Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Talking Points Memo)   GOP's desire to tax the '47%' would be so effective, it would put up to 9.2 million people below the poverty line   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com ) divider line
    More: Scary, GOP, poverty line, Tim Kaine, child tax credit, House Majority Leader, CBPP, Earned Income Tax Credit, Tax Policy Center  
•       •       •

2056 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Sep 2012 at 3:57 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



152 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-09-21 10:03:19 AM  
Ayn Rand would be proud, I'm sure.
 
2012-09-21 10:06:40 AM  
If they get their way, looks like I'm going to have to look for a second job just so I can pay the extra taxes. Oh well, life sucks.
 
2012-09-21 10:13:57 AM  
Danged layabouts, trying to trick Romney into creating more of them so that they vote for Obama.
 
2012-09-21 10:20:48 AM  

Cythraul: If they get their way, looks like I'm going to have to look for a second job just so I can pay the extra taxes. Oh well, life sucks.


See, they are getting you to work harder!
 
2012-09-21 10:20:48 AM  
But what would it do for the other 290 million people?
 
2012-09-21 10:31:36 AM  

sweetmelissa31: Cythraul: If they get their way, looks like I'm going to have to look for a second job just so I can pay the extra taxes. Oh well, life sucks.

See, they are getting you to work harder!


Isn't that great? It's so uniquely American
 
2012-09-21 10:33:26 AM  

Mangoose: But what would it do for the other 290 million people?


Well, if you put those 9.2 million people back under the poverty line, they'll have absolutely no money to spend on anything, which means they fall off the grid as consumers. Their lack of consumer activity will severely impact businesses of all types, leading to decreased revenues. the reduced business activity will lead to more job losses, which will put more people in danger of poverty, thus beginning the cycle again.

So, to sum up: If you put 9.2 million more people into poverty and remove their ability to earn net income, the other 290 million folks will be farked as well.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-09-21 10:40:21 AM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Mangoose: But what would it do for the other 290 million people?

Well, if you put those 9.2 million people back under the poverty line, they'll have absolutely no money to spend on anything, which means they fall off the grid as consumers. Their lack of consumer activity will severely impact businesses of all types, leading to decreased revenues. the reduced business activity will lead to more job losses, which will put more people in danger of poverty, thus beginning the cycle again.

So, to sum up: If you put 9.2 million more people into poverty and remove their ability to earn net income, the other 290 million folks will be farked as well.


Yes, but they can become car jackers and muggers and that will create jobs by increasing the demand for guns.
 
2012-09-21 10:54:27 AM  
So, taxing the poor puts more people onto government programs? BRILLIANT.
 
2012-09-21 10:58:14 AM  

Jackson Herring: sweetmelissa31: Cythraul: If they get their way, looks like I'm going to have to look for a second job just so I can pay the extra taxes. Oh well, life sucks.

See, they are getting you to work harder!

Isn't that great? It's so uniquely American


If Bush had said that to me I would have choked him on the spot.
 
2012-09-21 11:02:04 AM  

vpb:

Yes, but they can become car jackers and muggers and that will create jobs by increasing the demand for guns.


... and I would assume also cars. So, Mitt does have a plan to save our auto industry.
 
2012-09-21 11:45:33 AM  
I'm pretty sure that that's the general idea, because f*ck people who don't vote straight-ticket GOP.
 
2012-09-21 11:52:31 AM  

King Something: I'm pretty sure that that's the general idea, because f*ck people who don't vote straight-ticket GOP.


F*ck people who do vote straight-ticket GOP, despite their economic interests, for that matter. Basically f*ck everyone that's not in the ruling class.
 
2012-09-21 11:57:38 AM  
Huh, I'm already below the line detailed in TFA at $29,662/yr with 2 kids. Awesome.

Farkers, I have a conundrum. How will I be able to pull myself up by the bootstraps when I can't afford boots?
 
