Anyone listening to the speech?

[Vertnut]

So you just quote another news article that supports YOUR claim?

It's all he's got. He's a terrible debator, and gets his ass handed to him every time he spouts off with his unsubstantiated horse hockey.

[ceyko]

It's all he's got. He's a terrible debator, and gets his ass handed to him every time he spouts off with his unsubstantiated horse hockey.

Still, it is a bit wishy-washy with the "suggests" term and no reason they would not sway the numbers to their liking as well.

Just saying, it's hard to get any actual facts these days.

Edit: To me if we really don't know the population and if people are not paying their taxes - does anyone really KNOW? They are all just guesses. Is that 10% of normal tax paying people or including illegals and such?

Either way, I'm on the boat of feeling they don't need more money. The don't need to do "more with less". They just need to do more with the plenty they've already taken. Whether it be 10 or 47%, get that money too.

[Durantula]

Still, it is a bit wishy-washy with the "suggests" term and no reason they would not sway the numbers to their liking as well.

Just saying, it's hard to get any actual facts these days.

I can agree with that. The 47% number comes from the Tax Policy Center and is just the share of households who don't pay federal income taxes after credits like the Earned Income Tax Credits are taken into account. That number, after including ALL federal taxes (investment, payroll, etc etc), is less than 10% according to the CBO data. You can twist them how you want but the CBO data appears to be a more honest indicator.

Edit: To me if we really don't know the population and if people are not paying their taxes - does anyone really KNOW? They are all just guesses. Is that 10% of normal tax paying people or including illegals and such?

Either way, I'm on the boat of feeling they don't need more money. The don't need to do "more with less". They just need to do more with the plenty they've already taken. Whether it be 10 or 47%, get that money too.

I don't know about whether or not illegals are paying and things like that. And while I agree with "doing more with less," the current GOP proposal is just as bad (actually, it's probably a lot worse) than the Democrat proposal. It cuts taxes even further on the extremely wealthy and raises taxes on the middle and lower class. And despite all this controversy surrounding the debt ceiling and reducing spending right now, his plan would increase the federal deficit by 6 trillion over the next decade.

[Forever_frost]

The 47 percent number is not wrong. The stimulus programs of the last two years — the first one signed by President George W. Bush, the second and larger one by President Obama — have increased the number of households that receive enough of a tax credit to wipe out their federal income tax liability.

Your own post backs up my statement. 47% have no 'skin in the game' to quote Biden. Do you have a CBO number on your assumption that the deficit would rise by 6 trillion under Ryan?

[Forever_frost]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2010-04-16-editorial16_ST_N.htm

ER VIEWS: 'Reverse this trend'

Contrary to what you might have heard on talk radio or TV, it's not quite that simple. What's true is that the Tax Policy Center, a well-regarded think tank, calculated that 47% of Americans would owe no federal income taxes for 2009, up from the usual 38% who typically owe no income tax on April 15. Most still pay Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, sales taxes and property taxes (if they own any property).

So they're paying taxes, but the fact that 47% pay no federal income tax is nonetheless disturbing — not for what it says about the non-payers but for what it says about the nation's broken tax system and how hard it will be to fix it.

The people who pay no income tax aren't freeloaders or evaders; virtually all are simply doing what the law allows. That there are so many of them is the result of decades of deliberate, bipartisan tax policy.

That includes an appropriately progressive income tax that levies a heavier burden on better-off taxpayers, and little or none on those with the smallest incomes. It includes tax credits such as the ones that reward people for having children and help lift some people above the poverty line by rewarding them for working. And it includes President George W. Bush's tax cuts, which removed 5 million people from the tax rolls while giving big cuts to upper-income people as well.

More people owe no income tax this year because the recession has cost many people their jobs, and the tax cuts in the stimulus act — an idea conservatives preferred to spending programs — were potent enough to help push some people's tax liability to zero. Once the stimulus expires and the economy recovers, the number of non-payers should fall back toward the typical 38%.

