BS: Taking a stand

Subject: BS: Taking a stand
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 14 Jul 11 - 12:08 PM

A BIll introduced to the senate 07/13/2011.
The vote: Every Democrat voted yes. Every Republican voted NO
To express the sense of the Senate on shared sacrifice in resolving the budget deficit.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON SHARED SACRIFICE.

(a) Findings- Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The Wall Street Journal reports that median pay for chief financial officers of S&P 500 companies increased 19 percent to $2,900,000 last year.
(2) Over the past 10 years, the median family income has declined by more than $2,500.
(3) Twenty percent of all income earned in the United States is earned by the top 1 percent of individuals.
(4) Over the past quarter century, four-fifths of the income gains accrued to the top 1 percent of individuals.
(b) Sense of the Senate- It is the sense of the Senate that any agreement to reduce the budget deficit should require that those earning $1,000,000 or more per year make a more meaningful contribution to the deficit reduction effort.
Calendar No. 93

112th CONGRESS
1st Session

S. 1323

A BILL
To express the sense of the Senate on shared sacrifice in resolving the budget deficit.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: SINSULL
Date: 14 Jul 11 - 12:41 PM

Oh - I thought this was about a missing music stand.

How about killing the subsidies for growing corn for ethanol?

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: gnu
Date: 14 Jul 11 - 12:50 PM

How about killing ethanol... and kickbacks and bribery.

HAHAHAHAHAAA!

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 14 Jul 11 - 01:27 PM

Hmmm--That is a "damning" resolution, indeed. But it omits the other side...to wit:

"Facts generally don't seem to matter much in these highly politicized arguments, but to properly frame the discussion, the following information (courtesy of IRS statistical data) should be considered: Only half of all taxpayers pay 96.54 percent of the income tax (federal). Putting it another way, almost half of all wage earners pay no income tax at all.

» The top 1 percent of wage earners ("the rich") pay more than one-third (34.27 percent) of the total federal income taxes collected.

» The top 5 percent of wage earners ("the rich") pay more than half (54.36 percent) of all federal income taxes.

» The top 10 percent of wage earners ("the rich") pay nearly two-thirds (65.84 percent) of all income taxes.

» The top 25 percent of wage earners ("the rich"?) pay nearly 84 percent of the total federal income taxes received.

And what percentage of all the income in the United States is earned by these groups?

» The top 1 percent earn 16.77 percent of all income.

» The top 5 percent earn 31.18 percent of the total income.

» The top 10 percent earn 42.36 percent of the total income.

» The top 25 percent earn 64.86 percent of the total income.

So, although only 1 percent earn 16.77 percent of all the income, they also pay more than one-third (34.27 percent) of the total income taxes collected. The top 5 percent earn a little more than 31 percent of all the income but pay more than half (54.36 percent) of the nation's total income tax bill. And, while 25 percent earn about 65 percent of all the income, they pay almost 84 percent of the total income taxes."
~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Is this the "fair share" that people keep talking about? Just how "fair" should it be? Should the top 5 percent or 10 percent of the wage earners pay 80 percent of the income taxes? Or 90 percent? And is it "fair" that nearly half of all wage earners pay no income tax at all?"

Excerpted from
www.noozhawk.com/article/042311_harris_sherline_setting_the_facts_straight_on_taxation/

________________________________
From money.cnn.com/2011/04/14/pf/taxes/who_pays_income_taxes/index.htm one extrapolates the following:

About 69,000,000 wage earners pay no federal income tax. 2/3 of those making less than $50K pay no FIT. As you go up the income group, the percentage of non-taxpayers decreases such that only 1% earning $1M+ paid no FIT.
________________________________
Is it fair that anyone earning above the federal minimum wage, currently slightly more than $15,000 ($4000 more than the HHS poverty level for a single person), pay no income tax? I believe not. Everybody earning above the poverty level (or perhaps over the minimum wage) should pay some FIT, as should everybody earning at every income level.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Jul 11 - 02:09 PM

John - have you no sense at all? It is not the aggregate tax paid by the rich that matters - it is (a) the real average tax rate (that is to say tax pro rata to true income - and none of the bastards disclose true income, that is what accountants are for) and (b) marginal actual tax rate - which is also skewed by tax avoidance.

