[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[PMZ]

Truth is only referred to "satan" on Fox Opinions.

You huff a LOT of spray paint, doncha PMZ™?

You watch a lot of Fox Opinions, don't you, sucker.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You watch a lot of Fox Opinions, don't you, sucker.

Almost never, you drooling baboon.

 

[PMZ]

You watch a lot of Fox Opinions, don't you, sucker.

Almost never, you drooling baboon.

Nobody admits to Fox, and you can't blame them. Admitting to that addiction is like admitting to be incapable of original thought.

 

[Gadawg73]

First of all I dare say that I have, at least, contributed and earned as much as you have.

Second, the biggest evidence of our financial situation comes in the form of debt. The debt comes from our experiment with conservative policies.

Yes, the current squabble over finances at the Federal level was because conservatives wanted to take on more debt and liberals did not.
Only a dumb ass would claim that.

No. Conservatives only want to cut expenditures when democrats are in office. Pure politics. When Republicans are in office they want to spend, spend, spend, and not tax. Without the Bush's and Reagan we'd be well off fiscally. With them it will be generations, if we're lucky, before recovery.

The fact that so many are in denial of those simple and obvious facts is a measure of one thing. The effectiveness of Republican 24/4/365 media propaganda.

Funny, I paid taxes under Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I and II.
In 1986 Congress lowered the top rate from 35 to 28%. The 1986 bill was revenue neutral as in it the long term capital gains rate went from 20 to 28%.
Reagan ended the IRA deduction on high earners and maxed the 401k type plans at 7K instead of 30K. Reagan signed into law tax increases in 1982 and 1984.
The 1986 law took 6 million lower middle class and working poor families off the tax roles.
The 1986 law hit tax shelters for the rich and limited individual taxpayer's ability to use speculative real estate losses to offset salary and other income.

On to Bush tax cuts:
The richest 1% went from paying 25% of all income taxes in 1990 to 39% in 2005. The richest 5% from 44% to 60%.
After the Bush tax cuts of 2001 unemployment fell to the lowest level since WWII.
The Bush tax cuts caused Federal revenues to increase 800 billion dollars from 2001 to 2008.
The Bush tax cuts doubled the child tax credit from $500 to $1000.
Middle income families saw their taxes rise an average of $1800 a year when the Bush tax cuts ended.

As usual you have nothing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Are you going to claim FOX news has brainwashed me?

One thing we've learned since your tenure here began: truth is the exact opposite of whatever you post.

Oh, we've learned something else from him:

"Fox! FOX! FOOOOoooooxxxxx!!!"

The beauty of being a liberal is that you only need to learn a few knee-jerk responses to answer every question put to you.

Or to make the vast majority of people throw up their hands in disgust and walk away, allowing the leftist to then claim victory.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Are you going to claim FOX news has brainwashed me?

One thing we've learned since your tenure here began: truth is the exact opposite of whatever you post.

Oh, we've learned something else from him:

"Fox! FOX! FOOOOoooooxxxxx!!!"

The most destructive internal force that we've ever had to deal with. Much more so than Communism.

 

[PMZ]

Yes, the current squabble over finances at the Federal level was because conservatives wanted to take on more debt and liberals did not.
Only a dumb ass would claim that.

No. Conservatives only want to cut expenditures when democrats are in office. Pure politics. When Republicans are in office they want to spend, spend, spend, and not tax. Without the Bush's and Reagan we'd be well off fiscally. With them it will be generations, if we're lucky, before recovery.

The fact that so many are in denial of those simple and obvious facts is a measure of one thing. The effectiveness of Republican 24/4/365 media propaganda.

Funny, I paid taxes under Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I and II.
In 1986 Congress lowered the top rate from 35 to 28%. The 1986 bill was revenue neutral as in it the long term capital gains rate went from 20 to 28%.
Reagan ended the IRA deduction on high earners and maxed the 401k type plans at 7K instead of 30K. Reagan signed into law tax increases in 1982 and 1984.
The 1986 law took 6 million lower middle class and working poor families off the tax roles.
The 1986 law hit tax shelters for the rich and limited individual taxpayer's ability to use speculative real estate losses to offset salary and other income.

