Redistributor-in-Chief

[theHawk]

:laugh2:

I have to give the McCain camp credit. They haven't run a very creative campaign at all, but this little pet name for Obammy might have something to it.



"That is what change means for Barack the Redistributor: It means taking your money and giving it to someone else," he told a crowd of around 2,000 at a sports hall in this key battleground state.

"He believes in redistributing wealth, not in policies that grow our economy and create jobs. He is more interested in controlling wealth than in creating it, in redistributing money instead of spreading opportunity."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=081027191640.ak3b09o7&show_article=1



Listen to the language Obama uses when talking about taxes, saying that the rich must "pay their fair share" when they already pay way more taxes than everyone else. When he critizes "Bush-McCain" tax policies that "distribute wealth to the rich via tax breaks". It really shows the mentality of this idiot, "distribute wealth via tax breaks"? I guess he assumes all money made already belongs to government, and whatever they don't take is the same as the government distributing wealth to you. A very disturbing way to look at wealth in this country....

[Psychoblues]

The tax code and government subsidies have been redistributing my tax dollars to the already wealthy for years, huk. I understand that it has been that same way for at least a hundred or so years. It's time for the wealthy to pay their own way and relieve the low and middle classes from having to subsidize them.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[Sitarro]

The tax code and government subsidies have been redistributing my tax dollars to the already wealthy for years, huk. I understand that it has been that same way for at least a hundred or so years. It's time for the wealthy to pay their own way and relieve the low and middle classes from having to subsidize them.



You truly are mentally challenged aren't you? You're Joey Steel's father, it's now obvious to me, you both don't think in exactly the same way.:laugh2:

[Psychoblues]

Don't go there, zero. I'm serious.



You truly are mentally challenged aren't you? You're Joey Steel's father, it's now obvious to me, you both don't think in exactly the same way.:laugh2:

I knew you were low but I never thought you were scum. I was kidding on that though.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[Immanuel]

The tax code and government subsidies have been redistributing my tax dollars to the already wealthy for years, huk. I understand that it has been that same way for at least a hundred or so years. It's time for the wealthy to pay their own way and relieve the low and middle classes from having to subsidize them.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

You know, if I truly believed that the poor would benefit from a tax increase I'd say give it to them. But, the fact is the money doesn't make it to the poor in any sizeable amount. It ends up in the pork barrel projects of the government with millions of dollars going to supporters of one candidate or another and that is just plain wrong.

What kind of increase will Welfare recipients see in there weekly checks? $5, $10? I'm sorry, but that is just not gonna cut it. But, what kind of projects will be funded with Barack's Presidency? A trillion dollar health care plan that socializes medicine and really benefits no one except insurance companies and politicians?

Immie

[Gaffer]

You know, if I truly believed that the poor would benefit from a tax increase I'd say give it to them. But, the fact is the money doesn't make it to the poor in any sizeable amount. It ends up in the pork barrel projects of the government with millions of dollars going to supporters of one candidate or another and that is just plain wrong.

What kind of increase will Welfare recipients see in there weekly checks? $5, $10? I'm sorry, but that is just not gonna cut it. But, what kind of projects will be funded with Barack's Presidency? A trillion dollar health care plan that socializes medicine and really benefits no one except insurance companies and politicians?

Immie

Your absolutely right. There will be no increase for the poor. I'm poor and don't pay taxes being on 100% disability. I'll be sure to keep everyone posted on the massive increases of money I receive. I'm sure in 6 months I will be rolling in dough after the messiah takes over. And since, if I invest it, I will be taxed and lose it all, I'll just squander it on frivolous things.

[Immanuel]

Your absolutely right. There will be no increase for the poor. I'm poor and don't pay taxes being on 100% disability. I'll be sure to keep everyone posted on the massive increases of money I receive. I'm sure in 6 months I will be rolling in dough after the messiah takes over. And since, if I invest it, I will be taxed and lose it all, I'll just squander it on frivolous things.

Let's put it in perspective here. With the massive increase of subsidies expected to come to the poor at $10 a week (you can't count on much more than that) if I remember correctly the cost of a carton of cigarettes (I don't smoke but my parents do) is about $35. That means that each month a Welfare recipient will be able to buy one more carton of cigarettes. In the meantime the guy that wants a million dollars to fund his planetarium will receive $3 million. That financial bailout bill that they just passed and are already talking about the second phase of it... funded. AIG gets to go on another retreat!

Thank you President Obama.

Immie

[Gaffer]

I'm a smoker. I buy two bags of tobacco a month and make my own. It's the equivalent of five cartons of cigs for $28.00. I smoke cheap and screw the government out of taxes.

[bullypulpit]

:laugh2:

I have to give the McCain camp credit. They haven't run a very creative campaign at all, but this little pet name for Obammy might have something to it.




http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=081027191640.ak3b09o7&show_article=1



Listen to the language Obama uses when talking about taxes, saying that the rich must "pay their fair share" when they already pay way more taxes than everyone else. When he critizes "Bush-McCain" tax policies that "distribute wealth to the rich via tax breaks". It really shows the mentality of this idiot, "distribute wealth via tax breaks"? I guess he assumes all money made already belongs to government, and whatever they don't take is the same as the government distributing wealth to you. A very disturbing way to look at wealth in this country....

