The truth about taxes

[ClosedCaption]

Taxes are taken from the public FOR the public. You cant pick and choose what you want your taxes to be used for and when you want it. Unless you live in a cave with a wifi connection

Sure I can - it's called the United States Constitution! And it specifically states that my taxes can be taken for defense. For the patent office. For federal courts and judges. But it also says that they may not be taken for Obamacare. For Social Security. For Welfare.

Facts....they are a bitch, eh CC?

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and General Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”

Bzzt!

The Constitution actually specifically states Congress can tax the people for the general welfare of the US. Hint: that includes welfare, social security, and yes, even Obamacare.

Next.

They always forget about General Welfare then they'll narrowly define general welfare so much it would be covered by just saying "because I don't like it"

 

[hangover]

Back in the 50's and 60's we didn't have a debt problem, and taxes were 90% on the rich. Now taxes are less than 35% on the rich, and they're whining about the debt problem that they created. Want to fix the debt problem? Raise taxes back to 90% on the rich. The poor didn't create the debt problem. There are no poor in congress.

 

[P@triot]

Sure I can - it's called the United States Constitution! And it specifically states that my taxes can be taken for defense. For the patent office. For federal courts and judges. But it also says that they may not be taken for Obamacare. For Social Security. For Welfare.

Facts....they are a bitch, eh CC?

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and General Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”

Bzzt!

The Constitution actually specifically states Congress can tax the people for the general welfare of the US. Hint: that includes welfare, social security, and yes, even Obamacare.

Next.

They always forget about General Welfare then they'll narrowly define general welfare so much it would be covered by just saying "because I don't like it"

So please explain it to me [MENTION=25032]ClosedCaption[/MENTION]. How is taking from a select group of people (tax payers) and handing over what you have taken to another select group of people (parasites) "promoting the GENERAL welfare".

The "general" welfare is what's good for the overwhelming majority (at minimum - by definition - you'd have to say 80%). So even your absurd and desperate spin on the Constitution fails miserably. But hey, we're all still waiting for you to explain this one...

 

[P@triot]

Back in the 50's and 60's we didn't have a debt problem, and taxes were 90% on the rich. Now taxes are less than 35% on the rich, and they're whining about the debt problem that they created. Want to fix the debt problem? Raise taxes back to 90% on the rich. The poor didn't create the debt problem. There are no poor in congress.

This lie was already debunked earlier in the thread [MENTION=45484]hangover[/MENTION]. Do try and keep up...

“Democrats defend high tax rates on the basis of the rates in the mid-twentieth century.18 But that’s another distortion. It is true that FDR raised the top rate in 1935 to 79%. But what we never hear is that it only applied to incomes over $5 million—the equivalent of $76,000,000 per year today. In 1935 only one man in the entire U.S.A. paid a penny at that rate—John D. Rockefeller.”

https://www.boundless.com/u-s-histo...welfare-state/social-security-and-tax-reform/

Excerpt From: Wayne Allyn Root. “The Ultimate Obama Survival Guide.” Regnery Publishing, 2013-03-26. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/ultimate-obama-survival-guide/id601965000?mt=11

 

[Spiderman]

You knew exactly what I meant, so I'm not sure why you are parsing words.

Unless you are just trying to avoid the point that Reagan's "Tax Reform" shifted the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class.

Yeah, that's probably it.

Parsing words like you did when I used decimate.

You knew what I meant but yet you had to parse words.

And what makes you think I am a fan of Reagan? He was one of the worst perpetrators of out of control government growth ever.

No, he was the worst perpetrator of irresponsible fiscal policies.

Nothing wrong with increasing spending the way he did. It got us out of the 1981 Recession and rebuilt a demoralized military.

It was giving huge tax breaks to the rich and tripling the national debt that was the problem.

No it was cutting taxes and increasing spending that was the problem.

A trend which has continued which is why our national debt will top 20 trillion in the next few years

 

[thereisnospoon]

• The top 1% of the wealthy earn 13% of all income but pay 39% of all income taxes (that is 3x's as much taxes as their share of the income: 13x3=39)

• The top 5% pay an astounding 64% of all income taxes

• The top 20% —the “rich”—already pay 94.1% of income taxes

• The bottom 60% pay on net less than zero income taxes, once the tax credits the government pays them are taken into account

Top 1% earns 13% of the wealth but pays 39% of the taxes

Top 5% paid 40% of taxes, what is their 'fair' share?

