Breaking the tax pledge. Obama sticks it to the middle class

[Nevermind]

Sen. Max Baucus (d) said it on the floor of the Senate: "One other point that I think it's very important to make is that it is true that in certain cases, the taxes will go up for some Americans who might be making less than $200,000."

73 million individuals making less than $200,000 a year will experience tax hikes, according to the National Center for Policy Analysis.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/63289

And here's a nice chart of all the taxes that apply to everyone regardless of income.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

Even bigger than that was the following statement the senator made today regarding the health care bill being a form of redistribution of wealth. Nice to see they admit it AFTER the vote. They're so done.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY4Qbv7gPbo

Income redistribution is bad, unless it's from our pockets to America's richest corporations. That's why the biggest corporation on Earth, Walmart, is America's biggest welfare queen.
http://www.progress.org/2004/corpw37.htm
http://www.citizen.org/congress/welfare/index.cfm

Each year, U.S. taxpayers subsidize U.S. businesses to the tune of almost $125 billion, the equivalent of all the income tax paid by 60 million individuals and families. These corporations receive a wide range of favors: special corporate tax breaks; direct government subsidies to pay for advertising, research and training costs; and incentives to pursue overseas production and sales. While Congress institutes dramatic cuts in funding for traditional support programs for individuals and families, corporate giants continue to live off the dole. Each dollar spent on these "aid for dependent corporations" welfare programs means one dollar less for environmental programs, support for education, assistance to those in need, tax breaks for families, or deficit reduction. Public Citizen is helping to lead a major push to reduce corporate welfare.

Thats a helluva lotta cash, ain't it?
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8230
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/html/pa592/pa592index.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 08,00.html

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... 4shiob.asp


It's still not socialism when it's promoting business, I guess.

[tin00can]

Even bigger than that was the following statement the senator made today regarding the health care bill being a form of redistribution of wealth. Nice to see they admit it AFTER the vote. They're so done.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY4Qbv7gPbo

I'm gonna surprise you a bit perhaps and agree with at least part of what you're saying here. I'm 100% against the "redistribution of wealth", especially when those doing the redistributing won't feel the effects of it. I wonder if Max Baucus donates a healthy portion of his pay to those "less fortunate" than him, since he believes in the "redistribution of wealth." This is why I favor a flat tax; that seems to me to be the only truly fair way to levy a tax - each pays the same percentage.

I don't agree that the democrats are done. Hell, last year at this time everybody was saying the republicans were done. I think the truth will fall somewhere between you and Ugmo.

[diablomozart]

be ready for a federal sales tax coming to a store near you soon...d.m.

[HeavyMetalZombie666]

What you expect? He is a socialist who hates this country and is too busy drinking the cum of Louis Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright and Father Michael Phleger.

[Ugmo]

What you expect? He is a socialist who hates this country and is too busy drinking the cum of Louis Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright and Father Michael Phleger.

No, he's a Marxist and a Fascist. Get it right.

[Ugmo]

This is why I favor a flat tax; that seems to me to be the only truly fair way to levy a tax - each pays the same percentage.

That sounds like a terrible idea to me. You think there's income inequality and enormous budget deficits now, wait until you institute a flat tax.

[thejuggernaut]

Even bigger than that was the following statement the senator made today regarding the health care bill being a form of redistribution of wealth. Nice to see they admit it AFTER the vote. They're so done.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY4Qbv7gPbo

No Dingell ?

[bane]

This is why I favor a flat tax; that seems to me to be the only truly fair way to levy a tax - each pays the same percentage.

That sounds like a terrible idea to me. You think there's income inequality and enormous budget deficits now, wait until you institute a flat tax.

Explain that? How can you possibly get more equal than having an equal tax percentage? As to the deficit, do you really think the feds would take in less money? It's a pretty simple formula dude. The fed gets X dollars now, they'll get x dollars then. The only difference is how it's paid.
Personally, I'd advocate scrapping the Machiavellian income tax entirely and institute a federal sales tax instead. You could get tax dollars from every illegal alien and drug dealer in the country. My state gets by just fine with a sales tax in lieu of an income tax. No reason why the feds couldn't do the same thing.

[JakeYonkel]

Personally, I'd advocate scrapping the Machiavellian income tax entirely and institute a federal sales tax instead. You could get tax dollars from every illegal alien and drug dealer in the country. My state gets by just fine with a sales tax in lieu of an income tax. No reason why the feds couldn't do the same thing.

That tends to work better for higher tourism areas though, no?

Like in New York, Florida, California you could get by with just a sales tax, if needed. Here in FL there's no state income tax because of all the money brought in with Disney and Miami etc. (the state is still deep in the red so I'm not saying it's working)

I too agree with the flat tax - don't let anybody off the hook, if it's proportionate to income you pay more accordingly, without all these different brackets and shit. Don't 'punish' people for making more money.

