This blog originally founded by Blogger who holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

What Do Americans Think About Tax Cuts

Rasmussen

The Left is trying all their polled words like "hostage holders" and Republicans only care about their millionaires. As Tom Brokaw said this morning, "They are shooting over the peoples' heads." I agree. The phrases are not gaining any traction.

100 comments:

Liberal POV said...

Blogger

Please explain that Republican and Tea Party Mob's concern on the ballooning debt our grandchildren will be burden with?

Who should pay taxes if those making over $250,000 in this deep recession can't afford to return to pre Bush rates?

Where is that civic responsibility and personal responsibility for Republicans?

Just what do the richest Americans owe America?

They use lobbyist, attorneys, accountants, and buy legislators to avoid paying taxes.

Their children seldom are in harms way in the military.

What responsibility do the corporate royalty have to society?

guy faulkes said...

Liberalproverbs18;2, we are going to get out of this mess by cutting spending and lowering taxes. Lower taxes means a better economy and mor revenue. Cutting spending lowers the deficit. You are apparently to "stupit" (your term) to realize this. Unfortunatey for you and your tax and spend friends, people are not "stupit" and are turning your agenda around.

Now that Obama has been forced to turn to the right, things can start to improve.

What do you think of the man child Messiah now?

NewGuy said...

There is always going to be a segment of our society which believes in the Robin Hood model of government. Democrats have learned to exploit this group in order to create a voting bloc, even had success in expanding their numbers.

Tax "credits"....that is the use of the federal income tax system to funnel money directly to people who do not pay taxes is simply a bastardization of the tax system AND a pandering to this group.

Giving federal income tax "refunds" to people who don't pay taxes is nothing more than welfare. And, when you rob Peter to pay Paul, Paul is likely to vote for you.

Unfortunately, our tax system has now deteriorated to the point that almost 2/5ths of our income tax filers, pay NO income tax. 60% of taxpayers are paying everyone's way.

Bush reduced EVERYONE'S taxes....even to the point of refunding money to those who don't even PAY taxes. The 'compromise' that is the current center of such controversy does not even maintain the status quo. It does continue the Bush tax cuts for everyone and there are certainly those "Paul's" who are outraged that the government doesn't appear to be going to rob Peter any more next year than it did this year. On the other hand, the Paul's will win when the death tax is reinstated as part of this "compromise".

It's pretty obvious that some American's have convinced themselves that they are entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor. The reckless spending in Obama's first 2 years is the problem. Not the fact that the government didn't seize enough wealth from those who earned it.

Sarkazein said...

New Guy- Robinhood robbed from the government and gave it back to the people made poor by the government. The rest of your comment I agree with.

Blogger said...

Did all of you hear Sen McCaskill the other day when she said, "If they (Republicans) think it is o.k. to raise taxes for the middle class and they are going to pout if we DON'T GIVE MORE MONEY TO THE MILLIONAIRES. . ."(emphasis mine)
If you want to really get the mind set of Democrats, that one statement says it all. (and if any of you readers need me to interpret, you have a real problem.)

NewGuy said...

a good point sark...and a fair one.

My reference was more a nod to the
"rob from the rich and give to the poor" legend..

Not too far off. There is a large and apparently growing group demanding that the 'government' provide for them.

The government cannot give to anyone what it didn't take from someone else.

I am certainly not in the 250k income class and thus would not suffer a real tax increase under the dem plan. But, I oppose raising taxes on anyone - especially now.

In the long run, I strongly feel that unless everyone pays their share of income taxes, there will continue to be an outcry for raising taxes on everyone who makes more money than me, and giving me some of the booty!

The Democratic Promise: "We rob the other guy and share the booty with you!"

Liberal POV said...

Guy and Conservatives

"Liberalproverbs18;2, we are going to get out of this mess by cutting spending and lowering taxes."

Do that math for me showing the wars you strongly support and the trillion dollars a year it cost to continue?


What fools make up the conservative movement!

guy faulkes said...

This turn to the right brings up an interesting point. The left is bashing Obama for the tax cuts.

Do you remember not so very long ago when anyone that said anything derogatory about Obama or his policies was labeled a racist? Now that the left is doing the complaining, have they admitted they are racist? You can't have it both ways.

guy faulkes said...

Already answered that one several times, "stupit". No need to again a you paid no attention the other times.

Now about the name of that community college.....?

Liberal POV said...

Guy

Do that math for me showing the wars you strongly support and the trillion dollars a year it cost to continue?

If what you say is true just cut and paste.

I know you can do neither.

Liberal POV said...

New Guy and any other conservative

Do the math!

Hardee's female single mom employee makes $16,000 and has two children to support the Hardee’s, parent company CEO of CKE Restaurants makes lets say a conservative $1,000,000.00 in income. Show us liberals what a just and fair tax system would tax each.

Also explain the budget the mother will care for her self and her family. Don't for get to include the sales tax, gas tax, social security, medicare she now pays.

Does the CEO making $1 million pay the same percentage of his total income to Social Security as the mother making $16,000?

You conservatives are for better at repeating propaganda than doing math or ligical reasoning.


Why should the taxpayers subsidize profits and exsective income of low wage industries like Mc Donalds, Hardees the Art Pope stores and Walmart with food stamps and Tax credit to under paid employees?

http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Hardee-s-Salaries-E5429.htm

oatz said...

First Liberal POV corporations never "pay" taxes they pass this cost of business to the consumer or customer.

In a "fair" society everyone pays the same rate. Period no exceptions.

Second each worker is paid for their contribution to the profit of the corporation.

It really chaps my ass when welfare moms are paid to produce babies. Now I am all for these moms getting refunded their withholding or federal taxes,but never should they get more than they paid in.

