Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
"Gimme gimme gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it."
Everyone wants a handout, but they don't want to pay for it.
That's how we got here, folks. It wasn't food stamps. It wasn't Obamaphones. It wasn't illegal aliens.
It is tax expenditures. And if you think $18 trillion of federal debt should be paid by someone else, then you are an asshole. You took, and now you must pay.
Banning tax expenditures is reform, rube. Real, actual, genuine reform.That's funny. I said the MID does not benefit the poor and middle class, and you scoff. Then you proceed to provide information which proves me right!The poor and middle class do not benefit from tax expenditures.The mortgage interest deduction should go away. It is a giant scam which steals almost $100 billion a year from the pockets of the common man and transfers it to the rich.
Reagan definitely had the right idea by eliminating as many tax expenditures as he could.
LOL, You mean the ones the poor/middle class used, like CC interest? Weird right?
The only tax credit which has a proven positive record is the EITC.
Opinion from a Reaganite? I''ll take it for what it's worth Bubs
Mortgage Interest Deduction Is Ripe for Reform
Conversion to Tax Credit Could Raise Revenue and Make Subsidy More Effective and Fairer
Costing at least $70 billion a year, the mortgage interest deduction is one of the largest federal tax expenditures, but it appears to do little to achieve the goal of expanding homeownership. The main reason is that the bulk of its benefits go to higher-income households who generally could afford a home without assistance: in 2012, 77 percent of the benefits went to homeowners with incomes above $100,000. Meanwhile, close to half of homeowners with mortgages — most of them middle- and lower-income families — receive no benefit from the deduction. Three major bipartisan panels have proposed to convert the deduction to a credit and lower the maximum amount of interest it covers. These reforms would be major improvements over current law and would generate significant additional revenue.
Mortgage Interest Deduction Is Ripe for Reform | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Weird, REFORMING a system that benefits the top 77% the most BUT still benefits the poor/middle class (below $100,000)??? lol
YOU UNDERSTAND REFORM VERSUS THROWING OUT, WHICH IS YOUR PLAN RIGHT BUBBA?
Yes I guess ONLY getting $20+ billion isn't a "benefit" right Bubs?
47% barely have anything to pay and hold virtually no taxable income.We have an utterly corrupt system which provides a transfer of wealth from the pockets of the common man into the pockets of higher income people.
We have an utterly corrupt system which allows the bribing of our American Politboro to put these tax expenditures in the tax code which enable this wealth redistribution up the food chain.
We have an utterly corrupt system in which people earning identical incomes are paying radically different federal taxes.
We have utterly corrupt system which has resulted in higher tax rates and massive debt.
How anyone could defend this scheme is beyond me.
bullshit. the rich already pay almost all federal income taxes. 47% pay no federal income tax, and many have a negative income tax via EIC.
If you take more from the job creators a couple of things wil happen. \
1. they will take their money and leave the country
2. the will put it in swiss and cayman accounts where it is tax free
3. they will not invest in the US market or expansion of businesses
4. the middle class will lose jobs
5. federal revenue will decrease
I realize that you libs hate successful people and are determined to find ways to punish success and reward failure. But in so doing you will destroy this country.
said another way, you are idiots.
Thomas Jefferson said most of the population should be tax free. In fact, for the first several decades of the income tax, only the wealthy paid it.47% barely have anything to pay and hold virtually no taxable income.We have an utterly corrupt system which provides a transfer of wealth from the pockets of the common man into the pockets of higher income people.
We have an utterly corrupt system which allows the bribing of our American Politboro to put these tax expenditures in the tax code which enable this wealth redistribution up the food chain.
We have an utterly corrupt system in which people earning identical incomes are paying radically different federal taxes.
We have utterly corrupt system which has resulted in higher tax rates and massive debt.
How anyone could defend this scheme is beyond me.
bullshit. the rich already pay almost all federal income taxes. 47% pay no federal income tax, and many have a negative income tax via EIC.
If you take more from the job creators a couple of things wil happen. \
1. they will take their money and leave the country
2. the will put it in swiss and cayman accounts where it is tax free
3. they will not invest in the US market or expansion of businesses
4. the middle class will lose jobs
5. federal revenue will decrease
I realize that you libs hate successful people and are determined to find ways to punish success and reward failure. But in so doing you will destroy this country.
said another way, you are idiots.
