Hey, 99 Percenters, You Call This 'Fair'?

[DiamondDave]

So,

for all of you who are not rich, but want to cut taxes for the rich, whose taxes do you want to raise to make up for the lost revenue?

Your own?

Perhaps it will sink in when you hear it for the 5,382nd time. Cut spending and make the government live within it's means just like the average citizen. We don't have a revenue issue, we have a spending issue. If you or I spent likr the government, we'd end up in jail. See how easy that was?

That makes a good bumper sticker, but actually we have both a revenue and a spending problem

Ten years ago we intentionally cut our revenue with the foolish expectation that it would spark an economic surge that would make up for the lost revenue. That never happened.......instead we got $3 trillion more debt

Because government CONTINUED TO GROW and hand out shit... and THAT is the problem.. whether the economy grows slow or booms or whatever... the problem is STILL too much government, too many programs, too much waste, rtc

 

[Mr. Shaman]

If you see this and think "I'm fine with that" you're just fucked in the head.

If you see that someone has more and you think you are entitled to things at their expense... you're just fucked in the head

If you see that someone has less and you think you are entitled to things at their expense.....you're just fucked in the head.

It's what Republicans consider...

"Survival o' the riche$t."​

 

[kwc57]

Instead of this constant divide of who pays taxes, why are we not discussing cutting spending? I'll tell you why, because the leeches at the top need Big Government want more for themselves and less for everyone else. The trick is how to create propaganda to have the other 50% pay more to keep their Big Government going.

Shrink the government to 5% and who pays will be a moot point.
Then the leeches at the top can fail.

I don't one more thin dime of my tax dollars going to support these leeches.

So you'd be willing to give up getting your welfare check, food stamps and housing assistance? I have to say, I admire a moocher who is willing to finally take some personal responsibility.

Personal Responsibility?
Lol
Don't make me laugh.

If it was not for our government, the leeches at the top that are to big to fail would not know responsibility if it bit them in the behind.

Tell me how buying politicians to tailor laws and regulations to your needs is being responsible?

They buy politicians because they know they could not make it in a truly free market on their own. That is the definition of being irresponsible.

I'm not on Food Stamps, Free Housing etc as one poster put. That would be what is called a leech. They exist at the top and at the bottom, but it appears with 1% owning the majority of the wealth in this country, that the leeches are top heavy and it is time to topple their schemes.

Also, if the government collapsed, It would not effect me one iota. I would head for the woods for an extended period of time until things cooled off. At least my training in the Army served some good uses in that regard.

The elite can then burn in hell for all I care.

Hey comrade, you drinking grape or cherry?

 

[Nic_Driver]

Hey, 99 Percenters, You Call This 'Fair'?

A study by the New York City Independent Budget Office was released this week, and you didn't hear much about it in the mainstream media because it hurts their candidate's message.

Keep in mind, I'm your Conservative Everyman. I'm no economist, nor am I a political scientist. I call 'em as I see 'em just like you do. And away we go...


New York City has a little more than 8 million residents. Of those many millions, 1% -- ONE PERCENT -- pays 43% of the income taxes. You know how many people that works out to? About 35,000 people.

Picture in your mind's eye the City of New York, not just Manhattan, but all five boroughs. Imagine the throngs here right now enjoying the holidays. Think about the police presence, the sanitation, the schools brimming with children...East Side, West Side, The Village -- a hell of a town! 8 million people!

Now imagine Yankee Stadium, or any average Major League ballpark, and fill it except for the nosebleed seats. That tiny number pays almost HALF the operating costs for the city. How's THAT for fair?

Another kick in the head is that ten percent of New Yorkers pay 71% of the taxes. Guess how much income it takes to crack that ten percent?You don't have to be one of the millionaires or billionaires whom the Divider in Chief loves to vilify. You need not be an evil fat cat making $200,000 -- perish the thought! What's it take to crack the top ten percent in the most expensive city in America? $105,000. Yep, a buck five.​

So is the OP talking about a percentage of NY State taxes or NY City taxes?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Ahhh.. not the case.... as in a system where everyone pays an equal share on each and every dollar earned... you are not getting at the expense of someone making less... you are indeed paying your way as well...