2012-09-21 12:00:32 PM  

Elandriel: Huh, I'm already below the line detailed in TFA at $29,662/yr with 2 kids. Awesome.

Farkers, I have a conundrum. How will I be able to pull myself up by the bootstraps when I can't afford boots?


Surely prosperity will trickle down upon you if Republicans are in control

/so it is written
 
2012-09-21 12:53:38 PM  

GAT_00: So, taxing the poor puts more people onto government programs? BRILLIANT.


I think means-tested programs rely on pre-tax income. So no.
 
2012-09-21 12:56:08 PM  
We could create more jobs if we invaded Iran. Think of all the job creation!
 
2012-09-21 12:58:36 PM  
The GOP wants to collect income tax on retired people.
 
2012-09-21 12:59:39 PM  
Well, they're not the 1%, so fark 'em, right?

Yet I wonder how many Americans who scream against taxes (so vote Republican, of course), would have their taxes raised if Republicans go their way with this 47%? I'm guessing it's a hell of a lot of them. But they would still vote Republican because Obama raised their taxes; they're just sure of it (when, they now pay less in federal taxes under Obama). Because....socialism. And Satan. And the gays...which pretty much goes back to Satan.
 
2012-09-21 01:06:08 PM  
poor people not paying any taxes - OMG! OH MY F*CKING GOD! THIS IS THE END OF EVERYTHING!
rich corporations not paying any taxes - hey, we can't tax corporations, that would be communism! you aren't a commie, are you? no taxes on corporations!

*sigh*

look, if the GOP wants to go this route, then lets tax people who actually HAVE money. that includes corporations.
 
2012-09-21 01:12:24 PM  

Elandriel: Huh, I'm already below the line detailed in TFA at $29,662/yr with 2 kids. Awesome.

Farkers, I have a conundrum. How will I be able to pull myself up by the bootstraps when I can't afford boots?


Ask your parents for a loan.
 
2012-09-21 01:14:47 PM  
GOP response: "So?"
 
2012-09-21 01:20:56 PM  
THAT'S A FEATURE NOT A BUG
 
2012-09-21 01:25:01 PM  

what_now: Elandriel: Huh, I'm already below the line detailed in TFA at $29,662/yr with 2 kids. Awesome.

Farkers, I have a conundrum. How will I be able to pull myself up by the bootstraps when I can't afford boots?

Ask your parents for a loan.


Or, generate the income on your own. Sell your stock options.
 
2012-09-21 01:27:16 PM  
Oh cry me a river. A bunch of them already live in free government housing.

img.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-21 01:45:37 PM  
for someone who is known for his inability to maintain a consistent position on anything, it's really funny how romney has stuck to his guns on what is probably the most ridiculous thing ever said by any politician in my lifetime.
 
2012-09-21 01:54:48 PM  
To think that at one time, there were actually Republicans who were proud of eliminating taxes on the poor.

The worst loudmouth asshole you ever knew who also considered himself a "conservative" is now not only setting the platform for the Republican party, but demanding all candidates be at least as much of an asshole as he is. And he's winning. Hell, he's pretty much won.

I'm sure there are still some old school Republicans who would take offense at this statement. River in Egypt, and all that.
 
2012-09-21 02:15:24 PM  

tallguywithglasseson: To think that at one time, there were actually Republicans who were proud of eliminating taxes on the poor.


Instead of the raise taxes on the poor and middle class while lowering them on the wealthy party? I think Republicans have just decided a dystopian future sounds really cool, so they're going to make it happen as soon as possible for their own amusement.

It will be like Mad Max but with some crazy hell fire and brimstone preacher leading the mob.
 
2012-09-21 02:20:20 PM  
a typical poor family - two kids, $33,479 in income

Listen, that is not enough money to feed four people. We need to address that problem.

First and foremost: don't have kids until your income is at a level that can feed them (I don't know, I don't have an exact number. Let's say $25K per person?). If you DO have kids when you're this poor, you should go to jail, and your kids should be raised in a well-funded orphanage. Yes, increase my taxes to pay for the orphanage.

