money, you think you are over taxed.

If you lay around the house sucking on the tax tit, you think the rich should pay more.

[jeffburch]

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Is said tit on Pelosi?
I don't want none.
jb

[Al Fernandez]

I think you guys are mixing apples and oranges. The fact that a bunch of people dont pay taxes doesnt have much to do with the tax rate, rather with a lack of reported income. If you taxed everyone the same rate, all those millions that dont pay taxes now would still not pay taxes because they dont have a reportable income more than a couple of grand a year.

[BlueFirePony]

At the risk of sounding like a tree hugging hippy from Calfornia... the fundamental logic that the more income you have the higher proportion of tax you ought to pay is valid IMHO. You can argue exact percentages all day long, but the wealthy should bear a larger burden than the poor.

Al, that's not really the point I am making - I actually don't have a problem paying a disproportionate amount compared to my adjusted income...just not a friggin random and every increasing disproportionate amount that I have absolutely no control over...none.
My rant was that the proportion is INCREASING EXPONENTIALLY. The top 10% of income earners did not have their disposable income grow at the same rate at which their proportion of the tax burden grew. If you factor out the few years that a mildly conservative Executive and Legislative branch were in control, tax burden grew a lot faster than disposable income.
Before very long, without controls on spending and more efficient use of the taxes that ARE collected, the tax burden on the top 10% will quickly outstrip their disposable income..once that happens there is NO MORE FRIGGIN MONEY TO TAX, 'cause the disposable income for the lower 90% is not large enough to pay the debt the gov't is incuring.
I grew up in Canada and what happens is when the taxes burden reaches the ceiling on the top 10%, government programs continue to run - they just run really really poorly (you think they are bad now? wait...just wait)

[Al Fernandez]

I hear you Brian, and agree with you entirely. There is a pile of shit wrong with the tax process, and with what the Fed does with it, no arguments at all. I was just saying that it isnt a bad thing to have those that have more contribute more. Mind you I dont agree with the splits as they are now, which is why I said you could argue about the percentages. :D

[jeremiahkellam]

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

[AI#97]

At the risk of sounding like a tree hugging hippy from Calfornia... the fundamental logic that the more income you have the higher proportion of tax you ought to pay is valid IMHO. You can argue exact percentages all day long, but the wealthy should bear a larger burden than the poor.

The following characterizations are for the purpose of this discussion only; but I've been surprised before about someones true beliefs. Not that it's necessarily wrong, but different than I expected.

Agree with Jerry, this is too socialistic/communistic for my tastes. If you believe the rich should bear a bigger burden, how much is that? We're way past 60/40.

No offense Matt, but Al do you want the entity that runs the post office in generally in charge of capital allocation? You don't think they did enough damage with mortgages? Social In-Security? Healthcare?

Approximately 50% of wage earners will pay NO income tax; is that fair? Congress wants to raise the earnings cap for SSI but without increased payments to those making bigger contributions over time; is that fair?

I bust my butt, have annually maxed out a 401(k) since my mid 20's, live in a house I can afford and have no revolving debt; why should my taxes go up to pay for someone who has made poor choices with their financial resources?

I manage spending on my hobbies prudently - which is why I currently borrow a trailer.

And since I'm pissed off now, where does Joe Biden, Mr. Vice President, get off saying anything about shared sacrifice after giving a whopping 0.6% or so of his income to charity?

Al, do me a favor, write out a check to the Treasury Department for a couple thousand more dollars, just to help out the small guy.

ps - I edited out the original thoughts about socialized medicine, health costs due to fat, alcohol, smoking...

Characterization off

No offense taken brother! If you want to fuck something up beyond belief, let a government employee do it.


I want the flat sales tax. I still don't see how someone doesn't pay income tax of some sort. Even if you only make $20k a year with the STD deduction, you still have taxable income and I doubt at $20k/yr, you have a house or business expenses to offset the rest.

I have been on the north side of 200k a year and when I payed in enough tax buy a new Z06 (no kids, no house and no deductions), or basically pay the per capital household income for 3 families, something is fucked up.

What I find funny is that the government wants to expand to take care of the people, but are moving toward a trend to farm out all the work to 3rd parties because it costs too much to hire permanant employees. I am finding a nice little niche making damn good money because even as a contractor providing my own benefits, I am costing 20% less than a fed employee. There is a lot of opportunity right now if you can find your spot. I am actually interviewing with the facilities wing of the border patrol on Wednesday with REALLY good chance of a nice raise! WHOOP!!!

[BlueFirePony]

There are two really important changes that need to take place.

First, the Legislative and Administrative branches of gov't MUST be held accountable for spending and this is at both Federal and State level. The current return on federal spendng measures are not nearly good enough of a measure. Until the appropriate measures are in place to do that, spending needs to be legislatively curtailed - there needs to be an upper limit on spending - uhmmm there was supposed to be a mechanism in place for that right!?
The distortion that is being created by the stimulus spending (which will only be recouped in taxation, if ever) has both unmanageable velocity and heft...its gonna come crashing down hard and the only thing that will stop it will be yet another MUCH LARGER stimulus.

Second, the legislators and taxpayers need a real education on the true distortion taxes create. We/they have been conditioned to view taxation based on the statutory accountability of taxes and not the true distortion which is far more about how behaviors change than who is obligated to pay the tax. Every tax (as well as every subsidy), whether applied to cost to produce or cost to purchase creates a distortion in behavior.
The main issue is that the lens that taxpayers and legislators look through (liberal, conservative, etc.) clouds the way they interpret the behavioral impact. That is one reason I think a flat tax would be better - its not open to interpretation.

I hope, more than anything, that the tea parties lead to people learning more about how the economy and taxation works - we don't need everyone to become economists, but really, if we are going to spend more time researching which game system to buy our kids (I don't do that anymore, but I was guilty for a while), which wine to buy for the next party (nope, not me either), or dare I say, which Toyo tire to run (ooops got me there), then we get what we deserve.

But a change in taxation will only be effective IFF spending is constrained. Otherwise the distortion will shift like grabbing a partially filled water balloon.

[David Love AI27]

funny thing about money....

you can gather as much $ as your willing to work for but you can't take it with you when you die...

on the other hand you can strive for love, laughter and friendships which will be there long after you are gone...