You Taught The GOP A Lesson: You Want Higher Taxes So They Will Grant Your Wish

[Skull Pilot]

You retarded NaziCons are hilarious...

Under Obama, Taxes Hit A 30-Year Low | ThinkProgress

And now Bam Bam wants to raise them right?

So what's your point?

 

[rightwinger]

*Crickets*

I don't think $160 billion a year is going to kill us

 

[martybegan]

*Crickets*

I don't think $160 billion a year is going to kill us

No, its the 1.4 trillion in borrowing thats going to kill those who have to handle it after those who caused it are dead and buried. (maybe before that.)

Again, any talk of revenue raising below $700-$900 billion per year is bread and circuses for the media and the democratic base. And democrats know if they raised taxes that much a year they would have to tax EVERYONE, and that would stagnate the economy.

 

[mudwhistle]

*Crickets*

I don't think $160 billion a year is going to kill us

It started out at $672 billion which was the largest tax-increase in United States history. Now it's $1.6 trillion.

What will it be when he gets done with his demands?

And it still doesn't even address his massive annual deficits. $1.6 trillion.

He must cut spending but he refuses to.

The dirty little secret you refuse to face is this is just intended for spending increases, not to pay down the debt.


A total moron could understand that is why Obama wants no debt-ceiling.

Do you understand now Dumb-ass?

 

[JoeB131]

Be proud of what you did. You taught the GOP that you don't want low taxes. You don't care if the Democrats raise your taxes and spend it faster than they can steal it from you. So I figure they're out to give you what you wanted.

How does it feel to teach those Republicans a lesson?

If you really think the GOP is going to be stupid enough to raise taxes on the middle class because the rich will be finally paying their fair share, you're delusional.

We've been through this before you envious little man. The wealthy pay WAY MORE THAN THEIR 'FAIR SHARE'. If you really want them to pay their fair share, we would need to drop taxes by about 25% for them. The people not paying their fair share are parasites like you.

]

I pay about 25% of my income in taxes to the Feds, IL and WI (I own property in both).

The retardedness you guys engage in is that you keep claiming that because the income tax is based on income, the wealthy pay more.

Ignoring the impact of flat taxes like SS, Medicare, State Income Taxes, Property Taxes, Liquor, Tobacco and Sales taxes, and so on.

This country worked a lot better when the wealthy paid there fair share. IN the 1950's, the top rate was 93%. We should go back to that.

 

[JoeB131]

I want all the wealthy to pay their fair share, thanks. Because the country works better when they do.

Actually, the country works better when we have constitutional government. Sadly though, parasites like you have created an uncontrollable monstrosity which spends beyond all comprehension.

Here's the funniest part about moron's like you: you're so profoundly stupid, you actually believe that if we raise taxes, the government won't raise spending. For 200 years, the federal government has spent more than they've taken in, regardless of tax rates. You could raise tax rates to 100% and then the government would be flooded with costs for food stamps (since no one would have any money for food), healthcare, etc. causing the spending to skyrocket right along with the new revenue stream. The fact that you can't understand this basic, fundamental reality speaks to you limited IQ (and explains why you're the communist parasite you are).

If the government raised spending, it would have a positive effect. The spending would go to pay salaries and benefits. That in turn would create more consumer demand and more jobs.

WHich is why we've NEVER gotten out of a recession without a burst of federal spending.

It's when most of the wealth gets concentrated in a few hands it starts to stagnate.

Kind of like it is now.

 

[Skull Pilot]

If you really think the GOP is going to be stupid enough to raise taxes on the middle class because the rich will be finally paying their fair share, you're delusional.

We've been through this before you envious little man. The wealthy pay WAY MORE THAN THEIR 'FAIR SHARE'. If you really want them to pay their fair share, we would need to drop taxes by about 25% for them. The people not paying their fair share are parasites like you.

]

I pay about 25% of my income in taxes to the Feds, IL and WI (I own property in both).

The retardedness you guys engage in is that you keep claiming that because the income tax is based on income, the wealthy pay more.

Ignoring the impact of flat taxes like SS, Medicare, State Income Taxes, Property Taxes, Liquor, Tobacco and Sales taxes, and so on.

This country worked a lot better when the wealthy paid there fair share. IN the 1950's, the top rate was 93%. We should go back to that.