I laugh or cry when Pelosi calls these tax cuts "unfunded" its like she is entitled to taxes and has already spent them ( oh wait they already have).

Why did Obama give waivers to McDonalds and Wal-mart if Obama care is so fair?

Just wondering Liberal POV please educate me on this. Or is this another Myth Lab?

Honest Debate said...

Obama did all he could to do something against the will of the people... again.

This "compromise" is not a done deal. The vote will be interesting. Democrats are spitting mad and Jim DeMint is saying he will filibuster it. A no vote counts the same despite the reason behind it.

Liberal POV said...

Oatz

Just do the math then preach to me.

Show me the math a conservative would use to have fair and just tax system.

I wasn't referring to what the corporation was tax just the CEO verses a low income wage earner.

When you conservatives are stumped you want to start spelling and grammar lessons rather than face reality.

Here's the question again.
Hardee's female single mom employee makes $16,000 and has two children to support the Hardee’s, parent company CEO of CKE Restaurants makes lets say a conservative $1,000,000.00 in income. Show us liberals what a just and fair tax system would tax each.

Also explain the budget the mother will care for her self and her family. Don't for get to include the sales tax, gas tax, social security, medicare she now pays.

Does the CEO making $1 million pay the same percentage of his total income to Social Security as the mother making $16,000?

Why should the taxpayers subsidize profits and exsective income of low wage industries like Mc Donalds, Hardees the Art Pope stores and Walmart with food stamps and Tax credit to under paid employees?

http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Hardee-s-Salaries-E5429.htm

December 8, 2010 12:03 PM

Nobody said...

"Do the math!

Hardee's female single mom employee makes $16,000 and has two children..."

Okay, I went to the federal governments federal tax estimator. Single mom, two dependents qualifying for EITC, NO federal taxes withheld for the year, refund equaled $2350. Get that? NO TAXES WITHHELD AND A "REFUND" OF $2350, or let's just call it a payment. Feel free to do this yourself. Now, a few questions:

Why isn't this person working a better job? What is her education level? Did she blow off school and this is the best she can do? Did she get pregnant early? How much of her position is due to personal irresponsibility? Why does she have two children, but isn't married? Raising children is a huge financial obligation that she apparently didn't think of. At $16,000/year and two children, how much is she receiving in food stamps, WIC housing assistance, Medicaid benefits, welfare, etc.? None of this is addressed in your hypothesis. Let's say she receives $1500 a month in additional government assistance. That would be another $18,000 a year in benefits, or total compensation (including $2350 payment through the tax code) of $36,350 of which she only earns $16,000 through her own efforts. I personally know of people who get paid through the tax system and receive benefits, so don't give me this crap about this being a fictitious scenario -- it was your scenario. The primary difference between you and conservatives is that we believe people should strive towards a better life through their own efforts and that it is possible to succeed. You want to reward and subsidize irresponsibility and laziness. If you want more of something, subsidize it. I guess you want more irresponsible, dependent households while we want more proud, successful self-sufficient households.

Liberal POV said...

Nobody

"Why isn't this person working a better job?"

Its the best she could find that offered health care'.

" What is her education level?"
High School drop out.

" Did she blow off school and this is the best she can do?"
Yes when child came along.
Did she get pregnant early? Yes forced into a bad marriage by pregnancy.

"How much of her position is due to personal irresponsibility?"
Some
"Why does she have two children, but isn't married?"
Divorced abusive spouse who's now in prison.

Do the math.
Tell us what a fair and just tax system would be in this woman's world.

What would happen if the Hardees corporation actually paid her a living wage?

The whole question again:

Here's the question again.
Hardee's female single mom employee makes $16,000 and has two children to support the Hardee’s, parent company CEO of CKE Restaurants makes lets say a conservative $1,000,000.00 in income. Show us liberals what a just and fair tax system would tax each.

Also explain the budget the mother will care for her self and her family. Don't for get to include the sales tax, gas tax, social security, medicare she now pays.

Does the CEO making $1 million pay the same percentage of his total income to Social Security as the mother making $16,000?

Why should the taxpayers subsidize profits and exsective income of low wage industries like Mc Donalds, Hardees the Art Pope stores and Walmart with food stamps and Tax credit to under paid employees?

http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Hardee-s-Salaries-E5429.htm

December 8, 2010 12:03 PM

NewGuy said...

It's probably a fair assumption that ASU will be bearing it's share of budget cutbacks. With the majority of the NC State budget being spent on education (at all levels), there is no way that enough money can be cut from non education spending to balance the budget.

Since (I believe) several of the posters here have (or have had) an association with the University...It would be interesting to hear their views on what cuts are most appropriate? what cuts do you see as most likely?

My guess is, the cuts will be made in the most damaging and most visible areas...a standard tactic to convince the public to reinstate funding for those areas.

I don't know what cuts should take place. Perhaps the very expensive apartments the University owns in DC and NYC could be sold and the staff who manage those units be eliminated? Perhaps some of the 140K plus professors who spend about 10 hours a week in the classroom could be cut?

I don't know...but I would like to hear from Mike D and any other 'insiders' who have some real knowledge of what can be done.

Liberal POV said...

New Guy

Lets hear how you and other conservative are going the create an income tax where the wealthy pay the same rate as the poor.

Lets see the math on conservative social justice.
Lets see how you will cut spending and not have the same swelled bellies as the children of Africa poor?

HD Jump in here your such a strong conservative.

Good Christian Blogger got answers? Do the math.

How does the woman at Hardee's survive and what tax should the CEO making a million dollars pay?