If you have a well-paying job and lose it, I'm happy with you getting welfare until you get back on your feet. But I want sufficient controls in place to say that you are looking for a job that meets your needs.
 
2012-09-21 02:48:30 PM  

thomps: for someone who is known for his inability to maintain a consistent position on anything, it's really funny how romney has stuck to his guns on what is probably the most ridiculous thing ever said by any politician in my lifetime.


He's got to double-down on something to appear interested in winning. You think the base is excited about having to vote for this guy? They're not. He has to give them *something* to make them want to vote for him.
 
2012-09-21 03:28:32 PM  

Coco LaFemme: He has to give them *something* to make them want to vote for him.


He doesn't have to give them anything they don't already have. Namely a hate of our current president and reaffirm their worldview.
 
2012-09-21 03:55:42 PM  
How R|R is polling above 23% is beyond me.
 
2012-09-21 04:02:02 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Mangoose: But what would it do for the other 290 million people?

Well, if you put those 9.2 million people back under the poverty line, they'll have absolutely no money to spend on anything, which means they fall off the grid as consumers. Their lack of consumer activity will severely impact businesses of all types, leading to decreased revenues. the reduced business activity will lead to more job losses, which will put more people in danger of poverty, thus beginning the cycle again.

So, to sum up: If you put 9.2 million more people into poverty and remove their ability to earn net income, the other 290 million folks will be farked as well.


Very succinct and to the point.

Oh wait this is fark, so I should probably just say "THIS"
 
2012-09-21 04:02:29 PM  
"Skin in the game" sounds too much like a pound of flesh to me.
 
2012-09-21 04:03:25 PM  
This really is starting to get a little scary. As all their arguments crumble, they will cling more and more to religious assertions.
 
2012-09-21 04:03:27 PM  
Thinking is hard for the GOP
 
2012-09-21 04:03:29 PM  
So the GOP wants people to pay their fair share except for the uber rich?
 
2012-09-21 04:07:37 PM  
The poor already pay with their blood.
 
2012-09-21 04:08:52 PM  
So what, raise the minimum wage? Free abortions? I sort of agree that the government supplementing their income this way isn't maybe the best thing.
 
2012-09-21 04:09:15 PM  

serial_crusher: a typical poor family - two kids, $33,479 in income

Listen, that is not enough money to feed four people. We need to address that problem.

First and foremost: don't have kids until your income is at a level that can feed them (I don't know, I don't have an exact number. Let's say $25K per person?). If you DO have kids when you're this poor, you should go to jail, and your kids should be raised in a well-funded orphanage. Yes, increase my taxes to pay for the orphanage.

If you have a well-paying job and lose it, I'm happy with you getting welfare until you get back on your feet. But I want sufficient controls in place to say that you are looking for a job that meets your needs.


I can't figure out if you're trolling, or if you're really this retarded.
 
Ehh
2012-09-21 04:10:47 PM  
You know all those humiliating job interview questions they ask you that make it sound like you are a sneaky bastage intent on infiltrating their fine organization and that require you to say how honored, proud, and delighted you are--more than you have ever been in your life--to put on a funny hat and serve coffee or fix copiers or whatever? Yeah, they're just for giggles. The Romneys of the world don't really think that way. They are just playing a little mind game with you so they can weed out the losers.

The top 1% owns half of everything, so the clear solution is to tax the lower half even more and offer tax breaks to the 1%.

The poor still have money--what are they complaining about?
 
2012-09-21 04:11:31 PM  

Weaver95: poor people not paying any taxes - OMG! OH MY F*CKING GOD! THIS IS THE END OF EVERYTHING!
rich corporations not paying any taxes - hey, we can't tax corporations, that would be communism! you aren't a commie, are you? no taxes on corporations!

*sigh*

look, if the GOP wants to go this route, then lets tax people who actually HAVE money. that includes corporations.