Both should be higher than for any other taxpayers. In the real world they aren't.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 14 Jul 11 - 02:32 PM

Richard - Of course the aggregate matters. The rich overall pay more, and fewer, absolut4ely and by percent of their income group avoid paying anything...and those few ought to pay tax.

The last time I did math, paying 28% or 33% on a high income, is more than paying 15% on a smaller income. I admit to not taking a math course in over 40 years. Maybe the new math is different.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 14 Jul 11 - 03:52 PM

Just pointing out a basic difference between what the parties stand for.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Jul 11 - 04:12 PM

Well, John, find the true aggregate then - bet you can't: they all lie.

In a rational tax system, tax as a proportion of true income rises as income rises. I'd try to limit the marginal tax rate to say 80%, although incentivisation is a puny argument - the rich are junkies - they do what they do because it's there to be done.

But you have to find the true income. Close all the tax loopholes.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Jul 11 - 04:40 PM

Ah, but John, the tax rate on the rich in the U.S. is the lowest its been since the Great Depression. There's a fact for ya. And it matters.

About time we went back to the rates under the Eisenhower administration- a Republican, if I recall- when the top rate was 92% & business was booming. It was 91% thry 1963.

2/3 of those making less than $50K pay no Federal Income Tax.

Nonsense. I'd like to see some proof of this.

About 69,000,000 wage earners pay no federal income tax.

Yup, the people making minimum wage, the pool boys, the bedpan changers, the gardeners, the toilet cleaners & the burger flippers. But they DO pay payroll tax, Social Security, State taxes and sales taxes & etc.

Better wring some more money out of them while the rich & the corporations get away paying nothing or next to nothing & keep buying those tax-free secutirties & bonds.

"Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.

"Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

"And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"

"They are. Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not."

"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" said Scrooge.

"Both very busy, sir."

"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it."

"Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude," returned the gentleman, "a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?"

"Nothing!" Scrooge replied.

"You wish to be anonymous?"

"I wish to be left alone," said Scrooge. "Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned -- they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there."

"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."

"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: michaelr
Date: 14 Jul 11 - 05:10 PM

So who exactly are the "nearly half of all wage earners pay no income tax at all?" I'd like to know.

I've paid income tax all my life, and I'm inching ever closer to poverty. Now they want to fuck with my retirement??

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 14 Jul 11 - 05:40 PM

The tax rates used to be....
Dinosaurs used to roam the earth....

My used to be is that here in 1963 Los Angeles the combined sales tax rate was 3%. In 2010 the rate was 9.75%. That increase combined with the higher cost of goods...on the order of 10X since 1963...accounts for increased of over 30X what revenue was in 1963 which is even more when one considers the increased population paying these taxes. Yet, today Los Angeles is a city in decay, with fewer amenities and infrastructure...and the same can be said for the state as whole (or hole, if you prefer).

For those of you who want sources, I sourced my information leading to my conclusion in the original post. I'll look at your sources in refutation...but I forgot Greg doesn't refute, he only avers.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: IvanB
Date: 14 Jul 11 - 06:01 PM

John, I just ran some numbers through my tax program (TaxSlayer, if you want sources):

My "pool boy" (if I could only afford a pool to have one), at $11/hr would make $28,880 if he worked 40 hr/wk 52 weeks of the year. He'd pay $1,191 in FICA, $419 in Medicare tax and $2,110in Income Tax, leaving him $21,560 for the year.

My banker, OTOH, who grossed $1,000,000, would pay $6 222 in FICA, $14,500 in Medicare and $324,371 in Income Tax, leaving him a paltry $654,901.

Both of these examples assume taking the standard deduction, probably a reality for the pool boy, not a chance in hell for the banker.

Would I rather be the banker and pay 32.4% of my income in Income tax, rather than the pool boy who only had to pay 4.1%? You dambetcha!

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Jul 11 - 06:25 PM

I think the interesting thing is John, for whatever reason, defending tax breaks for the 1 %.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Jul 11 - 06:35 PM

but I forgot Greg doesn't refute, he only avers.

And John just bullshits & parrots website postings. Doesn't need primary sources.