Why should taxpayers subsidize low income industries with low wage support so the profits and CEO compensation be increased? How about we require them to pay a living wage before profit or large CEO compensation.

Nobody said...

Lib,
Your entire attitude is comical. To you, everyone who is "poor" is that way because they are a victim. "Forced to drop out due to pregnancy" and "Forced to marry due to pregnancy" and "divorced abusive spouse." Why get pregnant in the first place? I've seen enough people in bad situations to come to the realization that MOST, not ALL but MOST people wind up there because of their own choices. We've been down that road before on a previous thread a while back -- you refuse to see that FORCING someone who has sacrificed, worked hard and made responsible decisions to pay for someone else's bad decisions and irresponsible decisions is UNJUST! If someone has made the right decisions in their life and worked hard, they can make as much money as they want, as far as I'm concerned. If someone gets pregnant early, gets involved in drugs and alcohol, develops no work ethic, etc. they should NOT be rewarded by a system that will take from those who are successful. And it's not my job to develop a budget for someone who dropped out of school on their own.

guy faulkes said...

New Guy, you are once again 100% correct. The university has overspent for years. They continue to build unneeded buildings at the expense of all of us. They fund things of little worth. However, if anyone objects to cuts for the sacred cow of education, then the state employees union is in an uproar. I wounder if they would rather cut buildings or jobs.

Many jobs done by the university in house would be more efficiently and cheaply done done by private contractors. However, I would cut expanding infrastructure except in cases where it is absolutely necessary.

Inefficiency in the public schools is a major reason some p[people are against vouchers. They know that once people had a choice, public schools would have to improve or be closed.

New Guy, I have decided to take your advice.

NewGuy said...

I have several friends who work their in different capacities. Several professors who, despite being my political opposite, seem to be dedicated and reasonably hard working people (Well, one isn't, but their are exceptions everywhere).

The support staff, maintenance, admin, security, etc, do not seem to be overpaid. I have no knowledge nor opinion on whether or not they are overstaffed - but I would like to hear from Mike and others about that.

My observations over the years have left me with the impression that universities - in general - are not very cost conscious. For example, I would like to see the cost benefit analysis that led the university to buy NY Real Estate in order to provide a hostel for professors, staff and students who visit NY (or Washington DC). IF this is cost effective, has anyone explored combined facilities with other state Universities?

This state, and county - are going to be in for some serious belt tightening. It's not going to be popular, and probably not always fair but it's going to have to be done. Depending on US government for "grants" of money borrowed from China to finance local projects in not going to work. Somebody, someday, somehow, is going to have to pay it back!

NewGuy said...

Where is that damned "recall" button...I need to change some "their"s, to "there"s.

Liberal POV said...

Neither New Guy or Old Guy can do Math

How the employee working at Hardees found herself in a low income job has nothing to do with the tax code you think would be fair.

Just show how much income tax you want this woman to pay on her $16,000 annual income she must support herself and her two children. Hell give her a husband making an additional $16,000 then show the tax the CEO of the same Corporation making $1,000,000 should pay. Should he pay Social Security on the entire $1 million?

Next show the math or budget the low income family needs to pay for housing, food, medical insurance, clothing, and transportion and not recieve any government assistance.

This will be a great example of the how Republicans like to use the poor as scapegoats.

Liberal POV said...

Conservatives

What we see here is conservative are much better at creating scapegoats and non issues than solving problems.

Republicans have no answers, no vision and no compassion.

Liberal POV said...

New Guy

"Where is that damned "recall" button...I need to change some "their"s, to "there"s."

That's not your biggest mistake, Its your logic and math that's the problem.
Voodoo economics!

oatz said...

Ok Liberal POV let me explain FAIR! Flat tax rate for everyone! Same percentage for Billionaires and Minimum wage earners. All Corporations and Churches pay the same. This would eliminate the IRS or reduce it to 1/10 its current size. This would also eliminate the illegal immigration issue since all taxes would be across the board. A national sales tax with the elimination of all other taxes and tax breaks or deductions would be history everyone would pay the same rate. Sound fair and equitable to me. Care to fire up the old Myth Lab bong and tell me why that would not be fair.

Sarkazein said...

One of the reasons McCain lost was because gasoline had risen to a high around $2.75 a gallon and diesel to over $3 a gallon in October 2008. It was unacceptable to the press and to many voting Americans. By December 2008 (after the election) the price was down to $1.75 a gallon. Diesel in January 2009 was at $2.27 a gallon. Now diesel is over $3 a gallon and gasoline is at $2.75 and frkn nothing from the press and nothing from the Left.

Jack said...

As I’ve written on my blog, I think this “compromise” is a crock. We’re essentially being screwed twice. Reduce revenues and increase expenditures. Great. I’ve already discussed tax policy at length with HD, so I won’t belabor the point.

But where are the deficit-hawks on this issue? This will add nearly $400 billion to the deficit through 2012.

The American people will always want tax cuts. “Do you want more money in your pocket”, “yes!” Your child may want ice cream for dinner every night, but that doesn’t mean he should get it.

Jack said...

As I’ve written on my blog, I think this “compromise” is a crock. We’re essentially being screwed twice. Reduce revenues and increase expenditures. Great. I’ve already discussed tax policy at length with HD, so I won’t belabor the point.

But where are the deficit-hawks on this issue? This will add nearly $400 billion to the deficit through 2012.

The American people will always want tax cuts. “Do you want more money in your pocket”, “yes!” Your child may want ice cream for dinner every night, but that doesn’t mean he should get it.

Liberal POV said...

Oatz

"Ok Liberal POV let me explain FAIR!"