On to Bush tax cuts:
The richest 1% went from paying 25% of all income taxes in 1990 to 39% in 2005. The richest 5% from 44% to 60%.
After the Bush tax cuts of 2001 unemployment fell to the lowest level since WWII.
The Bush tax cuts caused Federal revenues to increase 800 billion dollars from 2001 to 2008.
The Bush tax cuts doubled the child tax credit from $500 to $1000.
Middle income families saw their taxes rise an average of $1800 a year when the Bush tax cuts ended.

As usual you have nothing.

Here's the results of the Bush tax cuts that you admire so much.

 

[bripat9643]

No. Conservatives only want to cut expenditures when democrats are in office. Pure politics. When Republicans are in office they want to spend, spend, spend, and not tax. Without the Bush's and Reagan we'd be well off fiscally. With them it will be generations, if we're lucky, before recovery.

The fact that so many are in denial of those simple and obvious facts is a measure of one thing. The effectiveness of Republican 24/4/365 media propaganda.

Funny, I paid taxes under Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I and II.
In 1986 Congress lowered the top rate from 35 to 28%. The 1986 bill was revenue neutral as in it the long term capital gains rate went from 20 to 28%.
Reagan ended the IRA deduction on high earners and maxed the 401k type plans at 7K instead of 30K. Reagan signed into law tax increases in 1982 and 1984.
The 1986 law took 6 million lower middle class and working poor families off the tax roles.
The 1986 law hit tax shelters for the rich and limited individual taxpayer's ability to use speculative real estate losses to offset salary and other income.

On to Bush tax cuts:
The richest 1% went from paying 25% of all income taxes in 1990 to 39% in 2005. The richest 5% from 44% to 60%.
After the Bush tax cuts of 2001 unemployment fell to the lowest level since WWII.
The Bush tax cuts caused Federal revenues to increase 800 billion dollars from 2001 to 2008.
The Bush tax cuts doubled the child tax credit from $500 to $1000.
Middle income families saw their taxes rise an average of $1800 a year when the Bush tax cuts ended.

As usual you have nothing.

Here's the results of the Bush tax cuts that you admire so much.

Someone already posted that totally made-up chart in the forum a few months ago, and it was torn to shreds. It's just another example of blatant libturd lying.

 

[PMZ]

Funny, I paid taxes under Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I and II.
In 1986 Congress lowered the top rate from 35 to 28%. The 1986 bill was revenue neutral as in it the long term capital gains rate went from 20 to 28%.
Reagan ended the IRA deduction on high earners and maxed the 401k type plans at 7K instead of 30K. Reagan signed into law tax increases in 1982 and 1984.
The 1986 law took 6 million lower middle class and working poor families off the tax roles.
The 1986 law hit tax shelters for the rich and limited individual taxpayer's ability to use speculative real estate losses to offset salary and other income.

On to Bush tax cuts:
The richest 1% went from paying 25% of all income taxes in 1990 to 39% in 2005. The richest 5% from 44% to 60%.
After the Bush tax cuts of 2001 unemployment fell to the lowest level since WWII.
The Bush tax cuts caused Federal revenues to increase 800 billion dollars from 2001 to 2008.
The Bush tax cuts doubled the child tax credit from $500 to $1000.
Middle income families saw their taxes rise an average of $1800 a year when the Bush tax cuts ended.

As usual you have nothing.

Here's the results of the Bush tax cuts that you admire so much.

Someone already posted that totally made-up chart in the forum a few months ago, and it was torn to shreds. It's just another example of blatant libturd lying.

Typical conservative non thinking. When confronted by an inconvenient truth, censor the source.

The most effective recipe that there is for maintaining ignorance.

 

[RKMBrown]

Truth is only referred to "satan"...

I'll take that as a yes.

Prophet for truth. Your satan.

You are getting less and less intelligible as the days go on. How many days did they give you? 6months?

 

[bripat9643]

Here's the results of the Bush tax cuts that you admire so much.

Someone already posted that totally made-up chart in the forum a few months ago, and it was torn to shreds. It's just another example of blatant libturd lying.