**

Oh, that poor banker, Ivan! How does he manage to survive?

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 14 Jul 11 - 06:43 PM

IvanB--
1) I was using only income (tax) figures, because that was the subject of Dick's post on the Sense of the Senate resolution. I'm aware there are other deductions and taxes...God knows I saw them raised and raised from my paychecks over my 42-year+ working life.
2) Like you, I would rather be your banker than your pool man (and believe me, my income was lots, lots closer to your pool man), but that wasn't the point of my post.
3) I invite you to reread my post, and the sources given. It shows that your banker does pay more in taxes, most likely, than your pool man, as well he should.
4) Do you begrudge your banker his $1M salary and net income? Should his net be limited to $500K? $250K? $77K (the most I ever netted)? or, perhaps, the $22.5K your pool cleaner nets? Just asking.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 14 Jul 11 - 06:51 PM

Jack, did I do that? Show me where I did.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: gnu
Date: 14 Jul 11 - 06:57 PM

Ahhh... he didn't say YOU did that... did he?

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Jul 11 - 06:59 PM

The tax rates used to be.... Dinosaurs used to roam the earth....

And speaking of "used to be" the country used to be in a lot better financial shape before Reagan & voodoo economics which spawned the tax reductions of the last 30 years & put us in the economic crapper.

How's that "used to be" John?

The Democrats shouldn't be talking about tax "increases" but "tax restoration" - which is what the situation really is & what the country needs.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 14 Jul 11 - 07:09 PM

'The top 1 percent of wage earners ("the rich")...'

Hold it right there!

What about the people who don't make their money from wages? The ones who receive dividends, interest, royalties, rents, commissions, stock options, inheritance, and capital gains (buying something and reselling it for a higher price)?

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Jul 11 - 07:12 PM

"Jack, did I do that? Show me where I did. "

This and what follows..

"Hmmm--That is a "damning" resolution, indeed. But it omits the other side...to wit:"

It is harmful to lie to yourself John. It makes you act against you self interest.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: IvanB
Date: 14 Jul 11 - 07:17 PM

No, John, my figures were only to make the point that, whatever percentage of the total federal "take" they pay, the rich still have plenty left over to live a pleasant! life.

I'd be the first to agree that we need to get our government spending under control, but I wish the Republicans would quit acting as if the bankers and oil execs are going to be standing on street corners selling pencils if we increase their taxes whatever amount.

And, although I gave FICA and Medicare amounts in my examples, the percentages of income I mentioned were calculated only on their respective income taxes.

And, yes, I do resent the fact that execs who've largely been shown to be absolute failures over the past few years have continued to receive ever higher salaries and bonuses, while employees at the lower end of the income spectrum are asked to make ever larger concessions.

But all this is thread drift. I really don't know whether the figures in the Senate Resolution are accurate or not. But I doubt that the the reason all the Repubs voted against it was because they didn't believe the percentages were right.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 14 Jul 11 - 07:24 PM

Jack, you make no sense at all. There is nothing in the resolution about tax breaks for anyone, hence there is nothing I said about tax breaks. In fact, YOU are the only one to use that term at this thread. As to my self interest, that's my business. And if I didn't get everything in my working life that I wanted, or even thought I deserved, that's on me, not on someone who has more than me.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: katlaughing
Date: 14 Jul 11 - 07:46 PM

To answer one question, up above, NO, people who make $15,000 (four thousand over the poverty level) should NOT have to pay FIT. Trying live off of $11,000 is a fucking joke and the extra $4,000 so graciously bestowed in the "for instance" would barely make a dent in the daily cost of living. Costs for everything keep going up while wages stagnate, are reduced, and/or are eliminated through layoffs, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: GUEST,999
Date: 14 Jul 11 - 07:55 PM

I doubt many people set out to be poor. But poverty happens. Personally, I would rather have $1000 taxed at 50% than $100 taxed at 10%.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: katlaughing
Date: 14 Jul 11 - 08:04 PM

BTW, meant to sat "Thanks, Dick" for your original posting. Glad to see the Dems. voted in unison.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: pdq
Date: 14 Jul 11 - 08:37 PM

