If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   So how much do we really pay in taxes? Even the left's heavyweight can't spin this one   (npr.org) divider line 712
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

35753 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Sep 2010 at 12:44 AM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



712 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-09-09 03:06:10 AM
impaler: texastag: It was created to describe idiotic people like you who believe that if we would just give the federal government more of our money and control of our lives they will take care of all our needs perfectly and efficiently from cradle to grave.

Who believes that?

No one.

What you just did is called a "straw man" and it's why informed people call the intellectual vomit that comes out of your mouth "derp."


It seems like there are quite a few in this thread who think we are spoiled and should be paying European levels of taxation for better services.

Or, do you have them all on ignore?
 
2010-09-09 03:06:31 AM
Paschalyam: Truly - you Americans are starting to look like the whiniest little sh*ts ever to have lived.

Fark off.


Actually, it's less than half of us. The rest of us just tune them out.
 
2010-09-09 03:07:07 AM
texastag: Another well reasoned and factual argument from the left.

Nothing in your post was worth debating. It was a collection of easily dismissible rather disingenuous talking points.

"Derp" rather captured the spirit rather than wasting my time telling you anything else.
 
2010-09-09 03:07:14 AM
NemoD: You don't have to go to Europe. Tax rates are 50%+ in Canada. Those commie hippies are right next door!

And somehow their economy is doing alight. Hbarrygoldwater: During a recent speech at the Brookings Institution, Clinton said, "The rich are not paying their fair share in any nation that is facing the kind of employment issues, whether it's individual, corporate, whatever the taxation forms are."

The Clinton Family Foundation certainly is a family endeavor. Bill serves as president, Chelsea serves as director and Hillary serves as secretary and treasurer. While they are not compensated for these positions, since 2001 the foundation has enabled them to write-off more than $5 million in income, according to a 2007 Washington Post article.

It's a wonderful thing for both the donors and the recipients. Just ask Robert "Red" Bone of Arkansas. A charity he's involved with received a donation from the Clinton Family Foundation. If his name sounds familiar, it's because he's the broker that helped turn Hillary's $1,000 into $100,000 in just 10 months in what's known as Cattlegate.

Former first daughter Chelsea Clinton has taken a job with Avenue Capital Group, a $12 billion hedge fund based in New York City, according to the New York Daily News.

Clinton, who graduated from Stanford University in 2001 and studied philosophy at Oxford University, could not be reached by Reuters for comment. A spokeswoman for Avenue said the company "does not comment on issues of company personnel."


This really illustrates the fuking stupidity I was talking about earlier - how right-wing sheep are told "liberals" want to tax rich people to get the money for themselves. Along those lines are also claims how "liberals" just hate rich people - because they're envious. That's why Warren Buffet says his cleaning lady has a higher tax rate then he does - he hates rich people.

So these moron sheep think posting facts that the people THEY ARE TOLD to believe "liberals" worship are rich, is something that will bother the "liberals." When all it really does is broadcast how stupid and gullible the poster is.
 
2010-09-09 03:09:31 AM
texastag: Just imagine how high their taxes would be if they couldn't rely on us for their defense and had to fully fund their own military?

Yikes!


Imagine how much lower our taxes could be if we didn't spend more than every other nation on earth for defense COMBINED.
 
2010-09-09 03:10:44 AM
impaler: This really illustrates the fuking stupidity I was talking about earlier - how right-wing sheep are told "liberals" want to tax rich people to get the money for themselves. Along those lines are also claims how "liberals" just hate rich people - because they're envious.

Teabaggers believe that, I'm having a bit of trouble accepting that Farker goldwater is a real life example, though.

Hillary's such an easy target. The 1990s would like its fake outrage back.
 
2010-09-09 03:11:13 AM
Ah, I see why I thought it was weird. Reading between the lines, this is basically an editorial by the Tax Foundation presented as a news article by NPR.

Goddamned liberal media shadow hosting corporate policy think-tanks!
 
2010-09-09 03:12:43 AM
Prospero424: Goddamned liberal media shadow hosting corporate policy think-tanks!

Well, after all, underwriting for Wait! Wait! Don't Tell me is by Archer Daniels Midland...

They're no stranger to The Dark Side.
 
2010-09-09 03:13:50 AM
texastag: Someone has to pay for their substandard "free" healthcare systems that even with the higher tax rates are hemorrhaging money and dragging down their economies.

And with the exception of Luxembourg and a couple other countries, they spend less tax (public) money on health care as a percentage of GDP than the U.S., and the ALL spend less public and private combined.