Geesh, if you're going to satirize on them, include the 'no double taxation!' malarkey "It gets taxed when our shareholders are taxed" They already have a schtick for that.
 
2012-09-21 04:14:01 PM  
Taxing the 47% puts millions more people on the government dole. Therefore taxes are bad and Sheldon Adelson should get a tax break. Mitt Romney is automatically president and all libs are immediately sentenced to life in the dilithium mines of Rura Penthe.
 
2012-09-21 04:14:53 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: Weaver95: poor people not paying any taxes - OMG! OH MY F*CKING GOD! THIS IS THE END OF EVERYTHING!
rich corporations not paying any taxes - hey, we can't tax corporations, that would be communism! you aren't a commie, are you? no taxes on corporations!

*sigh*

look, if the GOP wants to go this route, then lets tax people who actually HAVE money. that includes corporations.

Geesh, if you're going to satirize on them, include the 'no double taxation!' malarkey "It gets taxed when our shareholders are taxed" They already have a schtick for that.


it just boggles the mind to see/hear GOP pundits scream bloody murder about poor people having any sort of tax advantage...then turn a blind eye while corporations rake in BILLIONS of dollars and pay no taxes on any of it. how do you do that and not explode your head off your shoulders?
 
2012-09-21 04:17:23 PM  

Weaver95: Vlad_the_Inaner: Weaver95: poor people not paying any taxes - OMG! OH MY F*CKING GOD! THIS IS THE END OF EVERYTHING!
rich corporations not paying any taxes - hey, we can't tax corporations, that would be communism! you aren't a commie, are you? no taxes on corporations!

*sigh*

look, if the GOP wants to go this route, then lets tax people who actually HAVE money. that includes corporations.

Geesh, if you're going to satirize on them, include the 'no double taxation!' malarkey "It gets taxed when our shareholders are taxed" They already have a schtick for that.

it just boggles the mind to see/hear GOP pundits scream bloody murder about poor people having any sort of tax advantage...then turn a blind eye while corporations rake in BILLIONS of dollars and pay no taxes on any of it. how do you do that and not explode your head off your shoulders?


Don't forget - it's the dirty libs that are waging class warefare.
 
2012-09-21 04:17:35 PM  
Of course it would and they know that. it's exactly why they want to to this.
They've noticed over the years that Middle Class folks get all uppity and start demand a say in how goverment works. Can't have all that craziness, time to put the unwashed masses back in their place.

Hypnozombie
 
2012-09-21 04:17:51 PM  
Most of these people own a refrigerator so they're not really poor.
 
2012-09-21 04:18:03 PM  
'Warfare'. Sheesh.
 
2012-09-21 04:19:50 PM  
I'd be happy just to stop paying people to be career criminal crotch-droppers as part of a derpocrap vote-breeding project.

These people aren't in poverty. They just don't report their income from their drug-running and theft.
 
2012-09-21 04:20:43 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Elandriel: Huh, I'm already below the line detailed in TFA at $29,662/yr with 2 kids. Awesome.

Farkers, I have a conundrum. How will I be able to pull myself up by the bootstraps when I can't afford boots?

Surely prosperity will trickle down upon you if Republicans are in control

/so it is written


ouroregon.org

/oblig
 
2012-09-21 04:21:17 PM  

SevenizGud: I'd be happy just to stop paying people to be career criminal crotch-droppers as part of a derpocrap vote-breeding project.

These people aren't in poverty. They just don't report their income from their drug-running and theft.


I remember when the trolls used to be entertaining.

/too lazy to look up the pic
 
2012-09-21 04:21:31 PM  

fringedmyotis:

Don't forget - it's the dirty libs that are waging class warefare.


I really don't understand the Republicans anymore.
 
2012-09-21 04:22:18 PM  

Weaver95: poor people not paying any taxes - OMG! OH MY F*CKING GOD! THIS IS THE END OF EVERYTHING!
rich corporations not paying any taxes - hey, we can't tax corporations, that would be communism! you aren't a commie, are you? no taxes on corporations!

