patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,201,255 comments by 14,236 users - mell, TheDonald, The_Deplorable online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 11 - 31 of 31 Search these comments
Vicente
2010 Oct 28, 2:31am
Yes because clearly the Tea Party & President Palin nutters are LEAN MEAN FIGHTING MACHINES:
Repeat - I don't think TAX INCREASES, for themselves, were what democratic voters had in mind when they voted for "Hope and Change". They wanted to "stick it to the man", "soak the rich", "spread the wealth", "punish those greedy capitalists" - hahaha. Well, it didn't quite work out that way, did it? It backfired when the democrats voted for hope and change. And now its going to cost everyone, in the form of LESS take home pay.
Ah, spreading the misery amongst all, and all for the common good, comrade.
Vicente
2010 Oct 28, 6:21am
Repeat - I don’t think TAX INCREASES, for themselves, were what democratic voters had in mind when they voted for “Hope and Changeâ€.
Except, according to my tax return, I paid less in taxes this year. Doubtless you made some mistake if you think yours went up, but we thank you for the extra donation!
Vicente
2010 Oct 28, 6:26am
What are all those liberals doing at a Tea Party event?
According to I think it was PolishKnight, liberal Welfare Queens spend all their free time going around to Tea Party rallies and trying to look crazed & racist to embarrass the Tea Party. You're right, it's obvious these people are plants.
Vincente - the tax breaks for millions of middle class, working Americans is over at the end of the year. The tax punishment begins Jan 1, 2011. Haven't you been paying attention to current events?
A married couple making a combined income of $80,000 will soon be paying about $450 MORE IN TAXES, per month. If our economy is based on consumption, what effect will that have on the economy? If people earn LESS, are they likely to spend MORE? Why can't you lib's figure this stuff out for yourselves? Shoot, I'm not even a Harvard trained economist and I understand it.
Vincente - the tax breaks for millions of middle class, working Americans is over at the end of the year. The tax punishment begins Jan 1, 2011. Haven’t you been paying attention to current events?
A married couple making a combined income of $80,000 will soon be paying about $450 MORE IN TAXES, per month. If our economy is based on consumption, what effect will that have on the economy? If people earn LESS, are they likely to spend MORE? Why can’t you lib’s figure this stuff out for yourselves? Shoot, I’m not even a Harvard trained economist and I understand it.
Liar. Liar. Liar.
Taxes for a couple with $80k taxable income in 2010: $12,364
Taxes for a couple with $80k taxable income in 2011: $14,899
Monthly increase: $211.25
Under Obama's proposal, the couple would pay the same in 2011 as they pay in 2010. Why don't you support Obama's proposal?
Also, $80k in TAXABLE income is a *LOT*. You're looking at gross income in the $100-120k range, which is more than 90% of American families make.
In other words, even if the bush tax cuts expire (calling it a "tax increase" is a lie), the average american family will be impacted by less than the cost of their monthly cable bill.
Realistically, the most likely outcome next year is going to be that you pay exactly the same as you pay this year. The only people who might have their rates go back to what they were in 2001 are those with taxable income over $250k. The only "real" debate on the floor right now is whether the cut off is going to be $250k or $500k.
Done!
2010 Oct 28, 1:45pm
What are all those liberals doing at a Tea Party event?
According to I think it was PolishKnight, liberal Welfare Queens spend all their free time going around to Tea Party rallies and trying to look crazed & racist to embarrass the Tea Party. You’re right, it’s obvious these people are plants.
Mind if I ask what's wrong with those people, if anything?
Vicente
2010 Oct 28, 2:14pm
Mind if I ask what’s wrong with those people, if anything?
That they are commie pinko socialist nazis, try to keep up!
Real Americans look like this:
Vincente, I stand corrected. Your math is correct, but so is my overall premise. People earning less, will not be spending more.
Vincente, I stand corrected. Your math is correct, but so is my overall premise. People earning less, will not be spending more.
So why not just reduce taxes to zero? After all, there are clearly no other things to consider aside from the volume of money in people's pockets. I'm sure the military and social programs will get paid for somehow.
Vicente
2010 Oct 29, 4:12am
As for the wealthy, they will get slammed with it whenever they buy a new Rolls.
The majority of "wealth" of Richy Rich is not held in cash and used for buying Rolls Royces.
Convert dividend and interest taxes to the highest bracket instead of the criminally low 15% and you might sell me on it.
Vicente
2010 Oct 29, 4:44am
But in the meantime, that means a lot of jobs in the private sector won’t be created that otherwise would have.
The underlying assumption in all of these sorts of schemes, always seems to be "trickle down" doesn't it? Let's jigger the tax code and hopefully it will rain jobs? The fact is rich people have negative interest in generating jobs for Americans and fight it at every turn. Make it CONDITIONAL and then you might convince a lot of people. You create X new American jobs or we apply retroactive penalty taxes.
It's always funny to me that people decry liberals for NAIVELY trusting that if they help people via something like welfare or job training, that they will better themselves and Utopia will result. FOOLS, they say, all is you need to make it CONDITIONAL. Make 'em WORK for it smashing rocks or picking up trash, otherwise they will just take advantage and never live up to their end. Set limits of 5 years, oh wait we did that one under Clinton. Yet the same concept applied to a different class as "let's set free the capitalists, without strings, and they will deliver good-paying jobs for Americans" hasn't delivered in 30 years either and it doesn't seem to be subject to the same criticisms by the same people.
Vicente
2010 Oct 29, 5:00am
Whenever we taxed the rich more, I have never seen a direct benefit come my way. But when we taxed them less, a lot more jobs got created. And I definitely benefited from that.
Wait are we talking about YOU, or about Americans?
Reagan had to backtrack a bit on tax cuts after unemployment went up:
More recently Bush Jr. tax cuts, did that decrease unemployment? Nope.
Â¥
2010 Oct 29, 2:15pm
The US will not be able to collect 3T annually on any single tax system alone
zzyzzx
2011 Mar 29, 12:55am
The UK has a 20% VAT (lower than proposed in fairtax) and a top marginal income tax bracket of 50% — but VAT makes up only 15% of total revenue. Now, granted, VAT has lots of exceptions,
Isn't the exceptions to the VAT the real problem. Just make no execptions. The rate should be the same on all goods AND services.
zzyzzx
2011 Mar 29, 12:59am
Tell me more about WalMart in France! Did the French surrender to WalMart there, or something?
FortWayne
2011 Mar 29, 1:20am
I wish they fixed the off-shoring loopholes. I frankly don't want to keep on paying taxes anymore, it seems hardly fair.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate-shows-how-60-billion-u-s-revenue-lost-to-tax-loopholes.html
Since big corporations are already paying next to nothing in income tax - let's just scrape it. It would be much better for US economy if profits made by big corporations are freely reinvested in the USA rather than kept in offshore accounts.
A national retail sales tax implemented as described at www.fairtax.org is much better solution:
"...The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 296) is nonpartisan legislation. It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities...."