WHAT THE TOP 1%, 5%, 10%, 25% and 50% MAKE IN AMERICA

Based on the Internal Revenue Service's 2010 database below, here's how much the top Americans make:

Top 1%: $380,354

Top 5%: $159,619

Top 10%: $113,799

Top 25%: $67,280

Top 50%: >$33,048

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Jul 11 - 09:06 PM

I find it interesting that John argues the side of the 1 %, the 1 % that the Senate resolution targeted. 1 % that the Senate was targeting to gain public support for letting the Bush era tax breaks expire. I find this interesting because anyone who has earned no more than the amount he said was the maximum he has earned in his life has much to gain financially and nothing to lose from the country not giving tax breaks to that 1 %. I wonder what he believes his self interest is. One would think that at least his sense of patriotism would kick in. But it seems that tax breaks fro rich people he does not know are a bigger priority than the well being of the country. There are millions like John. It is a puzzle.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Jul 11 - 09:07 PM

PDQ, those figures look odd. do you have a link?

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 14 Jul 11 - 10:34 PM

To me, an interesting thing is the almost-total lack of press coverage on this.Seem like a resonable starting place for making voting decisions."Which side are you on?"

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: GUEST,MarkS(on the road)
Date: 14 Jul 11 - 10:55 PM

I took a stand once, but I got caught and had to put it back.

I know, it's lame, but but do we really need to get into another tug-of-war about taxes for the rich?

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: Janie
Date: 14 Jul 11 - 11:24 PM

IRS figures presumably provide statistics about taxable income, which bears little relationship to actual income to spend - whether for essentials or for frills. From what even the least of us know about personal income tax and deductions, I think it a reasonable to say that in general, (and only in general), the more actual income one has, the less reflective of actual income available to spend is the taxable income.

According to US Census data, the median household income in the USA for 2009 was 50,221.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: michaelr
Date: 15 Jul 11 - 12:11 AM

I ask again, where does this come from: "nearly half of all wage earners pay no income tax at all?" Is there any proof, and who are these people?

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: Janie
Date: 15 Jul 11 - 02:30 AM

John, correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that you were pointing out the bias in the first stats. posted in comparable terms - albeit your numbers also reflect a bias.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Jul 11 - 08:49 AM

ask again, where does this come from: "nearly half of all wage earners pay no income tax at all?" Is there any proof, and who are these people?

Please! Sunset doesn't need to provide any proof. He's exempt.

And pretty soon he'll be accusing you of averring, so watch out.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: artbrooks
Date: 15 Jul 11 - 09:48 AM

This from PolitiFact.com indicates that the figure (for 2009) is actually 51%. Note, as does the article, that the reference is only to income taxes and not to other forms of taxation, but we are arguing about an income tax stat., aren't we.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Jul 11 - 11:41 AM

I suppose that Sunset and the Right haven't tumbled to the fact - amply substantiated- that if we raised the Minimum Wage to a figure people could live on, and took other steps to alleviate poverty in the U.S. that fewer people would pay no Federal Income Tax?

Naaah, lets just keep giving tax cuts to billionaires & multinational corporations. That'll fix everything.

(P.S. Sunset: for your "used to be is that here in 1963 Los Angeles the combined sales tax rate was 3%. In 2010 the rate was 9.75%....Yet, today Los Angeles is a city in decay" you can thank Ronnie Reagan, EnRon, etc.)

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Jul 11 - 11:53 AM

Don't forget all those weird propositions.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: DonMeixner
Date: 15 Jul 11 - 12:56 PM

Has anyone in this discussion supported the flat tax notion? Or a strict sales tax only option? Or a VAT? How do those figures play with what Dick has supplied?

I probably fall in the 50% of all wage earners category. I think I would lean towards the 10 to 15% flat tax notion but I must admit I have given this little thought. I earn just enough to live on and I have saved enough to retire on if I include my jewelry business as a continual occupation. My taxes go to do what ever the government does with it now. If I am taxed more I will find myself close to the poverty line. I can't afford to support people who haven't made the effort to work or save.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 15 Jul 11 - 01:08 PM

It must be wonderful to be GregF, to present no facts, but to know everything, and to say anything. He also demeans by not using proper nom de Mudcat (although his tidy-whiteys get all bunched up if his name is accidentally misspelled). So if you write to me or about me, I am either John, JotSC, or (if you want to be formal) John on the Sunset Coast.