Yeah, and thats the direct result of 70 years of liberal policies and the ever increasing size of government.
Why shouldn't everyone have some skin in the game? Why should half of the population be tax free?
We have deficit spending because we give away $1.2 trillion in tax expenditures every year. That is literally twice as much as we spend on social welfare programs."Gimme gimme gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it."
Everyone wants a handout, but they don't want to pay for it.
That's how we got here, folks. It wasn't food stamps. It wasn't Obamaphones. It wasn't illegal aliens.
It is tax expenditures. And if you think $18 trillion of federal debt should be paid by someone else, then you are an asshole. You took, and now you must pay.
we have a national debt of 18 trillion because both parties have engaged in deficit spending in order to buy votes.
the real problem is that being in congress has become a financially lucrative "job". Term limits would help. But as long as congress spends more than it collects the problem will only get worse.
Thomas Jefferson said most of the population should be tax free. In fact, for the first several decades of the income tax, only the wealthy paid it.47% barely have anything to pay and hold virtually no taxable income.We have an utterly corrupt system which provides a transfer of wealth from the pockets of the common man into the pockets of higher income people.
We have an utterly corrupt system which allows the bribing of our American Politboro to put these tax expenditures in the tax code which enable this wealth redistribution up the food chain.
We have an utterly corrupt system in which people earning identical incomes are paying radically different federal taxes.
We have utterly corrupt system which has resulted in higher tax rates and massive debt.
How anyone could defend this scheme is beyond me.
bullshit. the rich already pay almost all federal income taxes. 47% pay no federal income tax, and many have a negative income tax via EIC.
If you take more from the job creators a couple of things wil happen. \
1. they will take their money and leave the country
2. the will put it in swiss and cayman accounts where it is tax free
3. they will not invest in the US market or expansion of businesses
4. the middle class will lose jobs
5. federal revenue will decrease
I realize that you libs hate successful people and are determined to find ways to punish success and reward failure. But in so doing you will destroy this country.
said another way, you are idiots.
Yeah, and thats the direct result of 70 years of liberal policies and the ever increasing size of government.
Why shouldn't everyone have some skin in the game? Why should half of the population be tax free?
We have deficit spending because we give away $1.2 trillion in tax expenditures every year. That is literally twice as much as we spend on social welfare programs."Gimme gimme gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it."
Everyone wants a handout, but they don't want to pay for it.
That's how we got here, folks. It wasn't food stamps. It wasn't Obamaphones. It wasn't illegal aliens.
It is tax expenditures. And if you think $18 trillion of federal debt should be paid by someone else, then you are an asshole. You took, and now you must pay.
we have a national debt of 18 trillion because both parties have engaged in deficit spending in order to buy votes.
the real problem is that being in congress has become a financially lucrative "job". Term limits would help. But as long as congress spends more than it collects the problem will only get worse.
That adds up. Quickly.
We have deficit spending because we give away $1.2 trillion in tax expenditures every year. That is literally twice as much as we spend on social welfare programs."Gimme gimme gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it."
Everyone wants a handout, but they don't want to pay for it.
That's how we got here, folks. It wasn't food stamps. It wasn't Obamaphones. It wasn't illegal aliens.
It is tax expenditures. And if you think $18 trillion of federal debt should be paid by someone else, then you are an asshole. You took, and now you must pay.
we have a national debt of 18 trillion because both parties have engaged in deficit spending in order to buy votes.
the real problem is that being in congress has become a financially lucrative "job". Term limits would help. But as long as congress spends more than it collects the problem will only get worse.
That adds up. Quickly.
Without tax expenditures, we would have an annual surplus of $800 billion.
Think of how low you could make tax rates with that kind of surplus.
The Distribution of Major Tax Expenditures in the Individual Income Tax SystemWe have deficit spending because we give away $1.2 trillion in tax expenditures every year. That is literally twice as much as we spend on social welfare programs."Gimme gimme gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it."
Everyone wants a handout, but they don't want to pay for it.
That's how we got here, folks. It wasn't food stamps. It wasn't Obamaphones. It wasn't illegal aliens.
It is tax expenditures. And if you think $18 trillion of federal debt should be paid by someone else, then you are an asshole. You took, and now you must pay.
we have a national debt of 18 trillion because both parties have engaged in deficit spending in order to buy votes.
the real problem is that being in congress has become a financially lucrative "job". Term limits would help. But as long as congress spends more than it collects the problem will only get worse.