Even that number, however, strikes us as too high. It's not healthy for society if somewhere between a third and half of all potential tax filers don't help share the cost of most of government, from defense to highways to national parks. Everyone above the poverty level should have at least a minimal stake in financing the nation.

The fact that so many people have no income tax liability is a reflection of a leaky, dysfunctional tax system. The code is absurdly complex. (Some Americans have to pay hundreds of dollars to preparers just to find out that they don't owe any taxes.) It's riddled with loopholes and excessive social engineering. It's undermined by spending programs that masquerade as tax credits. It even fails at its basic function of raising revenue, taking in barely $1 for every $2 the government spends.

That's an unsustainable gap. Virtually every budget expert agrees that closing it will require trims in popular programs, particularly the underfunded Medicare and Social Security systems. That's a matter of math, not ideology, because that's where the rising costs are. It will require higher taxes on middle- and upper-income people. It will require narrowing loopholes and perhaps even some sort of national sales, or value-added, tax.

In short, it will require a shared national sacrifice. When nearly half of households don't pay federal income taxes, it makes consensus harder to achieve by undermining the sense that we're all in this together.

[Denny]

Shit... it's as easy as a revolt and everyone minding their own.

[Durantula]

I can agree with that. The 47% number comes from the Tax Policy Center and is just the share of households who don't pay federal income taxes after credits like the Earned Income Tax Credits are taken into account. That number, after including ALL federal taxes (investment, payroll, etc etc), is less than 10% according to the CBO data. You can twist them how you want but the CBO data appears to be a more honest indicator.

The 47 percent number is not wrong. The stimulus programs of the last two years — the first one signed by President George W. Bush, the second and larger one by President Obama — have increased the number of households that receive enough of a tax credit to wipe out their federal income tax liability.

lol, no.

Your own post backs up my statement. 47% have no 'skin in the game' to quote Biden. Do you have a CBO number on your assumption that the deficit would rise by 6 trillion under Ryan?

Assuming? It's IN his actual budget proposal!

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Establishing the budget for the United States Government
for fiscal year 2012 and setting forth appropriate budgetary
levels for fiscal years 2013 through 2021.

(5) DEBT SUBJECT TO LIMIT.Pursuant to
23 section 301(a)(5) of the Congressional Budget Act
24 of 1974, the appropriate levels of the public debt are
25 as follows:

1 Fiscal year 2012: $16,204,000,000,000….
2 Fiscal year 2013: $17,177,000,000,000….
3 Fiscal year 2014: $17,955,000,000,000….
4 Fiscal year 2015: $18,704,000,000,000….
5 Fiscal year 2016: $19,513,000,000,000….
6 Fiscal year 2017: $20,257,000,000,000….
7 Fiscal year 2018: $20,981,000,000,000….
8 Fiscal year 2019: $21,711,000,000,000….
9 Fiscal year 2020: $22,416,000,000,000….
10 Fiscal year 2021: $23,105,000,000,000…

Do the math. It's 6.9 trillion. So actually, I was off by almost a trillion.

[Durantula]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...ial16_ST_N.htm

It's too late to change your story, buddy. This article doesn't include other federal taxes. You claimed half of Americans pay zero federal taxes, which is untrue.

Oh, and you know that 47% pay zero, right? How about we tax them before going after the producers?

[stevo]

That number, after including ALL federal taxes (investment, payroll, etc etc), is less than 10% according to the CBO data. You can twist them how you want but the CBO data appears to be a more honest indicator.

No one is mentioning ALL federal taxes, they are discussing federal income taxes.

And if you are going to quote a fact, link the fact, don't copy/paste a story that supposedly contains the 'fact'.

Stevo

[GT Dan]

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies…

Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

- Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), March 20, 2006

[stevo]

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies…

Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

- Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), March 20, 2006

So fucking ironic.

"What Bush did is wrong, but now that I'm doing it, it is okay". Fuck that empty suit.