------------

For the record, nowhere have I advocated (so-called) tax breaks for high income earners, or the rich. I have advocated that more people should pay income tax; that includes lower income earners (even if the tax is very low) and the very rich, who should and do pay much, much more, and everybody in between. To use a sports cliche, everybody (some few exceptions) should have skin in the game.

Writing a sports cliche brings to mind that when the rich are criticized, here, it is the banker or the corporate executive receiving such opprobrium. No one has called-out sports figures for their wealth and multi-millions/year earnings. The same is true about entertainers and movie/tv stars...many of whom are often the producers of their own projects, as well as projects they don't appear in.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Jul 11 - 02:21 PM

artbrooks' link is to an interesting article- informative. It might be a good idea to read it.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Jul 11 - 03:04 PM

It is purely artificial Republican Bullshit to separate payroll deductions from other taxes. All the taxes go to federal coffers for federal programs.

So your "other side" argument being only about income tax (federal) is nothing more or less than repeating that bogus Republican line.

That bogus Republican line, along with more BullShit about "job creation" and "trickle down economics" is used, and only used to defend tax breaks for rich people which the country cannot afford. Your economic self interest is not to see the economic disaster and chaos that would come from dismantling Medicare and Social Security. Your economic interest is intertwined with the preservation of and and investment in the US government, people and economy in competition with other countries. The GI Bill, the Eisenhower interstate system, TVA, the National Parks system and many other important investments in the future of this country appeared under reasonable, pre-Reagan tax regimes. Reagan's BullShit and the unbridled selfishness of the Baby Boom generation have been this country's down fall.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: michaelr
Date: 15 Jul 11 - 04:23 PM

Thanks for that link, artbrooks.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Jul 11 - 04:27 PM

unbridled selfishness of the Baby Boom generation

Hey watchit, Jack- I'm one a dem dere Baby Boomer Generation guys.

It must be wonderful to be GregF

It sure is, Sunshine. You should try it some time.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Jul 11 - 04:32 PM

No one has called-out sports figures for their wealth and multi-millions/year earnings.

Huh? Guess you haven't been paying attention, eh Sunshine?
(talk about "presenting no facts.)

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 15 Jul 11 - 05:33 PM

"No one has called-out sports figures for their wealth and multi-millions/year earnings."

"Huh? Guess you haven't been paying attention..."

I know my eyes aren't what they yuster be, Gregg, but please point out which post above on this thread specifically speaks to sports and entertainment folks, as in posts vilifying bankers and such. Woodja do that for me? Huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: GUEST,999
Date: 15 Jul 11 - 05:42 PM

May I suggest axes at dawn or machine guns at ten paces--ah, forget it.

I don not mind fair taxation. I DO mind unfair taxation. Not really much to discuss after that.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Jul 11 - 06:05 PM

You brought up the bankers. Has anyone else mentioned them? Personally I don't care how they earn their money we can't afford tax breaks for rich people.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Jul 11 - 06:22 PM

How about sabres at ten paces, Bruce?

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: GUEST,999
Date: 15 Jul 11 - 07:03 PM

Sabres--now there is an idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 15 Jul 11 - 07:11 PM

Actually, Jack, yes. Yesterday IvanB first brought up banker (his) at 6:01PM; Greg F. (did I get that right?) did at 6:45, shedding crocodile tears for the banker.   Perhaps I give it too much emphasis, but I wasn't first or only. You're welcome for the citations.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Jul 11 - 07:15 PM

Someone would just obtain a 10 foot sabre...or whatever it took to reach 10 paces.

(I once suggested to a self-described mercenary that we settle wars by issuing bags of marshmallows and you were 'out' after so many white spots on your uniform. He replied: "Yeah.... that might work for awhile. Then some bastard like me would come along and put a rock in each one... and off we'd go again!")

