FARK.com: (7172932) Republicans propose tax hikes. Don't worry, they're not for the rich

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.

		Republicans propose tax hikes. Don't worry, they're not for the rich (huffingtonpost.com)		180
		More: Asinine

• • •

4962 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Jun 2012 at 5:05 PM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/7172932

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

180 Comments (+0 »)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

madgonad		2012-06-20 05:49:12 PM

TrollingForColumbine: but that has always been true of s corps. that is the reason for s corps as far as I can tell. I think Kansas is not taxing it at any level. Sole proprietor be damned.

Pretty simple to add a minority stakeholder. I anticipate a lot of attorneys in Kansas will be doing S corps this year.... I'm sure my wife will get plenty of them.

The_Six_Fingered_Man		2012-06-20 05:50:17 PM

TrollingForColumbine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: thomps: TrollingForColumbine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: TrollingForColumbine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: madgonad: If you are a business owner or in a partnership you don't have to pay income taxes in Kansas. No, I'm serious. Only income from payroll counts as income in Kansas now.

I'm curious as to where you got this.

Something tells me that you might be mistaken about that. I found an article that states that Kansas is considering eliminating the income tax, but nothing that says that they unilaterally (without consent of the Federal government) redefined the word "income" to exclude profits from businesses.

I am assuming it is just for state taxes

That's fine, I'm sure it is as well. I still don't see where the State of Kansas has diverged from the Feds on the definition of "income." No other state, that I know of, has this sort of definition. If I'm not mistaken, all States and protectorates subject to income tax conform to the Federal definition.

For federal tax purposes yes. for state tax purposes I believe they can do what they want. IANAL or Accountant.

apparently s corps and partnerships are exempt from kansas' personal income tax.

Right, which conforms with Federal tax policy. Income from those entities are taxed at the shareholder or partner level, not the entity level.

but that has always been true of s corps. that is the reason for s corps as far as I can tell. I think Kansas is not taxing it at any level. Sole proprietor be damned.

I'm having issues finding coherent articles on the topic. Looking for the bill in question.

JesusJuice		2012-06-20 05:51:27 PM

Let me know when we're ready to throw these farkers up against a wall. I'll be cleaning my guns.

vernonFL		2012-06-20 05:52:40 PM

I get a refund from the IRS every year.

bdub77		2012-06-20 05:53:20 PM

Darth_Lukecash: Here's a better way to look at it.

There are 10 people in a village. They want to make a pie. One guy says" I have a recipe"- you guys collect the ingredients and we'll make the pie.

So 9 of them work hard all day and gather the apples, cinnamon, wheat, etc. They bring the recipe guy the ingredients-who then sits back and tells the other 9 how to cook it.

When the pie is done- it is cut into 10 pieces. To which the One Recipe guy claims 9 of the slices "There would be no pie without my recipe." Leaving one for the other 9. He uses one slice to bribe two others to protect his reaming 8. One is named The Government, the other is named The Law and they are the biggest guys in the village.

And there you have American Distribution of wealth.

So the guy taking 9 slices of the pie is after all a job creator. He's now hired the government and the law and the people making the pie had jobs making pie, and those people received pie at the end of the day. And he can now trade the pie for yachts and people to build his mansion and clean his house and gather more ingredients so there is more pie for everyone.

Wisdomsage		2012-06-20 05:54:04 PM

thomps: Bonkthat_Again: Darth_Lukecash: And there you have American Distribution of wealth

Yes, much better analogy.

So you're saying (assuming the guy who provided the recipe will under no circumstance share his pie), the only recourse is for the 7 others to overpower the 2 big guys?

or, now that they know the recipe and where all the ingredients are, they can go out and make a bunch of pies on their own for themselves to eat and to sell to others so they can become pie magnates and then come back to town ten years later for a reunion and then f*ck that recipe guy's wife.

i1102.photobucket.com

PIE?!

Huh?

/Got nothin' but Soarin and Pinkie.
//Probably still a better contribution to the thread than the moronic duo
/You know who they are.

skullkrusher		2012-06-20 05:54:08 PM

The top marginal rate is 35%. How is eliminating our current brackets and replacing them with 10 and 25% brackets going to reduce taxes on someone earning $1,000,000 by $440k before counting deduction eliminations?

This make-a no sense to me

skullkrusher		2012-06-20 05:55:00 PM

JesusJuice: Let me know when we're ready to throw these farkers up against a wall. I'll be cleaning my guns.

which farkers specifically? If you're going to make death threats at least have the courtesy to let the people know.