Nice try though

You don't think that the CEO and top level execs getting fat salaries and bonunes doesn't come at the expense of the rest of the company that they pay dirt wages to?

Don't you think that if everyone could do the job of a CEO, everyone would be one at some time or another...

And there is a big difference of making a huge sum in an openly achieved position in business... and getting handouts for no contribution, forced by the hand of government....

Yeah.....that's what Boards O' Directors are for.....

......Awarding INCOMPETENCY.

(.....While they whiiiiiiine about tax-increases hurting their bottom-line.

)

 

[Cuyo]

They still paid 61% of the taxes, dipstick.

That's the bottom line. Anyone who claims "that isn't sufficient" is simply a scumbag class warrior and a thief.

What's your point? The premise of the OP is that they pay too much and it's 'Unfair.' What, do you advocate a regressive tax?

I advocate abolishing the income tax and adopting the fair tax. The income tax is nothing short of plunder and robbery.

If you want to help the poor, nothing is stopping you from writing them a check.

That would qualify as a regressive tax.

But nonetheless, if we did enact it and had a way to gain accurate statistics, the much-touted-by-the-right statistic of "Top x% pay y%" would still make upper echelons appear unduly burdened... Further proof that it's a useless statistic. It's only usefulness is to get people who suffer under Republican policies, to vote for Republicans.

 

[kwc57]

So,

for all of you who are not rich, but want to cut taxes for the rich, whose taxes do you want to raise to make up for the lost revenue?

Your own?

Perhaps it will sink in when you hear it for the 5,382nd time. Cut spending and make the government live within it's means just like the average citizen. We don't have a revenue issue, we have a spending issue. If you or I spent likr the government, we'd end up in jail. See how easy that was?

That makes a good bumper sticker, but actually we have both a revenue and a spending problem

Ten years ago we intentionally cut our revenue with the foolish expectation that it would spark an economic surge that would make up for the lost revenue. That never happened.......instead we got $3 trillion more debt

I'll tell you what, register for 5 credit cards and then go charge them to the max. Go to a credit counselor and get their advice on how to fix your economic situation. The main points they will make are to cut up your cards and quit spending beyond the means of your income. Cancel the cable, quit eating out, quit buying steak, quit buying expensive clothes, etc. Start making small regular payments above just the interest amount so you can eventually pay it off. The secondary point they will make is to get a second job if that is a possibility for you. But you see, the difference between the government and an individual is that the government "has" the ability to tax citizens more to continue in their big spending ways. That they have the ability does not make it the right thing to do. In fact, it is irresponsible. The government won't cut back it's spending, they will simply take even more in taxes to stem the flow of spending kind of like putting a bandaid on a 6 inch gash. So, it's far more than a bumper sticker. If you spend 5 times what you make, you have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. You have to look at what the essentials are for you to survive and spend your money on just those things so you can get yourself out of the financial bondage you've put yourself in. Then when you get it under control, you stick to living within your means. Most people don't really think about it this way, but our national debt is a national security issue. We are so deep in debt to China, they could eventually take us over without firing a single shot.

 

[WillowTree]

So,

for all of you who are not rich, but want to cut taxes for the rich, whose taxes do you want to raise to make up for the lost revenue?

Your own?

Perhaps it will sink in when you hear it for the 5,382nd time. Cut spending and make the government live within it's means just like the average citizen. We don't have a revenue issue, we have a spending issue. If you or I spent likr the government, we'd end up in jail. See how easy that was?