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 15 Jul 11 - 07:23 PM

How about a ten foot Pole, if we can find a willing one.
This thread is getting--dare I say it--violent.
If we must, my choice would be jousting from horseback using those really long lances. That sounds like real fun.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 15 Jul 11 - 08:00 PM

At least 2 of the "people" who paid no income tax last year are Bank of America and General Electric. Exxon was given money.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Jul 11 - 08:07 PM

38% of all US corporations pay NOTHING in income tax.
Well they do, but it all gets refunded come May.

Its a joke we even call them US corporations because nearly half of all US corporations have their headquaters in Barbados or St. Michaels or some other off shore tax dodge. One such Island home has 12,000 business corporations registered as having it as their headquarters.

Murdoch enterproses show the IRS that they have lost billions of dollars. Rupert shows the Island banks his real profits.

I learned that Utah has similar tax dodging laws. There is one house there with over 1,000 corporations, criminal profits while the owner is in jail and private business hiding money from the IRS.


As long as you make sure you file every quarter everything the IRS legally wants to know about your "earnings", you too can be a corporation or better yet a conglomerate with other like minds...

but who is that unpatriotic and larcenous liars to want to sink the country merely to exploit loophole laws that were bought and paid for by billionaires sanguine enough to legally bribe Congressmen and women.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Who said "This thing is fuckin golden, we can hold out and get almost anything we want with this..." ?

Boehner said something like this to Erc Cantor back in April.

--------------------------------------------------------------------


Your mind sees everything through the filter of your beliefs, and then seeks out primarily only the things that fits your belief.

What if you could suspend your belief long enough to see the wisdom of the Purei TEA Party. For example.

To eliminate our debt we could raise revenue by selling stuff.
Stuff like parts of California. Most of Minnisota ( besides its closed due to a gov shutdown anyway) Sell Yellowstone park, before the oil spill damage lowers the price. Sell our W 88 neutron bomb plans to CHina and buy them back at half price, Sell The NYSE to Germany, Sell our Army tank factories to Arabs and buy them cheaper, Sell our sea port controls and secirtity to Suadi Arabia, Sell the giant TV networks like FOX to Saudi Arabia.... you get the idea Many of those things we have actually already done.

Basicly we could have a national yard sale.

Listen to the brilliant Puri TEA ideas of passing a Federal balanced budget ammendment or establish a flat tax except for people on welfare or food stamps, they will pay taxes twice. Seperate the Sate from church and allow religion pledges to include only God fearing people in schools and political office.
Remove all entitlements so that Americans become respondile for themselves like we were in the 1800's.
Let REal Americans run their business without any government interference what so ever. Allow guns in Church, court, bars schools, rest rooms and TSA screening centers etc. Privatize everything we need and want be it police fire departments or roads and infrastructure. Free ourselves from the nanny state of safety programs that soil out liberty like the FDA, EPA, Education, HHS and any other "safety" program    except the DOD.

Now if you could take an unbaised look at any of these ideas and improvments, if you could see the Pure TEA genius with new eyes, if you could remove that filter of old beliefs, \\The USA will be having a coast to coast yard sale and a brain drain going to India, China and Germany

In a final stroke of genius, lets default the USA treasury note and loan paymment to stimulate the economy and final sale of America.
Just remember to add a phrase to the bill of sale.
All Sales are Final

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: IvanB
Date: 15 Jul 11 - 08:46 PM

John, let's get one thing straight: "my" pool boy and banker were mere symbols. As I thought my post made clear, I have no pool, so no need for the first. Being I have bank accounts, I suppose I could say there is a "my" banker somewhere, but s/he never comes out to meet me at the ATM. I'm sorry I offended you with my choice of persona to symbolize the rich.

Now, as I stated in the last sentence of my post of 14 Jul 11 - 07:17 PM, Dick started this thread reporting on a Senate vote. We can argue all we want about who should bear the bigger tax burden in this country, but you'll never get me to believe that all those Republican Senators voted against the bill because they didn't agree with the figures (or that they even bothered to research them for that matter). No, I'm sure their votes were cast against it because they're ideologically appalled by both its premise and its purpose.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Jul 11 - 10:20 PM

******************The Dirty Little Secret********************

Over the last 30 years the way we tax Americans has shifted from income taxes to highly regressive taxes which are disproportionately are paid by the working class and the poor...