That adds up. Quickly.
Without tax expenditures, we would have an annual surplus of $800 billion.
Think of how low you could make tax rates with that kind of surplus.
define "tax expenditures"
"Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boom."
THE TRUTH ABOUT TAXES: High Rates On Rich People Do Not Hurt The Economy - Business Insider
The true driving force of the economy is the middle class - not the wealthy. This economy depends on consumer spending. That is why you all should care about income inequality. Despite productivity skyrocketing over the previous decades, wages have remained mostly flat in the lower class and most of the income gains have gone to the top 1%.. The middle class is shrinking and the U.S. has the worst child poverty rate in the developed world.
Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider
"Gimme gimme gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it."
Everyone wants a handout, but they don't want to pay for it.
That's how we got here, folks. It wasn't food stamps. It wasn't Obamaphones. It wasn't illegal aliens.
It is tax expenditures. And if you think $18 trillion of federal debt should be paid by someone else, then you are an asshole. You took, and now you must pay.
"Gimme gimme gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it."
Everyone wants a handout, but they don't want to pay for it.
That's how we got here, folks. It wasn't food stamps. It wasn't Obamaphones. It wasn't illegal aliens.
It is tax expenditures. And if you think $18 trillion of federal debt should be paid by someone else, then you are an asshole. You took, and now you must pay.
Weird, you mean the past 34 years of Reaganomics hasn't benefited US YET the top 1% has quadrupled their after tax incomes AS the US debt exploded?
"Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boom."
THE TRUTH ABOUT TAXES: High Rates On Rich People Do Not Hurt The Economy - Business Insider
The true driving force of the economy is the middle class - not the wealthy. This economy depends on consumer spending. That is why you all should care about income inequality. Despite productivity skyrocketing over the previous decades, wages have remained mostly flat in the lower class and most of the income gains have gone to the top 1%.. The middle class is shrinking and the U.S. has the worst child poverty rate in the developed world.
Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider
That statistic has been debunked many times over. I'm late to this thread and I'll bet someone has already pointed it out to you.
The thing that probably no one has noted us that you could take every penny from everyone who makes $500K or more per year and you would only be able to fund the government for 6 months. And of course it would hurt the economy, it's stupid to believe otherwise.
That's not the point, the debt will never go away, the goal is to maintain balance, progressive taxation does this without hurting the working people."Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boom."
THE TRUTH ABOUT TAXES: High Rates On Rich People Do Not Hurt The Economy - Business Insider
The true driving force of the economy is the middle class - not the wealthy. This economy depends on consumer spending. That is why you all should care about income inequality. Despite productivity skyrocketing over the previous decades, wages have remained mostly flat in the lower class and most of the income gains have gone to the top 1%.. The middle class is shrinking and the U.S. has the worst child poverty rate in the developed world.
Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider
That statistic has been debunked many times over. I'm late to this thread and I'll bet someone has already pointed it out to you.
The thing that probably no one has noted us that you could take every penny from everyone who makes $500K or more per year and you would only be able to fund the government for 6 months. And of course it would hurt the economy, it's stupid to believe otherwise.
Banning tax expenditures is reform, rube. Real, actual, genuine reform.That's funny. I said the MID does not benefit the poor and middle class, and you scoff. Then you proceed to provide information which proves me right!The poor and middle class do not benefit from tax expenditures.LOL, You mean the ones the poor/middle class used, like CC interest? Weird right?
The only tax credit which has a proven positive record is the EITC.
Opinion from a Reaganite? I''ll take it for what it's worth Bubs
Mortgage Interest Deduction Is Ripe for Reform
Conversion to Tax Credit Could Raise Revenue and Make Subsidy More Effective and Fairer
Costing at least $70 billion a year, the mortgage interest deduction is one of the largest federal tax expenditures, but it appears to do little to achieve the goal of expanding homeownership. The main reason is that the bulk of its benefits go to higher-income households who generally could afford a home without assistance: in 2012, 77 percent of the benefits went to homeowners with incomes above $100,000. Meanwhile, close to half of homeowners with mortgages — most of them middle- and lower-income families — receive no benefit from the deduction. Three major bipartisan panels have proposed to convert the deduction to a credit and lower the maximum amount of interest it covers. These reforms would be major improvements over current law and would generate significant additional revenue.