[bane]

Personally, I'd advocate scrapping the Machiavellian income tax entirely and institute a federal sales tax instead. You could get tax dollars from every illegal alien and drug dealer in the country. My state gets by just fine with a sales tax in lieu of an income tax. No reason why the feds couldn't do the same thing.

That tends to work better for higher tourism areas though, no?

Like in New York, Florida, California you could get by with just a sales tax, if needed. Here in FL there's no state income tax because of all the money brought in with Disney and Miami etc. (the state is still deep in the red so I'm not saying it's working)

I too agree with the flat tax - don't let anybody off the hook, if it's proportionate to income you pay more accordingly, without all these different brackets and shit. Don't 'punish' people for making more money.

I don't know man. Texas isn't exactly a tourist mecca. We seem to do just fine with it. Everybody buys stuff, rich poor and in between. The more expensive your toys are, the more tax you pay. Our sales tax is 8 1/4%. Some of it is local, the rest state (sorry, don't know the break down), but our state operates in the black for the most part. We have a bit higher than normal property taxes, but otherwise, I'm pretty happy with the system we have. I'm leery of a flat tax. While it sounds great in theory, I'm not crazy about anything that makes me pay more, and that's exactly what would happen. The only people that truly benefit from a conversion to flat tax is the really wealthy. Fair is fair, and I agree that punishing people for making money is wrong, but you have to realize that a middle class tax increase would have to go along with any flat tax imposed. That's never going to sell to the American people.

[JakeYonkel]

Well, what's a fair rate then, is the question?

We fell into the 25% bracket for 2009 but I think our nominal rate was closer to 22% or so. I wouldn't want to pay 28%, obviously, but 25% does seem like a fair rate, I'd think. I'm no expert on government taxation and revenues, just throwing it out there.

[bane]

You'd have to take whatever the total tax revenue needed was and figure the total income and come up with a percentage., Since the rich pay a fuck of a lot more than the rest of us, when theirs comes down, everybody else's would have to go up to compensate. I don't think it's a matter of just picking a fair percentage. I'd hazzard a guess that a flat rate would kick all of our taxes into the 30% range or so.

[JakeYonkel]

Heh, I didn't mean "fair" as in what everyone thinks is a nice number, I did mean it more "fair" as reasonable in regards to what's needed for the government to run. I read that back and realized it sounded goofy.

You're right though - the people on the bottom pay 0-10% but don't make much money anyway. I guess it could get pretty bad for the middle class (surprise there, since we're always getting fucked).

[bane]

Well, I just pulled that number out of my ass, but I'm sure that some of the flat tax advocates have run the numbers and come up with the break down. No matter how you slice it the middle class would have to take the biggest hit though. 30% of nothing is still nothing and 30% of a gazillion dollars is a lot less than 50% of a gazillion dollars. Somebody has to make up the difference. I think you'd have to be filthy rich or just plain crazy to really get behind an idea like that one once you really think about the ramifications of it. To be fair, most of the flat tax propaganda that I've read is coupled with a gigantic reduction in government spending which would keep the percentage lower, but the end result would still be a huge benefit to the most wealthy with not much in the way of a positive for the rest of us. Doing away with the IRS wouldn't suck, but otherwise, it's a pretty unrealistic idea.

[SkyDog112046]

The way to run a flat tax is to close all the loopholes and take away all the current deductions. Then tax everyone the same percentage on every penny they make over the poverty level. The people on the bottom end of the spectrum wouldn't get crushed, and the people up at the top would have to pay on every dollar earned over the poverty line instead of writing everything off. I would think that the middle class would make out ok this way.

[bane]

The way to run a flat tax is to close all the loopholes and take away all the current deductions. Then tax everyone the same percentage on every penny they make over the poverty level. The people on the bottom end of the spectrum wouldn't get crushed, and the people up at the top would have to pay on every dollar earned over the poverty line instead of writing everything off. I would think that the middle class would make out ok this way.

I really don't think so man. Once you factor in what the rich actually pay, after deductions, they're still paying a much higher percentage than the rest of us. I think that's a handy piece of propaganda that flat tax proponents use to try and make the idea sound more palatable, but when you get down to real numbers, I think you'll find that the middle class still gets kicked in the balls.

[Ugmo]

Explain that? How can you possibly get more equal than having an equal tax percentage?

I'm talking about the distribution of wealth. Since the 70s the rich have been getting richer and everyone else has been getting poorer. The wealth in America is increasingly concentrated among the top 1 or 2 percent and that ain't no bullshit. A flat tax would most definitely accelerate that trend.

As to the deficit, do you really think the feds would take in less money? It's a pretty simple formula dude. The fed gets X dollars now, they'll get x dollars then. The only difference is how it's paid.

Okay, if they set a dollar amount on what they want to take in in revenues and then set the flat tax to achieve that, the only way it can be done is significantly raising taxes on the middle class - which would further accelerate the distribution of wealth toward those who need it the least. But those in favor of a flat tax are advocating lowering the top rate of tax and having everyone pay it at a certain level, which means (depending on where you set the bar) either that you take in a LOT less revenues or you absolutely soak the middle class.