Jaws_Victim		2012-06-20 05:55:04 PM

So this is what it's like when a political party makes every attempt to alienate an entire generation of voters.

/namely the youngest, making under 100k generation.

The_Six_Fingered_Man		2012-06-20 05:56:19 PM

skullkrusher: The top marginal rate is 35%. How is eliminating our current brackets and replacing them with 10 and 25% brackets going to reduce taxes on someone earning $1,000,000 by $440k before counting deduction eliminations?

This make-a no sense to me

Well, for starters, they are using the 39.6% number that the top bracket reverts to on December 31st.

DirkValentine		2012-06-20 05:56:21 PM

Bonkthat_Again: You know, I just don't understand the whole distribution of wealth. No matter what the very wealthy proposes, short of killing themselves and leaving all their assets to be spilt evenly amongst all Americans, it can't work.

*warning* Shiatty analogy ahead

If there are 10 of us in the desert, being pulled on a cart by a camel, all 10 of use must contribute some of our water to the camel. If 9 of us have a gallon of water each, except for the rich guy....he has 1000 gallons, it doesn't matter what 9 of us give to the camel. In a hundred miles, he's going to dehydrate....unless the rich guy either gives us each 10-20 gallons, or flat out gives the water directly to the camel. There is a finite amount of water. We all used to have roughly 100 gallons each. But the rich guy taxed us so heavy (because he owned the cart)...he even made some back door deal with the cart driver whereas we had to pay the driver too, but the water ended up with the rich guy anyway...I don't know.

puff puff pass, man.

mainsail		2012-06-20 05:56:21 PM

...and howinhell does a camel get in the kitchen in the first goddamn case??

Serious Black		2012-06-20 05:56:22 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: TrollingForColumbine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: madgonad: If you are a business owner or in a partnership you don't have to pay income taxes in Kansas. No, I'm serious. Only income from payroll counts as income in Kansas now.

I'm curious as to where you got this.

Something tells me that you might be mistaken about that. I found an article that states that Kansas is considering eliminating the income tax, but nothing that says that they unilaterally (without consent of the Federal government) redefined the word "income" to exclude profits from businesses.

I am assuming it is just for state taxes

That's fine, I'm sure it is as well. I still don't see where the State of Kansas has diverged from the Feds on the definition of "income." No other state, that I know of, has this sort of definition. If I'm not mistaken, all States and protectorates subject to income tax conform to the Federal definition.

Actually, he's pretty close to the truth about the tax cut bill Brownback just signed a month ago. The law changes the way pass-through businesses are treated. Profits for these businesses used to be subject to the personal tax code, but they will now be exempt from taxes. Thousands of businesses are expected to restructure to make their profits (read as income for the owners) tax-free. On top of that, part of the obvious reduction in revenue is being paid for by making permanent a temporary sales tax hike and eliminating the earned income tax credit.

jigger		2012-06-20 05:56:57 PM

There were scores of people who previously said that they'd be willing to pay higher taxes.

When told that they could voluntarily pay higher taxes, they said that it's not fair and that the point is to make everyone pay higher taxes too.

Well, here's your chance...

skullkrusher		2012-06-20 05:57:32 PM

CalamitousCrasher		2012-06-20 05:57:45 PM

HallsOfMandos: But they all signed a pledge to never raise taxes, right?

This. When is Grover going to speak out against this tax increase??

cchris_39		2012-06-20 05:58:18 PM

FTA -

Meanwhile, people who earn a million dollars or more would get a tax cut of between $286,000 and $331,000 a year.

I know you were told there would be no math, but seriously.....

Three Crooked Squirrels		2012-06-20 05:59:37 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: ftfa: " people who earn a million dollars or more would get a tax cut of between $286,000 and $331,000 a year"

I call BS.

If the top marginal tax rate is around 35%, then a person earning $1M, assuming he has no deductions would pay less than $350,000. Let's call it 350k for simplicity.

If he is getting a tax cut of $286,000, that means that his effective tax rate is less than 6.4% (350k-286k = taxes of 64k on income of $1M).

Now, if that person has any deductions, his effective tax rate is even lower.

That is definitely BS. I thought the same thing when I read it. My guess is that they meant "Those earning over $1 million will on average get a $286,000 to $331,000 tax decrease." So if the guy that earns $1 million gets a $50,000 reduction and the gut that earns $10 million gets a $550,000 reduction, it averages out to $300,000. That's my guess anyway, because there is no way the numbers expressed in TFA are accurate as portrayed.