But yeah, if we implemented their system, and paid the same lower rate, it would be more expensive, even thought that is mathematically impossible.

Let me guess, your primary education used "liberal" new math?
 
2010-09-09 03:14:30 AM
Max Bell: texastag:
It was created to describe idiotic people like you who believe that if we would just give the federal government more of our money and control of our lives they will take care of all our needs perfectly and efficiently from cradle to grave.


Yes, Texas. 2,620,000,000 -- and that's just TANF/SSI, 2007.

Might bootstrappy of y'all.


Ooo, no, sorry. A swing and a miss!

Link

A prime example of what I'm talking about. Why send all that money to Washington to skim off then send what's left back to the states?
 
2010-09-09 03:14:38 AM
whidbey:
Well, after all, underwriting for Wait! Wait! Don't Tell me is by Archer Daniels Midland...

They're no stranger to The Dark Side.


Maybe I should pay attention to something more than ATC and Prairie Home Companion.

Checked the FAQ. There is no entry for 'derp'.
 
2010-09-09 03:14:49 AM
Chase bank was the sponsor for that...hah hah.
 
2010-09-09 03:15:31 AM
Max Bell: For anyone that's actually curious what taxes are like in Canada.

Which is about the same. Not to mention the fact that your economy is a lot better off than ours is.


Nah, they're around 10% higher or so, you have to factor in provincial taxes as well as the fed. Which puts them into that ballpark in the article that Texian linked to, above.
 
2010-09-09 03:16:43 AM
shadylookin: SpaceyCat:
So everyone screaming about how taxes are "too high" - where would you cut taxes from? And how would you pay for the services that are rendered?

That's an easy one. Cut the taxes on crap I buy and stop giving services to poor people I don't like anyway.


pretty much this!
 
2010-09-09 03:16:58 AM
whidbey: impaler: This really illustrates the fuking stupidity I was talking about earlier - how right-wing sheep are told "liberals" want to tax rich people to get the money for themselves. Along those lines are also claims how "liberals" just hate rich people - because they're envious.

Teabaggers believe that, I'm having a bit of trouble accepting that Farker goldwater is a real life example, though.

Hillary's such an easy target. The 1990s would like its fake outrage back.


I think the point he was trying to make was Hillary was saying the rich don't pay their fair share of tax. Yet she and Bill take full advantage of charitable deductions to lower their tax liability. If she truly feels that way why does she take the deduction. The law doesn't require you to take the deduction if you make the charitable contribution.
 
2010-09-09 03:17:17 AM
impaler: texastag: Just imagine how high their taxes would be if they couldn't rely on us for their defense and had to fully fund their own military?

Yikes!

Imagine how much lower our taxes could be if we didn't spend more than every other nation on earth for defense COMBINED.


I'm not sure you've figured this out yet, but your tax dollars do a lot more than get blown up. You wanna cut the military? Go ahead. While you weren't looking, a whole lot of young, moderately educated young people started feeding their families off those wars. Meanwhile, the private sector has been shipping jobs off to other countries and doesn't really have an interest in filling the gap you're going to create with yout brilliant solution.

It's almost like it's... complicated.

Just sayin'.
 
2010-09-09 03:18:51 AM
Red Shirt Blues: I think the point he was trying to make was Hillary was saying the rich don't pay their fair share of tax. Yet she and Bill take full advantage of charitable deductions to lower their tax liability. If she truly feels that way why does she take the deduction. The law doesn't require you to take the deduction if you make the charitable contribution.

I think you answered your own question: she doesn't have to.

Thanks for enlightening me about such a ridiculously typical petty argument, though.
 
2010-09-09 03:19:05 AM
blastoh: shadylookin: SpaceyCat:
So everyone screaming about how taxes are "too high" - where would you cut taxes from? And how would you pay for the services that are rendered?

That's an easy one. Cut the taxes on crap I buy and stop giving services to poor people I don't like anyway.

pretty much this!


THIS X 1000!

Also, keep the services for the poor I do like, and up the taxes on shat I don't buy.

I honestly can't think of a better solution....
 
2010-09-09 03:20:38 AM
impaler: I honestly can't think of a better solution....

I can. Learn to enjoy your life in this beautiful country without worrying about your stinkin' taxes.
 
2010-09-09 03:21:29 AM
And people still make fun of me.
t1.gstatic.com
 
2010-09-09 03:23:20 AM
Paschalyam: I'm not sure you've figured this out yet, but your tax dollars do a lot more than get blown up. You wanna cut the military? Go ahead. While you weren't looking, a whole lot of young, moderately educated young people started feeding their families off those wars. Meanwhile, the private sector has been shipping jobs off to other countries and doesn't really have an interest in filling the gap you're going to create with yout brilliant solution.