Typical conservative non thinking. When confronted by an inconvenient truth, censor the source.

The most effective recipe that there is for maintaining ignorance.

Libturd thinking: lie, lie, lie.

The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities is an ultra left-wing propaganda mill. Nothing coming out of that organization gets within 1000 feet of a fact.

 

[PMZ]

Someone already posted that totally made-up chart in the forum a few months ago, and it was torn to shreds. It's just another example of blatant libturd lying.

Typical conservative non thinking. When confronted by an inconvenient truth, censor the source.

The most effective recipe that there is for maintaining ignorance.

Libturd thinking: lie, lie, lie.

The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities is an ultra left-wing propaganda mill. Nothing coming out of that organization gets withing 1000 feet of a fact.

Conservatives censorship for freedom. Hmmmmm mm.

 

[uhkilleez]

And being in favor of a direct tax upon the working person’s earned wage indicates you disagree with our founders beliefs and support an evil power being placed in the hands of Congress.

I take it you do not understand the distinction between direct and indirect taxation, and the evil nature of direct taxation. As to the evils of an unrestrained power to impose direct taxes, our founders were fully cognizant of their destructive nature which is noted by Representative Williams during a debate on Direct Taxes January 18th, 1797:

"History, Mr. Williams said, informed them of the annihilation of nations by means of direct taxation. He referred gentlemen to the situation of the Roman Empire in its innocence, and asked them whether they had any direct taxes? No. Indirect taxes and taxes upon luxuries and spices from the Indies were their sources of revenue; but, as soon as they changed their system to direct taxation, it operated to their ruin; their children were sold as slaves, and the Empire fell from its splendor. Shall we then follow this system? He trusted not."

Perhaps someday you will take the time to study our Constitution’s original tax plan, and the vital protections built into that plan, especially the rule requiring direct taxes to be apportioned.


JWK



“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

I studied the constitution in college, and the truth is that indirect taxes are equally as evil as direct taxes. The part that is evil is when government spends more than it makes and continually raises taxes. What I am in favor of is an abolition of all current taxes to be replaced by a fixed 10% direct tax and not a penny more, along with removing Congress' ability to borrow money on credit except from legal U.S. citizens registered to vote in the form of bonds.

The evil nature of taxes is evil no matter how direct or indirect they are, at the end of the day they are still taking YOUR money.

 

[uhkilleez]

Businesses used to be smart about product innovation, quality, customer service, employee development, productivity improvement. Now they are smart about executives and shareholders looting the workers. Government has nothing to do with that. It's all about instant gratification and greed.

Some of them were, and some still are. Government does have quite a bit to do with corporate greed, however. Let's not forget that corporations can only exist because of government. It is also government who coddles those corporations and stifles the right of the workers to organize and strike. A classic example would be the union struggles in the mines of Virginia, and government is no different now than it was then... in fact it is worse.

EDIT: In fact, come to think of it, the coming increase of the minimum wage is a great example at how government is to blame. They increase minimum wage laws, and then subsidize the major corporations who have to pay more. We pay for our own raises.

 

[bripat9643]

Typical conservative non thinking. When confronted by an inconvenient truth, censor the source.

The most effective recipe that there is for maintaining ignorance.

Libturd thinking: lie, lie, lie.

The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities is an ultra left-wing propaganda mill. Nothing coming out of that organization gets withing 1000 feet of a fact.

Conservatives censorship for freedom. Hmmmmm mm.

Criticizing your bullshit propaganda is not censorship. However, threatening insurance companies with financial penalties if they criticize government policy is censorship, and your ilk never had a problem when Sibelius did that.

 

[billyerock1991]

here's the fair share share make every registered republicans pay for everything ... that's fair

 

[johnwk]

I studied the constitution in college, and the truth is that indirect taxes are equally as evil as direct taxes. The part that is evil is when government spends more than it makes and continually raises taxes. What I am in favor of is an abolition of all current taxes to be replaced by a fixed 10% direct tax and not a penny more, along with removing Congress' ability to borrow money on credit except from legal U.S. citizens registered to vote in the form of bonds.

The evil nature of taxes is evil no matter how direct or indirect they are, at the end of the day they are still taking YOUR money.