The_Six_Fingered_Man		2012-06-20 05:59:53 PM

Serious Black: The_Six_Fingered_Man: TrollingForColumbine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: madgonad: If you are a business owner or in a partnership you don't have to pay income taxes in Kansas. No, I'm serious. Only income from payroll counts as income in Kansas now.

I'm curious as to where you got this.

Something tells me that you might be mistaken about that. I found an article that states that Kansas is considering eliminating the income tax, but nothing that says that they unilaterally (without consent of the Federal government) redefined the word "income" to exclude profits from businesses.

I am assuming it is just for state taxes

That's fine, I'm sure it is as well. I still don't see where the State of Kansas has diverged from the Feds on the definition of "income." No other state, that I know of, has this sort of definition. If I'm not mistaken, all States and protectorates subject to income tax conform to the Federal definition.

Actually, he's pretty close to the truth about the tax cut bill Brownback just signed a month ago. The law changes the way pass-through businesses are treated. Profits for these businesses used to be subject to the personal tax code, but they will now be exempt from taxes. Thousands of businesses are expected to restructure to make their profits (read as income for the owners) tax-free. On top of that, part of the obvious reduction in revenue is being paid for by making permanent a temporary sales tax hike and eliminating the earned income tax credit.

I did see that the non-wage income from pass throughs will now no longer be taxed. That's crazy. If you have an LLC, LLP, GL, you don't HAVE to take a salary (according to Federal law). So ALL those distributions can come as non-wage profits and be exempt from KS State tax.

Holy hell, I want to set up shop in Kansas City for a few months and handle all the conversions. I'd make a KILLING.

Serious Black		2012-06-20 06:01:48 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: TrollingForColumbine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: thomps: TrollingForColumbine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: TrollingForColumbine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: madgonad: If you are a business owner or in a partnership you don't have to pay income taxes in Kansas. No, I'm serious. Only income from payroll counts as income in Kansas now.

I'm curious as to where you got this.

Something tells me that you might be mistaken about that. I found an article that states that Kansas is considering eliminating the income tax, but nothing that says that they unilaterally (without consent of the Federal government) redefined the word "income" to exclude profits from businesses.

I am assuming it is just for state taxes

That's fine, I'm sure it is as well. I still don't see where the State of Kansas has diverged from the Feds on the definition of "income." No other state, that I know of, has this sort of definition. If I'm not mistaken, all States and protectorates subject to income tax conform to the Federal definition.

For federal tax purposes yes. for state tax purposes I believe they can do what they want. IANAL or Accountant.

apparently s corps and partnerships are exempt from kansas' personal income tax.

Right, which conforms with Federal tax policy. Income from those entities are taxed at the shareholder or partner level, not the entity level.

but that has always been true of s corps. that is the reason for s corps as far as I can tell. I think Kansas is not taxing it at any level. Sole proprietor be damned.

I'm having issues finding coherent articles on the topic. Looking for the bill in question.

The Kansas City Star, Lawrence Journal World, and Wichita paper (can't remember its name) all reported on it extensively. Also, a number of tax-focused think tanks reported on its expected results. Even the Tax Foundation, the most conservative think tank focused on taxes, thinks that the bill is a disaster designed to enrich the Koch brothers while screwing the poor.

The_Six_Fingered_Man		2012-06-20 06:01:49 PM

Three Crooked Squirrels: So if the guy that earns $1 million gets a $50,000 reduction and the gut that earns $10 million gets a $550,000 reduction, it averages out to $300,000.

I'm reading the report from the Commission right now. Here is a salient excerpt:

...the typical household making more than $1 million and filing a joint return will still experience a net reduction in taxes of $286,543 under Ryan's budget. The typical household earning between $500,000 and $1 million will see their tax burden decline by $37,887...

jigger		2012-06-20 06:03:00 PM

What the article doesn't tell you is that the standard deduction is $50,000.

The_Six_Fingered_Man		2012-06-20 06:04:06 PM

Serious Black: The Kansas City Star, Lawrence Journal World, and Wichita paper (can't remember its name) all reported on it extensively. Also, a number of tax-focused think tanks reported on its expected results. Even the Tax Foundation, the most conservative think tank focused on taxes, thinks that the bill is a disaster designed to enrich the Koch brothers while screwing the poor.

I'm inclined to agree with them. That's quite possibly the most bone headed move they could have made.

