Glenn Beck

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

It is a real stretch to say that the rest of us have overpaid taxes because of this. Because if it did you would expect that tax rates would be declining in the near future now that a lot of that money has been recovered. We all know that isnt happeneing. And the fact is that the average persons overall tax burden is going to be heading north in the near future regardless of the spin to the contrary. Dont forget that a whole lot of the stimilus money came with strings attached and the states are already biting back. You will see increases in all kinds of other taxes (sales, property, tolls, etc) simply because the states are broke, and much of the pain in the future is due to unsustainable increases in social programs including unemployment programs. I was fined $55000k by the NYS labor board over a dispute three years ago that concerned 1 employee for 6 weeks. I was recently notified that i was fined 5 k by that same board for failure to have proper coverage in the 1st quarter of 2008 despite the fact that i did no business in the state during that time. Naturally these are seemingly unusual cases but show the lengths that state agencies are now willing to go to try to grab some cash. The average person must now pay more for the same healthcare (mainly because the new bill makes it hard for their employers to take on the extra financial burdern and are simply passing those costs along by cutting programs or covering with a lesser program or even dumping the employees into the govts lap) and in other cases be forced to buy it. That in itself is a form of mandated increase, a tax in sheeps clothes. The "energy" agenda being proposed by the current administration will increase the average persons monthly bill by 100 to 300%. Another not so hidden tax which hits the middle class. Hopefully it gets shot down.

The idea that a middle class person is going to benefit financially from this administrations programs flies in the face of reality. Someone is going to have to pay for all this continued spending (the rich are paying the downpayment) and that someone is the middle class.

So going after people that have been evading taxes for all these years, regardless of whether it has a meaningful impact on the middle of the bracket, is a bad idea?

If the middle class DOESN'T see a meaningful impact from this action, it only strengthens my argument that it's NOT a redistribution of wealth (because in fact, it won't have an impact, it's about $10 billion in taxes).

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by philcski

So going after people that have been evading taxes for all these years, regardless of whether it has a meaningful impact on the middle of the bracket, is a bad idea?

If the middle class DOESN'T see a meaningful impact from this action, it only strengthens my argument that it's NOT a redistribution of wealth (because in fact, it won't have an impact, it's about $10 billion in taxes).

Where did I say that it was a bad idea? I said that the rest of us arent paying more because of it. It is "found" money, not money that the system has accounted for. The middle class wont see a meaningful impact because #1 it simply isnt that much money in the grand scheme and #2 the Govt is basically broke. The fact that you made the statemnt that Princess Doreen's taxes arent going up and gave the description of a 'rich' person whose taxes are going up really doesnt support your view. In fact it strengthens the idea that redistribution is occurring. What I pointed out was that redistribution (taking of wealth/money out of peoples pockets) hits a lot closer to home than any Democratic politician or liberal wants to be made public. The fact that a whole lot of people who consider themselves middle class are going to be contributing far more than they are being told shows how far that redistribution goes.

In other words If you make $75k gross a year your net is going to be a whole lot less in the future than it is today because as I said in the last post, the rich can only pay for so much.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Where did I say that it was a bad idea? I said that the rest of us arent paying more because of it. It is "found" money, not money that the system has accounted for. The middle class wont see a meaningful impact because #1 it simply isnt that much money in the grand scheme and #2 the Govt is basically broke. The fact that you made the statemnt that Princess Doreen's taxes arent going up and gave the description of a 'rich' person whose taxes are going up really doesnt support your view. In fact it strengthens the idea that redistribution is occurring. What I pointed out was that redistribution (taking of wealth/money out of peoples pockets) hits a lot closer to home than any Democratic politician or liberal wants to be made public. The fact that a whole lot of people who consider themselves middle class are going to be contributing far more than they are being told shows how far that redistribution goes.

In other words If you make $75k gross a year your net is going to be a whole lot less in the future than it is today because as I said in the last post, the rich can only pay for so much.

Dude... everybody's getting their panties in a bunch over a whole lot of nothing when it comes to the complaints about "redistribution of wealth". here is the historical data of effective tax rate over the last 25 years. the numbers don't really change much, despite the beliefs of many. and it won't going forward, either. Hell, under Bush there was "redistribution of wealth" if you want to call it that- the effective tax ratio of lowest brackets to the highest bracket actually increased. The only time since 1980 that it's decreased was under Reagan.

Total Effective Federal Tax Rate

Year Lowest Quintile Second Quintile Middle Quintile Fourth Quintile Highest Quintile All Quintiles

1979 8.0 14.3 18.6 21.2 27.5 22.2
1980 7.7 14.1 18.7 21.5 27.3 22.2
1981 8.3 14.7 19.2 22.1 26.9 22.4
1982 8.2 13.8 17.9 20.6 24.4 20.7
1983 9.1 13.7 17.5 20.1 23.9 20.4
1984 10.2 14.6 18.0 20.4 24.3 21.0
1985 9.8 14.8 18.1 20.4 24.0 20.9
1986 9.6 14.8 18.0 20.5 23.8 20.9
1987 8.7 14.0 17.6 20.2 25.8 21.6
1988 8.5 14.3 17.9 20.6 25.6 21.8
1989 7.9 13.9 17.9 20.5 25.2 21.5
1990 8.9 14.6 17.9 20.6 25.1 21.5
1991 8.4 14.2 17.6 20.5 25.3 21.5
1992 8.2 13.7 17.4 20.2 25.6 21.5
1993 8.0 13.5 17.3 20.2 26.8 22.0
1994 6.6 13.1 17.3 20.4 27.4 22.3
1995 6.3 13.4 17.3 20.5 27.8 22.6
1996 5.6 13.2 17.3 20.3 28.0 22.7
1997 5.8 13.6 17.4 20.5 28.0 22.9
1998 5.8 13.0 16.8 20.4 27.6 22.6
1999 6.1 13.3 16.9 20.5 28.0 22.9
2000 6.4 13.0 16.6 20.5 28.0 23.0
2001 5.1 11.5 15.3 18.9 26.7 21.4
2002 4.7 10.8 14.8 18.3 26.0 20.7
2003 4.6 9.8 13.8 17.4 25.0 19.8
2004 4.3 9.9 14.1 17.3 25.2 20.1
2005 4.3 10.1 14.2 17.5 25.8 20.6
2006 4.3 10.2 14.2 17.6 25.8 20.7