It's almost like it's... complicated.

Just sayin'.


So what you're saying is that the government is good at creating jobs.

Duly noted.

Now imagine if that money was spent on U.S. infrastructure instead of far off foreign "threats." Keeping the value of the wealth creation inside this country.

Yeah, no shat it's complicated.

You're not clever BTW.
 
2010-09-09 03:23:58 AM
18% is a horror for fed, ss, state income and medicare? For a couple that is upper middle class.

You know that if weren't paying so much for the dod, their pork projects and those wars in the sand our federal taxes will be atleast a third less.
 
2010-09-09 03:25:08 AM
texastag:
A prime example of what I'm talking about. Why send all that money to Washington to skim off then send what's left back to the states?


Let me slow this down for you: Texas is collecting more in welfare than everyone else; you rank just below Alaska, California and NY (though not by much). That's not what you're paying in, it's what you're taking out.

And we're talking about aid for dependent children and disability income. Not just something that matters for moral reasons, but a function of what's cost effective. SSI is cheaper than warehousing people (or better still, keeping them in hospitals) and TANF ultimately keeps kids in school and, to a lesser extent, out of prison (which again, is even more expensive).

The reality doesn't match the narrative. If we really wanted to go the me-first route? The blue states would dump the red ones and be done with.

But we're all Americans, right?
 
2010-09-09 03:25:36 AM
impaler: Paschalyam: I'm not sure you've figured this out yet, but your tax dollars do a lot more than get blown up. You wanna cut the military? Go ahead. While you weren't looking, a whole lot of young, moderately educated young people started feeding their families off those wars. Meanwhile, the private sector has been shipping jobs off to other countries and doesn't really have an interest in filling the gap you're going to create with yout brilliant solution.

It's almost like it's... complicated.

Just sayin'.

So what you're saying is that the government is good at creating jobs.

Duly noted.

Now imagine if that money was spent on U.S. infrastructure instead of far off foreign "threats." Keeping the value of the wealth creation inside this country.

Yeah, no shat it's complicated.

You're not clever BTW.


Sure - give it 50-60 years and you're off!

And I agree with your last point, however.
 
2010-09-09 03:27:51 AM
thisispete: Hah. Even here in socialisty New Zealand I make $1994.38 a fortnight and pay only $430.70 in tax. And I get all those expensive services like public healthcare.

Exactly. and I also in new zealand make 3 times that and pay 4.5 times that in tax, and have precisely NO problem with that, we all get a better place to live out of it
 
2010-09-09 03:30:59 AM
Max Bell: The reality doesn't match the narrative. If we really wanted to go the me-first route? The blue states would dump the red ones and be done with.

I have a question about that, seen the pretty pictures before with the state by state comparisons - does it factor in the massive agricultural subsidies? Because that would go a long way towards explaining the typical disrepcancy between the "red"(typically agricultural) and "blue" states - and also point out that even if the "red" states are taking in more money, they kinda have the "blue" states over a barrel, 'cause they farkin' feed 'em.
 
2010-09-09 03:32:37 AM
gaspode: thisispete: Hah. Even here in socialisty New Zealand I make $1994.38 a fortnight and pay only $430.70 in tax. And I get all those expensive services like public healthcare.

Exactly. and I also in new zealand make 3 times that and pay 4.5 times that in tax, and have precisely NO problem with that, we all get a better place to live out of it


So what the rest of the English speaking world is saying then, is that Americans need to raise taxes rather than cry about cuts? Yes. I think we're in agreement.
 
2010-09-09 03:33:38 AM
starsrift: even if the "red" states are taking in more money, they kinda have the "blue" states over a barrel, 'cause they farkin' feed 'em.

Or the red states export their crops to other countries while we continue to import from Mexico, which is more likely.

If only food were focused as locally as you would like to imply.
 
2010-09-09 03:34:08 AM
starsrift:
I have a question about that, seen the pretty pictures before with the state by state comparisons - does it factor in the massive agricultural subsidies? Because that would go a long way towards explaining the typical disrepcancy between the "red"(typically agricultural) and "blue" states - and also point out that even if the "red" states are taking in more money, they kinda have the "blue" states over a barrel, 'cause they farkin' feed 'em.


No, I'm just going off census data for "welfare", income, tax levels etc. -- nothing in there about farm subsidies.