Top 20% Paid 94.1% of Income Taxes in 2009

Excerpt From: Wayne Allyn Root. “The Ultimate Obama Survival Guide.” Regnery Publishing, 2013-03-26. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/ultimate-obama-survival-guide/id601965000?mt=11

Why is it you guys only discuss federal income taxes and never discuss the numbers when all taxation is included? I'll tell you why. Because if you include all forms of taxation, those numbers become drastically different, and the wealthy then only pay slightly more than percentage wise compared to their earnings. Just by including payroll taxes, the numbers change substantially, and then when you include state and local taxes, it really changes drastically, because lower income earners pay the highest percentage of state and local taxes. They also pay a much larger portion of their income in payroll taxes.

I'm so sick of this stupid argument, but hey, I'm sure you'll keep throwing it out there. What we should do is tax the wealthy less and tax the poor more.

Not so fast. When your side mentions desired tax increases, you scream about tax loopholes and how rich guys like Romney absorb an effective income tax rate of 15%...
All other taxes save for income are regressive.
If you object, Talk to your elected officials.
BTW, those who earn more, spend more. So they share a much higher proportion of the sales tax burden than those with low incomes.
Nice try. Doesn't wash.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The wealthy can afford to pay much higher rates, and still live very comfy lives. For some reason, conservatives are very concerned about the well-being of the rich, but they don't need to worry about them. They will still have plenty of wealth under higher progressive rates that liberals would prefer. The right has convinced itself that liberals are a bunch of confiscatory marxists who won't be satisfied till the rich are shot against a basement wall, like the Romanov family. We aren't communists, we are liberals. And the Right's failure to see the difference is one of the reasons why they've been losing.

No...You have it backward. Your side insists the so called wealthy do not pay enough.
That is not true. Not by any stretch.
Then of course your argument invariably switches to "well, they have enough"...
The underlying meaning of that is "the government needs to confiscate more because it isn't fair for people to have that much"..
You may not believe you have Marxist leanings, but based on your insistence that taxation should be used as a form of punishment, you do indeed subscribe to Marxist theory.
Your problem is twofold.
One, your belief in the Keynesian theory of the zero sum game. The "pie".
Two, your belief that somehow if you can persuade government to install confiscatory tax rates that somehow YOU will benefit. Or perhaps even see some kind of windfall.

 

[ClosedCaption]

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and General Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”

Bzzt!

The Constitution actually specifically states Congress can tax the people for the general welfare of the US. Hint: that includes welfare, social security, and yes, even Obamacare.

Next.

They always forget about General Welfare then they'll narrowly define general welfare so much it would be covered by just saying "because I don't like it"

So please explain it to me [MENTION=25032]ClosedCaption[/MENTION]. How is taking from a select group of people (tax payers) and handing over what you have taken to another select group of people (parasites) "promoting the GENERAL welfare".

The "general" welfare is what's good for the overwhelming majority (at minimum - by definition - you'd have to say 80%). So even your absurd and desperate spin on the Constitution fails miserably. But hey, we're all still waiting for you to explain this one...

General Welfare includes General (broad)

Welfare: 1.well-being: somebody's state or condition with respect to whether he or she is healthy, safe, happy, or prospering
2.work to improve people's welfare: efforts, especially on the part of government and institutions, to ensure that the physical, social, and financial conditions under which people live are satisfactory
3.aid to people in need: financial aid and other benefits for people who are unemployed, below a specific income level, or otherwise requiring assistance, especially when provided by a government agency or program

Doesn't mention anywhere that everyone has to like it. Still don't understand?

 

[thereisnospoon]

When the progressive income tax was introduced in 1913 at a top rate of 7%, it was to never exceed 10%. We all see how that worked out. Never ever trust lying progressives.

And the minimum wage never exceeded $0.25.

Then Eisenhower came along - the last fiscally responsibility conservative - and balanced the budget through progressive taxation. We had to pay off our wartime debt.

Then Conservatives came along and cut taxes for the rich while wage useless wars off of lies, and then take it out on poor people.

You people are fucking disgusting.

Did you really look at that after you typed and think you were satisfied?
What the hell does the minimum wage have to do with anything?
We have a president who when asked about the capital gains tax rate resulting in higher revenues to the federal government his response was " a 15% rate is just not appropriate".
Is President Obama Really A Socialist? Let's Analyze Obamanomics - Forbes...
To progressive/socialists like Obama, taxation is not about raising revenue for government, it is about leveling an alleged "unfair" playing field.
Obama truly believes in his heart that capitalism is unfair. That the USA is an "unfair" country.
What he's really saying is "if I can raise taxes on the rich, I can win votes for my party."

 

[thereisnospoon]

They always forget about General Welfare then they'll narrowly define general welfare so much it would be covered by just saying "because I don't like it"

So please explain it to me [MENTION=25032]ClosedCaption[/MENTION]. How is taking from a select group of people (tax payers) and handing over what you have taken to another select group of people (parasites) "promoting the GENERAL welfare".