<blockquote>It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, <b>but something more than in that proportion</b>. - Adam Smith, <i>The Wealth of Nations</i></blockquote>

This from Adam Smith, the father of capitalism. You see, taxation is ALWAYS about the redistribution of wealth...to fund infrastructure projects, schools, social services, health care for children and the elderly, police and fire departments, the military, etc. The sad fact of the matter is that under the Bush administration, that redistribution has been away from those activities as well as the middle class and towards the top 5% of US citizens.

As for socialism, let's look at it's definition.

<blockquote>so·cial·ism (ssh-lzm)n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.</blockquote>

Clearly, if anyone has set America on the road to socialism, it is the Bush administration with its bailout of Wall Street by assuming an ownership stake in these troubled firms.

[theHawk]

<blockquote>It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, <b>but something more than in that proportion</b>. - Adam Smith, <i>The Wealth of Nations</i></blockquote>

This from Adam Smith, the father of capitalism. You see, taxation is ALWAYS about the redistribution of wealth...to fund infrastructure projects, schools, social services, health care for children and the elderly, police and fire departments, the military, etc. The sad fact of the matter is that under the Bush administration, that redistribution has been away from those activities as well as the middle class and towards the top 5% of US citizens.

As for socialism, let's look at it's definition.

<blockquote>so·cial·ism (ssh-lzm)n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.</blockquote>

Clearly, if anyone has set America on the road to socialism, it is the Bush administration with its bailout of Wall Street by assuming an ownership stake in these troubled firms.

The tax code already raises the tax rate for the upper class Bully. Can you please explain how any tax dollars are being spent on "the top 5%" and not on normal federal budget costs? No one is denying taxes have to be done and paid by someone to pay for those things. But to say that the middle class is currently being taxed to 'give wealth to the top 5%' is absolutely absurd and false.

[Psychoblues]

I don't understand how you are equating welfare recipients with low and middle wage earners/incomers. Perhaps that's all you can think about when you hear about top down reversal to the present bottom up propensity of the tax system to fund a growing and responsible society, economy and national infrastructure. I don't have time or the inclination to write you a book but maybe you ought to read a few of them.


You know, if I truly believed that the poor would benefit from a tax increase I'd say give it to them. But, the fact is the money doesn't make it to the poor in any sizeable amount. It ends up in the pork barrel projects of the government with millions of dollars going to supporters of one candidate or another and that is just plain wrong.

What kind of increase will Welfare recipients see in there weekly checks? $5, $10? I'm sorry, but that is just not gonna cut it. But, what kind of projects will be funded with Barack's Presidency? A trillion dollar health care plan that socializes medicine and really benefits no one except insurance companies and politicians?

Immie

Through the years trickle down economics has been proven faulty over and over again but it makes for good political banter and somehow appeases the ignorant. Why? To hell if I know, Immie.

How about a beer?!?!?!?!??!?!

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[Psychoblues]

Here's a little something that many of you don't know about and obviousloy need an education about!!!!!!!!!!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COOPER: It's certainly a question the McCain campaign has kind of been hammering at, portraying Obama as a socialist. You hear that on -- on the Palin campaign as well.

Is it working?

GERGEN: They may be making some modest progress with it, Anderson. We did see some evidence of McCain coming up a point or two here and there. I don't think it's anywhere near close enough to win an election. And more importantly, I don't think the Democrats have really answered it appropriately.

You know, Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, was very much an advocate of what's called progressive taxation. Ad that is the rich pay more than the poor in terms of taxes.

Now, one of the most effective popular programs we've had in the last three decades. It's called the earned income tax credit. It's a program whereby, if you're a working person, a working couple and you're below the poverty line, the government will actually give you money. That's a redistributed program. It's a program which takes money from the upper classes and gives it to the lower -- to the working poor.

Now who started that program? The earned income tax credit? Ronald Reagan. It was one of the -- it was an achievement of the Reagan administration that Bill Clinton then built on.

So I think that these arguments are -- you know, some of them get so carried away that they don't recognize the realities of what we've been going through in public policy and the big arguments about why the wealth over the last 30 years has been redistributed. It's been redistributed upwards.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0810/27/acd.01.h...

Other Republican Presidents who supported "redistribution of wealth":

"I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective: a graduated inheritance tax increasing rapidly with the size of the estate.”
- Theodore Roosevelt

“Every dollar spent by the government must be paid for either by taxes or by more borrowing with greater debt. The only way to make more tax cuts now is to have bigger and bigger deficits and to borrow more and more money. Either we or our children will have to bear the burden of this debt. This is one kind of chicken that always comes home to roost. An unwise tax cutter, my fellow citizens, is no real friend of the taxpayer."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

In 1986, Reagan signed legislation greatly increasing the earned income tax credit, a credit for low-income workers that reduces the impact of payroll taxes in order to boost take-home pay above poverty levels. When the credit is more than the amount of federal income taxes owed by an individual, that person receives a tax “refund.”

“It's the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress.”
- Ronald Reagan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enjoy!!!!!!!!!!

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[Immanuel]

I don't understand how you are equating welfare recipients with low and middle wage earners/incomers. Perhaps that's all you can think about when you hear about top down reversal to the present bottom up propensity of the tax system to fund a growing and responsible society, economy and national infrastructure. I don't have time or the inclination to write you a book but maybe you ought to read a few of them.