Mortgage Interest Deduction Is Ripe for Reform | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Weird, REFORMING a system that benefits the top 77% the most BUT still benefits the poor/middle class (below $100,000)??? lol
YOU UNDERSTAND REFORM VERSUS THROWING OUT, WHICH IS YOUR PLAN RIGHT BUBBA?
Yes I guess ONLY getting $20+ billion isn't a "benefit" right Bubs?
Without tax expenditures, all you have to do is create progressive tax brackets which distribute the tax burden how you see fit.
Tax expenditures are an invisible way to steal from the poor and give to the rich.
When the American economy was rockin' and rollin' back in the 60's and 70's we had a top tax rate on the wealthy of 91% and a 10% usery law that prevented charging more than 10% interest.
The peasants were also allowed to deduct 100% of the interest they paid on everything on their income taxes both state and federal.
Until Ronald Reagan created the largest tax increase on the middle class in history when he took the interest deduction away, except for your home mortgage -- and he WANTED to take that away too.
Having a high tax rate on the uber wealthy serves two purposes.
1) It raises more money to pay down the country's debt -- thanks to Bush's Follies.
2) It motivates the wealthy to use their remaining money to start more businesses and expand the one's they own in order to get more money.
If a man has 100 million dollars rs a year coming in from his factory, and the government lets him keep 92 million, he has little motivation to expand his plant or start another business.
If he had 100 million dollars a year coming in from his factory, and the government lets him keep 10 million, he has LOTS of motivation to expand his operations and start more.
He still owns his yacht and mansions and now needs more money to KEEP them just like his employees need to make money to pay their rent / house payment.
He's still a rich man, nobody took his factory away from him, but with a high tax rate he pays more to society for the better life he is receiving from society. And that helps society.
Proof of my statement is that when we HAD high tax rates on the wealthy ... they DID expand their businesses and start more. Times were booming.
But, since Reagan and the massive give aways to the wealthy under the pretense it would create more jobs ( which has been proven untrue ) we have cut the taxes on the wealthy and they just hide their money overseas and sit on their wealth.
The conservatives claim that giving welfare to the poor encourages them not to work.
Well, tax cuts for the rich are the same thing as welfare to the poor --- only it's welfare for the RICH.
===============
It's kind of weird how good it was then and now how bad it is today since the rich have been getting away with this crap.
We spent far more on infrastructure, science, r&d and education when we had the revenue to do so.
How is a higher tax on capital gains punishing the rich? You know what is actual punishment? Taking away food stamps from a poor mother."Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boom."
THE TRUTH ABOUT TAXES: High Rates On Rich People Do Not Hurt The Economy - Business Insider
The true driving force of the economy is the middle class - not the wealthy. This economy depends on consumer spending. That is why you all should care about income inequality. Despite productivity skyrocketing over the previous decades, wages have remained mostly flat in the lower class and most of the income gains have gone to the top 1%.. The middle class is shrinking and the U.S. has the worst child poverty rate in the developed world.
Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider
That statistic has been debunked many times over. I'm late to this thread and I'll bet someone has already pointed it out to you.
The thing that probably no one has noted us that you could take every penny from everyone who makes $500K or more per year and you would only be able to fund the government for 6 months. And of course it would hurt the economy, it's stupid to believe otherwise.
correct, punishing the rich is dem/lib political talking point, devoid of any factual basis, as are most of their talking points.
"Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boom."
THE TRUTH ABOUT TAXES: High Rates On Rich People Do Not Hurt The Economy - Business Insider
The true driving force of the economy is the middle class - not the wealthy. This economy depends on consumer spending. That is why you all should care about income inequality. Despite productivity skyrocketing over the previous decades, wages have remained mostly flat in the lower class and most of the income gains have gone to the top 1%.. The middle class is shrinking and the U.S. has the worst child poverty rate in the developed world.
Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider
That statistic has been debunked many times over. I'm late to this thread and I'll bet someone has already pointed it out to you.
The thing that probably no one has noted us that you could take every penny from everyone who makes $500K or more per year and you would only be able to fund the government for 6 months. And of course it would hurt the economy, it's stupid to believe otherwise.