Show me the math"

Show me how this woman working at Hardee's supports her family on $16,000.00 per year and pays 40% sales tax. Show me the budget you expect her to pay rent, food, clothing, insurance, and transportation.

Show me how much total tax the woman at Hardees pays in tax and how much the CEO pays.

What do you expect to fair tax to be?

Do the math!

Will the CEO still pay more total dollars in taxes?

Will you demand a living wages so the government won't have to subsidizes low wage industry employees?

Sarkazein said...

"But where are the deficit-hawks on this issue? This will add nearly $400 billion to the deficit through 2012."- jack

Hang on, they will be there in January 2011. Most forget... its still the old Congress.

jack also wrote-"The American people will always want tax cuts. “Do you want more money in your pocket”, “yes!” Your child may want ice cream for dinner every night, but that doesn’t mean he should get it."

Typical liberal, We the People are children, and NOT taking tax money is GIVING people money... there own money.

Liberal POV said...

Sark

"Hang on, they will be there in January 2011."

The Prince of Pork Republican Hal Rogers will be chair the House Appropriations Committee.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/house-gop-appoints-prince-pork-hal-rogers-chair/story?id=12343673

These are the same greedy bastards to wrecked the econony to start with.

Sarkazein said...

Well at least you now admit/realize spending is the problem.

Liberal POV said...

New Guy

Show us the math!

'Unfortunately, our tax system has now deteriorated to the point that almost 2/5ths of our income tax filers, pay NO income tax. 60% of taxpayers are paying everyone's way. '

If you were better at math you would see most that 60% is working for less than a living wage so those in the top 1% can live as royalty and thoses in the top .05% live as kings.

Your taxes go to the employees of low wage paying capitalist who's employees have to look for food stamps to feed their families. The cheap capitalist are the real welfare kings not their employees.

NewGuy said...

Jack...
Under your theory, every dollar that the government "allows" an earner to keep is another dollar you add to the deficit.

You also frequently make the fundamental error of assuming that taxes can be raised and the new percentage applied to the old revenues. You have to take into account the slowing of the economy when dollars are confiscated by the government.

More importantly, you have to take into account the fact that tax strategies change to adjust to the new tax policies. For example, at current rates I may invest in corporate bonds. Change the taxes I am required to pay on the dividends, and I may shift to Tax Free Municipals. In this case, you not only didn't get the increase in collections you projected, you actually lost the tax money I formerly paid you at the lower rate.

Similarly, estate planning is always adjusted to minimize taxes as tax laws change. You can't assume that I am going to leave all the money on the table so that you can take half of it when I die.

An attorney who specializes in estate planning told me years ago that inheritance taxes were largely voluntary since there were so many ways of avoiding them.

Liberal POV said...

New Guy

"An attorney who specializes in estate planning told me years ago that inheritance taxes were largely voluntary since there were so many ways of avoiding them."

This is know as the "Republican Golden Rule"

Thoses with gold get to make the rules.

Honest Debate said...

If in fact there was a tax cut (there isn't) and if the economy was robust and if unemployment was at 5% or under then it would be within the realm of possibility to say a tax cut would mean a decrease in revenue. Even then it's the height of arrogance to say tax cuts have a "cost".

The only cost is for what Obama wants to spend. He's making the ludicrous assumption that he can simply raise taxes and get a dollar for dollar return. Unbelievable. It's a good thing he folded like a chair but it's not good that he's still spending. The extended benefits will cost $150 billion and it's not paid for. Actually nothing is paid for. Every cent we spend is borrowed or printed.

Honest Debate said...

New Guy, you wrote: "Unfortunately, our tax system has now deteriorated to the point that almost 2/5ths of our income tax filers, pay NO income tax. 60% of taxpayers are paying everyone's way."

If 40% pay no taxes then how can Obama be correct in claiming 95% of Americans got a tax cut?

(It's a rhetorical question)

Nobody said...

New Guy,
Excellent post -- liberals are unable or unwilling to concede that subsidies and taxation policies DO affect behaviors. You said it clearly in your post. Next step for libs will be to require that no one be ALLOWED to change their behaviors in reaction to a hike in their tax rates.

Lib, you said: "How the employee working at Hardees found herself in a low income job has nothing to do with the tax code you think would be fair."

But if you would understand my point above, then you would understand that when you subsidize irresponsible behavior (through payments in the tax code and various benefits), then you get more of it! There will be more people willing to blow off school, taking jobs at Hardees and taking tax paid benefits and liberal cheerleaders such as yourself will then demand even more help. I think your eventual goal is for only 10% of the country to work and earn (in your mind, the "suckers") while the rest take the earnings for themselves. How sad your life must be for you to be so consumed with the idea that someone else somewhere has more than you -- to have envy and jealousy be the feelings that consume you most.

Honest Debate said...

"How sad your life must be for you to be so consumed with the idea that someone else somewhere has more than you -- to have envy and jealousy be the feelings that consume you most." -Nobody

And as Sark commented on another thread, no shame.

Johnny Rico said...

Many consumers don't consider the tax cuts proposed by Hussein Obama to be tax cuts at all. The "cuts" are what it should be anyway. They would have you believe they are cutting your taxes when they should never have been at this level anyway. Cuts my ass.

Not a mention of cutting the billions we give to foreign aid. When is the last time anyone heard the term "foreign aid" used by a politician or news media? They would rather feed you "tax cuts" to steer you away from the real capital draining issues.

Johnny Rico

Johnny Rico said...

Liberal Socialist Sheep POV said:

"Please explain that Republican and Tea Party Mob's concern on the ballooning debt our grandchildren will be burden with?"