Through the years trickle down economics has been proven faulty over and over again but it makes for good political banter and somehow appeases the ignorant. Why? To hell if I know, Immie.

How about a beer?!?!?!?!??!?!

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

Um, maybe you should listen to Obama. He's talking about redistributing wealth to the poorest among us. The core idea of which is pretty decent. The problem is that the poor won't see much, if any, of that wealth.

Obama is sure as hell not talking about giving the middle income bracket anything. He's talking about giving to Welfare recipients, but the problem is they won't see it. All those tax dollars will go to pork barrel spending and remuneration for services rendered to get him in the White House.

And I never said anything at all about "Trickle Down Economics". So your post doesn't make a damned bit of sense.

Obama's screwing you and everyone of those 95% of taxpayers he's promising to lower taxes for and he's :dance:ing all the way to the Oval Office because of idiots that believe him.

I'll have a beer with ya. "Bartender another round please".

Immie

[manu1959]

why does obama think he knows how better to spend your money than you do......

[bullypulpit]

The tax code already raises the tax rate for the upper class Bully. Can you please explain how any tax dollars are being spent on "the top 5%" and not on normal federal budget costs? No one is denying taxes have to be done and paid by someone to pay for those things. But to say that the middle class is currently being taxed to 'give wealth to the top 5%' is absolutely absurd and false.

The fact of the matter is that the Bush tax cuts have resulted in significant tax savings for the top 5% of American taxpayers, in effect, becoming a regressive tax rather than a progressive tax system.

For a thorough examination of the effects of the Bush tax cuts can be found at the <a href=http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/bush-tax-cuts/ignore.cfm>Tax Policy Center</a> website.

I'm sure your frustration becomes intolerable every time you find out that reality has a "liberal" bias.

[red states rule]

The fact of the matter is that the Bush tax cuts have resulted in significant tax savings for the top 5% of American taxpayers, in effect, becoming a regressive tax rather than a progressive tax system.

For a thorough examination of the effects of the Bush tax cuts can be found at the <a href=http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/bush-tax-cuts/ignore.cfm>Tax Policy Center</a> website.

I'm sure your frustration becomes intolerable every time you find out that reality has a "liberal" bias.

BP< the following are facts about the "rich" and the Bush tax cuts

Fact - Since the Bush tax cuts, the top 1% are paying MORE in taxes. They are currently paying 40% of all federal income taxes

Fact - the bottom 50% pay only about 3% of all federal income taxes

Fact - Liberals said the Bush tax cuts were so tiny, the middle class would not see a sizeable cut. Well, Obama is promisisng the working class a $1,000 tax cut. What is $1000 divided by 52? I do not hear libs saying the tax cut is tiny this time. The fact is, the middle class pay a small percentage of all federal income taxes

Fact - Since the Bush tax cuts, about 40% of workers do not pay any federal income taxes

Fact - Under Obama, those people who pay no federal income taxes will get a "tax cut". I always thought one had to pay a tax before they could get a tax cut

Fact - Obama will use the tax code to expand the welfare system by giving away other peoples money

[bullypulpit]

BP< the following are facts about the "rich" and the Bush tax cuts

Fact - Since the Bush tax cuts, the top 1% are paying MORE in taxes. They are currently paying 40% of all federal income taxes

Fact - the bottom 50% pay only about 3% of all federal income taxes

Fact - Liberals said the Bush tax cuts were so tiny, the middle class would not see a sizeable cut. Well, Obama is promisisng the working class a $1,000 tax cut. What is $1000 divided by 52? I do not hear libs saying the tax cut is tiny this time. The fact is, the middle class pay a small percentage of all federal income taxes

Fact - Since the Bush tax cuts, about 40% of workers do not pay any federal income taxes

Fact - Under Obama, those people who pay no federal income taxes will get a "tax cut". I always thought one had to pay a tax before they could get a tax cut

Fact - Obama will use the tax code to expand the welfare system by giving away other peoples money

And your "facts" come from where...exactly? I mean besides the deepest, darkest nether regions of your arse.

:link:

[red states rule]

And your "facts" come from where...exactly? I mean besides the deepest, darkest nether regions of your arse.

:link:

They come from the IRS. They would know who pays the taxes and how much they pay

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/13/obama-tax-cut-refunds-those-who-dont-pay/

Now do like you usually do BP, dismiss the facts and runaway from the thread

[Psychoblues]

Neither of those links lead to any accurate information as supplied from the IRS, rsr. In fact, both lead to obviously biased reichwing organizations that contribute heavily to the Republican Party and the John McCain campaign. One states that the information offered is sourced from the IRS but offers no information as to how they arrived at the conclusions. I distrust the conclusions as presented by them.

Nice try, though!!!!!!!!! I see you still think the agenda driven reichwing nut rags are good sources of information as you have for several years. Do you not ever cross check them? It may take a little time and concentration on your part but it is clear to any experienced and thinking taxpayer that the information that you seem to worship is at best horseshit.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[MtnBiker]

This redistribution of wealth through the tax system is far to complicated and inefficient. A much better and more progressive way would to have the government take over payroll. Businesses should send money to the government and government can decide on the most fair way to distribute monies to the employed and unemployed.