What would your rate be under the 1950 tax code?

Let's see.

Individual Income Tax Parameters
Married Filing Jointly
1952-1953
Rate
$0 - $4,000 22.2%
$4,000 - $8,000 24.6%
$8,000 - $12,000 29.0%
$12,000 - $16,000 34.0%
$16,000 - $20,000 38.0%
$20,000 - $24,000 42.0%
$24,000 - $28,000 48.0%
$28,000 - $32,000 53.0%
$32,000 - $36,000 56.0%
$36,000 - $40,000 59.0%
$40,000 - $44,000 62.0%
$44,000 - $52,000 66.0%
$52,000 - $64,000 67.0%
$64,000 - $76,000 68.0%
$76,000 - $88,000 72.0%
$88,000 - $100,000 75.0%
$100,000 - $120,000 77.0%
$120,000 - $140,000 80.0%
$140,000 - $160,000 83.0%
$160,000 - $180,000 85.0%
$180,000 - $200,000 88.0%
$200,000 - $300,000 90.0%
$300,000 - $400,000 91.0%
$400,000 - and overa 92.0%
Taxable Income
Source: Joseph Pechman, Federal Tax Policy,
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1987.
a Subject

 

[mudwhistle]

If you really think the GOP is going to be stupid enough to raise taxes on the middle class because the rich will be finally paying their fair share, you're delusional.

We've been through this before you envious little man. The wealthy pay WAY MORE THAN THEIR 'FAIR SHARE'. If you really want them to pay their fair share, we would need to drop taxes by about 25% for them. The people not paying their fair share are parasites like you.

]

I pay about 25% of my income in taxes to the Feds, IL and WI (I own property in both).

The retardedness you guys engage in is that you keep claiming that because the income tax is based on income, the wealthy pay more.

Ignoring the impact of flat taxes like SS, Medicare, State Income Taxes, Property Taxes, Liquor, Tobacco and Sales taxes, and so on.

This country worked a lot better when the wealthy paid there fair share. IN the 1950's, the top rate was 93%. We should go back to that.

Maybe you could build you a time machine and go back to the 50s. Then try talking to your neighbors about your ideas and see what kind of a reaction you get.

 

[JoeB131]

We've been through this before you envious little man. The wealthy pay WAY MORE THAN THEIR 'FAIR SHARE'. If you really want them to pay their fair share, we would need to drop taxes by about 25% for them. The people not paying their fair share are parasites like you.

]

I pay about 25% of my income in taxes to the Feds, IL and WI (I own property in both).

The retardedness you guys engage in is that you keep claiming that because the income tax is based on income, the wealthy pay more.

Ignoring the impact of flat taxes like SS, Medicare, State Income Taxes, Property Taxes, Liquor, Tobacco and Sales taxes, and so on.

This country worked a lot better when the wealthy paid there fair share. IN the 1950's, the top rate was 93%. We should go back to that.

What would your rate be under the 1950 tax code?

Let's see.

Individual Income Tax Parameters
Married Filing Jointly
1952-1953
Rate
$0 - $4,000 22.2%
$4,000 - $8,000 24.6%

$400,000 - and overa 92.0%
Taxable Income
Source: Joseph Pechman, Federal Tax Policy,
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1987.
a Subject

It would be nice if you adjusted those numbers for inflation, but that would be too close to "honesty" for you...

 

[Skull Pilot]

I pay about 25% of my income in taxes to the Feds, IL and WI (I own property in both).

The retardedness you guys engage in is that you keep claiming that because the income tax is based on income, the wealthy pay more.

Ignoring the impact of flat taxes like SS, Medicare, State Income Taxes, Property Taxes, Liquor, Tobacco and Sales taxes, and so on.

This country worked a lot better when the wealthy paid there fair share. IN the 1950's, the top rate was 93%. We should go back to that.

What would your rate be under the 1950 tax code?

Let's see.

Individual Income Tax Parameters
Married Filing Jointly
1952-1953
Rate
$0 - $4,000 22.2%
$4,000 - $8,000 24.6%

$400,000 - and overa 92.0%
Taxable Income
Source: Joseph Pechman, Federal Tax Policy,
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1987.
a Subject

It would be nice if you adjusted those numbers for inflation, but that would be too close to "honesty" for you...