That makes a good bumper sticker, but actually we have both a revenue and a spending problem

Ten years ago we intentionally cut our revenue with the foolish expectation that it would spark an economic surge that would make up for the lost revenue. That never happened.......instead we got $3 trillion more debt

so this tax break is stupid then right? Wright? Write? got it. We just intentionally cut our revenue again. Repeating stupid with more stupid just makes sense donut?

 

[chikenwing]

Why anyone would be surprised or upset about wealth distribution is beyond rational.
We have for what 30-40 years now participating in the dumbing down of our children,Keeping scores at Little luege games was no longer acceptable.Test scores might hurt little Johnny's feelings,can't play certain games in Gym class might hurt little Johnny's feelings,it goes on and on. We have participated in raising generational slackers,not all have bought into slackerdom and have excelled way past the rest
Why would anyone be upset or surprised
.

 

[rightwinger]

Perhaps it will sink in when you hear it for the 5,382nd time. Cut spending and make the government live within it's means just like the average citizen. We don't have a revenue issue, we have a spending issue. If you or I spent likr the government, we'd end up in jail. See how easy that was?

That makes a good bumper sticker, but actually we have both a revenue and a spending problem

Ten years ago we intentionally cut our revenue with the foolish expectation that it would spark an economic surge that would make up for the lost revenue. That never happened.......instead we got $3 trillion more debt

I'll tell you what, register for 5 credit cards and then go charge them to the max. Go to a credit counselor and get their advice on how to fix your economic situation. The main points they will make are to cut up your cards and quit spending beyond the means of your income. Cancel the cable, quit eating out, quit buying steak, quit buying expensive clothes, etc. Start making small regular payments above just the interest amount so you can eventually pay it off. The secondary point they will make is to get a second job if that is a possibility for you. But you see, the difference between the government and an individual is that the government "has" the ability to tax citizens more to continue in their big spending ways. That they have the ability does not make it the right thing to do. In fact, it is irresponsible. The government won't cut back it's spending, they will simply take even more in taxes to stem the flow of spending kind of like putting a bandaid on a 6 inch gash. So, it's far more than a bumper sticker. If you spend 5 times what you make, you have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. You have to look at what the essentials are for you to survive and spend your money on just those things so you can get yourself out of the financial bondage you've put yourself in. Then when you get it under control, you stick to living within your means. Most people don't really think about it this way, but our national debt is a national security issue. We are so deep in debt to China, they could eventually take us over without firing a single shot.

That is absolutely a way to get back on good financial footing. Another way is to work harder and get more income. What if ten years ago you were doing well and asked your boss to cut your hours from 40 to 30 hours a week? Now you are in debt.......is it unreasonable to go back to your boss and ask to work 40 hours a week again?

We need to rescind the tax cuts. They did not work and added to our mounting debt

 

[kwc57]

That makes a good bumper sticker, but actually we have both a revenue and a spending problem

Ten years ago we intentionally cut our revenue with the foolish expectation that it would spark an economic surge that would make up for the lost revenue. That never happened.......instead we got $3 trillion more debt

I'll tell you what, register for 5 credit cards and then go charge them to the max. Go to a credit counselor and get their advice on how to fix your economic situation. The main points they will make are to cut up your cards and quit spending beyond the means of your income. Cancel the cable, quit eating out, quit buying steak, quit buying expensive clothes, etc. Start making small regular payments above just the interest amount so you can eventually pay it off. The secondary point they will make is to get a second job if that is a possibility for you. But you see, the difference between the government and an individual is that the government "has" the ability to tax citizens more to continue in their big spending ways. That they have the ability does not make it the right thing to do. In fact, it is irresponsible. The government won't cut back it's spending, they will simply take even more in taxes to stem the flow of spending kind of like putting a bandaid on a 6 inch gash. So, it's far more than a bumper sticker. If you spend 5 times what you make, you have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. You have to look at what the essentials are for you to survive and spend your money on just those things so you can get yourself out of the financial bondage you've put yourself in. Then when you get it under control, you stick to living within your means. Most people don't really think about it this way, but our national debt is a national security issue. We are so deep in debt to China, they could eventually take us over without firing a single shot.

