Are you one of the 53%

[EriktheRed]

Are you someone who actually pays taxes so the other 47% can get government assistance for nothing??

I am.

ETA, I'm talking about Federal Withholding Taxes............just to make myself clear. Some have a problem u n d e r s t a n d i n g. (did I type that slow enough?)

Yes I am and I support the 99% OWS movement.

Hey there, noose!

LTNS!

 

[EriktheRed]

Btw, about that asshole Erick Erickson and his "53%" sign he's holding up:

I work 3 jobs./I have a house I can’t sell./My family insurance costs are outrageous./But I don’t blame Wall Street./Suck it up you whiners./I am the 53% subsidizing you so you can hang out on Wall Street and complain.

The three jobs Erickson wants you to believe he scrapes by on include occasional paid opinion blogging at RedState.com, a lucrative television contract with CNN, and a radio gig that paid the previous host $165,183 a year (Herman Cain’s financial disclosures show he was paid this amount before Erickson took over his spot). The house Erickson can’t sell? Bibb County, Georgia records reveal that Erickson just bought a new $374,900 house in February of this year, and owns another that, according to an estimate by the website Zillow, might be worth slightly less than the amount he paid for it in 2001. And its likely that Erickson’s CNN job alone provides him with a personal driver and covered travel expenses when he needs to appear on the show.

Erick Erickson, Founder Of 'We Are The 53%' Site, Whines About His Brand New House And Well Paid CNN Gig | ThinkProgress

 

[Full-Auto]

Hey look everyone he knows how to repeat a post...............


Notice he is wearing a mask.

 

[Jackson]

Gotta hate that 'freedom of speech' thing, huh mo chara?

Defend it from one side, slam it from the other. Such hypocrisy. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

I don't see where in Jillians post where she tried to prevent someone from speaking. Freedom of Speech does not protect you from criticism of what you say

Those who slammed the TEA Partiers are those celebrating OWS protests. The TEA were accused of all kinds of bullshit... racism, violence, all kinds of crap.... and even when it was proved beyond doubt to be bullshit... they still continued. And yet, now, those self same posters are butthurt that these protesters are not being 'understood'.

That's is a good determiner of intellectual honesty. There is such a difference between the two groups, that is difficult to have an interestig discussion with someone who feels that way.

 

[EriktheRed]

Hey look everyone he knows how to repeat a post...............


Notice he is wearing a mask.

What did I repeat, wingnut?

 

[Mr.Nick]

In short your message is - "its no fair people have more than other people so I'm a fucking Marxist."

Boo fucking hoo..

I don't have much myself but I'm not going to blame successful people because I don't. I have to work for it and maybe one day I will have something to show for it.

You just want it handed to you like it was yours since birth..

Like some how you are entitled to something just because you exist..

In what universe is it someone elses responsibility to ensure you get everything you want in life??

 

[Full-Auto]

Hey look everyone he knows how to repeat a post...............


Notice he is wearing a mask.

What did I repeat, wingnut?

You have no recollection of pictures you post? Fruit Loop

 

[alan1]

I'm in the 53%. I've paid federal (and state, ect.) taxes since I was 16 yrs old, and are still paying them on my retirement check. Single mom, one adopted child, no child support, and I made it by working 5 days a week, and sometimes more. Never wanted any help, and didn't ask for it. Was the way I was brought up, I am the only one responsible for myself.

Did you get the earned income tax credit?

If she is old enough to be retired, the EIC didn't exist when she was a single parent. (Unless she gave birth at 55 years of age)

 

[EriktheRed]

Hey look everyone he knows how to repeat a post...............


Notice he is wearing a mask.

What did I repeat, wingnut?

You have no recollection of pictures you post? Fruit Loop

I only posted that picture once.

 

[flacaltenn]

You can keep claiming that -- but only if you want to advocate the dismantling of the funding system for the UNIVERSAL insurance programs of Soc Sec and Medicare.

Actually, I can claim it as long as I'm willing to imagine doing that, and seeing how much people would be paying in federal taxes if it was all one tax program.

Obviously you are attempting to hide the accounting

The accounting for these programs is irrelevant to the question.

Look, the government has certain expenses, and we pay taxes to cover those expenses. This thread is based on a claim that 47% of the people are getting a free ride. There are only certain facts that have any relevance at all to the question of whether that claim is true.

1) How much to they pay, in total federal taxes, as a percentage of their income?

2) If their taxes (whether income tax or FICA tax or Cain's proposed consumption tax or whatever tax) were increased, how much would that hurt them, compared to raising taxes on people who make much more money (also given the total tax bite those wealthier people are paying now)?

There are no other relevant questions. That people's FICA taxes buy them eventual Social Security retirement benefits (assuming they survive to claim them) does not change the bite taken out of their paychecks NOW, and the impact that has on calculations of whether they are paying their fair share NOW. To ignore this tax burden because of an artificial accounting gimmick is just wrong.

Soc Sec and Medicare ARE NOT "accounting gimmicks". They are supposed to produce similiar benefits for similiar contributions. In reality, because of the astronomical increases in the SS cap since the 70s -- the SS program benefits divided by premiums is EXTREMELY PROGRESSIVE. Since whether you pay 1200 a year or 12,000 a year, you are gonna get essentially the same retirement benefit. These PROGRAMS are also NEVER intended to be REVENUE GENERATORS.. You cannot milk them to pay for Cruise Missiles or Green subsidies to General Electric.