The "general" welfare is what's good for the overwhelming majority (at minimum - by definition - you'd have to say 80%). So even your absurd and desperate spin on the Constitution fails miserably. But hey, we're all still waiting for you to explain this one...

General Welfare includes General (broad)

Welfare: 1.well-being: somebody's state or condition with respect to whether he or she is healthy, safe, happy, or prospering
2.work to improve people's welfare: efforts, especially on the part of government and institutions, to ensure that the physical, social, and financial conditions under which people live are satisfactory
3.aid to people in need: financial aid and other benefits for people who are unemployed, below a specific income level, or otherwise requiring assistance, especially when provided by a government agency or program

Doesn't mention anywhere that everyone has to like it. Still don't understand?

That's a dictionary definition. Not a Constitutional one.
But you can keep trying to push your agenda all you like.

 

[ClosedCaption]

So please explain it to me [MENTION=25032]ClosedCaption[/MENTION]. How is taking from a select group of people (tax payers) and handing over what you have taken to another select group of people (parasites) "promoting the GENERAL welfare".

The "general" welfare is what's good for the overwhelming majority (at minimum - by definition - you'd have to say 80%). So even your absurd and desperate spin on the Constitution fails miserably. But hey, we're all still waiting for you to explain this one...

General Welfare includes General (broad)

Welfare: 1.well-being: somebody's state or condition with respect to whether he or she is healthy, safe, happy, or prospering
2.work to improve people's welfare: efforts, especially on the part of government and institutions, to ensure that the physical, social, and financial conditions under which people live are satisfactory
3.aid to people in need: financial aid and other benefits for people who are unemployed, below a specific income level, or otherwise requiring assistance, especially when provided by a government agency or program

Doesn't mention anywhere that everyone has to like it. Still don't understand?

That's a dictionary definition. Not a Constitutional one.
But you can keep trying to push your agenda all you like.

So definitions don't matter. Welp, gotta find some way to ignore reality even if you have to claim that welfare doesn't mean welfare

 

[Spiderman]

General Welfare includes General (broad)

Welfare: 1.well-being: somebody's state or condition with respect to whether he or she is healthy, safe, happy, or prospering
2.work to improve people's welfare: efforts, especially on the part of government and institutions, to ensure that the physical, social, and financial conditions under which people live are satisfactory
3.aid to people in need: financial aid and other benefits for people who are unemployed, below a specific income level, or otherwise requiring assistance, especially when provided by a government agency or program

Doesn't mention anywhere that everyone has to like it. Still don't understand?

That's a dictionary definition. Not a Constitutional one.
But you can keep trying to push your agenda all you like.

So definitions don't matter. Welp, gotta find some way to ignore reality even if you have to claim that welfare doesn't mean welfare

Definitions change over time. What was the term general welfare taken to mean at the time it was included in the Constitution?

The same can be said for the term "well regulated" when referring to a militia.

 

[DGS49]

Dear ClosedCaption person:

In trotting out the "general welfare" phrase you are exposing yourself as...to put it kindly...not well informed.

Although the USSC has bent, folded, and mutilated the meaning of Article I over the years, it has NEVER read the "general welfare" words as you do. They have clung to the only tenable reading of that section, which is, "these are the specific powers that the Constitution grants to Congress" (and the Tenth Amendment reserves all other powers to the States and to the People)."

If your reading were correct, then CJ Roberts would not have had to jump through those ridiculous hoops to conclude that the individual mandate was a TAX, and not just a mandate (which would have been unconstitutional). With YOUR reading, he could have simply said, "Congress has the right to legislate for the 'general welfare,' and Congress has decided that this initiative promotes the general welfare. Period."

It's rather sad that you are so uninformed about basic Constitutional law, and yet you keep posting here as though you knew wtf you were talking about.

 

[hangover]

Back in the 50's and 60's we didn't have a debt problem, and taxes were 90% on the rich. Now taxes are less than 35% on the rich, and they're whining about the debt problem that they created. Want to fix the debt problem? Raise taxes back to 90% on the rich. The poor didn't create the debt problem. There are no poor in congress.

This lie was already debunked earlier in the thread [MENTION=45484]hangover[/MENTION]. Do try and keep up...