These taxes include:

Sales taxes - 3 fold increase since Reaganomics

User taxes - 7 fold increase

Taxes on electricity, phones, internet, car license plates, etc, ect...

Every where you look this is how the rich have shifted more and more taxes on to the poor and the working class... These are all ****highly regressive**** taxes and it billions and billions of $$$ that the wealthy have had ***their government*** put in place...

But in a larger picture, the rich love to point out what % of income taxes they pay but they don't want to talk about the % of the income they pull in or the amount of wealth they have corralled for themselves...

This is reality... The rich have been getting a free ride since 1980 and it's time for them to participate in the game...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Jul 11 - 11:21 PM

John, there were no posts "vilifying bankers and such" there was one hypothetical banker who Ivan wanted to B.

Vis a vis vilification you brought up bankers.

I have you say, that if you are willing to put up this much smoke trying to defend an imaginary banker then you have obviously chosen your preferred weapon and distance; bull flops, point blank.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Jul 11 - 08:43 AM

I expect one Socialist also voted yes, Dick:

"Shouldn't the wealthiest Americans and the most profitable corporations contribute to deficit reduction rather than just the elderly and the sick and working families? They say no. They're going to defend the richest people in this country — millionaires and billionaires — and make sure they don't pay a nickel more in taxes. We're going to make sure there is no tax reform so we can continue to lose $100 billion every single year because wealthy people and corporations stash their money in tax havens in the Cayman Islands or Bermuda, and that's just fine. We'll protect those tax breaks while we savage programs for working families."

Senator Bernie Sanders

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Jul 11 - 11:37 AM

To buy a copy of Senator Bernie Sanders scathing speech against the rich tax dodgers, buy it at Amazon for 12.99 !

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 16 Jul 11 - 12:19 PM

Quoting Bernie Sanders goes a long way with me, Gregg.

Jack, I guess we sometimes let our zeal get in the way of our posts. Perhaps I over emphasized Ivan's hypothetical pool man and banker. You, on the other hand, have said I defend tax breaks for the rich (I'm sorry, 'the 1%', at least twice...I didn't and I don't. I'm not even sure I know what you consider a tax break. Also you questioned, en passant, my patriotism; that certainly moved the argument forward.

Finally, the phrase from the resolution, "It is the sense of the Senate that any agreement to reduce the budget deficit should require that those earning $1,000,000 or more per year make a more meaningful contribution to the deficit reduction effort." has no objective meaning. Like Supreme Court decisions are based on the biases of the individual justices, so would 'meaningful contribution' reflect the biases of the individual senators.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Jul 11 - 12:33 PM

Senator Sandors speech on you tube

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Jul 11 - 01:18 PM

Quoting Bernie Sanders goes a long way with me

More information needed, Sunshine:

1. Are you supporting Senator Sanders' position?

OR

2.Are you being snide? If so, what exactly do you disagree with in what Senator Sanders said?

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Jul 11 - 01:27 PM

I probably shouldn't expect someone here is asking me a question but while I always strive to add a pinch of satire to anything important...
Bernie is saying the obvious, the plain truth, and sadly for merely telling the truth, he is considered to be a great American Hero.

Has telling the truth has become some sort of automatic betrayal of the wealthy overlords? Is telling the truth always subversive? Is it that uncommon?

I say every one should have the simple ability to tell the truth like Bernie.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking a stand
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Jul 11 - 04:42 PM

John, As I have said before, and you have chosen not to read, the SENSE OF THE SENATE ON SHARED SACRIFICE bill was put forth in the fight to end the Bush tax breaks. By presenting the "other side" which is to say, the Republican argument, you are providing a de facto defense of those tax breaks. In fact by presenting the idiotic Republican defense of the rich which separates federal income tax from all other federal tax and pretends that federal income tax is the only one that counts is not only defending the tax breaks, but it is using the Republican template to do so.

I do actually question your patriotism. I question anyone who supports and repeats voodoo economic principles. Reagan had an excuse. He was an ignorant actor apparently trying something his advisers had suggested, but now after having two Presidents trying that crap and seeing the economic and other damage caused to the country no modern person has any more excuse.

At least the 1 % have their own self interest as an excuse. What excuse do you have for trying to destroy the country?