And if they wanna sell us food, great. If not? We can import it from just about anywhere; Canada and Mexico come immediately to mind. Not to mention the fact that we're the big port hubs anyway.
 
2010-09-09 03:36:41 AM
Max Bell: No, I'm just going off census data for "welfare", income, tax levels etc. -- nothing in there about farm subsidies.

Thanks :)
 
2010-09-09 03:41:52 AM
whidbey: texastag: Just imagine how high their taxes would be if they couldn't rely on us for their defense and had to fully fund their own military?

Yikes!

Unfounded speculation is fun, isn't it?


Almost as much fun as living in your fantasy world.

Unfounded? Really? You might want to read up on European history a little. You see, for the past few centuries or so the big countries of Europe liked to take over the little countries or have a bit of ethnic cleansing every so often.

Before we we had bases there things got way out of hand. Most notably there were two times in particular when things got very very bad. This drew us into terrible conflicts we would like to avoid again.

I think this provides a solid enough base for suspicion that if we were to remove our military presence things may just go very badly again and we would just have to go back anyway.

One of the other benefits of having us there is that the countries being provided with our military security can spend less on their own and use that money on other things.

This is (admittedly) a simplified explanation but I wanted to state it in terms that would fit the mental acuity of the audience.

/You're welcome for the free education.
 
2010-09-09 03:42:54 AM
RobertBruce: But we get so much for it!!!!

Best comment in the thread.
 
2010-09-09 03:45:08 AM
texastag:
/You're welcome for the free education.


So you're actually opposed to doing anything about spending, even when the military recommends it.
 
2010-09-09 03:45:30 AM
Pay your taxes and die.
 
2010-09-09 03:45:49 AM
texastag: /You're welcome for the free education.

Nothing you said proved to me that taxes would skyrocket in Europe if they had to pay for its own military.

But again, speculation can be fun. Just don't confuse it for reality and you'll do fi--

Whoops. Too late. :D
 
2010-09-09 03:46:52 AM
texastag: Unfounded speculation is fun, isn't it?

Almost as much fun as living in your fantasy world.


You have to be stupid as shat to respond to an accusation of "unfounded speculation" with "you're living in a fantasy world! Derp!"

FYI, "unfounded speculation" is elitist grown up words meaning "fantasy land."
 
2010-09-09 03:46:58 AM
Max Bell: texastag:
/You're welcome for the free education.

So you're actually opposed to doing anything about spending, even when the military recommends it.


You have to be way careful when you cut military spending. Pull too many military assets off of Guam and it might tip over.
 
2010-09-09 03:47:36 AM
whidbey:
Whoops. Too late. :D


But what about the ethnic cleansing?
 
2010-09-09 03:48:21 AM
Red Shirt Blues: Max Bell: texastag:
/You're welcome for the free education.

So you're actually opposed to doing anything about spending, even when the military recommends it.

You have to be way careful when you cut military spending. Pull too many military assets off of Guam and it might tip over.


Heh. And put too many on Hawaii or my own namesake Island and they'll sink.
 
2010-09-09 03:49:17 AM
Red Shirt Blues:
You have to be way careful when you cut military spending. Pull too many military assets off of Guam and it might tip over.


Once again, I don't believe anyone is speaking in such terms; so far, it's been a reference to the fact that the military represents the vast bulk of what we pay taxes for.
 
2010-09-09 03:49:35 AM
texastag: I think this provides a solid enough base for suspicion that if we were to remove our military presence things may just go very badly again and we would just have to go back anyway.

One of the other benefits of having us there is that the countries being provided with our military security can spend less on their own and use that money on other things.


Yes, those military bases are all about keeping the crazy Euros in line. That's why they aren't at war. It has nothing to do with the fact it cost them personally 10 times more than it cost us.

And we don't keep those bases for the benefit of our projection of U.S. power, we do it out of altruism.

Fuking idiot.
 
2010-09-09 03:49:56 AM
nekom: That's nuts. I guess I'm just kind of spoiled with my reasonable $37,500 home purchase. Hell my mortgage doesn't hit 10K annually even with the principal included, much less the interest.

WOW!! Where the eff do you live? I live in a 25-year-old single-wide (with tip-out! :) ) on an acre-plus out in the country an hour north of Seattle, and Zillow currently has it at $168,000. :)
 
2010-09-09 03:50:02 AM
Max Bell: whidbey:
Whoops. Too late. :D

But what about the ethnic cleansing?


Probably got swept under the rug with a bunch of other stuff. I'll go look...
 