Which brings up the next point. Because the 47% pay NOTHING into the General Fund, they are not funding a dime for the wars, for the Green shit, for bureaucratic salaries, for WIC cheese, or for space probes. Yet THEY are often the ones determining the scope of these programs. I am not asking for THEIR taxes, I'm asking for their dilligience in realizing that Washington is not a cash ATM. I'm also asking that they desist in screaming about "tax fairness" because the 53% (especially the REPUBS and folks like me) have HELPED to secure their protected no-tax status. And the last time I checked my inbox -- there were no thank-yous or flowers in there.

 

[snjmom]

@Uncensored

Not true.

Consumption taxes in the modern era universally exempt items such as non-prepared food, milk, energy, rents, etc. So let's disburse with the nonsense about the poor being punished for trying to feed their kids, it's bunk. There isn't a state sales tax in the USA that does not exempt all of these. So the consumption tax is on those items which are not necessities for survival. Yes, shoes are a necessity, but not a survival level necessity the way food is.

Absolutely not true. Missouri taxes food sales, taxes electric and natural gas, personal property and real property. I pay 1/7 of my net income on just real prop taxes and insurance for my home. Consumption tax is certainly regressive.

 

[Chris]

 

[editec]

Pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

 

[Article 15]

Are you someone who actually pays taxes so the other 47% can get government assistance for nothing??

I am.

ETA, I'm talking about Federal Withholding Taxes............just to make myself clear. Some have a problem u n d e r s t a n d i n g. (did I type that slow enough?)

Even with the edit your OP is still bull shit.

If they are paying other taxes then they aren't getting "government assistance for nothing"

But yes, I am in the vaunted 53% and my sympathies are with the OWSers.

 

[Article 15]

Pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

Yup.

 

[Neotrotsky]

We can only dream of being from the "1 percent"

from Exurban Kevin:

 

[flacaltenn]

4th time this month you pulled this turd out Chris.. And everytime it comes out -- I will post the same response and see you slink off...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4180468-post1.html

Aren't those leftists peddling this point the least bit interested in WHERE the source of the data came from? (NO!!)

I traced the "source" back to approx here..

Wealth holdings remain unequal in good and bad times | State of Working America

Quote:
Wolff, Edward. 2010. Unpublished analysis of the Survey of Consumer Finances (2007) & Federal Reserve Flow of Funds (2009) data prepared in 2010 for the Economic Policy Institute.
NOTE ---> the SOURCE is an "UNPUBLISHED analysis of the Survey of Consumer Finances".

If that passes for the smell test for you --- you MUST be a class warrior, Daily Kos dwelling leftist.

 

[alan1]

Wealth and income are two entirely different things, Chris.

If both my daughters quadrupled their incomes tomorrow, then they would both each have more income than I do. I would still have more wealth than both of them combined, today, tomorrow and 5 years from now.

 

[Dragon]

Soc Sec and Medicare ARE NOT "accounting gimmicks".

The use you are making of them in this argument most definitely is an accounting gimmick. The separation of taxes into income tax, capital gains, and Social Security/Medicre tax may have legitimate functions, but considering whether people are paying their fair share is not one of them.

There is only one way to evaluate that:

1) Calculate the total federal tax liability of a person in given circumstances.

2) Calculate the person's total income for the same year.

3) Divide the result of 1 by the result of 2.

This will give us the percentage of the person's income that the government takes in taxes.

Also, the only way to consider whether it's appropriate to raise a given person's taxes, assuming taxes need to be raised, is this:

1) Calculate the person's after tax income (2-1 in the above).

2) Analyze what the person will have to give up if his/her taxes are increased, not just as a dollar amount but in terms of purchases.

If the person will have to give up a little investment in financial derivatives, his taxes can be raised with no significant harm done to anyone.

If the person will have to give up buying a vacation home or taking a round the world cruise, his taxes can be raised with minor harm to his lifestyle.

If the person will have to give up medical care or a college education, raising his taxes will do serious harm.

If the person will have to give up food, raising his taxes is simply unconscionable.

 

[flacaltenn]

Soc Sec and Medicare ARE NOT "accounting gimmicks".

The use you are making of them in this argument most definitely is an accounting gimmick. The separation of taxes into income tax, capital gains, and Social Security/Medicre tax may have legitimate functions, but considering whether people are paying their fair share is not one of them.

There is only one way to evaluate that:

1) Calculate the total federal tax liability of a person in given circumstances.

2) Calculate the person's total income for the same year.

3) Divide the result of 1 by the result of 2.

This will give us the percentage of the person's income that the government takes in taxes.

Also, the only way to consider whether it's appropriate to raise a given person's taxes, assuming taxes need to be raised, is this:

1) Calculate the person's after tax income (2-1 in the above).

2) Analyze what the person will have to give up if his/her taxes are increased, not just as a dollar amount but in terms of purchases.

If the person will have to give up a little investment in financial derivatives, his taxes can be raised with no significant harm done to anyone.

If the person will have to give up buying a vacation home or taking a round the world cruise, his taxes can be raised with minor harm to his lifestyle.

If the person will have to give up medical care or a college education, raising his taxes will do serious harm.

If the person will have to give up food, raising his taxes is simply unconscionable.

If the choices are to roll Soc Sec and Medicare into the General Fund and stop accounting for them as Insurance programs or do away with them ---- I'd rather kill them. Because then we know this country doesn't have the authority or ability to prescribe "one size - all fits" solutions and FORCE folks to participate. If we can't all participate EQUALLY in those programs -- I'm not gonna participate either.. Good luck with Universal Health Care after you do that..

Those programs are NOT Revenue sources for the Federal Govt.. And they are NOT TOYS for the Clown College to perform with..