The political knifes are drawn

[skysidhe]

I was being sarcastic Lamp.

The democrats want add-ons to the bill. The democrats want to add pork. The dems don't care about the tax breaks for the wealthy. They don't care about promises. They only care about their own constituents and I think we made it clear we want to be fiscally conservative. I think most Americans do?

This bill WAS about the economy and to keep taxes low. It looked as though this bill was going to be as streamlined as possible, but the democrats seem to just want to spend,spend,spend.



Oh did I mention the democrats want to add pork? More pork. Pork0mania.




Oh did I mention the democrats want to add pork? More pork. Pork0mania.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101211/...ge/us_tax_cuts

In the spirit of the holiday season, President Barack Obama's tax-cut deal with Republicans is becoming a Christmas tree tinseled with gifts for lobbyists and lawmakers.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by skysidhe

I was being sarcastic Lamp.

The democrats want add-ons to the bill. The democrats want to add pork. The dems don't care about the tax breaks for the wealthy. They don't care about promises. They only care about their own constituents and I think we made it clear we want to be fiscally conservative. I think most Americans do?

This bill WAS about the economy and to keep taxes low. It looked as though this bill was going to be as streamlined as possible, but the democrats seem to just want to spend,spend,spend.



Oh did I mention the democrats want to add pork? More pork. Pork0mania.




Oh did I mention the democrats want to add pork? More pork. Pork0mania.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101211/...ge/us_tax_cuts

No, in order to prevent the unemployed from starving and losing their houses, etc, the President had to pay off the repubicans.

By the way, did you notice how the deficit increased and the rich got richer while the middle class got poorer while the president, house and senate were contrilloed by the repubicans?

By the way, did you notice how the deficit increased and the rich got richer while the middle class got poorer while the president, house and senate were contrilloed by the repubicans?

By the way, did you notice how the deficit increased and the rich got richer while the middle class got poorer while the president, house and senate were contrilloed by the repubicans?

[TheMercenary]

And on a lighter note.....

[skysidhe]

spex

Here is a simple google search. Take it for what it's worth. If you don't like what it says, maybe you can find something to the contrary.

http://libertyworks.com/will-a-tax-h...an-fewer-jobs/

Fortunately, the IRS has data to answer these questions. As the charts show more than two million taxpayers who earned over $200,000 were small business owners, and they earned 63% of all small business profits.

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content...owth-jobs.html

The facts bear this out. According to the Treasury Department, 8 percent of small businesses earn enough to pay at the top two income-tax rates, but those businesses earn 72 percent of all small-business income. They also pay 82 percent of all income taxes paid by small businesses.

Also, I am a democrat. I voted for Clinton. The unemployment rate at the time was about half it is now. The country was able to afford higher taxes.

As far as individuals go. This is the tax burden people have to look forward to in a shaky economic climate.

According to calculations at mytaxburden.org, created by the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan tax research group based in Washington, D.C.:
n A single person making $50,000 will pay $605 more in taxes.
n A couple making $50,000 with two minor children will pay $2,143 more in taxes.
n A single person making $100,000 will pay $2,105 more in taxes.
n A couple making $100,000 with two minor children will pay $4,010 more in taxes.
n A single person making $250,000 will pay $7,484 more in taxes.
n A couple making $250,000 with two minor children will pay $6,254 more in taxes.

In January, If the person making 50,000 is paying $605 more in taxes, it isn't hard to assume they will be spending less.

What's striking is the couple who make $50,000 will pay $2,105 more in taxes.

[Lamplighter]

Merc, as I was typing my post I actually had the thought that you would enjoy it !

[TheMercenary]

They also pay 82 percent of all income taxes paid by small businesses.

And that frigging says it all... A minority pay it all. And when people don't contribute they instantly become Zero Liability Voters, because they don't care how much it costs someone else. Well done sky...

[TheMercenary]

I think it was a great balance. He may not have negotiated it directly himself, but his minions did. He obviously took some clues from Clinton, since he let Clinton represent him for a 30 min press conference where he said next to nothing. I would rather see something happen, rather than 1)Having things Rhamed down the peoples throat by some group of pompous liberals who think they know better what is good for people than the people themselves and, 2)Negotiation over gridlock. It is a win-win.