2010-09-09 03:51:12 AM
texastag: whidbey: texastag: Just imagine how high their taxes would be if they couldn't rely on us for their defense and had to fully fund their own military?

Yikes!

Unfounded speculation is fun, isn't it?

Almost as much fun as living in your fantasy world.

Unfounded? Really? You might want to read up on European history a little. You see, for the past few centuries or so the big countries of Europe liked to take over the little countries or have a bit of ethnic cleansing every so often.

Before we we had bases there things got way out of hand. Most notably there were two times in particular when things got very very bad. This drew us into terrible conflicts we would like to avoid again.

I think this provides a solid enough base for suspicion that if we were to remove our military presence things may just go very badly again and we would just have to go back anyway.

One of the other benefits of having us there is that the countries being provided with our military security can spend less on their own and use that money on other things.

This is (admittedly) a simplified explanation but I wanted to state it in terms that would fit the mental acuity of the audience.

/You're welcome for the free education.


Well! You guys sure are dumb a*ses then, aren't ya?!

/Thanks so very much, though.
 
2010-09-09 03:52:40 AM
Max Bell: Once again, I don't believe anyone is speaking in such terms; so far, it's been a reference to the fact that the military represents the vast bulk of what we pay taxes for.

Defense-related expenditures are ca. 20-21% of all federal government expenditures. They're far, far less than 20-21% of expenditures at lower levels of government. Social Security alone is roughly ~20% of federal government expenditures; Medicare + Medicaid are another 20%. Most lower-level government expenditures are heavily biased towards education and social services.
 
2010-09-09 03:53:04 AM
whidbey:
Probably got swept under the rug with a bunch of other stuff. I'll go look...


Yeah, I mean, hell, it worked out so good for the Indians, you know?

Of course, we could be talking about Canada or Mexico. Not sure. Seems like if that was the case, we'd quit selling them guns, though.
 
2010-09-09 03:53:24 AM
texastag: This is (admittedly) a simplified explanation but I wanted to state it in terms that would fit the mental acuity of the audience.

OMG! A liberal elitist!!!


Fuking idiot.
 
2010-09-09 03:53:58 AM
Max Bell: Red Shirt Blues:
You have to be way careful when you cut military spending. Pull too many military assets off of Guam and it might tip over.

Once again, I don't believe anyone is speaking in such terms; so far, it's been a reference to the fact that the military represents the vast bulk of what we pay taxes for.


I'm guessing you missed the Hank Johnson/Guam capsizing thread.
 
2010-09-09 03:54:59 AM
You know who taxed the rich more than Obama has even suggested?

Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and every single President ever to sit in office during any one of us' lifetime, except George W. Bush.

In fact, Reagan became president during a terrible time in our economy, and gave it a very temporary boost by cutting regulations aimed at huge corporations so they would continue paying into ultra-conservative campaigns. Yet he taxed the rich at a rate that, if ever seriously suggested in Congress today, would get a huge chunk of the country getting their pitchforks and torches ready.

Incredibly, if you let corporations do whatever the fark they want, the people who own them will cut you some slack on how much they "pay" in taxes. And I say "pay" because they go out of their way to shortchange the country whose pro-corporate lawmakers went out of their way to make sure that they could continue to give you food that is barely inspected, water that is unfit to drink, and so much air pollution that you may as well smoke a pack a day, so they can make more money.

And don't give me the guilt-trip bullshiat of "What about all those people who work there?" OH RIGHT, I should back off these billionaire Benedict Arnolds because they hired some guy you know to do cheap labor with longer work days, less benefits, little to no vacation, no overtime, etc. Well, unless you're part of AN EVIL UNION!!!1

So really, anyone who is ranting in favor of making the rich richer is saying that when it came to how to handle the country's tax dollars, the best president ever was George W. Bush.

That pretty much invalidates everything they ever say about money from this point forward, so my work here is done.

/rant over
 
2010-09-09 03:57:57 AM
Korovyov: Max Bell: Once again, I don't believe anyone is speaking in such terms; so far, it's been a reference to the fact that the military represents the vast bulk of what we pay taxes for.

Defense-related expenditures are ca. 20-21% of all federal government expenditures. They're far, far less than 20-21% of expenditures at lower levels of government. Social Security alone is roughly ~20% of federal government expenditures; Medicare + Medicaid are another 20%. Most lower-level government expenditures are heavily biased towards education and social services.


More accurately:

upload.wikimedia.org

I guess it depends on what you consider "vast bulk"
 
Displayed 50 of 712 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report