“Democrats defend high tax rates on the basis of the rates in the mid-twentieth century.18 But that’s another distortion. It is true that FDR raised the top rate in 1935 to 79%. But what we never hear is that it only applied to incomes over $5 million—the equivalent of $76,000,000 per year today. In 1935 only one man in the entire U.S.A. paid a penny at that rate—John D. Rockefeller.”

https://www.boundless.com/u-s-histo...welfare-state/social-security-and-tax-reform/

Excerpt From: Wayne Allyn Root. “The Ultimate Obama Survival Guide.” Regnery Publishing, 2013-03-26. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/ultimate-obama-survival-guide/id601965000?mt=11

So sorry that I don't have time to keep up with your drivel. But you know as well as I that this country didn't have even a one trillion dollar debt until Ronnie Raygun lowered taxes on the rich and then almost tripled the national debt in only eight years. Then Shrub daddy doubled it again in only four years. Then Shrub Jr. doubled it again with a republican House and Senate, adding more to the debt than all presidents before him added together. Actually the last three POTUS's all did that. your shit don't flush.

 

[JoeNormal]

You mean like during the depression when the economy was in the shitter?

Or during WWII and the decades that followed where we had unprecedented prosperity.

To say the boom after WWII was due to tax policy is short sighted.

The manufacturing capabilities of most European countries were devastated leaving large holes to be filled. Since there was no fighting on our home soil and out manufacturing capabilities were 100% in tact we were the only ones left to fill the void.

THAT is what was responsible for the swift rise of the American economy after WWII

Gawd, this Fox News talking point must've made an impression on a shitload of people. He's not saying that the boom was exclusively due to tax policy but it sure as hell didn't impede progress.

 

[ClosedCaption]

That's a dictionary definition. Not a Constitutional one.
But you can keep trying to push your agenda all you like.

So definitions don't matter. Welp, gotta find some way to ignore reality even if you have to claim that welfare doesn't mean welfare

Definitions change over time. What was the term general welfare taken to mean at the time it was included in the Constitution?

The same can be said for the term "well regulated" when referring to a militia.

So now definitions aren't to be used because words can change meanings But but but..lets return to what the constitutions says you say, but you're not sure what it means you NOW say

So you don't know if it was different and you don't know if it was the same but you're siding with welfare meant something different then and you don't know why.

Let me suggest a reason: Confirmation Bias

 

[Spiderman]

So definitions don't matter. Welp, gotta find some way to ignore reality even if you have to claim that welfare doesn't mean welfare

Definitions change over time. What was the term general welfare taken to mean at the time it was included in the Constitution?

The same can be said for the term "well regulated" when referring to a militia.

So now definitions aren't to be used because words can change meanings But but but..lets return to what the constitutions says you say, but you're not sure what it means you NOW say

So you don't know if it was different and you don't know if it was the same but you're siding with welfare meant something different then and you don't know why.

Let me suggest a reason: Confirmation Bias

So definitions and word usage do not change over time?

You're gay.

Now do you see what I mean.

Idiot.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Definitions change over time. What was the term general welfare taken to mean at the time it was included in the Constitution?

The same can be said for the term "well regulated" when referring to a militia.

So now definitions aren't to be used because words can change meanings But but but..lets return to what the constitutions says you say, but you're not sure what it means you NOW say

So you don't know if it was different and you don't know if it was the same but you're siding with welfare meant something different then and you don't know why.

Let me suggest a reason: Confirmation Bias

So definitions and word usage do not change over time?

You're gay.

Now do you see what I mean.

Idiot.

No because like all good wafflers you neglect to say if the words changed or not. You seem unsure.

Did the word welfare change from then till now? You don't know, but what you do know is you're right. You just cant explain it and "because I think its right" isn't an acceptable answer in a debate

 

[Spiderman]

So now definitions aren't to be used because words can change meanings But but but..lets return to what the constitutions says you say, but you're not sure what it means you NOW say

So you don't know if it was different and you don't know if it was the same but you're siding with welfare meant something different then and you don't know why.

Let me suggest a reason: Confirmation Bias

So definitions and word usage do not change over time?

You're gay.

Now do you see what I mean.

Idiot.

No because like all good wafflers you neglect to say if the words changed or not. You seem unsure.

Did the word welfare change from then till now? You don't know, but what you do know is you're right. You just cant explain it and "because I think its right" isn't an acceptable answer in a debate

I posed the question to you? do you care to answer it or not?

 

[ClosedCaption]

So definitions and word usage do not change over time?

You're gay.

Now do you see what I mean.

Idiot.

No because like all good wafflers you neglect to say if the words changed or not. You seem unsure.

Did the word welfare change from then till now? You don't know, but what you do know is you're right. You just cant explain it and "because I think its right" isn't an acceptable answer in a debate

I posed the question to you? do you care to answer it or not?

First has the word changed or not? If so, HOW?


Let me see your tapping shoes