That is absolutely a way to get back on good financial footing. Another way is to work harder and get more income. What if ten years ago you were doing well and asked your boss to cut your hours from 40 to 30 hours a week? Now you are in debt.......is it unreasonable to go back to your boss and ask to work 40 hours a week again?

We need to rescind the tax cuts. They did not work and added to our mounting debt

Personal income that you EARNED is a far different thing than the government confiscating more or YOUR money to cover their irresponsible actions. There's the rub. The government doesn't earn anything. They take. It's a necessary evil. When they take, they should only take for what they absolutely have to spend and then spend it responsibly. They don't. Giving them more is simply foolish because it will be blown like all the other money without any spending decrease. It's like helping an alcoholic out by giving him another bottle.

Tell me, when was the last major spending decrease by the federal government? When was the last time they said, "you know, we can't add this program because we don't have the funds in hand to do it"? A much easier task is to find when each new tax, fee, etc. was passed. The government is good at spending. They are lousy at saving. If the government were my wife, I'd divorce her for putting me in bankruptcy.

 

[rightwinger]

I'll tell you what, register for 5 credit cards and then go charge them to the max. Go to a credit counselor and get their advice on how to fix your economic situation. The main points they will make are to cut up your cards and quit spending beyond the means of your income. Cancel the cable, quit eating out, quit buying steak, quit buying expensive clothes, etc. Start making small regular payments above just the interest amount so you can eventually pay it off. The secondary point they will make is to get a second job if that is a possibility for you. But you see, the difference between the government and an individual is that the government "has" the ability to tax citizens more to continue in their big spending ways. That they have the ability does not make it the right thing to do. In fact, it is irresponsible. The government won't cut back it's spending, they will simply take even more in taxes to stem the flow of spending kind of like putting a bandaid on a 6 inch gash. So, it's far more than a bumper sticker. If you spend 5 times what you make, you have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. You have to look at what the essentials are for you to survive and spend your money on just those things so you can get yourself out of the financial bondage you've put yourself in. Then when you get it under control, you stick to living within your means. Most people don't really think about it this way, but our national debt is a national security issue. We are so deep in debt to China, they could eventually take us over without firing a single shot.

That is absolutely a way to get back on good financial footing. Another way is to work harder and get more income. What if ten years ago you were doing well and asked your boss to cut your hours from 40 to 30 hours a week? Now you are in debt.......is it unreasonable to go back to your boss and ask to work 40 hours a week again?

We need to rescind the tax cuts. They did not work and added to our mounting debt

Personal income that you EARNED is a far different thing than the government confiscating more or YOUR money to cover their irresponsible actions. There's the rub. The government doesn't earn anything. They take. It's a necessary evil. When they take, they should only take for what they absolutely have to spend and then spend it responsibly. They don't. Giving them more is simply foolish because it will be blown like all the other money without any spending decrease. It's like helping an alcoholic out by giving him another bottle.

Tell me, when was the last major spending decrease by the federal government? When was the last time they said, "you know, we can't add this program because we don't have the funds in hand to do it"? A much easier task is to find when each new tax, fee, etc. was passed. The government is good at spending. They are lousy at saving. If the government were my wife, I'd divorce her for putting me in bankruptcy.

Did you miss the bogus Super Committee to reduce the national debt? Both sides were able to identify spending cuts that reduced spending by $1 trillion. When it came time to reduce debt through dedicated tax increases, the Republicans ran away

 

[Chris]

Why anyone would be surprised or upset about wealth distribution is beyond rational.
We have for what 30-40 years now participating in the dumbing down of our children,Keeping scores at Little luege games was no longer acceptable.Test scores might hurt little Johnny's feelings,can't play certain games in Gym class might hurt little Johnny's feelings,it goes on and on. We have participated in raising generational slackers,not all have bought into slackerdom and have excelled way past the rest
Why would anyone be upset or surprised
.