[red states rule]

Neither of those links lead to any accurate information as supplied from the IRS, rsr. In fact, both lead to obviously biased reichwing organizations that contribute heavily to the Republican Party and the John McCain campaign. One states that the information offered is sourced from the IRS but offers no information as to how they arrived at the conclusions. I didstrust the conclusions as presented by them.

Nice try, though!!!!!!!!! I see you still think the agenda driven reichwing nut rags are good sources of information as you have for several years. Do you not ever cross check them? It may take a little time and concentration on your part but it is clear to any experienced and thinking taxpayer that the information that you seem to worship is at best horseshit.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

Bullshit. The links clearly showed the top 1% are paying 40% of income taxes an INCREASE over the previous years

The links also showed 40% of workers do not pay federal income taxes

Like the thread on Dems talking about taking over 401K's, you simply deny the truth, do not present any opposing info, and smear me for posting the truth

[Psychoblues]

I'm not discussing what the links show other than to point out that they are not the IRS as you earlier stated.


Bullshit. The links clearly showed the top 1% are paying 40% of income taxes an INCREASE over the previous years

The links also showed 40% of workers do not pay federal income taxes

Like the thread on Dems talking about taking over 401K's, you simply deny the truth, do not present any opposing info, and smear me for posting the truth

Your links lead to reichwing based pundit driven drivel of dubious origin that spits out garbage and feeds it to you calling it ice cream. You like it? You eat it.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[red states rule]

I'm not discussing what the links show other than to point out that they are not the IRS as you earlier stated.



Your links lead to reichwing based pundit driven drivel of dubious origin that spits out garbage and feeds it to you calling it ice cream. You like it? You eat it.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

OK micro brain, you are not itnerested in the truth on who pays taxes - fine. You go ahead and sit in your pool of hate, and scratch your pointy head trying to figure out why the facts go against you

Looks like people are catching on to Lord Obama's socialist redistribution of wealth plan - every poll I have seen has vlosed to within a few points

[Psychoblues]

So, you would rather attack me than to defend your information or your links?



OK micro brain, you are not itnerested in the truth on who pays taxes - fine. You go ahead and sit in your pool of hate, and scratch your pointy head trying to figure out why the facts go against you

Looks like people are catching on to Lord Obama's socialist redistribution of wealth plan - every poll I have seen has vlosed to within a few points

Got it, dumbo!!!!!!!!!!!

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[red states rule]

So, you would rather attack me than to defend your information or your links?




Got it, dumbo!!!!!!!!!!!

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

I did. the links clearly show everything I said they do. But you lie, ignore, and dismiss the facts like your liberal buds MFM and BP

The top 1% are currently paying 40% of income taxes. 40% of workers do not any federal income taxes. Obama will expand welfare handouts by giving tax cuts to these people who do not pay income taxes. The top 1% are paying more in taxes now then they were when the Bush tax cuts went thru

Those are facts and you can't refute them

Now please snarl and grunt; and show me you stil care PB

[theHawk]

The fact of the matter is that the Bush tax cuts have resulted in significant tax savings for the top 5% of American taxpayers, in effect, becoming a regressive tax rather than a progressive tax system.

For a thorough examination of the effects of the Bush tax cuts can be found at the <a href=http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/bush-tax-cuts/ignore.cfm>Tax Policy Center</a> website.

I'm sure your frustration becomes intolerable every time you find out that reality has a "liberal" bias.

You have not answered my question. You said tax dollars are being spent on the top 5%. All I ask is that you prove it.

Your answer is that his tax cuts have "in effect" made their tax a regressive tax as opposed to a progressive tax? It is NOT a regressive tax. It is still very much a progressive tax. Unless of course you can document where a lower class tax bracket is paying higher taxes than a higher tax income bracket.

That, is "the fact of the matter".

[red states rule]

You have not answered my question. You said tax dollars are being spent on the top 5%. All I ask is that you prove it.

Your answer is that his tax cuts have "in effect" made their tax a "regressive tax as opposed to a progressive tax? It is NOT a regressive tax. It is still very much a progressive tax. Unless of course you can document where a lower class tax bracket is paying higher taxes than a higher tax income bracket.

That, is "the fact of the matter".

The Bush tax cuts have seen the top 1% paying MORE in taxes because they are making more due to increased economic activity

The Bush tax cuts dropped the lowest rate from 15% to 10% - and droped millions off the income tax rolls all together

For some reason liberals see tax cuts as a zero sum game. they will never learn when taxes are cut, more moeny is brought into the treasury due to increased economic growth, more people working and paying taxes, and more people making mroe money

[Psychoblues]

Now you're arguing with yourself, Dumbo. I recognise what the articles say just like you do. I don't believe the information even approaches any degree of accuracy and further point out that the information did not come from the IRS as you stated. Real simple, rsr. You can put lipstick on a pig,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,well you get it, I think.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[red states rule]

Now you're arguing with yourself, Dumbo. I recognise what the articles say just like you do. I don't believe the information even approaches any degree of accuracy and further point out that the information did not come from the IRS as you stated. Real simple, rsr. You can put lipstick on a pig,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,well you get it, I think.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

Yea, to you micro brain, the IRS is last outfit that would know who pays the taxes and how much they pay

You would rather go with whatever Lord Obama tells you :laugh2:

[Psychoblues]

I maintain the information did not come from the IRS as you said but came from a reichwing rag and is not to be trusted under any circumstances.



