Reply With Quote
Damn liberal crybabies.
Everyone needs to pay taxes. The rich do pay too much. Without a stake in how tax dollars are spent, we continue to get voters who don't care how much others are taxed.
We need more tax payers. Not more taxes.
– Federal taxes would be lower for the richest 10 percent, and higher for all other income groups, than they would be if President Obama’s proposals were enacted.
– The bottom 80 percent of taxpayers would pay about $1,700 more, on average, than they would if President Obama’s proposals were enacted.
– The richest one percent would pay about $211,300 less on average than they would if President Obama’s proposals were enacted.
– The poorest 20 percent would pay 12.3 percent of their income more than what they would pay under the President’s proposal, while the richest one percent would pay 15 percent of their income less than they would pay under the President’s proposal.
This shift in tax burden not only would force the middle- and lower-classes to pony up far more than the rich, but it would also result in the government collecting $2 trillion less over a decade than it otherwise would have. “It’s difficult to design a tax plan that will lose $2 trillion over a decade even while requiring 90 percent of taxpayers to pay more. But Congressman Ryan has met that daunting challenge,”
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/20...an-budget-ctj/
Last edited by boutons_deux; 01-21-2011 at 05:57 PM.
Damn liberal crybabies.
Everyone needs to pay taxes. The rich do pay too much. Without a stake in how tax dollars are spent, we continue to get voters who don't care how much others are taxed.
We need more tax payers. Not more taxes.
In other words, the wealth inequality in this nation isn't polarized enough yet.
It shouldn't be polarizing. Those of little income should strive to have more rather than hating those who have more. Jealousy is not healthy.
Wealth inequality shouldn't be polarizing? That's the ing definition of wealth inequality.
You think this is all about jealousy, WC?
I'm really at a loss for words to describe how stupid you are.
Well, explain to me then who does the polarizing. It's not the right. We contend we need more tax payers. Most of us contend that everyone should pay taxes, and have those taxes subject to the policies that our elected officials have control over. Control in a way that everyone is treated equal, and that you don't have "special rights" that allow 40%+ of the population not to pay any income tax.
It's this special right not to pay taxes that's wrong. It creates no fiscal responsibility in the people's vote for who they send to office.
Give me an example of what you're saying. Are you saying that someone who is poor and doesn't pay federal income tax is going to vote for someone who supports social programs that they need just because they aren't paying for it?
Well... guess what. If you take more money away from someone who is already poor, you really think that person is suddenly going to be against things like that when they now need those programs even more as a result of having even less money?
I see where wing-nuts are going here....they want to take away the right to vote in national elections people who don't pay federal income taxes....the ultimate disenfranchisement...
The Right used to be against ANY income tax for anyone. What happened to those guys?
The wealth inequality is the polarization. As in you have all the money at one pole and all the people at the other. And your solution is to widen the chasm farther?
Seriously, this is what we're looking at for the next two years at least...
The wealth inequality is the polarization. As in you have all the money at one pole and all the people at the other. And your solution is to widen the chasm farther?
No surprise.
I never understood why do you care how much the rich pay, after describing yourself as a 'peasant'?
Do you think the rich are going to throw you a bone or something?
Actually, he describes himself as a pheasant which also explains a lot.
Ruling out defense, veterans and en lements leaves what, about 20% of the budget? Those aren't broad based cuts, and so far, specificity is lacking. All we have at this point is numerical targets, really.
GOP leaders (Boehner, Ryan) are already backing off on those.
Yes. Absolutely.
Not completely. I only expect it to temper their vote about politicians who wish to raise taxes.
Bull . It's idiots like you who are jealous, who make it an issue, and polarizing.
The wealth inequality is the polarization. As in you have all the money at one pole and all the people at the other. And your solution is to widen the chasm farther?
Stop misinterpreting my obvious play on words.
The elitists see us a peasants. Not me.
I don't care how much the rich make, I only see it unfair that they get taxed at a higher rate, when they already pay more because they make more. Isn't that fact enough for your side?
Over your head again even when explained like I was talking to a third grader?
It's a good thing you don't know any math or physics since you'd go nuts screaming liberal jealousy every time you opened a complex analysis or E&M book and reflexively applied the wingnut definition for poles and polarization.
So now wC advocates bigger deficits..hmm ok
WC is a stubborn child who isn't worth talking too. He's the wingnut mouse, but at least with mouse it just seems to be an act to effectively troll people.
if you make more you pay more. everytime i get a raise i pay more taxes
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