Horseshit.

The reason for the inequity in income distribution is the lowering of taxes for the rich by Reagan and Bush and the systematic destruction of the labor unions.

 

[rightwinger]

Why anyone would be surprised or upset about wealth distribution is beyond rational.
We have for what 30-40 years now participating in the dumbing down of our children,Keeping scores at Little luege games was no longer acceptable.Test scores might hurt little Johnny's feelings,can't play certain games in Gym class might hurt little Johnny's feelings,it goes on and on. We have participated in raising generational slackers,not all have bought into slackerdom and have excelled way past the rest
Why would anyone be upset or surprised
.

Horseshit.

The reason for the inequity in income distribution is the lowering of taxes for the rich by Reagan and Bush and the systematic destruction of the labor unions.

But...but....what happened to trickle down???

 

[bripat9643]

Did you miss the bogus Super Committee to reduce the national debt? Both sides were able to identify spending cuts that reduced spending by $1 trillion. When it came time to reduce debt through dedicated tax increases, the Republicans ran away

When did the Republicans ever agree to raise taxes? When you don't do something you never agreed to do, that's "running away?"

I love the way liberal turds like you abuse the English language. Every word has a whole new meaning in the Liberal Dictionary.

 

[Chris]

Why anyone would be surprised or upset about wealth distribution is beyond rational.
We have for what 30-40 years now participating in the dumbing down of our children,Keeping scores at Little luege games was no longer acceptable.Test scores might hurt little Johnny's feelings,can't play certain games in Gym class might hurt little Johnny's feelings,it goes on and on. We have participated in raising generational slackers,not all have bought into slackerdom and have excelled way past the rest
Why would anyone be upset or surprised
.

Horseshit.

The reason for the inequity in income distribution is the lowering of taxes for the rich by Reagan and Bush and the systematic destruction of the labor unions.

But...but....what happened to trickle down???

It became "piss on."

 

[Steelplate]

Don't show graphs.... it only pisses them off. Because they are too fucking STUPID... yes, I will repeat... STUPID to understand that when you have a large majority of people with good wages and disposable income... it helps the country.

How? they might ask?... let me count the ways....

1. A larger tax base to procure revenue to run the country... more people properly employed and properly paid means LESS PEOPLE on the government dole... that, in turn means... LESS SPENDING ON THOSE DEADBEATS they hate so much.

2. More people properly employed and properly paid means MORE DISPOSABLE INCOME. That's right wingnuts... the more money people have at their disposal, the more they spend... which in turn makes money for those that run business.

You see, the problem ISN'T the government. The issue is with people at the top who think that they shouldn't have limits, but have no problem severely limiting the people under them so that they can achieve MORE.

That is nothing more than short sighted, "get it while you can", "take the money and run" economics. Sure... those fuckers clean up in the short term... but the long term consequences are that the next person in line for the money grab has to make a decision to sell his soul to the Devil for his/her prosperity and let the people under him/her(and the country as a whole) slip a little lower on the food chain, or wait a little longer for their wealth so that those everyday people....

A. Live a better life.

B. give back, in the form of spending and tax revenues.


Face it PUBES(a most fitting moniker), the more WE THE PEOPLE have to begin with, means the less THE RICH will have to pay to uncle Sam.

 

[daveman]

Hey, 99 Percenters, You Call This 'Fair'?

A study by the New York City Independent Budget Office was released this week, and you didn't hear much about it in the mainstream media because it hurts their candidate's message.

Keep in mind, I'm your Conservative Everyman. I'm no economist, nor am I a political scientist. I call 'em as I see 'em just like you do. And away we go...


New York City has a little more than 8 million residents. Of those many millions, 1% -- ONE PERCENT -- pays 43% of the income taxes. You know how many people that works out to? About 35,000 people.