Yea, to you micro brain, the IRS is last outfit that would know who pays the taxes and how much they pay

You would rather go with whatever Lord Obama tells you :laugh2:

But, obviously you do trust it. Great!!!!!!!!!!!! Now take the next step and verify if the IRS indeed said what your pissass article says that they say. I can't promise you that it will be a simple task but I do promise you that you will be enlightened if you just extrapolate and investigate just a bit on your own!!!!!!!!!!!!! You're getting testy and real dumb lately, rsr!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[red states rule]

I maintain the information did not come from the IRS as you said but came from a reichwing rag and is not to be trusted under any circumstances.




But, obviously you do trust it. Great!!!!!!!!!!!! Now take the next step and verify if the IRS indeed said what your pissass article says that they say. I can't promise you that it will be a simple task but I do promise you that you will be enlightened if you just extrapolate and investigate just a bit on your own!!!!!!!!!!!!! You're getting testy and real dumb lately, rsr!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:


Not that you will read this, but here is another source based on IRS numbers


snip

Analyzing these numbers in conjunction with data from the Congressional Budget Office is even more instructive. The CBO data includes a breakdown by each 20% of income earners, orquintiles, from the lowest 20% of income earners to the highest 20%. This reveals more clearly what is happening with the tax burdens among the bottom 50% of income earners.

The latest CBO data, for tax year 2005, is shown in Table 2. The top 1% of income earners paid 39% of federal income taxes, while earning 18% of pre-tax income. The top 5% paid 61% of federal income taxes, while earning 31% of pre-tax income. These numbers are very similar to the IRS numbers above.

But the CBO data also shows that the middle 20% of income earners, the true middle class, paid only 4.4% of federal income taxes. The bottom 40% of income earners actually paid a negative 3.8% of federal income taxes. That means they got money back on net from the federalncome tax system, rather than paying money. The top 40% paid 99.4% of federal income taxes,
covering for the negative 3.8% paid to the lowest 40% of income earners.

First, with the top 1% of income earners paying 40% of federal income taxes, almost twice their share of income, the rich certainly seem to be paying their fair share, and then some.

Liberal politicians who say we need to raise taxes on the rich so they will pay their fair share are either abusively misleading the public, or hopelessly ignorant regarding federal tax policy. If 40% is not fair for the top 1%, what would be fair, 50%, 100%?

Secondly, liberal politicians wailing about Republican tax cuts for the rich are also either misleading the public, or hopelessly uninformed. With the top 1% now paying 40% of income taxes, the top 5% paying 60%, and the top 40% paying 99.4%, where are the tax cuts for rich? Clearly, federal income taxes are overwhelmingly paid by upper income earners.

Thirdly, the result of Reagan, Republican tax policy over the last 30 years has been to abolish federal income taxes for the working class, as well as the poor. That is the conclusion to be drawn from the fact that the bottom 40% of income earners pay a negative 3.8% of income taxes, receiving money from the income tax system on net rather than paying into it. That started
with Reagan’s proposal for the Earned Income Tax Credit in the 1970s, before he even became President, which substantially reduced income taxes for these low and moderate income workers.

The child tax credit first proposed by the Heritage Foundation also substantially reduced income taxes for these workers. Moreover, President Reagan’s across the board 25% cut in income tax rates lowered the rates proportionally for these workers as well. President Bush further cut 4
income tax rates for the lowest income taxpayers by 33%, while only reducing income tax rates for the highest income earners by 11%. That certainly did not favor the rich, contrary to so much silly, crass political rhetoric.

Fourthly, the result of Reagan, Republican tax policy over the last 30 years has been to almost abolish federal income taxes for the middle class. That is the conclusion to be drawn from the fact that the middle 20% of income earners pay only 4.4% of federal income taxes. Hillary Clinton falsely said during the Democrat primaries this year that Republicans had cut taxes so
much for the rich that it was hurting the middle class. But in light of the truth, it is hearing thatridiculously false statement coming from a top political leader that hurts.

http://www.atr.org/content/pdf/2008/August/081408ot-federalincometaxandwhattheypay.pdf

[theHawk]

I maintain the information did not come from the IRS as you said but came from a reichwing rag and is not to be trusted under any circumstances.



And yet you never use the IRS numbers to back up your idiotic claims do ya?

All you can do is attack his links. If they are wrong you could easily prove them wrong with accurate numbers from the IRS.

[red states rule]

And yet you never use the IRS numbers to back up your idiotic claims do ya?

All you can do is attack his links. If they are wrong you could easily prove them wrong with accurate numbers from the IRS.

It is much easier for him to blindly accept Lord Obama's talking points and ignore reality

[Psychoblues]

Damn, rsr!!!!!!!!! You repost with new stuff that goes right back to the same damned ignorant fearmongers that gave you the information to begin with!!!!!!!!


It is much easier for him to blindly accept Lord Obama's talking points and ignore reality

Do you have anything independent or otherwise trustworthy to back up the silly shit that you're trying to pass off as information from the IRS?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!

Jeeeeeeeeeeeesssssshhhhh!!!!!!! You're dumber than I ever imagined!!!!!!!!!