Only a delusional libertard could come up with this one. Our concern with the ballooning debt the your Messiah, Hussein Obama heaped upon us is that our grandchildren will bear this debt long after idiots like you are gone. Liberal entitlement policies and already high taxes are the reason for the giant debt. Conservatives are trying to bring things back to sanity after your hope and change Messiah passed a health care bill instead of concentrating on the economy and taxes. What idiots you idiots are!!! LOL!!

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico

PS This ought to be interesting

Wolf's Head said...

"What Do Americans Think About Tax Cuts"

Wrong question. It should be "What do Americans think about tax increases?" As that is really what it is about. The tax rates will be INCREASED by doing nothing, not be cut.

The left moans about the rich not being taxed enough, but it is their property. If it was made legally they are entitled to it, and the left is NOT entitled to take it away for what ever purpose except by due process just like any other citizen.

And why should anyone not be treated equally under the law? The tax rate should be the same for everyone otherwise it is Progressive and not American.

Liberal POV said...

Nobody

"Lib, you said: "How the employee working at Hardees found herself in a low income job has nothing to do with the tax code you think would be fair."


I'm asking conservative to post the tax rate or system THEY THINK would be FAIR for this working mother and do the math for a budget she could support herself and her children without government funded assistance.

You do the math to support YOUR ideology.

Can or will any of you manage to do that math or will you continue to use the low income workers as scapegoats to support the rich billionaires benefiting from this system of low wages supported with government assistance to low wage industries.

Liberal POV said...

Nobody

" I think your eventual goal is for only 10% of the country to work and earn (in your mind, the "suckers") while the rest take the earnings for themselves. "

You confuse the number of Americans who don't make enough income to pay Federal income tax with the actual number working for wages too low to pay income taxes.

Low wage industries like Walmart, Hardees, Mc Donalds are the ones who really get the benefit of Food Stamp programs and Tax credits for the poor as it keeps this growing majority of Americans from freezing, starving or becoming mobalized for a real political movement of unionization.
Do the math how do you live on $16,000.00 per year?

Show us a budget.

Liberal POV said...

Nobody and HD

""How sad your life must be for you to be so consumed with the idea that someone else somewhere has more than you -- to have envy and jealousy be the feelings that consume you most." -Nobody"

How sad your life must be to be so callous?

How simple minded the greedy conservatives are often supporting political positions counter to their own families interest out of greed or scapegoating.

You oppose unions because you don't want wage earning Americans to have a piece of the American dream not connecting this may also prevent you from buying a home, saving for retirement, having vacation time off, having affordable health care or sending your children to a university.

I don't know who I'm debating. Do you own a business making above $250,000 or do you manage the local Hardees making $40,000?

The manager of Hardees will alway be denied a piece of the America dream as will all the employees he or she manages.

If you're above the $60,000 income level you have a living wage for a modest home unless you get a divorce, have a child or spouse with a serous illness or become ill yourself.

What makes you think liberals must be on the receiving end of government assistance?

Sarkazein said...

What I don't like about tax cuts is, Congress has too much control on society. They always screw it up, so quit making it so difficult and complex... it ain't working. This is what eventually gives them the attitude that it is not your money.

Honest Debate said...

Good point Sark. Did you get a chance to look at the "Fair Tax"?

Liberal POV said...

HD

Show us how the fair tax would work with real numbers and real math.

Show us the Hardees employee @ $16,000 and the Hardees parent company CEO at $1 million.

How does the $16,000 employee support herself on those wages and those taxes?

Show the Hardees manager @ $40,000 and how that person manages to support a family without food stamps or tax credits?

Do any conservatives know how to do simple math?

NewGuy said...

Sark...absolutely correct.

Our tax code has gone well beyond it's original purpose of revenue generation.

It has become a means to control various aspects of everyones life....tax 'breaks' for what congress wants to encourage; high taxes for what is to be discouraged.

Control the states by federal taxes on their citizens and then dole some back as 'grants' etc as long as the states follow the agenda of the federal government. Fed's want a 55mph speed limit? tax the states for highway construction and maintenance, then withold funds for those purposes when the states don't comply with federal 'guidelines'.

No more local control of schools...

Higher tax for citizens who have worked hard and achieved a certain level of success - redistribute their wealth to the 40% of "taxpayers" who make less. Reward them for producing more children which they can't afford and for not taking available jobs. Develop an 'underclass' beholden to the government!

Want more of something? Reward it. Want less of something? Tax it!

Honest Debate said...

Lib,

Read Neal Boortz' book. You'll be amazed at how much better off your fictional character would be.

Liberal POV said...

New Guy

Show me the math to prove your not just misinformed by billionaire propaganda.

You will see your math doesn't work.


Show us the Hardees employee @ $16,000 and the Hardees parent company CEO at $1 million.

How does the $16,000 employee support herself on those wages and taxes you want?

Show the Hardees manager @ $40,000 and how that person manages to support a family without food stamps or tax credits?

Do any conservatives know how to do simple math?

Johnny Rico said...

Liberal Socialist Sheep Said:

"I'm asking conservative to post the tax rate or system THEY THINK would be FAIR for this working mother"

And I've asked for 3 years now for YOU to post what YOU THINK about this single mom who can no longer get a job in fast food because illegal aliens have taken over that sector also. Remember, the poor so supposedly support will ultimately fail under the many protections you give to illegal aliens.

A better question is: What do YOU think should be the living wage for American Carpenters in Watauga County who have had their jobs taken by illegal aliens who work for half? LOL

Hard questions, hard questions

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico

Jenny

Johnny Rico said...

Oh, and Liberal Socialist Sheep Fluffer POV,

Get off your lazy, entitlement arse and do the research yourself. I doubt you have the ability to do it, but go ahead and try and then get back with us. LOL!!