"Hey guys, we won't tax your non-wage income from partnerships. Just make sure you guys pay yourselves a salary, ok?"

MORTIMER: "Wait, we aren't required to pay ourselves, since we're a partnership."
JEEVES: "Brilliant. Betty, call our accountant and have our salaries suspended. We will be taking distributions instead."

KANSAS DOR: "GODDAMMITSOMUCH!"

jigger		2012-06-20 06:04:39 PM

JesusJuice: Let me know when we're ready to throw these farkers up against a wall. I'll be cleaning my guns.

Woohoo. Don't tread on me. We came unarmed this time. The taxpayers are the Jews for the Republicans' ovens.

hurdboy		2012-06-20 06:05:01 PM

Nice, objective reporting, there, HuffPo.

At least they linked to the WaPo story, which explains it better.

FTFL: So although households earning $100,000 to $200,000 a year would save about $7,000 from the lower tax rates in the GOP plan, those savings would be swamped by eliminating major deductions, according to the report by the Democratically controlled congressional Joint Economic Committee.

The net result: Married couples in that income range would pay an additional $2,700 annually to the Internal Revenue Service, on top of the tax increases that are scheduled to hit every American household when the George W. Bush-era cuts expire at the end of the year.

Or they could do nothing, and the same couple will get hit by the AMT soon enough. Which is exactly what I expect Congress to do -- nothing. Rates will all revert 1 January. If Obama is re-elected, and the Republicans continue to hold part of of Congress, nothing will happen. If the Democrats take back the house (about as likely as the Dolphins winning the Super Bowl), the rates will continue exactly as they are. If Romney wins, the Republicans pass his tax proposal in lame duck, and it dies in the Senate, or gets vetoed by the President.

Three Crooked Squirrels		2012-06-20 06:05:02 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: I'm reading the report from the Commission right now. Here is a salient excerpt:

...the typical household making more than $1 million and filing a joint return will still experience a net reduction in taxes of $286,543 under Ryan's budget. The typical household earning between $500,000 and $1 million will see their tax burden decline by $37,887...

So, I guess the question is, how much more than $1 million does the typical household earning more than $1 million earn? If the typical household earning over $1 million averages $10 million, the numbers don't sound as extreme.

tenpoundsofcheese		2012-06-20 06:10:06 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: skullkrusher: The top marginal rate is 35%. How is eliminating our current brackets and replacing them with 10 and 25% brackets going to reduce taxes on someone earning $1,000,000 by $440k before counting deduction eliminations?

This make-a no sense to me

Well, for starters, they are using the 39.6% number that the top bracket reverts to on December 31st.

wut?

Okay, the top marginal rate is 39.6%. To make the math easier, let's assume that is the effective rate.
That means his tax on $1M is 396,000. How does changing the bracket to 25% have his taxes reduced by $440k?

(hint: 440k > 396k)

Aldon		2012-06-20 06:11:00 PM

I just want to point out that when it comes to who should be taxed and how much WEALTH not income should be the metric.

A fair and just tax code would end up putting 35% of the taxes on people who own 35% of the wealth, don't you think?

/ not advocating HOW this might be done, just the results.

The_Six_Fingered_Man		2012-06-20 06:12:45 PM

Three Crooked Squirrels: The_Six_Fingered_Man: I'm reading the report from the Commission right now. Here is a salient excerpt:

...the typical household making more than $1 million and filing a joint return will still experience a net reduction in taxes of $286,543 under Ryan's budget. The typical household earning between $500,000 and $1 million will see their tax burden decline by $37,887...

So, I guess the question is, how much more than $1 million does the typical household earning more than $1 million earn? If the typical household earning over $1 million averages $10 million, the numbers don't sound as extreme.

The report doesn't say, and I'm not in the mood to go review IRS stats from 2009 to give you an estimate. I will say that the report says that, of those making more than $1m, the average AGI is $3,068,649. Take that for what you will.

The report is on the Ryan Plan, which has unspecified base broadening, so the numbers are still way speculative.

tenpoundsofcheese		2012-06-20 06:14:54 PM

Three Crooked Squirrels: tenpoundsofcheese: ftfa: " people who earn a million dollars or more would get a tax cut of between $286,000 and $331,000 a year"

I call BS.

If the top marginal tax rate is around 35%, then a person earning $1M, assuming he has no deductions would pay less than $350,000. Let's call it 350k for simplicity.

If he is getting a tax cut of $286,000, that means that his effective tax rate is less than 6.4% (350k-286k = taxes of 64k on income of $1M).