You said noth8ing about adjusting for inflation you were just pining for the good old days. Even if the numbers were adjusted the lowest tax rate in the good old days was 22% more than twice what it is now are you OK with that?

 

[JoeB131]

[

Maybe you could build you a time machine and go back to the 50s. Then try talking to your neighbors about your ideas and see what kind of a reaction you get.

which ideas do you think wouldn't get a good reception?

I wish I could build a time machine, go back to 1980, and show all those "Reagan Democrats" who voted for him what the country would look like 32 years later.

 

[martybegan]

I want all the wealthy to pay their fair share, thanks. Because the country works better when they do.

Actually, the country works better when we have constitutional government. Sadly though, parasites like you have created an uncontrollable monstrosity which spends beyond all comprehension.

Here's the funniest part about moron's like you: you're so profoundly stupid, you actually believe that if we raise taxes, the government won't raise spending. For 200 years, the federal government has spent more than they've taken in, regardless of tax rates. You could raise tax rates to 100% and then the government would be flooded with costs for food stamps (since no one would have any money for food), healthcare, etc. causing the spending to skyrocket right along with the new revenue stream. The fact that you can't understand this basic, fundamental reality speaks to you limited IQ (and explains why you're the communist parasite you are).

If the government raised spending, it would have a positive effect. The spending would go to pay salaries and benefits. That in turn would create more consumer demand and more jobs.

WHich is why we've NEVER gotten out of a recession without a burst of federal spending.

It's when most of the wealth gets concentrated in a few hands it starts to stagnate.

Kind of like it is now.

This is also why we never perform the second part of keyseian economics, which is to pay down the debt accumulated during recession by running surpluses when the economy is booming. Every new agency or part of an agency we create, every benefit the feds dish out "to boos the economy during recession" becomes permanent. Every year expenses go up, not cyclical as keyes intended. This then requires more borrowing, even during boom times, and still more borrowing when another reccesion hits.

 

[JoeB131]

[

This is also why we never perform the second part of keyseian economics, which is to pay down the debt accumulated during recession by running surpluses when the economy is booming. Every new agency or part of an agency we create, every benefit the feds dish out "to boos the economy during recession" becomes permanent. Every year expenses go up, not cyclical as keyes intended. This then requires more borrowing, even during boom times, and still more borrowing when another reccesion hits.

Actually, we did EXACTLY that in the Clinton years. We also posted surpluses in the LBJ years despite Vietnam, the Great Society and the Space Program going great guns.

The untold story, the story that neither party wants to address, is trade. Up until 1976, we posted trade surpluses. And up until 1976, our entire national debt was less than 600 Billion - world wars, highway programs, great societies and all.

After 1976, we posted trade deficits. This means money is leaving the United States and going out into the rest of the world and not coming back.

But the real reason we have deficits is because borrowing is the path of least resistance. No one wants to pay more taxes and no one wants their favorite government program slashed.

I don't think we are going to get out of this mess without tax increases AND spending cuts, but we first have to get our economy back in line by stopping the loss of industrial jobs. If you want to sell it here, you'd better make it here.

 

[martybegan]

[

This is also why we never perform the second part of keyseian economics, which is to pay down the debt accumulated during recession by running surpluses when the economy is booming. Every new agency or part of an agency we create, every benefit the feds dish out "to boos the economy during recession" becomes permanent. Every year expenses go up, not cyclical as keyes intended. This then requires more borrowing, even during boom times, and still more borrowing when another reccesion hits.

Actually, we did EXACTLY that in the Clinton years. We also posted surpluses in the LBJ years despite Vietnam, the Great Society and the Space Program going great guns.

The untold story, the story that neither party wants to address, is trade. Up until 1976, we posted trade surpluses. And up until 1976, our entire national debt was less than 600 Billion - world wars, highway programs, great societies and all.

After 1976, we posted trade deficits. This means money is leaving the United States and going out into the rest of the world and not coming back.

But the real reason we have deficits is because borrowing is the path of least resistance. No one wants to pay more taxes and no one wants their favorite government program slashed.

I don't think we are going to get out of this mess without tax increases AND spending cuts, but we first have to get our economy back in line by stopping the loss of industrial jobs. If you want to sell it here, you'd better make it here.