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico

Liberal POV said...

HD

"Read Neal Boortz' book"

I've read enough to get the drift he's into the scapegoat business, spewing hate add blame to those on the recieving end of irresponsible capitalism. He supporting capitalist who can't see the sick society of excessive drug use both by the haves and have nots, the greed society of both the havess and have nots, the materialism of both the haves and have nots.

Neal Boortz has no answers to the srinking middle class but is making his forture selling hate and greed.

Now do a little of your own thinking and show me the math of a conservative tax plan and a budget this woman making $16,000 per year can support her family without government assistance?

Living wages is the only answer. Publicly traded corporatons should be required to pay a living wage before dividends or a CEO's pay is above 5 times the lowest paid employee is allowed.

It's time to stop supporting low wage publicly traded corporation's profits with taxpayer dollar supplementing low income employee wages.

Honest Debate said...

"I've read enough to get the drift..." LiberalPOV

Liar. (I'm not above it)

Johnny Rico said...

I see POVtard is unable to even touch one of my posts. Like Watauga Watch, he is intimidated by the truth. LOL!!!

Johnny Rico

Billy

Liberal POV said...

HD


"What do YOU think should be the living wage for American Carpenters in Watauga County who have had their jobs taken by illegal aliens who work for half? LOL"

I see Johnny needs no additional help from Neal Boortz when it comes to scapegoating who's to blame for the shrinking job, wages and middle class.

He's found enough scapegoats.

JR said...

One other thing, and I know this is off topic, but it needs posting.

Hussein Obama signed Public Law 111-272 into law on October 12 unbeknownst to anyone. This law gives retired cops the ability to carry guns if they qualify once a year. The Fraternal Order of Police nad National Association of Police Organizations supported the bill. Both these organizations, Hussein Obama, and liberals don't want law abiding citizens carrying weapons, yet they bend over backwards to allow retired cops to do so. In fact, this law defines a retired cops as serving 10 or more years on duty! Also, it allows retired cops to carry in school zones - something CCW holders cannot. The hypocrisy is amazing.

JR

NewGuy said...

Nobody said:

"Next step for libs will be to require that no one be ALLOWED to change their behaviors in reaction to a hike in their tax rates"..

Next step? Don't kid yourself. They are already at work! Look for the Dem amendment to make the death tax RETROACTIVE.

Think about this. You work, you invest, you plan, you save and maybe are running a family farm and,just maybe, (in spite of your farming), you have accumalated a nest egg which, if you die, you think will be passed on to your heirs. You even hire tax advice and have someone research the tax laws to make sure your investments and tax strategy are best positioning your estate to benefit those heirs.

Now, in spite of the fact that you did everything legally. You acted in accordance with Federal Tax Law...but, nontheless their are those in congress who want to go back in history and RETROACTIVELY change the rules so as to capture more of your savings for the federal government!

It's sorta like changing the speed limits to 35 mph and then fining you for driving too fast all last year!

Is this really what we want our country to become?

Liberal POV said...

Nobody

No one Conservative or Liberal who wants to take a True Family Farm out of production.

The truth is corporate farms are the ones destroying family farming.

Tyson Foods keeps Wilkes County farmers in debt and under pressure to work longer hours for less money each year.

The same is true all over the country with different commodities and different corporate gaints.

Blogger said...

Rush was good today. He said we are not talking about tax cuts. We are just talking about keeping our present tax system. Still Dems say keeping our present system will cost us nine hundred billion dollars. Hey, they didn’t say that the present tax system cost us that last year, nor the year before, nor the year before that etc. Only in Washington!

oatz said...

Protesters angry at a huge tuition fee hike are fighting with police and smashing windows in London.
AP’s earlier story is below.

British lawmakers on Thursday approved a controversial plan to triple university tuition fees by a narrow margin after some government legislators rebelled amid violent protests outside Parliament.

The plan to raise the cap on tuition fees to 9,000 pounds ($14,000) was approved, 323-302 in the House of Commons, a close vote given the government’s 84-seat majority.

The tuition vote posed a crucial test for governing Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, and for the government’s austerity plans to reduce Britain’s budget deficit.

Liberal POV said...

Blogger show me your math?

How do we reduce the deficit and not starve Americans or freeze some to death?

Why shouldn't the wealthest Americans support the capitalist system they have done so well under?

Liberal POV said...

Blogger

How do we remain competitive if we stop maintaining infrastructure and let education go underfunded?

Conservative politic is a disaster waiting to happen.

None of you can do basic math.

Johnny Rico said...

Socialist Sheep POV said:

"Why shouldn't the wealthest Americans support the capitalist system they have done so well under?"

Because we reward success, not failure. You are a failure, obviously, so we don't reward you for being a pedophile or community college dropout. The wealthy Americans reward the capitalist system by giving people jobs (not lazy people such as yourself who wait on handouts). We should reward the rich with even greater tax cuts as they create jobs, not the govt. Hussein Obama is finding this out the hard way. LOL!!

Your ole pal

Gragg

Johnny Rico

Stings don't it

Liberal POV said...

Johnny

" We should reward the rich with even greater tax cuts as they create jobs, not the govt. Hussein Obama is finding this out the hard way. LOL!!"

What do you think these people below did to recieve this amount of income during a deep recssion?
How many jobs do you think they created?


Remember theses are individual incomes not family income. In those last 12 columns you will find the people inflicting pain on the American society not undocumented workers, food stamp recipients or the unemployed.

http://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/netcomp.cgi?year=2009

We don't need a richer top 1% we need all working Americans making a wage they can support their own families on without the government subsiding the corporate elite with food stamps for the under paid working Americans.
"The top 25 percent: Americans who earned at least $66,532 paid 86.6 percent of the nation's income taxes, up from 86.3 percent a year earlier."
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/who-pays-most-income-tax.htm

Jack said...