Now, if that person has any deductions, his effective tax rate is even lower.

That is definitely BS. I thought the same thing when I read it. My guess is that they meant "Those earning over $1 million will on average get a $286,000 to $331,000 tax decrease." So if the guy that earns $1 million gets a $50,000 reduction and the gut that earns $10 million gets a $550,000 reduction, it averages out to $300,000. That's my guess anyway, because there is no way the numbers expressed in TFA are accurate as portrayed.

Yeah, you are probably right but that isn't how it was stated: If you earn a million or more you get at least $286k.

They clearly wrote it this way as part of a class warfare attempt. People will remember that millionaires are effectively paying no taxes.

The_Six_Fingered_Man		2012-06-20 06:15:30 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: The_Six_Fingered_Man: skullkrusher: The top marginal rate is 35%. How is eliminating our current brackets and replacing them with 10 and 25% brackets going to reduce taxes on someone earning $1,000,000 by $440k before counting deduction eliminations?

This make-a no sense to me

Well, for starters, they are using the 39.6% number that the top bracket reverts to on December 31st.

wut?

Okay, the top marginal rate is 39.6%. To make the math easier, let's assume that is the effective rate.
That means his tax on $1M is 396,000. How does changing the bracket to 25% have his taxes reduced by $440k?

(hint: 440k > 396k)

I don't see the $440k number in the article. I see this: "people who earn a million dollars or more would get a tax cut of between $286,000 and $331,000 a year."

BTW: The HuffPo piece was not written by someone who is well, or even moderately versed in tax policy or procedure.

tenpoundsofcheese		2012-06-20 06:16:20 PM

Aldon: I just want to point out that when it comes to who should be taxed and how much WEALTH not income should be the metric.

A fair and just tax code would end up putting 35% of the taxes on people who own 35% of the wealth, don't you think?

/ not advocating HOW this might be done, just the results.

Is that a one time tax, or are you going to tax people like that every year?

skullkrusher		2012-06-20 06:17:44 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: tenpoundsofcheese: The_Six_Fingered_Man: skullkrusher: The top marginal rate is 35%. How is eliminating our current brackets and replacing them with 10 and 25% brackets going to reduce taxes on someone earning $1,000,000 by $440k before counting deduction eliminations?

This make-a no sense to me

Well, for starters, they are using the 39.6% number that the top bracket reverts to on December 31st.

wut?

Okay, the top marginal rate is 39.6%. To make the math easier, let's assume that is the effective rate.
That means his tax on $1M is 396,000. How does changing the bracket to 25% have his taxes reduced by $440k?

(hint: 440k > 396k)

I don't see the $440k number in the article. I see this: "people who earn a million dollars or more would get a tax cut of between $286,000 and $331,000 a year."

BTW: The HuffPo piece was not written by someone who is well, or even moderately versed in tax policy or procedure.

It's on the chart in the linked WaPo article. Might've been average savings for incomes over 1,000,000. Not sure and currently mobile

King Something		2012-06-20 06:20:30 PM

Aldon		2012-06-20 06:25:35 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Aldon: I just want to point out that when it comes to who should be taxed and how much WEALTH not income should be the metric.

A fair and just tax code would end up putting 35% of the taxes on people who own 35% of the wealth, don't you think?

/ not advocating HOW this might be done, just the results.

Is that a one time tax, or are you going to tax people like that every year?

Every year if you want to keep around the same level of income for the government. The point is, whatever the amount the burden should be distributed based on wealth...not at an individual level but if you are part of the top 1% that own 35% of the wealth THAT GROUP of 1% should be paying about 35% of the taxes. I would call that a good tax code.

Mrtraveler01		2012-06-20 06:26:19 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: class warfare

DRINK!

Seriously, the right uses this card more than the left uses the race card these days.

The_Six_Fingered_Man		2012-06-20 06:26:46 PM

skullkrusher: The_Six_Fingered_Man: tenpoundsofcheese: The_Six_Fingered_Man: skullkrusher: The top marginal rate is 35%. How is eliminating our current brackets and replacing them with 10 and 25% brackets going to reduce taxes on someone earning $1,000,000 by $440k before counting deduction eliminations?

This make-a no sense to me

Well, for starters, they are using the 39.6% number that the top bracket reverts to on December 31st.

wut?

Okay, the top marginal rate is 39.6%. To make the math easier, let's assume that is the effective rate.
That means his tax on $1M is 396,000. How does changing the bracket to 25% have his taxes reduced by $440k?