Look at it this way: the top earners currently pay, what, 39 percent of their income in Federal income taxes? And the bulk of taxpayers pay something like 30 percent (I haven't looked this up)? Where do you flatten the tax? If you lower the percentage paid by the wealthiest to 30 percent, you take in less revenues. If you lower it to 35 percent and raise the middle class tax rates to 35, you greatly accelerate the redistribution of wealth toward the rich. If you lower it all the way to 20 percent like Steve Forbes advocated, you absolutely decimate tax revenues. And we've talked about the budget here often enough - it is not possible to cut spending enough to balance the budget if you also reduce tax revenues.

Here's an article explaining what happened when the Baltic states introduced a flat tax:

http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/jud ... lat-lining

Deficits soared as tax revenues plummeted. After Russia instituted a flat tax, revenues rose for the first few years - because rich people stopped evading taxes. Once that trend leveled off, so did revenues. And you wouldn't get that same effect in the U.S., because the proportion of people who evade taxes is very small.

I remember thinking back when Steve Forbes was advocating this: of course he wants a flat tax at 20 percent, because he personally wants to pay much less in taxes!

[bane]

Read my posts above yours Ugmo. I'm not arguing that it's a good idea.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

I'm talking about the distribution of wealth.

We know. You and your comrades won't stop talking about it. This isn't western Europe no matter how much you'd like it to be.

Income redistribution is bad, unless it's from our pockets to America's richest corporations. That's why the biggest corporation on Earth, Walmart, is America's biggest welfare queen.
http://www.progress.org/2004/corpw37.htm
http://www.citizen.org/congress/welfare/index.cfm

Each year, U.S. taxpayers subsidize U.S. businesses to the tune of almost $125 billion, the equivalent of all the income tax paid by 60 million individuals and families. These corporations receive a wide range of favors: special corporate tax breaks; direct government subsidies to pay for advertising, research and training costs; and incentives to pursue overseas production and sales. While Congress institutes dramatic cuts in funding for traditional support programs for individuals and families, corporate giants continue to live off the dole. Each dollar spent on these "aid for dependent corporations" welfare programs means one dollar less for environmental programs, support for education, assistance to those in need, tax breaks for families, or deficit reduction. Public Citizen is helping to lead a major push to reduce corporate welfare.

Thats a helluva lotta cash, ain't it?
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8230
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/html/pa592/pa592index.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 08,00.html

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... 4shiob.asp


It's still not socialism when it's promoting business, I guess.

Tell us more about the evils of income redistribution. Tell us why Republicans hate it...except when it comes to their corporate pimps.

[Ugmo]

Not true. I've only gotten "richer" since the day I started working.

Oh, that proves it then. YourMomma has more money than he used to, therefore there has been no income redistribution toward the wealthy. Thanks for your reasoned and founded analysis.

[tin00can]

Not true. I've only gotten "richer" since the day I started working.

Oh, that proves it then. YourMomma has more money than he used to, therefore there has been no income redistribution toward the wealthy. Thanks for your reasoned and founded analysis.

My personal wealth tumbled precipitously at the end of Bush's second term, and since Obama has been in office it has rebounded nicely. Using YM's logic, what does that tell us?

[tin00can]

My personal wealth tumbled precipitously at the end of Bush's second term, and since Obama has been in office it has rebounded nicely. Using YM's logic, what does that tell us?

Can't be true according to Ugmo. You've been getting poorer since the 70's.

It also can't be true according to you, because so far Obama's economic policies have been a disaster. And yet, I'm thriving. Why is that?

[Ugmo]

Since the 70s the rich have been getting richer and everyone else has been getting poorer.

You can't expect to make fraudulent statements and not have them shown to be what they are. You said everyone else has been getting poorer. Not even close to being true. Sort of like when you said that the Bush tax cuts were onlY for the rich. Except for that I and everyone else got one as well...

I realize you are not dense and are deliberately trying to shift things around so that they make Republicans look good, but it's pretty obvious what I mean: the available wealth is increasingly being concentrated among the top income brackets and away from the middle class. In other words, you make more money than you used to but would possibly make even more money if the system weren't set up in such a way as to syphon the wealth toward those who need it least.

And even in absolute terms, the middle class overall saw its income fall under Bush while the rich saw their incomes soar.

[tin00can]

My personal wealth tumbled precipitously at the end of Bush's second term, and since Obama has been in office it has rebounded nicely. Using YM's logic, what does that tell us?

Can't be true according to Ugmo. You've been getting poorer since the 70's.

It also can't be true according to you, because so far Obama's economic policies have been a disaster. And yet, I'm thriving. Why is that?

Come on, momma. I set one up on a tee for ya and you didn't even swing.