“The extended benefits will cost $150 billion and it's not paid for. Actually nothing is paid for. Every cent we spend is borrowed or printed.” --HD

Then why are the tax cuts being extended? Fun charts.

If taxation is “stealing” your money. What should the income tax be set at? Should there be an income tax? And before going off on the “stealing” talking point, income taxes were pretty harsh until 1982 (even still, those >$41,500 paid 50%.....and the top rate was 91% from 1946 until 1963, then 70% until 1982). Damn Socialists.

Johnny Rico said...

Liberal Lemming Fluffer Socialist POV said:

"wage they can support their own families on without the government subsiding the corporate elite"

You keep mouthing the term living wage like a broken record, yet you won't address the fact that illegal aliens have cut the living wage for Americans in an increasing amount of sectors. Why is this? Is it because your stupid or just ignorant? The wage for carpenters in Ashboro went from 30 per hour to under 15 due to unskilled criminals (illegal aliens) taking jobs. How could you possibly stand for this and still yap about a "living wage"?

Your ole pal

Hanna

Johnny Rico

Stings don't it

Honest Debate said...

Blogger,

Yes, Rush was good today. His incredulity over the idea that avoiding tax hikes cost money echoed my sentiments exactly. It's just soooo ridiculous. Rush often agrees with me, that's why I listen.

Later in the afternoon I was listening to NPR (I think it was "Marketplace") and the segment began with "If there is one thing for sure about the tax cut deal, it's that it will cost $700 billion". It's such a lie! I can't believe I'm paying for such bilge.

Honest Debate said...

"If taxation is “stealing” your money. What should the income tax be set at?" -Jack

Right now in this economic climate, it should be left alone or cut.

Wolf's Head said...

"What do you think these people below did to recieve this amount of income during a deep recssion?
How many jobs do you think they created?" Cracker lpov

Do you know they did anything illegal? If they earned it legally it is their property. They can dispose of it as they wish. I know it's hard for you underachievers to understand, but not everyone is going broke in a recession or depression. Some people bust ass and work harder or SMARTER, unlike you lefties.

It is not ANYONE'S personal responsibility to "create jobs". It is a stupid concept. What needs to be produced is wealth, the production of which may require employees, and the use of wealth by it's owners creates demands for goods and services, which anyone with sense would try to fulfill to create their own wealth.

Jack said...

HD, you must be a politician. Great ambiguous answer. How about a real number? 0%, 10%, 25%, 50%? Something in-between?

Let's look at the upper limit for an example. Taxing at ~39% is stealing, taxing at ~35% isn't?

Honest Debate said...

As a follow up, keep in mind that after the Bush tax cuts we added (not "added or saved") jobs for 53 straight months. Add to that more revenue came into the coffers and the rich ended up paying more of the burden not less as the MSM would have us believe. That is not to say further cuts would create even more jobs but certainly raising taxes at this point is absolutely crazy. Even Obama knows this so he caved.

Jack said...

Blogger, Rush was right. We're talking about extension of the current income tax structure, not new tax cuts. He's also right that it hasn't really been mentioned that these cuts from the early 2000s negatively affect the deficit.

But they have affected the deficit. And the will continue to, with greater effect due to the down economy and decreased revenues. We've run an annual deficit every year since the institution of this tax structure.

So Rush was right, but he didn't fully explain why.

Honest Debate said...

"Let's look at the upper limit for an example. Taxing at ~39% is stealing, taxing at ~35% isn't?" -Jack

I don't recall using the word "stealing". Did I?

Don't raise taxes now. I am not smart enough to say more than that.

Jack said...

HD, others have used the word "stealing". I'm just trying to find the line where the "stealing" suddenly occurs. That question was not directed solely at you.

Honest Debate said...

Jack,

Point taken but does it matter right now? I don't think it does. IMHO the most important issue is growing the economy. A tax increase would choke it.

Jack said...

HD, I think it matters. For policy purposes, it would create a clearer line, one where the more-conservative camp deems taxes as “stealing”.

I know we’ve debated tax policy at length. I know what I’ve said. I know what you’ve said. Others can go back and read if they’re interested.

But I will say that I believe tax increases and spending cuts are required to quell both budget deficits and the national debt. I would like to see tax cuts for the lower brackets (let’s say <$50,000, to pick a somewhat arbitrary number) and businesses. It’s been shown that the upper tax brackets only save and/or invest extra money. The lower brackets spend, stimulating consumer activity and business expansion (in combination with corporate tax cuts). Contrary to conservative talking points, upper bracket tax cuts for individuals do not create jobs. Businesses create jobs. For example, give the CEO of Bank of America an individual income tax cut and it will not result in BOA hiring extra staff, it will result in the CEO saving extra money or placing the extra in his 401(k). Give BOA a tax cut, and BOA will expand operations and hire extra staff. Business cuts are the key. Upper bracket income tax cuts will only result in more money be locked away in investment vehicles, and not circulating in the economy.

Sarkazein said...

Conyer's (D) 21 year old son was arrested recently driving a Cadillac Escalade with US Government tags. That is as close to stealing as you can get. If you pay your taxes or invest with your investment firm in good faith, and they use your money outside that good faith, they are stealing your money. Since there is so much corruption, waste, and conspicuous consumption, it is stealing.

Sarkazein said...

Madoff did not invest his clients money in good faith... he stole it. The US Government is not handling our money in good faith... it is stealing.