Picture in your mind's eye the City of New York, not just Manhattan, but all five boroughs. Imagine the throngs here right now enjoying the holidays. Think about the police presence, the sanitation, the schools brimming with children...East Side, West Side, The Village -- a hell of a town! 8 million people!

Now imagine Yankee Stadium, or any average Major League ballpark, and fill it except for the nosebleed seats. That tiny number pays almost HALF the operating costs for the city. How's THAT for fair?

Another kick in the head is that ten percent of New Yorkers pay 71% of the taxes. Guess how much income it takes to crack that ten percent?You don't have to be one of the millionaires or billionaires whom the Divider in Chief loves to vilify. You need not be an evil fat cat making $200,000 -- perish the thought! What's it take to crack the top ten percent in the most expensive city in America? $105,000. Yep, a buck five.​

We've been through this phenomenon mathematically umpteen million times. This stastistic of "x% of population pays y% of taxes" is not relative to the disparity in the tax rates. It's more relative to the disparity in income. It would still be so even with a flat tax.

Example:
5 guys makes 1,000,000 each.
10 make 100,000 each.
85 make 25,000 each.

All pay 10%.

1st 5 guys pay 500k.
next 10 pay 100k combined.
Next 85 pay 212.5k.

Total paid = 812,500.

True statement: "The top 5% paid 61% of taxes!"

See how that works? It's quoted to make upper tiers appear unduly burdened when really it's mostly simply because they control so much wealth.

If that lets you justify covetousness, sure.

 

[Father Time]

Face it PUBES(a most fitting moniker), the more WE THE PEOPLE have to begin with, means the less THE RICH will have to pay to uncle Sam.

Wait pubes as in publius infinitum?

I've been gone too long, is there a new pubes or do you mean the guy who got banned for posting a bounty for personal information (on Ravi I believe)?

 

[Article 15]

Hey, 99 Percenters, You Call This 'Fair'?

A study by the New York City Independent Budget Office was released this week, and you didn't hear much about it in the mainstream media because it hurts their candidate's message.

Keep in mind, I'm your Conservative Everyman. I'm no economist, nor am I a political scientist. I call 'em as I see 'em just like you do. And away we go...


New York City has a little more than 8 million residents. Of those many millions, 1% -- ONE PERCENT -- pays 43% of the income taxes. You know how many people that works out to? About 35,000 people.

Picture in your mind's eye the City of New York, not just Manhattan, but all five boroughs. Imagine the throngs here right now enjoying the holidays. Think about the police presence, the sanitation, the schools brimming with children...East Side, West Side, The Village -- a hell of a town! 8 million people!

Now imagine Yankee Stadium, or any average Major League ballpark, and fill it except for the nosebleed seats. That tiny number pays almost HALF the operating costs for the city. How's THAT for fair?

Another kick in the head is that ten percent of New Yorkers pay 71% of the taxes. Guess how much income it takes to crack that ten percent?You don't have to be one of the millionaires or billionaires whom the Divider in Chief loves to vilify. You need not be an evil fat cat making $200,000 -- perish the thought! What's it take to crack the top ten percent in the most expensive city in America? $105,000. Yep, a buck five.​

We've been through this phenomenon mathematically umpteen million times. This stastistic of "x% of population pays y% of taxes" is not relative to the disparity in the tax rates. It's more relative to the disparity in income. It would still be so even with a flat tax.

Example:
5 guys makes 1,000,000 each.
10 make 100,000 each.
85 make 25,000 each.

All pay 10%.

1st 5 guys pay 500k.
next 10 pay 100k combined.
Next 85 pay 212.5k.

Total paid = 812,500.

True statement: "The top 5% paid 61% of taxes!"

See how that works? It's quoted to make upper tiers appear unduly burdened when really it's mostly simply because they control so much wealth.

If that lets you justify covetousness, sure.

In other words, his post smashed your copy/paste fail of an argument and you have no real retort.

But have a Merry Christmas anyway.