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[red states rule]

Damn, rsr!!!!!!!!! You repost with new stuff that goes right back to the same damned ignorant fearmongers that gave you the information to begin with!!!!!!!!



Do you have anything independent or otherwise trustworthy to back up the silly shit that you're trying to pass off as information from the IRS?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!

Jeeeeeeeeeeeesssssshhhhh!!!!!!! You're dumber than I ever imagined!!!!!!!!!

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

Congrats PB. You have won the Lord Obama Stooge Award

[Psychoblues]

Just think!!!!!!!!!!!!! You can't back up your silly shit that you report as truth and give me an award!!!!!!!!!!!!



Congrats PB. You have won the Lord Obama Stooge Award

That's mighty white of you, rsr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How about a Sasparilly?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[red states rule]

Just think!!!!!!!!!!!!! You can't back up your silly shit that you report as truth and give me an award!!!!!!!!!!!!




That's mighty white of you, rsr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How about a Sasparilly?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

I did back them up stupid. You are being your typical punk self who continue along his moronic way of igniring the facts

You are pitiful little twit, but you fit in fine with the likes of Rev MFM, BP, and Gabby

[Psychoblues]

You haven't backed up anything, rsr.



I did back them up stupid. You are being your typical punk self who continue along his moronic way of igniring the facts

You are pitiful little twit, but you fit in fine with the likes of Rev MFM, BP, and Gabby

Do you always live in that fantasy world?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!

Have another Sasparilly!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[red states rule]

You haven't backed up anything, rsr.




Do you always live in that fantasy world?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!

Have another Sasparilly!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

I have backed them up - your problem is you have not posted anything to refute the facts I posted

BTW punk - the Bush tax cuts INCREASED revenues

Revenue collections hit record high in April
Government spending also at an all-time high

WASHINGTON - Federal revenue collections hit an all-time high in April, contributing to a further improvement in the budget deficit for the year.

Releasing its monthly budget report, the Treasury Department said Thursday that through the first seven months of this budget year, the deficit totals $80.8 billion, significantly below the $184.1 billion imbalance run up during the first seven months of the 2006 budget year.

So far this year, tax revenues total $1.505 trillion, an increase of 11.2 percent over the same period last year. That figure includes $383.6 billion collected in April, the largest monthly tax collection on record

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18595849/

[Psychoblues]

Quoting and linking back to the same bullshit source that you have already used in this conversation is not called backup, rsr. That is called repetition.


I have backed them up - your problem is you have not posted anything to refute the facts I posted

BTW punk - the Bush tax cuts INCREASED revenues

Revenue collections hit record high in April
Government spending also at an all-time high

WASHINGTON - Federal revenue collections hit an all-time high in April, contributing to a further improvement in the budget deficit for the year.

Releasing its monthly budget report, the Treasury Department said Thursday that through the first seven months of this budget year, the deficit totals $80.8 billion, significantly below the $184.1 billion imbalance run up during the first seven months of the 2006 budget year.

So far this year, tax revenues total $1.505 trillion, an increase of 11.2 percent over the same period last year. That figure includes $383.6 billion collected in April, the largest monthly tax collection on record

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18595849/

And quoting and linking to articles that have nothing to do with this conversation is ridiculous at best!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you have anything from the IRS that can back you up like you said?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Or are you continuing to fire blanks?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?

How you doin' on that Sasparilly?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[red states rule]

Quoting and linking back to the same bullshit source that you have already used in this conversation is not called backup, rsr. That is called repetition.



And quoting and linking to articles that have nothing to do with this conversation is ridiculous at best!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you have anything from the IRS that can back you up like you said?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Or are you continuing to fire blanks?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?

How you doin' on that Sasparilly?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

It shows nitwit that the Bush tax cuts INCREASED revenues - and people are paying MORE in taxes after a Tax CUT

I understand your tiny feeble brain cannot accept such basic economic principals

Your stupidity is proven since my links are based on IRS numbers and if the posts were worng you have pounced on the error

Like most idiot liberals you are oblivious to facts, truth, and logic

[Yurt]

surely psydeshow has irs links to show you are wrong rsr....

[red states rule]

surely psydeshow has irs links to show you are wrong rsr....

I am waiting for them Yurt. He also bellowed how the Dems were NOT talking about taking over our 401K's accounts and converting them into government savings accounts :laugh2:

[Psychoblues]

To both of you nitwits, rsr and yuk, I didn't post or quote anything from the IRS and claim it as truth like rsr did. I simply asked for a good link and rsr can't deliver. The quote and link provided by rsr is clearly faulty in information. What's the prob' with you uneducated and otherwise agenda driven nutcases?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

It doesn't take a genius to cherry pick, misquote, conveniently leave out pertinent information or otherwise lie like hell to prove about anything they want. My suggestion was that the article in question was flawed from it's outset, not from the IRS as rsr intimated and reichwing agenda driven. I remain convinced that I was and am correct.