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by philcski

Dude... everybody's getting their panties in a bunch over a whole lot of nothing when it comes to the complaints about "redistribution of wealth". here is the historical data of effective tax rate over the last 25 years. the numbers don't really change much, despite the beliefs of many. and it won't going forward, either. Hell, under Bush there was "redistribution of wealth" if you want to call it that- the effective tax ratio of lowest brackets to the highest bracket actually increased. The only time since 1980 that it's decreased was under Reagan.

Total Effective Federal Tax Rate

Year Lowest Quintile Second Quintile Middle Quintile Fourth Quintile Highest Quintile All Quintiles

1979 8.0 14.3 18.6 21.2 27.5 22.2
1980 7.7 14.1 18.7 21.5 27.3 22.2
1981 8.3 14.7 19.2 22.1 26.9 22.4
1982 8.2 13.8 17.9 20.6 24.4 20.7
1983 9.1 13.7 17.5 20.1 23.9 20.4
1984 10.2 14.6 18.0 20.4 24.3 21.0
1985 9.8 14.8 18.1 20.4 24.0 20.9
1986 9.6 14.8 18.0 20.5 23.8 20.9
1987 8.7 14.0 17.6 20.2 25.8 21.6
1988 8.5 14.3 17.9 20.6 25.6 21.8
1989 7.9 13.9 17.9 20.5 25.2 21.5
1990 8.9 14.6 17.9 20.6 25.1 21.5
1991 8.4 14.2 17.6 20.5 25.3 21.5
1992 8.2 13.7 17.4 20.2 25.6 21.5
1993 8.0 13.5 17.3 20.2 26.8 22.0
1994 6.6 13.1 17.3 20.4 27.4 22.3
1995 6.3 13.4 17.3 20.5 27.8 22.6
1996 5.6 13.2 17.3 20.3 28.0 22.7
1997 5.8 13.6 17.4 20.5 28.0 22.9
1998 5.8 13.0 16.8 20.4 27.6 22.6
1999 6.1 13.3 16.9 20.5 28.0 22.9
2000 6.4 13.0 16.6 20.5 28.0 23.0
2001 5.1 11.5 15.3 18.9 26.7 21.4
2002 4.7 10.8 14.8 18.3 26.0 20.7
2003 4.6 9.8 13.8 17.4 25.0 19.8
2004 4.3 9.9 14.1 17.3 25.2 20.1
2005 4.3 10.1 14.2 17.5 25.8 20.6
2006 4.3 10.2 14.2 17.6 25.8 20.7

I think you are looking at it in too simplistic of terms. "Redistribution" is probably not the most accurate word. What would be more accurate would be an increased "reliance on govt" which leads to the govt needing to take more money from its citizens, the greatest proportion of which will come from those termed wealthy. The "rich" dont rely on the govt for anything outside of basic services and dont benefit in any manner by paying more/making less. The middle class is being duped into thinking that the same applies to them except that now a great number of them are now going to become reliant on the govt for a very important and costly service , healthcare. So while they too will be seeing a decrease in their income, they at the very least are getting something in return though that service very well may not measure up to their previous coverage. The people who dont pay much of anything into the system, dont contribute much of anything are the ones that benefit the most while having almost complete dependance/reliance on the govt. While some of these people simply dont have the capability physically/mentally to contribute and need to be cared for the size of this group is due to grow, further taxing the system which leads to more money being taken from the other, paying segment. It is as foolish to believe that people wont take handouts as it was that employers wouldnt dump millions of empolyees onto the govts dole when given the chance. The net effect is that the bottom class increases in size leading to further govt dependance. And as seen in the last election, the bottom classes votes count too. While it is sad but true, politics really trump all other considerations.

[Danzig]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36516304/ns/politics/


WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama's national standing has slipped to a new low after his victory on the historic health care overhaul, even in the face of growing signs of economic revival, according to the latest Associated Press-GfK poll.

The survey shows the political terrain growing rockier for Obama and congressional Democrats heading into midterm elections, boosting Republican hopes for a return to power this fall.

Just 49 percent of people now approve of the job Obama's doing overall, and less than that — 44 percent — like the way he's handled health care and the economy. Last September, Obama hit a low of 50 percent in job approval before ticking a bit higher. His high-water mark as president was 67 percent in February of last year, just after he took office.

[Nascar1966]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36516304/ns/politics/


WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama's national standing has slipped to a new low after his victory on the historic health care overhaul, even in the face of growing signs of economic revival, according to the latest Associated Press-GfK poll.

The survey shows the political terrain growing rockier for Obama and congressional Democrats heading into midterm elections, boosting Republican hopes for a return to power this fall.

Just 49 percent of people now approve of the job Obama's doing overall, and less than that — 44 percent — like the way he's handled health care and the economy. Last September, Obama hit a low of 50 percent in job approval before ticking a bit higher. His high-water mark as president was 67 percent in February of last year, just after he took office.

O'Dumbass national standing slipping to an all time. Wow what a suprise. Hopefully us Americans have under three years of suffering under this imbecile.