"Fair Share"

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

What I said was that ONLY cutting spending cannot fix our debt problem.

Well the taxes are too high already, so the spending being lowered (to the point of not borrowing any more in lieu of taxes) is what has to happen. There hasn't even been a budget for 3 years. In many ways that's the most honest Congress has ever been. They have no intention of keeping ANY limit on spending.

The party is over, especially for the dead beats and leeches.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Well the taxes are too high already,

Taxes are at historic lows.

so the spending being lowered (to the point of not borrowing any more in lieu of taxes) is what has to happen.

Okay: Say it costs $1000 a month to pay your mortgage. If you quit your job that pays you $2000 a month, and take a job that only pays $1100 a month (i.e. "the Bush tax cuts"), "cutting spending" isn't your problem, nor will it help you survive.

The party is over, especially for the dead beats and leeches.

Who are you referring to as "dead beats" and "leeches"?

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

Taxes are at historic lows.



Okay: Say it costs $1000 a month to pay your mortgage. If you quit your job that pays you $2000 a month, and take a job that only pays $1100 a month (i.e. "the Bush tax cuts"), "cutting spending" isn't your problem, nor will it help you survive.



Who are you referring to as "dead beats" and "leeches"?

Historic lows? Compared to whom? Carter??

Your mortgage example is not a good fit. IF ONLY it was a fixed rate percentage on a bounded sum that is actually being repaid. That is not what the national debt is and you know it. The deficit each year is the difference between the tax revenue and the Fantasyland budgets of Washington DC. They haven't paid back dime ONE. It just keeps accumulating. When was the last year that the actual amount OWED went DOWN? Not a reduction in the deficit of a given year versus the deficit of the year before - I mean actual repayment of part of the principal of the loan. I believe it was 1969. Even Clinton's "surplus" did not count Social Security, though even I will admit that compared to what we have seen since in both Obama and Bush, Clinton's spending for those years would be a welcome step in the right direction.

Dead beats, or leeches, are exactly what they sound like: those who consume "the goodies" without contributing in the form of income tax. 49.5% of the population of adults of working age fall into this category. They file a return - but when all the math is added up, they owe $0 or even get money "back" from taxes they didn't pay in the first place.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Historic lows? Compared to whom? Carter??

Since 1950, actually.

Your mortgage example is not a good fit. IF ONLY it was a fixed rate percentage on a bounded sum that is actually being repaid.

Okay, you missed the point completely.

If you make a certain income, and have certain expenses (like our country does), cutting your income massively does NOT mean you suddenly have a spending problem. It means you're making less money and can no longer pay your bills. NOT that your spending is too high. You can try and cut that spending, but you can't get past a certain minimum point of necessary spending. Thus, you also have to increase your income back up to what it was.

That is not what the national debt is and you know it.

That wasn't referring to the national debt. It was indeed referring to the massive unfunded tax cuts and unfunded spending that put us here courtesy of George W. Bush.

When was the last year that the actual amount OWED went DOWN? Not a reduction in the deficit of a given year versus the deficit of the year before - I mean actual repayment of part of the principal of the loan. I believe it was 1969. Even Clinton's "surplus" did not count Social Security, though even I will admit that compared to what we have seen since in both Obama and Bush, Clinton's spending for those years would be a welcome step in the right direction.

What's with the false accusations of spending under Obama? He's spending far, FAR less than Bush, and has made actual inroads into cutting our deficit.

Dead beats, or leeches, are exactly what they sound like: those who consume "the goodies" without contributing in the form of income tax. 49.5% of the population of adults of working age fall into this category. They file a return - but when all the math is added up, they owe $0 or even get money "back" from taxes they didn't pay in the first place.

From the FORBES post above, on this very subject. Which parts apply to what you just said? You call them "leeches and dead beats", but they are mostly very poor with children - living at sustenance levels of existence - and elderly. God says help the poor and elderly, and those without. Your moral system of attacking them is against the Christian values of this country. Your calling them names and wanting to harm them financially is very offensive to the morality of this nation, as we've always lived.

You can be for a "you're on your own" "every man for himself" country - but you go first. Try Somalia. No nasty overbearing government there. The rest of us patriotic Americans, we'll continue to help our fellow poor and elderly American citizens, thanks.

Much has been made of the Tax Policy Center’s estimate that fully 46 percent of Americans will pay no federal individual income tax this year.

Commentators have often misinterpreted that percentage as indicating that nearly half of Americans pay no taxes.

In fact, however, many of those who don’t pay income tax do pay other taxes—federal payroll and excise taxes as well as state and local income, sales, and property taxes.

The large percentage of people not paying income tax is often blamed on tax breaks that zero out many households’ income tax bills and can even result in net payments from the government.

While that’s the case for many households, a new TPC paper shows that about half of people who don’t owe income tax are off the rolls not because they take advantage of tax breaks but rather because they have low incomes.


For example, a couple with two children earning less than $26,400 will pay no federal income tax this year because their $11,600 standard deduction and four exemptions of $3,700 each reduce their taxable income to zero. The basic structure of the income tax simply exempts subsistence levels of income from tax.

What about the rest of the untaxed households, the 23 percent of households who don’t pay income tax because of particular tax breaks? We divided tax expenditures (special provisions in the tax code that benefit particular taxpayers or activities) into eight categories and asked which ones made the most people nontaxable.

The conclusion: Three-fourths of those households pay no income tax because of provisions that benefit senior citizens and low-income working families with children.Those provisions include the exclusion of some Social Security benefits from taxable income,the tax credit and extra standard deduction for the elderly, and the child, earned income, and childcare tax credits that primarily help low-income workers with children (see graph).

Those provisions matter most for households with income under $50,000, who make up nearly 90 percent of those made nontaxable by tax expenditures. Higher-income households pay no tax because of other provisions. Itemized deductions and credits for children and education are a bigger factor for households with income between $50,000 and $100,000. The relatively few nontaxable households with income over $100,000 benefit most from above-the-line and itemized deductions and reduced tax rates on capital gains and dividends.