Get a drink, settle down for the evening, and be certain to dig the Bubba and Barry jamm at 11:00pm Eastern tonight!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[red states rule]

To both of you nitwits, rsr and yuk, I didn't post or quote anything from the IRS and claim it as truth like rsr did. I simply asked for a good link and rsr can't deliver. The quote and link provided by rsr is clearly faulty in information. What's the prob' with you uneducated and otherwise agenda driven nutcases?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

It doesn't take a genius to cherry pick, misquote, conveniently leave out pertinent information or otherwise lie like hell to prove about anything they want. My suggestion was that the article in question was flawed from it's outset, not from the IRS as rsr intimated and reichwing agenda driven. I remain convinced that I was and am correct.

Get a drink, settle down for the evening, and be certain to dig the Bubba and Barry jamm at 11:00pm Eastern tonight!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

Libs like you make way to easy PB. The tables, and charts are all there from the IRS

But PB proves an uninformed, uneducated, and a person unwilling to seek the truth is a perfect Dem voter

July 18, 2008

Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data

by Gerald Prante


Fiscal Fact No. 135

The latest release of Internal Revenue Service data on individual income taxes comes from calendar year 2006, a year in which the economy remained healthy and continued to grow, increasing individual income tax collections along with overall average effective tax rates.

This year's numbers show that both the income share earned by the top 1 percent of tax returns and the tax share paid by that top 1 percent have once again reached all-time highs. In 2006, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 39.9 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 22.1 percent of adjusted gross income, both of which are significantly higher than 2004 when the top 1 percent earned 19 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI) and paid 36.9 percent of federal individual income taxes.

The IRS data also shows increases in individual incomes across all income groups (see Table 3). Just as the highest earners lost the biggest percentage of their incomes during the recession of 2001, so they have prospered the most as the economy continued to rebound through 2006. For example, from 2000 to 2002, the AGI of the top 1 percent of tax returns fell by over 26 percent. In that same period, the AGI of the bottom 50 percent of tax returns actually increased by 4.3 percent. However, since 2002, as the recession has ended, AGI has risen by over 81 percent for the top 1 percent (an average of over 20 percent per year) and 17 percent (an average of around 4 percent per year) for the bottom 50 percent.

In sum, between 2000 and 2006, pre-tax income for the top 1 percent of tax returns grew by 34 percent, while pre-tax income for the bottom 50 percent increased by 22 percent. All figures are nominal (not adjusted for inflation).

This pattern of income loss and growth at the top of the income spectrum is the same during every recession and recovery. The net result has also been a sharp rise in federal government tax revenue from 2003 to 2006 compared to previous years.

The IRS data below include all of the 135.7 million tax returns filed in 2006 that had a positive AGI, not just the returns from people who earned enough to owe taxes. From other IRS data, we can see that in 2006, 92.7 million of the tax returns came from people who paid taxes into the Treasury. That leaves 43 million tax returns filed by people with positive AGI who used exemptions, deductions and tax credits to completely wipe out their federal income tax liability. Not only did they get back every dollar that the federal government withheld from their paychecks during 2005, but some even received more back from the IRS. This is a result of refundable tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit, which are not included in the aggregate percentile data here. (For more on the limitations of the data on this page, see the notes below. For a detailed paper on the distribution of the entire U.S. fiscal system, including all federal, state and local taxes, read Who Pays Taxes and Who Receives Government Spending? An Analysis of Federal, State and Local Tax and Spending Distributions, 1991 - 2004.)

Including all tax returns that had a positive AGI, taxpayers with an AGI of $153,542 or more in 2006 constituted the nation's top 5 percent of earners. To break into the top 1 percent, a tax return had to have an AGI of $388,806 or more. These numbers are up significantly from 2003 when the equivalent thresholds were $130,080 and $295,495. Top incomes in 2006 are also continuing to surpass the peak they reached in 2000. At the height of the boom and bubble, $313,469 was the threshold to break into the top 1 percent, and then it fell to $285,424 in 2002 only to finally recover fully in 2005.

The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $64,702) earned 68.2 percent of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86.3 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $388,806) earned approximately 22.1 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.9 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns.

Average tax rates increased once again in 2006 as the economy continued to grow, even though there were no significant pieces of tax legislation enacted in 2006. Overall, the average tax rate for returns with a positive liability went from 12.1 percent to 12.45 percent from 2004 to 2005 and then up to 12.60 percent for 2006. (This does not include any refundable credits.)

The 2003 tax cut was the second in three years, and although tax rates are lower, the federal income tax still remains highly progressive. The average tax rate in 2006 ranges from 3.0 percent of income for the bottom half of tax returns to 22.8 percent for the top 1 percent.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/250.html

[Psychoblues]

Nope, not so, rsr.



Libs like you make way to easy PB. The tables, and charts are all there from the IRS



Put up or shut up. You made the claim now prove your point or simply back away while you still have some dignity about you. The charts and tables were improvisations from your bullshit site. They claim they were from the IRS but they provide nothing, like you, to back that up.

Get real, kiddo. I'd offer you a drink but I'm not certain you're old enough or mature enough to drink in this house.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[red states rule]

Nope, not so, rsr.




Put up or shut up. You made the claim now prove your point or simply back away while you still have some dignity about you. The charts and tables were improvisations from your bullshit site. They claim they were from the IRS but they provide nothing, like you, to back that up.