*sigh*

look, if the GOP wants to go this route, then lets tax people who actually HAVE money. that includes corporations.


all i have to say is this: Link
 
2012-09-21 04:26:10 PM  
"Broaden and flatten the tax base" -The weeping cheeto
 
2012-09-21 04:27:32 PM  

serial_crusher: a typical poor family - two kids, $33,479 in income

Listen, that is not enough money to feed four people. We need to address that problem.

First and foremost: don't have kids until your income is at a level that can feed them (I don't know, I don't have an exact number. Let's say $25K per person?). If you DO have kids when you're this poor, you should go to jail, and your kids should be raised in a well-funded orphanage. Yes, increase my taxes to pay for the orphanage.

If you have a well-paying job and lose it, I'm happy with you getting welfare until you get back on your feet. But I want sufficient controls in place to say that you are looking for a job that meets your needs.


What if you have kids while making $50k a year, then five years later you're laid off and can't get better than $33.5k?

Kids are a 20-year responsibility. It's nearly impossible to forecast financially with any kind of accuracy beyond five years.

/support your local single mothers
 
2012-09-21 04:29:59 PM  
img.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-21 04:31:18 PM  

Notabunny: [img.photobucket.com image 537x699]


not sure that's the analogy you wanted to go with there :)
 
2012-09-21 04:31:27 PM  
Yes, it's the Republicans that want to tax the 47%.

Oh, wait.

"I would be open to a proposal that would have some minimum tax level for everyone," [Democratic Senatorial Candidate Tim] Kaine told moderator David Gregory...Kaine's tax comments came at the start of an hourlong televised debate in McLean, Va., after the former governor was asked about Mitt Romney's controversial quip that the 47 percent of Americans who don't pay federal taxes are dependent on government and see themselves as "victims."
 
2012-09-21 04:32:07 PM  

King Something: I'm pretty sure that that's the general idea, because f*ck people who don't vote straight-ticket GOP.


The sad and funny thing is that many poor people do, because Jesus.
 
2012-09-21 04:33:23 PM  

oren0: Yes, it's the Republicans that want to tax the 47%.

Oh, wait.

"I would be open to a proposal that would have some minimum tax level for everyone," [Democratic Senatorial Candidate Tim] Kaine told moderator David Gregory...Kaine's tax comments came at the start of an hourlong televised debate in McLean, Va., after the former governor was asked about Mitt Romney's controversial quip that the 47 percent of Americans who don't pay federal taxes are dependent on government and see themselves as "victims."


The Republidevil made him do it
 
2012-09-21 04:34:55 PM  

Sgt Otter: Oh cry me a river. A bunch of them already live in free government housing.

[img.photobucket.com image 432x346]


I keep forgetting that the government has the right to order all Americans not paying federal taxes to go on missions that will end in certain death.

/b-b-b-but FICA is a tax
//except when it's forced savings
 
2012-09-21 04:35:44 PM  
Why bother writing an article about it? These assholes don't give two farks, and anyone who does is labeled as a RINO.
 
2012-09-21 04:36:23 PM  
How did "47% of people are not paying taxes" turn into Taxing the 47%? No really. The point of what he was saying before was that "IF YOU ARE NOT WORKING or below the poverty level you are not paying taxes" If we get these people jobs and get people up above the poverty level--yes you will be paying taxes but you will also have a JOB. Why is this so hard for people to understand. I just.. ARGHHH
 
2012-09-21 04:36:41 PM  
didn't the Dems already push those folks below the poverty line? And are keeping them there?
 
2012-09-21 04:37:14 PM  

Cythraul: If they get their way, looks like I'm going to have to look for a second job just so I can pay the extra taxes. Oh well, life sucks.


Which may put you into a higher tax bracket, so that you would need a 3rd job to pay for the extra income from the second job. It's the 'In Living Color' sketch brought to life...