[Lamplighter]

My G-son just posted on FaceBook:
"Maybe Obama just isn't that into us..."

BTW, his car is still has the "Kitzhaber" sticker on the back.
His political sense of humor is developing nicely.

[TheMercenary]

Sounds like an inside joke. Is that an important statement of some kind? I don't get it....

[Lamplighter]

Yes, it was for Sky's benefit.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by skysidhe

As far as individuals go. This is the tax burden people have to look forward to in a shaky economic climate.


Quote:
According to calculations at mytaxburden.org, created by the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan tax research group based in Washington, D.C.:
n A single person making $50,000 will pay $605 more in taxes.
n A couple making $50,000 with two minor children will pay $2,143 more in taxes.
n A single person making $100,000 will pay $2,105 more in taxes.
n A couple making $100,000 with two minor children will pay $4,010 more in taxes.
n A single person making $250,000 will pay $7,484 more in taxes.
n A couple making $250,000 with two minor children will pay $6,254 more in taxes.

In January, If the person making 50,000 is paying $605 more in taxes, it isn't hard to assume they will be spending less.

What's striking is the couple who make $50,000 will pay $2,105 more in taxes

What? You have completely lost me, Sky. If mytaxburden.org is putting out propaganda like what you quoted, they're about as nonpartisan as an Ayn Rand novel. Where's John Galt when we need him?

As far as your comment to Spex, I'll agree he was off base, but everyone here is bright enough to Google anything they damn well please. I bet if I searched enough I could find RavingMaoLovingHippyLiberals.org, a non-partisan group dedicated to disseminating honest to God pictures of homeless Moms and kids eating out of garbage cans.

In an attempt to verify your quote I did some Googling for myself (I got lost on mytaxburden.org). I came across my very own non partisan outfit, the taxpolicycenter.org. Here's a few of their jillion statistics, hot off the Internet as of 12/07/10:

Reported tax agreement between Administration and Congressional Republicans - percent change in after tax income:

Lowest quintile 3.7%
Second quintile 4.6 %
Middle quintile 4.4%

Fourth quintile 4.6%
Top quintile 5.2 %

Top 1% 6.3%
Top .1% 7.3%

http://tpcprod.urban.org/numbers/dis...63&DocTypeID=2

All the above percentages are INCREASES in income. As a Liberal, I'll make note of the fact that, as usual, the upper income brackets fare better than the lower ones.

But that's not my point. I'm wondering where the hell everyone gets their data and should we believe any of it? I would like to think that we could trust an outfit that labels itself "non-partisan," but obviously we can't.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by SamIam

... an Ayn Rand novel. Where's John Galt when we need him?

I have a number of bumper stickers on the back of my truck that refer to that very thing.

[TheMercenary]

As long as a minority of the electorate pays for everything those that pay little to nothing will have no problem asking them to give more as they spend more of that they don't have to pay for. Zero Liability Voters will always vote for someone or something that does not affect them financially. Always. Only when everyone has a stake in the costs and everyone one pays an equal share of the federal taxes as a percentage of our various incomes will we begin to tackle the problems that pain us as a nation....

[Lamplighter]

Merc, in this land of equality where everyone will have the same stake,
do some citizens get tax deductions / credits / exemptions
based on the form of their income (e.g., investment vs hourly wages ),
or has all of that sort of tax-avoidance been eliminated ?

Or, is taxation not based on income at all, but instead equal taxation
applied at the time of expenditures (VAT) ?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Merc, in this land of equality where everyone will have the same stake,
do some citizens get tax deductions / credits / exemptions
based on the form of their income (e.g., investment vs hourly wages ),
or has all of that sort of tax-avoidance been eliminated ?

Or, is taxation not based on income at all, but instead equal taxation
applied at the time of expenditures (VAT) ?

We don't live in a land of economic equality and never have. Not everyone has the same stake in our economy, hence the phrase "Zero Liability Voter". Our progressive system is currently based only on income. I would welcome a VAT, if it replaced a huge decrease in the current tax basis for all income earners. That or a flat tax ala the Boortz plan, which contrary to it's critics would give us a lot more money than the current scheme.