Get real, kiddo. I'd offer you a drink but I'm not certain you're old enough or mature enough to drink in this house.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

You are an idiot and a punk. Get drunk and keep telling yourself how Americans are under taxed

[Abbey Marie]

Looks like we may need a White-House sized on of these:

http://www.trustmymechanic.com/parts_gallery/distributor_cap1jpg.jpg

[Psychoblues]

Wuzza matta, widdle one? Have no sense of pride?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!??!?!?!



You are an idiot and a punk. Get drunk and keep telling yourself how Americans are under taxed

Are you crying yourself to sleep or are you self abusing yourself into delirion?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Whatever, you can't back your own statements up and you're somehow thinking I am somehow the blame for it!!!!!!!!!!!!

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[red states rule]

Wuzza matta, widdle one? Have no sense of pride?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!??!?!?!




Are you crying yourself to sleep or are you self abusing yourself into delirion?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Whatever, you can't back your own statements up and you're somehow thinking I am somehow the blame for it!!!!!!!!!!!!

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:


Here is more for you numbnuts

Those tax cuts generated MORE revenue to the government


January 12, 2007
HP-224

U.S. Fiscal Outlook Improves Significantly in December
Fiscal Year to Date Deficit Down;
Monthly Surplus Up More than 300 Percent

"Today's monthly Treasury statement shows that tax receipts have reached a new record and that we are moving in the right direction toward a balanced budget by 2012. This good news reflects the strong state of our economy. The President's tax relief has helped make this possible by creating the conditions for sustained economic growth and job creation."
- Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy Phillip Swagel


Highlights:
The Fiscal Year to Date deficit ($80 billion) is down 33 percent ($39 billion) compared to the same period last year. The President's tax relief has stimulated strong economic growth. This strong growth has contributed to record-level receipts and the creation of more than 7.2 million jobs since August 2003. October to December receipts for FY 07 are at $574 billion, running 8 percent ($43 billion) higher compared to the same period for FY 06.

December brought record-level monthly tax receipts ($260 billion) and a record-level surplus ($45 billion) for the month. The monthly surplus was up 306 percent ($34 billion) compared to December 2005 ($11 billion).

December 15 brought the largest ever single day corporate tax receipts ($73 billion). This broke the previous record set in September 2006 ($72 billion).

Maintaining low tax rates will help ensure continued economic growth, lift Americans living standards, and enable us to address our longer term fiscal challenges from a position of economic strength.


http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/hp224.htm

[Psychoblues]

So what, dumbo. You haven't even began to address your claims or pretend to defend your position.



Here is more for you numbnuts

Those tax cuts generated MORE revenue to the government


January 12, 2007
HP-224

U.S. Fiscal Outlook Improves Significantly in December
Fiscal Year to Date Deficit Down;
Monthly Surplus Up More than 300 Percent

"Today's monthly Treasury statement shows that tax receipts have reached a new record and that we are moving in the right direction toward a balanced budget by 2012. This good news reflects the strong state of our economy. The President's tax relief has helped make this possible by creating the conditions for sustained economic growth and job creation."
- Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy Phillip Swagel


Highlights:
The Fiscal Year to Date deficit ($80 billion) is down 33 percent ($39 billion) compared to the same period last year. The President's tax relief has stimulated strong economic growth. This strong growth has contributed to record-level receipts and the creation of more than 7.2 million jobs since August 2003. October to December receipts for FY 07 are at $574 billion, running 8 percent ($43 billion) higher compared to the same period for FY 06.

December brought record-level monthly tax receipts ($260 billion) and a record-level surplus ($45 billion) for the month. The monthly surplus was up 306 percent ($34 billion) compared to December 2005 ($11 billion).

December 15 brought the largest ever single day corporate tax receipts ($73 billion). This broke the previous record set in September 2006 ($72 billion).

Maintaining low tax rates will help ensure continued economic growth, lift Americans living standards, and enable us to address our longer term fiscal challenges from a position of economic strength.


http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/hp224.htm

Do you have anything to add to the conversation or are you intent on progressing an ideology without foundation?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?

As I said before, rsr, you are indeed a silly one.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[red states rule]

So what, dumbo. You haven't even began to address your claims or pretend to defend your position.




Do you have anything to add to the conversation or are you intent on progressing an ideology without foundation?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?

As I said before, rsr, you are indeed a silly one.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

Were you norn a serial liar and asshole or did you have to work at it by learning from Rev MFM and other liberals?

[Psychoblues]

I learned in junior high school to put up or shut up, junior.



Were you norn a serial liar and asshole or did you have to work at it by learning from Rev MFM and other liberals?

I suppose you never got that rather juvenile lesson.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[red states rule]

I learned in junior high school to put up or shut up, junior.




I suppose you never got that rather juvenile lesson.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

Judging from your posts you did not make it out if the playground. You are a loser as well as a liar

Shoveling shit in the military was about the best service you could have provided.

And you are still shoveling it

[Psychoblues]

It just breaks your heart, doesn't it?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?



Judging from your posts you did not make it out if the playground. You are a loser as well as a liar

Shoveling shit in the military was about the best service you could have provided.

And you are still shoveling it

You can't debate, you don't know shit and you are reduced to personal insults that make no sense at all. Tsk, tsk. Grow up young person, and give your best at whatever you decide to do. That's what my father taught me. Just how were you taught? Obviously not very well.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[Psychoblues]

Well, the propagators of societal injustice have ditched us. What to do now?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute: