AP: Half of U.S. pays no federal income tax

[Modbert]

Here you go. I have lots and lots more.

Democrats' War on Poverty Has Failed - HUMAN EVENTS
Sep 6, 2006 ... Since 1964 we have spent $8–10 trillion on antipoverty programs. ... From the moment the Great Society conceived of the War on Poverty, it was a bad idea ... Over the four decades of the War on Poverty, progress has been made on the ... are much more difficult problems. To address these questions, ...

Democrats' War on Poverty Has Failed - HUMAN EVENTS -

Yeah, might as well get another one. A site that's proud slogan is "Leading Conservative Media Since 1944" may be a good source to get koolaid from but it's not a good source to make a point about in a debate.

 

[AllieBaba]

That depends on whether or not their information is correct.
If it's factual, it doesn't matter where it comes from.

Oh, wait, I'm talking to a liberal. All truth is subjective.

 

[Modbert]

That depends on whether or not their information is correct.
If it's factual, it doesn't matter where it comes from.

Oh, wait, I'm talking to a liberal. All truth is subjective.

Say that next time someone links something from the Dailykos.

 

[Foxfyre]

Here you go. I have lots and lots more.

Democrats' War on Poverty Has Failed - HUMAN EVENTS
Sep 6, 2006 ... Since 1964 we have spent $8–10 trillion on antipoverty programs. ... From the moment the Great Society conceived of the War on Poverty, it was a bad idea ... Over the four decades of the War on Poverty, progress has been made on the ... are much more difficult problems. To address these questions, ...

Democrats' War on Poverty Has Failed - HUMAN EVENTS -

Yeah, might as well get another one. A site that's proud slogan is "Leading Conservative Media Since 1944" may be a good source to get koolaid from but it's not a good source to make a point about in a debate.

Well pull out any fact and show that it is wrong. I chose that site because they do excellent research and are not given to extremist exaggeration and are as willing to take on Republicans as they are Democrats any day of the week.

Otherwise you asked for a source. I gave you one. You are welcome to provide any credible source to dispute the information.

 

[Polk]

I'd still like to see Polk respond to this:

Why should I respond to it? It's a stupid question.

The fact that you can't answer it demonstrates how dumb and toxic your beliefs are.

You advocate the Rich paying more - but are unwilling to quantify a limit.

I can't answer it because it rest on a flawed premise. In fact, your entire argument does.

 

[Polk]

I'm just curious, would 47% of Americans still pay no tax under the so-called 'Fair Tax'?

I don't see any answers here. While waiting for some, I'll take a guess that no, 47% of Americans would not continue to pay no taxes once the Fair Tax was implemented.

So, if that is true, then the Republican tax plan known as the Fair Tax, whatever else it did, would raise taxes on millions of middle income Americans.

Why do conservatives support that?

They always have. Reagan pushed through huge tax cuts for the rich, and then attempted to balance the budget by hiking taxes on the middle class.

 

[Polk]

- Those who passed the CRA which involved social engineering to get people who could not afford homes to own them.
- The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston which issued a white paper saying that banks should get rid of conventional lending standards in favor of "subjective" ones.
- The Feds threatening banks that they would revoke or not approve branch charters unless those banks made more loans to people who did not qualify for conventional loans.
- The banks that got the Feds to guarantee those "unconventional" loans with taxpayer money.
- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, packed with political patronage jobs, which bought up subprime loans and lied about their quality in their financial statements

_____________________________________



- The ratings agencies which stopped analyzing the actual mortgages in portfolios of loans to be sold off, and instead applied "algorithms" to facilitate processing huge volumes.
- Congress, led by Barney Frank, which deflected any attempts to provide better oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
- Mortgage brokers and real estate agents who encouraged people to take on loans that they did not have the income to support in order to earn commissions.
- Real estate speculators who took advantage of no doc/no down loans to buy properties to flip, severely bidding up prices in a frenzy.
- People who LIED about their income in order to buy houses they couldn't afford.

There are probably more, but that's my list right now.

For those above the line, they would make great explanations, if only they were true.
For those below the line, these are all true, but they don't reflect a problem of government. They're a failure of the market.