How does the trade deficit impact government spending? Remember under fiat currency a countries wealth is not a fixed number, but relative to its economic output vs. the rest of the world (other currencies). Trade deficits can be maintained as long as an economy can outpace overall deficit created by the trade imbalance.

This still doesnt explain why the government has to keep spending more than it is making ad nauseum. During the clinton years (the last few) we did run a small surplus, but it got eaten up by the usual increase in governmental spending, i.e. it should have been a hell of a lot larger but most of it got ate up by new programs.

And your last point is not feasible until we are energy indpendent, because if we start creating tarriffs the rest of the world will retaliate, and we had better be ready for it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Tom Cole of OK is already breaking ranks.

I told you hard-core fanatics in our GOP this day was coming.

Tom Cole: Who Is the Republican Congressman Making Waves in 'Fiscal Cliff' Negotiations? - Yahoo! News

 

[rightwinger]

*Crickets*

I don't think $160 billion a year is going to kill us

It started out at $672 billion which was the largest tax-increase in United States history. Now it's $1.6 trillion.

What will it be when he gets done with his demands?

And it still doesn't even address his massive annual deficits. $1.6 trillion.

He must cut spending but he refuses to.

The dirty little secret you refuse to face is this is just intended for spending increases, not to pay down the debt.


A total moron could understand that is why Obama wants no debt-ceiling.

Do you understand now Dumb-ass?

Obama offered up spending cuts yesterday...Republicans giggled

When is the GOP going to tell us what spending they want to cut?

Romney would only tell us about Big Bird. When are Republicans going to level with Americans?

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

just because individuals do not pay federal income tax, doesnt mean they dont pay SSDI, medicare, or payroll tax. this means that they do have "skin in the game"

the reason these individuals dont pay federal income tax is actually due to the GOP policies of lowering tax liability for low income earners as well as increasing the standard deduction. for 2012 the standard deduction is near $5750.


lets look at the states where people pay no federal income tax come from. the top 10 highest states are actually of historically GOP controlled:

imagine the backlash the GOP would actually have in these states?

In other words, the GOP has been the party working hardest to help out the folks on the lower rungs of the income ladder. How does that fact fit in with the Democrat's talking points, anyway?

you totally missed the point of the conversation. id try to explain to you but im not sure you would be able to comprehend it.

 

[martybegan]

I don't think $160 billion a year is going to kill us

It started out at $672 billion which was the largest tax-increase in United States history. Now it's $1.6 trillion.

What will it be when he gets done with his demands?

And it still doesn't even address his massive annual deficits. $1.6 trillion.

He must cut spending but he refuses to.

The dirty little secret you refuse to face is this is just intended for spending increases, not to pay down the debt.


A total moron could understand that is why Obama wants no debt-ceiling.

Do you understand now Dumb-ass?

Obama offered up spending cuts yesterday...Republicans giggled

When is the GOP going to tell us what spending they want to cut?

Romney would only tell us about Big Bird. When are Republicans going to level with Americans?

Obama offered taxes now, and maybe cuts later, if he felt like it. Cuts that are pinpricks in the overall deficit and debt.

But keep spinning this crap, just like how the spin says the cuts are $800 BILLION but neglects to remind people that this is over 10 years. Its the same crap gas stations pull with the "9/10" of a cent added on to each gallon.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

Tom Cole of OK is already breaking ranks.

I told you hard-core fanatics in our GOP this day was coming.

Tom Cole: Who Is the Republican Congressman Making Waves in 'Fiscal Cliff' Negotiations? - Yahoo! News

there is some sanity in the GOP after all.

the one thing you always hear from the GOP is that this will raise taxes on small business owners who files taxes as sole proprietors. would it not make sense then to change the tax code to allow them to file differently and let them avoid this loophole? it seems no one talks about this simple reform. instead of small business owners filing all business income as personal income why not have another class of business (outside corporation, LLC, etc) that is directly linked to small business with less than $2M in annual revenues. you could call it SBC (Small Business Corporations) and set their tax liability differently? is the GOP this clueless?

 

[JakeStarkey]

This country needs real cuts as well as revenue.

Let the Dems be stupid, we go along with the cuts for the middle and working and poor classes, then we demonize them for fiscal irresponsibility right up to the 2014 elections with a promise to impeach the president.

We will clean up.