With all due respect, let me speculate that while you were in college you certainly did not study our Constitution’s original tax plan as our founders intended it to operate. If you had, I do not believe you would assert “indirect taxes are equally as evil as direct taxes.”

Congress is granted power to lay and collect internal “excise” taxes. This power, as intended by our founders allows Congress to lay and collect a tax upon specifically chosen articles of consumption, preferable specifically selected articles of luxury.

Hamilton stresses in Federalist No 21 regarding taxes on articles of consumption:

“There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counter balanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.


It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.”

Let us say for conversation purposes that Congress is only allowed to raise its revenue by selecting specific articles of luxury and placing a specific amount of tax on each article selected. The flow of revenue into the federal treasury under such an idea would of course be determined by the economic productivity of the nation. If the economy is healthy and thriving and employment is at a peak, the purchase of articles of luxury will be greater than if the economy is stagnant and depressed. And thus, Congress is encouraged to adopt policies favorable to a healthy and vibrant economy because the flow of revenue into the federal treasury can be disrupted should Congress adopt oppressive regulations which impeded and burden our founder’s intended free market system.


And so, if Congress is limited to raising its revenue by taxing specifically selected articles of luxury, it suddenly becomes in Congress’ best interest to work toward a healthy and vibrant economy which in turn produces a productive flow of revenue into the federal treasury! It should also be noted that taxing any specific article too high, will reduce the volume of its sales and diminish the flow of revenue into the national treasury, and thus, taxing in this manner allows the market place to determine the allowable amount of tax on each article selected as Hamilton indicates above.


Some may claim that if Congress is required to select each specific article for taxation and place a specific amount of tax on each article, such a system would invite abuse and allow Congress to exercise favoritism with impunity and would certainly pander to countless lobbyists looking for an advantage in the selection of taxable articles. But let us take a closer look at the consequences involved if Congress should attempt to abuse this power. If Congress should abuse the system and tax one article while excluding another for political gain, consumers are treated to a tax free article and Congress reduces its own flow of revenue into the national treasury. In addition, for every penny lost by excluding a lobbyist’s particular article from taxation, another article’s tax will have to be increased to reclaim that penny. And with each increase upon any specific article the reality of diminished sales becomes a very sobering factor for Congress to deal with as explained by Hamilton in Federalist No. 21.


Finally, under our Constitution’s original tax plan, let us remember that if Congress does not raise sufficient revenue from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes on specifically chosen article of consumption and spends more than is brought in which creates a deficit, it is at this time that the apportioned tax is to be used to extinguish the deficit created, and each state’s congressional delegation must return home with a bill in hand for its state’s apportioned share of this tax and place this burden upon their Governor and State Legislature, and would deplete their own state’s treasury.


The bottom line is, what do you think would happen if New York State’s big spending Congressional Delegation had to return home with a bill for New York to pay an apportioned share to extinguish the 2013 federal deficit? I kind of think tea parties would change to tar and feather parties and big spenders in Congress would REAP THEIR JUST REWARDS for their irresponsible and tyrannical spending.

Why is it that not one of our “conservative” media personalities [Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Doc Thompson, Lee Rodgers, Neal Boortz, Mike Huckabee, Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley, Herman Cain, etc.] will discuss the wisdom of our Constitution’s original tax plan, especially when it paved the way to not only control Congress, but created the economic underpinning which led to America becoming the economic marvel of the world?

Let us not forget by the year 1835, under our constitution’s original tax plan, America was manufacturing everything from steam powered ships, to clothing spun and woven by powered machinery and the national debt [which included part of the revolutionary war debt] was completely extinguished and Congress enjoyed a surplus in the federal treasury from tariffs, duties, and customs. And so, by an Act of Congress in June of 1836 all surplus revenue in excess of $ 5,000,000 was decided to be distributed among the states, and eventually a total of $28,000,000 was distributed among the states by the rule of apportionment in the nature of interest free loans to the states to be recalled if and when Congress decided to make such a recall. Why do so many willingly ignore the wisdom of our founding fathers?