(hint: 440k > 396k)

I don't see the $440k number in the article. I see this: "people who earn a million dollars or more would get a tax cut of between $286,000 and $331,000 a year."

BTW: The HuffPo piece was not written by someone who is well, or even moderately versed in tax policy or procedure.

It's on the chart in the linked WaPo article. Might've been average savings for incomes over 1,000,000. Not sure and currently mobile

I see...

That $440K is not net. Net decrease is the $331k number.

tenpoundsofcheese		2012-06-20 06:29:28 PM

Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: class warfare

DRINK!

Seriously, the right uses this card more than the left uses the race card these days.

i see you started posting after your alt disappeared in that other thread.

jigger		2012-06-20 06:29:48 PM

Aldon: I just want to point out that when it comes to who should be taxed and how much WEALTH not income should be the metric.

A fair and just tax code would end up putting 35% of the taxes on people who own 35% of the wealth, don't you think?

/ not advocating HOW this might be done, just the results.

All you need is some fancy accounting to make it look like you're in debt as much as your assets. Hey, net worth = zero!

Mrtraveler01		2012-06-20 06:39:02 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: class warfare

DRINK!

Seriously, the right uses this card more than the left uses the race card these days.

i see you started posting after your alt disappeared in that other thread.

I heard Kroger has a sale on tin foil this week. ;)

Aldon		2012-06-20 06:41:06 PM

jigger: Aldon: I just want to point out that when it comes to who should be taxed and how much WEALTH not income should be the metric.

A fair and just tax code would end up putting 35% of the taxes on people who own 35% of the wealth, don't you think?

/ not advocating HOW this might be done, just the results.

All you need is some fancy accounting to make it look like you're in debt as much as your assets. Hey, net worth = zero!

That wouldn't create the results I'm advocating. For example, creating a mix of income, property and capital gains taxes that resulted in the 1% group that owns 35% of the wealth getting 35% of the total tax burden, that woubet relate the results I'm advocating.

RobertBruce		2012-06-20 06:43:08 PM

I would think every dem would approve of this. They also want to take away the mortgage deduction, because fark the middle class.

Eshman		2012-06-20 06:45:11 PM

Thune: I hear around half the people in America don't even pay federal income tax.

Shouldn't everyone pay thier fair share?

We've covered this over and over and over and over and over and over and over again and each time, this premise is deemed bullshiat. So pay the fark attention or shut the fark up.

tenpoundsofcheese		2012-06-20 06:54:47 PM

Eshman: Thune: I hear around half the people in America don't even pay federal income tax.

Shouldn't everyone pay thier fair share?

We've covered this over and over and over and over and over and over and over again and each time, this premise is deemed bullshiat. So pay the fark attention or shut the fark up.

No the premise and the facts are correct.
People are just okay with it.

HellRaisingHoosier		2012-06-20 06:56:29 PM

Well, most Republicans have pledged to never raise taxes, so we should be fine.
Unless of course the Republicans lied to us. But who really believes that could happen?

Mrtraveler01		2012-06-20 06:59:23 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Eshman: Thune: I hear around half the people in America don't even pay federal income tax.

Shouldn't everyone pay thier fair share?

We've covered this over and over and over and over and over and over and over again and each time, this premise is deemed bullshiat. So pay the fark attention or shut the fark up.

No the premise and the facts are correct.
People are just okay with it.

So you're fine with cutting all the tax cuts and deductions those people are able to get because they earn so little money then?

Aldon		2012-06-20 07:02:37 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Eshman: Thune: I hear around half the people in America don't even pay federal income tax.

Shouldn't everyone pay thier fair share?

We've covered this over and over and over and over and over and over and over again and each time, this premise is deemed bullshiat. So pay the fark attention or shut the fark up.

No the premise and the facts are correct.
People are just okay with it.

When you consider ALL taxes (not just federal income) the poor pay their fair share of the tax burden.

Of course my idea of "fair share " is based on wealth.

skullkrusher		2012-06-20 07:08:29 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: That $440K is not net. Net decrease is the $331k number.

right. Question is where the $440k comes from

JohnnyC		2012-06-20 07:08:59 PM

RobertBruce: I would think every dem would approve of this. They also want to take away the mortgage deduction, because fark the middle class.

Seriously... You mean you've spent the last 25 years or so believing the "Tax and Spend" campaign propaganda from the 80's? That explains a lot about you, actually.