Yay! Fun!
 
2012-09-21 04:37:22 PM  
Come on, you farks, do it. Help us get a hundred thousand people in the streets.
 
2012-09-21 04:38:15 PM  

Mangoose: But what would it do for the other 290 million people?


I think the idea is that it would add an EXTRA 9.2 million people to the number already below the poverty line, it wouldn't actually probably benefit anyone anything at all.
 
2012-09-21 04:39:01 PM  

skullkrusher: Notabunny: [img.photobucket.com image 537x699]

not sure that's the analogy you wanted to go with there :)


Why not? Liberals tend to support social justice, which includes a more equitable distribution of wealth, sometimes referred to as redistribution of wealth.
Whether President Obama actually gives any more than lip service to this goal remains to be seen.

/plus that snake is a drunk bastard
 
2012-09-21 04:40:32 PM  

Blue_Blazer: skullkrusher: Notabunny: [img.photobucket.com image 537x699]

not sure that's the analogy you wanted to go with there :)

Why not? Liberals tend to support social justice, which includes a more equitable distribution of wealth, sometimes referred to as redistribution of wealth.
Whether President Obama actually gives any more than lip service to this goal remains to be seen.

/plus that snake is a drunk bastard


I think most supporters of BO might not like the "steals from the rich to give to the poor" characterization :)
 
2012-09-21 04:41:44 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Come on, you farks, do it. Help us get a hundred thousand people in the streets.


yes, let us drive millions below the poverty line so Captain Toughguy can live his masturbatory revolutionary fantasy!

despicable
 
2012-09-21 04:43:12 PM  

Cup_O_Jo: How did "47% of people are not paying taxes" turn into Taxing the 47%? No really. The point of what he was saying before was that "IF YOU ARE NOT WORKING or below the poverty level you are not paying taxes" If we get these people jobs and get people up above the poverty level--yes you will be paying taxes but you will also have a JOB. Why is this so hard for people to understand. I just.. ARGHHH


Yes, those darn elderly folks need to get jobs. Same with those disabled slackers.
 
2012-09-21 04:43:41 PM  

Fart_Machine: Most of these people own a refrigerator so they're not really poor.


And that's not even the real statistic. Most poor households don't "own" a fridge as that study claimed, the place that they are renting came with one provided, as is pretty much standard. Same with A/C. We've had a fridge for 6 years, but only because a neighbor was giving one away for free, before that, it was always what was in the apartment or house we were renting. I know plenty who have never actually "owned" a fridge. The people who did that "survey" are unbelievably retarded.
 
2012-09-21 04:45:47 PM  
When the Democrats and Republicans, (or. Republicans and Democrats. if you prefer,) get done with the middle class, it will ALL be below the poverty line. In this feudal republic, those two parties will still have a binopoly on federal and state government, which means they control voting and ballot rules, which means they will still have a binopoly on federal and state...etc.

'Reform' aint gonna get it done.
 
2012-09-21 04:47:51 PM  

serial_crusher: a typical poor family - two kids, $33,479 in income

Listen, that is not enough money to feed four people. We need to address that problem.

First and foremost: don't have kids until your income is at a level that can feed them (I don't know, I don't have an exact number. Let's say $25K per person?). If you DO have kids when you're this poor, you should go to jail, and your kids should be raised in a well-funded orphanage. Yes, increase my taxes to pay for the orphanage.

If you have a well-paying job and lose it, I'm happy with you getting welfare until you get back on your feet. But I want sufficient controls in place to say that you are looking for a job that meets your needs.


So are you going to make abortion taxpayer funded? Contraceptives free? People fark, I don't know if you've figured that out yet, but they do it, and the reason that poor people seem to have more kids is most likely a combination of not having affordable contraception and not a whole Hell of a lot of other things to occupy their time.

And $25K per person is ridiculously high. My wife and I make about $80k combined, and my brother in law lives with us, adding a mouth and another adult to our 3 kids, and we still make plenty to live on. IN other words 6 people live on $80k, not the $150k you threw out there.
 