(Also, as a heads-up, white papers aren't legally binding.)

 

[Polk]

How does it benefit a rich person more to be able to deduct the interest on his personal residence than it benefits a poor person to be able to deduct the interest on his personal residence? How does it hurt anybody for a poor person to be able to buy his first home because he can deduct that interest?

Why would being about to deduct the interest on 500,000 dollars be more be more valuable than deducting the interest on 100,000? You really think that's an intelligent question? (without getting into the obvious: that most poor people don't have a personal residence to take the tax break on)

How does it benefit a rich person more to be able to deduct contributions to charity and support benevolent foundations and great institutions than it benefits a poor person to be be able to deduct charitable contributions?

Under the current tax code? Because they get to deduct a higher amount.

And please elaborate on how deducting interest on his/her mortgage or deducting charitable contributions would exempt anybody from playing the flat tax?

We already have a real world case study on it: the current American corporate income tax system. Our rate on paper is the second highest in the developed world (just under 40 percent). In practice, most corporations pay almost no taxes and the few that do pay percentages in the single digits.

 

[Polk]

Question for Doggie: Did The Poor invent the computer you are using to pontificate on the internets?

No, and the rich didn't either. Many of the major advances in computing came from government and academic researchers.

 

[boedicca]

Considering you never lived in the 1500's, you have zero real knowledge of how life was or the reality of the situation.

Except for the fact that I have reading comprehension and retention abilities which you sorely appear to lack.

Just sayin'.

Fact: Corporations have a duty first and foremost to the stockholder to maximize profit.

Fact: Corporations have slashed a great deal of jobs in the U.S despite tax breaks to stay in the U.S to ship jobs overseas because they are much cheaper.

Fact: Corporations like any business will raise the price of a product to the price where they think they will maximize profit. Whether such a rise in price in warranted or not.

It's simple economics, economics 101 even.

Agreed on the first fact with the caveat that it the responsibility is to maximize profit over the long term. Gutting the business and doing foolish short term things which damage the value of the shares is not a dut.

Regarding the second fact: Corporations have global customers - it makes sense to locate some operations offshore. The cost cutting strategies to support domestic operations would not be nearly as attractive without the byzantine tax code which punishes profits in the U.S.

Regarding the third fact: Unmolested by government controls, the price will be set by supply vs. demand. If customers are not willing to pay the price, they may refrain from purchasing or acquire a substitute from someone else.

You think profits are bad. They're not. The computer with which you are able to spout your uninformed opinions over the internets was made by a company with a profit objective. Dang useful stuff - profits. But it's quite common that those who do not make them disdain them.

 

[boedicca]

Question for Doggie: Did The Poor invent the computer you are using to pontificate on the internets?

No, and the rich didn't either. Many of the major advances in computing came from government and academic researchers.

Some of the ones who did are now Very Rich.

Government and academic research doesn't develop ideas into cost effective solutions which make them available to consumers. And XeroxParc has been one of the more fertile places for computer related developments. Too bad they did not have the enough foresight to commercialize them.

 

[Polk]

Here you go. I have lots and lots more.

Democrats' War on Poverty Has Failed - HUMAN EVENTS
Sep 6, 2006 ... Since 1964 we have spent $8–10 trillion on antipoverty programs. ... From the moment the Great Society conceived of the War on Poverty, it was a bad idea ... Over the four decades of the War on Poverty, progress has been made on the ... are much more difficult problems. To address these questions, ...

Democrats' War on Poverty Has Failed - HUMAN EVENTS -

Yeah, might as well get another one. A site that's proud slogan is "Leading Conservative Media Since 1944" may be a good source to get koolaid from but it's not a good source to make a point about in a debate.

Even accepting the number as valid, it's really not that big when you consider it's ten trillion dollars over four decades. We spend more than on national security every decade.

 

[Polk]

Agreed on the first fact with the caveat that it the responsibility is to maximize profit over the long term. Gutting the business and doing foolish short term things which damage the value of the shares is not a dut.

CEOs have no incentive to maximize profit in the long-run, because they won't be responsible for those events, having long left the company. They're looking for short-term results even if it damages the company in the long-run, as that maximizes their payday.