JWK

“…a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be oppressive to our constituents.”___ Madison, during the creation of our Nation’s first revenue raising Act

 

[Gadawg73]

No. Conservatives only want to cut expenditures when democrats are in office. Pure politics. When Republicans are in office they want to spend, spend, spend, and not tax. Without the Bush's and Reagan we'd be well off fiscally. With them it will be generations, if we're lucky, before recovery.

The fact that so many are in denial of those simple and obvious facts is a measure of one thing. The effectiveness of Republican 24/4/365 media propaganda.

Funny, I paid taxes under Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I and II.
In 1986 Congress lowered the top rate from 35 to 28%. The 1986 bill was revenue neutral as in it the long term capital gains rate went from 20 to 28%.
Reagan ended the IRA deduction on high earners and maxed the 401k type plans at 7K instead of 30K. Reagan signed into law tax increases in 1982 and 1984.
The 1986 law took 6 million lower middle class and working poor families off the tax roles.
The 1986 law hit tax shelters for the rich and limited individual taxpayer's ability to use speculative real estate losses to offset salary and other income.

On to Bush tax cuts:
The richest 1% went from paying 25% of all income taxes in 1990 to 39% in 2005. The richest 5% from 44% to 60%.
After the Bush tax cuts of 2001 unemployment fell to the lowest level since WWII.
The Bush tax cuts caused Federal revenues to increase 800 billion dollars from 2001 to 2008.
The Bush tax cuts doubled the child tax credit from $500 to $1000.
Middle income families saw their taxes rise an average of $1800 a year when the Bush tax cuts ended.

As usual you have nothing.

Here's the results of the Bush tax cuts that you admire so much.

"crooksandliars.com" a fitting source from you.

 

[dcraelin]

I studied the constitution in college, and the truth is that indirect taxes are equally as evil as direct taxes. The part that is evil is when government spends more than it makes and continually raises taxes. What I am in favor of is an abolition of all current taxes to be replaced by a fixed 10% direct tax and not a penny more, along with removing Congress' ability to borrow money on credit except from legal U.S. citizens registered to vote in the form of bonds.
The evil nature of taxes is evil no matter how direct or indirect they are, at the end of the day they are still taking YOUR money.

With all due respect, let me speculate that while you were in college you certainly did not study our Constitution’s original tax plan as our founders intended it to operate. If you had, I do not believe you would assert “indirect taxes are equally as evil as direct taxes.”
Congress is granted power to lay and collect internal “excise” taxes. This power, as intended by our founders allows Congress to lay and collect a tax upon specifically chosen articles of consumption, preferable specifically selected articles of luxury.
Hamilton stresses in Federalist No 21 regarding taxes on articles of consumption:

There was disagreement over the meaning of some of the terms on taxes in the constitution. The Nation passed an income tax during the civil war without any concern as to constitutionality. Read Kevin Phillips Arrogant Capital on how many politicians are subservient to bankers and actually dont want to pay down debt.

 

[PMZ]

Funny, I paid taxes under Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I and II.
In 1986 Congress lowered the top rate from 35 to 28%. The 1986 bill was revenue neutral as in it the long term capital gains rate went from 20 to 28%.
Reagan ended the IRA deduction on high earners and maxed the 401k type plans at 7K instead of 30K. Reagan signed into law tax increases in 1982 and 1984.
The 1986 law took 6 million lower middle class and working poor families off the tax roles.
The 1986 law hit tax shelters for the rich and limited individual taxpayer's ability to use speculative real estate losses to offset salary and other income.

On to Bush tax cuts:
The richest 1% went from paying 25% of all income taxes in 1990 to 39% in 2005. The richest 5% from 44% to 60%.
After the Bush tax cuts of 2001 unemployment fell to the lowest level since WWII.
The Bush tax cuts caused Federal revenues to increase 800 billion dollars from 2001 to 2008.
The Bush tax cuts doubled the child tax credit from $500 to $1000.
Middle income families saw their taxes rise an average of $1800 a year when the Bush tax cuts ended.

As usual you have nothing.

Here's the results of the Bush tax cuts that you admire so much.

"crooksandliars.com" a fitting source from you.

Is this really the best that you could come up with to obscure truth?