Stevo

[Forever_frost]

It's too late to change your story, buddy. This article doesn't include other federal taxes. You claimed half of Americans pay zero federal taxes, which is untrue.

Actually, I quoted your own post saying that 47% pay zero in federal taxes. If you want to count other taxes in, I can factor those as well, however your own post shows you're an idiot in this matter.

This is your post:

If you and others here want to throw around the "47% don't pay taxes" nonsense circulating the news networks you may want to actually research their claims before regurgitating bullshit sensationalism.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/bu...leonhardt.html

Quote:
All the attention being showered on “47 percent” is ultimately a distraction from that reality.

The 47 percent number is not wrong. The stimulus programs of the last two years — the first one signed by President George W. Bush, the second and larger one by President Obama — have increased the number of households that receive enough of a tax credit to wipe out their federal income tax liability.

But the modifiers here — federal and income — are important. Income taxes aren’t the only kind of federal taxes that people pay. There are also payroll taxes and investment taxes, among others. And, of course, people pay state and local taxes, too.

[Durantula]

Originally Posted by Durantula View Post
That's a silly solution. It's not the children's fault their parents are morons.

How exactly is taxing people who don't have any money going to solve anything? By the same "logic" that reducing taxes on the wealthy creates a "trickle down" effect and puts more money in the pockets of the middle and lower class?

What did I do to create a debt to these kids or their parents. Forcing me to pay for them when I did nothing to create the debt is akin to slavery. On top of that, where is the constitutional mandate to pay for these kids?

Oh, and you know that 47% pay zero, right? How about we tax them before going after the producers?

Actually, I quoted your own post saying that 47% pay zero in federal taxes. If you want to count other taxes in, I can factor those as well, however your own post shows you're an idiot in this matter.

This is your post:

If you and others here want to throw around the "47% don't pay taxes" nonsense circulating the news networks you may want to actually research their claims before regurgitating bullshit sensationalism.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/bu...leonhardt.html

Quote:
All the attention being showered on “47 percent” is ultimately a distraction from that reality.

The 47 percent number is not wrong. The stimulus programs of the last two years — the first one signed by President George W. Bush, the second and larger one by President Obama — have increased the number of households that receive enough of a tax credit to wipe out their federal income tax liability.

But the modifiers here — federal and income — are important. Income taxes aren’t the only kind of federal taxes that people pay. There are also payroll taxes and investment taxes, among others. And, of course, people pay state and local taxes, too.

I said nothing about ONLY the federal income tax. You insisted we tax the 47% of people that don't pay federal taxes, which again, is not true. There are more federal taxes than JUST the federal income tax so I really don't even understand where you're going with this right now.

[Durantula]

And for whoever it was that said earlier in the thread that increasing taxes = less job growth, you couldn't be more wrong.

http://thecivildiscourse.wordpress.com/2011/04/22/the-relationship-between-tax-rates-job-growth/

Armed with all of this data, I then wanted to see what happened to job growth and GDP growth in both high top marginal tax rate periods and low top marginal tax rate periods. To do this I looked at those years when the top rate was 70% or above (48 out of the last 97 years) and those years when the top marginal tax rate was 40% or below (37 out of the last 97 years). Together, these two periods accounted for 88% of the time since the imposition of a federal income tax in 1913. It seems that the pendulum swings back and forth, rarely stopping in the middle. The results were surprising to say the least. In those years where the top tax rate was 70% or above, GDP growth averaged 9.0% and job growth averaged 2.6%. Conversely, in those years where the tax rate was 40% or below, GDP growth was an anemic 4.4% and job growth was… well actually there was no job growth. The average for the 37 years where top tax rates were the lowest, job growth averaged zero!

[Vertnut]

And for whoever it was that said earlier in the thread that increasing taxes = less job growth, you couldn't be more wrong.
http://thecivildiscourse.wordpress.c...es-job-growth/

You still here?