Sarkazein said...

stealing
noun
he was convicted of stealing theft, thieving, thievery, robbery, larceny, burglary, shoplifting, pilfering, pilferage, looting, misappropriation; embezzlement; formal peculation.
peculate |ˈpekyəˌlāt|
verb [ trans. ] formal
embezzle or steal (money, esp. public funds) : the people accused them of having peculated the public money.

Honest Debate said...

Jack,

It matters but not now in this climate, in this debate. I just don't agree that encouraging more spending by anyone, whether it be an individual or government, is a good idea. It's time for everyone to get there fiscal house in order. Individuals spending more than they can afford caused the banking crisis. Credit card debt is rampant. Living beyond ones means is not the answer. Saving and investment are not bad things.

Honest Debate said...

Sark, well put.

Jack, it's stealing.

Jack said...

HD, I agree that spending more than you can afford is a bad thing. It's something I've avoided for many many years. But spend what you can afford.

Limited consumer spending has led to this somewhat stagnant economy (following the banking/mortgage awfulness). Businesses are not expanding or investing in their operations due to this stagnant consumer activity. This is why Obama asked Europe to increase buying from America.

Saving and investing is a good thing. But so is spending, if you can afford it. And it's what will stimulate business activity.

Jack said...

HD, Sark. So you would be alright with a 90% income tax, as long as the money is used in "good faith"? That would avoid your definition of "stealing". Sounds a bit Socialist.

Jack said...

Closer to home. How's this for a strategy?

Honest Debate said...

"But so is spending, if you can afford it."

We can't, that's the point.

"So you would be alright with a 90% income tax, as long as the money is used in "good faith"?"

That may be a wee bit of a leap Jack.

Jack said...

So where is the line between stealing, good faith, and 90%?

Sarkazein said...

"HD, Sark. So you would be alright with a 90% income tax, as long as the money is used in "good faith"?"-jack

Yeah, that's what I said. Trust the thieves with more of my money.

Sarkazein said...

What does an employer (We the People) do when he finds out one/many of his employees (Representatives and bureaucrats) are stealing?

Sarkazein said...

Answer: Stops paying them.

NewGuy said...

Jack....you always seem to make some pretty good arguments, except that you frequently begin with a false assumption.

Perhaps the CEO in your example DOES "save" the money. He isn't sticking it under the mattress! He is putting it in stocks, bonds, cd's, bank accounts, etc where it is put into the economy in the form of loans and investments! The money he puts into municipal or other bonds is used to fund activity. Mutual bonds usually for a building fund, road construction or other capital project which creates JOBS!

Similary, money in other investments is put to use by businesses and individuals either to fund expansion, capital projects, or - in the case of individual borrowing - to purchase durable goods and housing. ALL of which provides jobs for people.

The economy is only as strong as the value of the goods and services provided. Government, while necessary, is OVERHEAD. It does not add to the wealth of the country - it absorbs some of the wealth. If it were a simple matter of the government printing money, and employing people in government jobs or otherwise injecting that money into the economy, it would not be necessary for ANYONE to work in the private sector nor for our economy to produce goods or services.

I, like HD - cannot give you an exact percentage of where our tax rates should be. I do believe however, that they are reasonably equitable where they are. If they have to be raised (they don't), then raise them for everybody. A lot of the problems in this country are the result of the huge number of people who have no skin in the game and like to vote for raids on the public treasury.

Sarkazein said...

"A lot of the problems in this country are the result of the huge number of people who have no skin in the game and like to vote for raids on the public treasury."-NewGuy

That number IS huge now and growing. When it is organized at over 51%, it is over.

Jack said...

New Guy, you’re right, a CEO will place extra money in banks, bonds, etc. These banks, in turn, use the cash to loan to others.

The problem is that no one is borrowing. The Fed dropped rates in an attempt to stimulate borrowing. It didn’t work. So the banks (at least the solvent ones) have plenty of money, they just don’t have anyone to give it to. The same is true of bonds. Local municipalities are cutting back. They are (generally speaking) holding off on starting any capital improvements. Even if a bond measure reaches the voter ballot, it is (again, generally speaking) shot down due to the appearance of wasteful spending.

Jack said...

What Americans Think

NewGuy said...

Good points Jack. And valid ones! But the fact is their is some borrowing by consumers and auto sales are showing some signs of life. Prices of homes are not significantly recovering, but sales are beginning to tick upward.

If executive pay is too high (and it may well be)...then change the laws and let the shareholders vote on compensation packages instead of leaving it up to corporate boards.

I don't want the government to determine how much an individual should be 'allowed' to earn...or to keep...based on THEIR concept of what is 'fair'. Let the market decide!

BTW...I don't think Jeter is worth 17 million a year either, but I don't blame him for getting it and I don't think that I am entitled to a piece of it!

Honest Debate said...

"The problem is that no one is borrowing." -Jack

Put another way: There isn't enough debt.

Honest Debate said...

"BTW...I don't think Jeter is worth 17 million a year either..." -New Guy

I once asked my horse loving sweetie, "How much is a horse worth"? She replied,"As much as you can get".

Sarkazein said...

By: Examiner Staff Writer 12/01/10 8:05 PM
Examiner Staff Writer
WHO: The National Science Foundation
WHAT: Gave a $141,002 federal stimulus grant to Montana State University to fund a six-week, student trip to Hangzhou, China, to study dinosaur eggs and other fossils.

WHY IT'S AN OUTRAGE: The students found ample time to experience Chinese culture and explore on taxpayers' money, but the dinosaur eggs did not hatch any new jobs.

WHERE TO VENT: Call the NSF inspector general at 800-428-2189.

Misappropriation of funds= stealing