Keep Happy Kitteh Happy
Give what you can
Or donate monthly, and a sponsoring FReeper will contribute $10
Save our poor Lazamataz!
Posted on 04/25/2011 4:28:38 AM PDT by Scanian
Standard & Poor's warning last week of a possible downgrading of America's credit rating sent tremors through markets worldwide -- and underscored the nation's short- and long-term deficit and debt woes.
The warning came just days after the speech in which President Obama basically dismissed the House GOP's comprehensive long-term budget outline -- which addresses the need to restrain growth in discretionary spending and entitlements.
Instead, the president just focused on raising income -- and possibly payroll -- taxes on the wealthiest Americans.
On cue, administration supporters pushed the usual talking point: The wealthy aren't paying "their fair share" since the average federal income-tax rate on the 400 wealthiest Americans is 17 percent; in 1992, it was 26 percent.
This analysis overlooks an essential fact: Hiking taxes on the "rich" won't rescue the nation from flooding red ink.
As The American Thinker's Steve McCann notes, even if the government decided that no American could have a net worth above $1.5 million, confiscating everything above that figure would net the Treasury $6.1 trillion in one fell swoop.
But the national debt is now nearly $14.5 trillion -- so Uncle Sam would still owe $8.4 trillion.
Meanwhile, the richest 1 percent of American taxpayers pay 32 percent of all income taxes (up from 27.5 percent in 2007). And as the Tax Policy Center reports, 45 percent of American households pay no federal income tax whatsoever
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Taxes aren’t the answer
Unless you are a socialist, progressive, liberal, democrat or a rino.....
In those case taxes are the answer to all problems..
You grow the national economy by CUTTING TAXES, NOT RAISING THEM.
Obama is a liberal commie moron.
It’s the spending stupid!
He’s accomplishing his purposes. Sending America plunging into oblivion being primary among them.
One of Paul Ryan's main defense's of his roadmap tax changes attacked by Democrats is that “Americans are overtaxed not undertaxed”. But what about this 45% that pay no federal income taxes, the ones congressional Republicans never mention specifically?
This 45% pays no income tax, we can assume a good % of them expect the Federal government to perform all sorts of functions, military, security and social related, they only pay medicare and SS payroll taxes that don't even cover the cost of those entitlement programs anymore yet entitle them to someone elses paycheck in the future(short some major reform). And they are opposed to losing those future benefits.
I know it's not popular, I know it's not fitting the Republican talking points that 'all taxes on anyone are bad', even when Deficits are skyrocketing, but maybe this 45% needs to be required to pay some visible Federal taxes so they know that big government cost's something. The Federal gas tax they pay is not visible to them because Democrats can just blame speculators and the oil companies.
They need to have to pay 'visible' taxes, the more visible the better, unfortunately that does NOT buy votes. Look how high gas prices is changing behaviour now. Maybe if they saw a cost to themselves relating to government spending their opinions would change.
Paying zero taxes is not enough for the needy/greedy 45%. Many of them also get “refunds checks” in the form of tax credits.
What amazes me is that even if you don’t claim one of their funky “credits”(welfare), they will give it to you anyway.
The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.
Vladimir Lenin
The bourgeoisie are more intelligent and more resilient than the marxists realize. And in America they are armed. - paulycy.
The bourgeoisie are more intelligent and more resilient than the marxists realize. And in America they are armed. - paulycy.
I dont think that there is a will to back down the Maarxists.
There is in the grassroots and the grassroots are slowly making their way into the house, next the senate and the white house. That is my belief.
In a sense, it would have been better if senate dems or Obama had stopped the GWB tax rate extensions. That likely would have kept unemployment higher (hey, they have some skin in the the game even if they pay 0 income tax), and made the modest improvements in the economy even more modest (and I would expect the higher tax rates to motivate them to spend more).
But they were not thst stupid, and now “raising taxes on the rich” seems to poll better than before November 2010.
” But what about this 45% that pay no federal income taxes, the ones congressional Republicans never mention specifically?”
That would open a can of worms, and would take balls, so forget it.
I like it, you are thinking like me.
Actually it would have been even better if Republicans had tricked Democrats into raising those taxes by themselves (with Republican opposition) much earlier, ideally sometime in 2009 because the spending/tax credit sugar jolt ended summer 2010 anyway and those tax increases would have been blamed for it, plus whatever negative effect they had.
I honestly think that is why Democrats never pushed the tax increases ‘on the rich’ into law, they knew that not only they would get blamed for a bad economy, but the taxes would get blamed for it too. Think about it, they could have easily raised those taxes with only 50 Senators using budget reconciliation. Ever wonder why they didnt? The answer doesnt fit the simple Hannity narratives.
Democrats losing (giving up really) on taxes allows them to continue to make ‘the Bush tax cuts’ the cause of every USA problem forever. As Republicans get more and more power they will get more and more of the blame for things bad.
Luntz assembled a 50-50 Dem—GOP focus group for the Hannity weekend show. One thing I noticed from most all of the folks was : “DON’T TREAT US LIKE CHILDREN! WE ARE NOT DUMB AND WE UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINANCIAL CRISIS!”
The other thing I noticed was a recognition that EVERYBODY needs to sacrifice to set the mess right.
So, how much testicular fortitude is REALLY necessary? The ordinary voter understands far more than what the typical DC politician thinks.
The problem I see is that approximately 50% of all voters pay little or no taxes, so they will be more than happy to watch the rest of us sacrifice.
Thanks sickoflibs.
I don't think that is quite true. To help win 2010 election Republicans took the position that they are Defending medicare from cuts while defending all tax payers including the rich, from tax increases. That is a very unifying position ('we are in this together') that gets votes but doesn't cut the deficit. By not proposing any specific cuts, and defending Medicare benefits, many 2010 voters assumed they could balance the budget cutting ACORN and legal fees for terrorists and child molesters.
Now Republicans having some power are trying to actually cut spending (or sending up test probes anyway) appear to be saying “ America is so broke we have to take away your entitlement (while still taxing you for it), and it is necessary to cut tax rates further especially on ‘the rich’ to fix the economy.“
The second position is not nearly as popular as the first and would have polled just as badly last year as this year, especially with Democrats assault. In fact we might be better off now if Republicans had run on their actual position (the second one) and didnt do as well 2010 election cycle.
I know certain hosts on talk radio claimed that ‘tax cuts/increases on the rich’ is a subject that the majority of people will consistently agree with them on, leading listeners to be shocked like now when the issue is bundled with entitlement cuts, (or elimination to some degree). But I am not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.