 

[boedicca]

Wrong. Most CEO's have stock options. If they trash the business to make a couple of quarters, they shoot themselves in the foot.

 

[Polk]

Wrong. Most CEO's have stock options. If they trash the business to make a couple of quarters, they shoot themselves in the foot.

You act like they keep those options for extended periods of time.

 

[Foxfyre]

Here you go. I have lots and lots more.

Yeah, might as well get another one. A site that's proud slogan is "Leading Conservative Media Since 1944" may be a good source to get koolaid from but it's not a good source to make a point about in a debate.

Even accepting the number as valid, it's really not that big when you consider it's ten trillion dollars over four decades. We spend more than on national security every decade.

Our national security, however, secures the rights of EVERY citizen, rich and poor, and insures the freedom of all to pursue whatever they choose to pursue.

That 10 trillion spent on poverty presumably has only served to perpetuate about the same amount of poverty.

I suggest we get a lot more benefit from our national security expenditures. I suggest we should rethink how we're spending money on anti-poverty and look for something that will actually work instead of just perpetuating the same misery for four decades.

 

[Polk]

Yeah, might as well get another one. A site that's proud slogan is "Leading Conservative Media Since 1944" may be a good source to get koolaid from but it's not a good source to make a point about in a debate.

Even accepting the number as valid, it's really not that big when you consider it's ten trillion dollars over four decades. We spend more than on national security every decade.

Our national security, however, secures the rights of EVERY citizen, rich and poor, and insures the freedom of all.

That 10 trillion spent on poverty presumably has only served to perpetuate about the same amount of poverty.

I suggest we get a lot more benefit from our national security expenditures. I suggest we should rethink how we're spending money on anti-poverty and look for something that will actually work instead of just perpetuating the same misery for four decades.

Perpetuate the same amount of poverty? The poverty rate today, even during a recession, is significantly lower than were it was when these programs were implemented, and would be even lower if not for repeated attempts to gut them.

And you really think we get a benefit from the billions spent buying extra parts that are already slated to be thrown away before they're delivered, just to give one example?

 

[Foxfyre]

Even accepting the number as valid, it's really not that big when you consider it's ten trillion dollars over four decades. We spend more than on national security every decade.

Our national security, however, secures the rights of EVERY citizen, rich and poor, and insures the freedom of all.

That 10 trillion spent on poverty presumably has only served to perpetuate about the same amount of poverty.

I suggest we get a lot more benefit from our national security expenditures. I suggest we should rethink how we're spending money on anti-poverty and look for something that will actually work instead of just perpetuating the same misery for four decades.

Perpetuate the same amount of poverty? The poverty rate today, even during a recession, is significantly lower than were it was when these programs were implemented, and would be even lower if not for repeated attempts to gut them.

And you really think we get a benefit from the billions spent buying extra parts that are already slated to be thrown away before they're delivered, just to give one example?

I have no doubt that both Homeland Securities and the entire Dept of Defense squander many precious dollars in wasteful, redundant, ill founded, and stupid causes not to mention what gets siphoned off in graft and corruption. Nevertheless, there is Constitutional authority for both and they both have gotten the job done.

I have spent most of my adult life working with the poor as a vocation and/or avocation, and I can assure you every bit as much money is squandered there as well as creating serious devastation among large groups as has already been posted on this and other threads.

You can try to defend that all you want. I have seen it up close and personal.

We can and must do better. And throwing more money at it is not the way to go.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So what your saying is they pay nothing for infrastructure yet get to take advantage of such? They also “get paid” ( for the lack of a better word) as well by the top ten percent of earners? AND that same 10 percent of earners making over 300, 000 a year will now have to now have to pay for even more to pay for their health care too?

No, in fact, if they're using infrastructure such as the roads then presumably they're in a motor vehicle in which case they are paying a very hefty federal gas tax.

 

[boedicca]

Wrong. Most CEO's have stock options. If they trash the business to make a couple of quarters, they shoot themselves in the foot.

You act like they keep those options for extended periods of time.

They vest over time. If a CEO's comp package doesn't have a chunk of unvested options, then the comp committee is not doing a very good job.