2012-09-21 04:48:57 PM  

Elandriel: Huh, I'm already below the line detailed in TFA at $29,662/yr with 2 kids. Awesome.

Farkers, I have a conundrum. How will I be able to pull myself up by the bootstraps when I can't afford boots?


I have boots, but I only had enough money for strapless ones...
 
2012-09-21 04:49:27 PM  

skullkrusher: Blue_Blazer: skullkrusher: Notabunny: [img.photobucket.com image 537x699]

not sure that's the analogy you wanted to go with there :)

Why not? Liberals tend to support social justice, which includes a more equitable distribution of wealth, sometimes referred to as redistribution of wealth.
Whether President Obama actually gives any more than lip service to this goal remains to be seen.

/plus that snake is a drunk bastard

I think most supporters of BO might not like the "steals from the rich to give to the poor" characterization :)


I don't think people who would primarily characterize Robin Hood as a criminal are going to vote for Obama, anyway.

I suppose there may be 1 or 2 people who view the story of Robin Hood as that of an unrepentant felon escaping punishment for his crimes.
 
2012-09-21 04:49:35 PM  

serial_crusher: a typical poor family - two kids, $33,479 in income

Listen, that is not enough money to feed four people. We need to address that problem.

First and foremost: don't have kids until your income is at a level that can feed them (I don't know, I don't have an exact number. Let's say $25K per person?). If you DO have kids when you're this poor, you should go to jail, and your kids should be raised in a well-funded orphanage. Yes, increase my taxes to pay for the orphanage.

If you have a well-paying job and lose it, I'm happy with you getting welfare until you get back on your feet. But I want sufficient controls in place to say that you are looking for a job that meets your needs.


and what should we do if someone loses there job after having a kid? Here you are with a pretty safe, nice paying job, a low rent and no car payment, you get married have your kid. Two years later, the economy collapses and you are out of work. BOOM.

We should take your kid???

You get a replacement job, but because competition is high, it pays less, and they are below your "threshold".
We should take your kid???

Plus, your reality is insane. there are plenty of poor people living "comfortably" including having a kid or 10.
They live in the crappy parts of town no one else wants to live in. they take the bus. they struggle to get by with a low paying job.

Are you suggesting that they be banned from having children?
That their child should starve, rather than the rest of us pay for school lunches??


I dont have children. but I pay taxes which go to schools and school lunches. Why?
Why should I have to support anything????

/seriously - I LOVE paying taxes for education. period. it is one of the greatest goods that I can do in society.
 
2012-09-21 04:51:48 PM  

thomps: for someone who is known for his inability to maintain a consistent position on anything, it's really funny how romney has stuck to his guns on what is probably the most ridiculous thing ever said by any politician in my lifetime.


That is quite a statement. Let me remind you that the GOP was considering repealing child labor laws only last year, and due to this, is one of the main reasons I will never vote GOP again.
 
2012-09-21 04:53:06 PM  

Notabunny: skullkrusher: Blue_Blazer: skullkrusher: Notabunny: [img.photobucket.com image 537x699]

not sure that's the analogy you wanted to go with there :)

Why not? Liberals tend to support social justice, which includes a more equitable distribution of wealth, sometimes referred to as redistribution of wealth.
Whether President Obama actually gives any more than lip service to this goal remains to be seen.

/plus that snake is a drunk bastard

I think most supporters of BO might not like the "steals from the rich to give to the poor" characterization :)

I don't think people who would primarily characterize Robin Hood as a criminal are going to vote for Obama, anyway.

I suppose there may be 1 or 2 people who view the story of Robin Hood as that of an unrepentant felon escaping punishment for his crimes.


umm I meant the "steals from the rich" part - most supporters of BO do not characterize taxation as theft
 
2012-09-21 04:54:13 PM  

Mikey1969: Elandriel: Huh, I'm already below the line detailed in TFA at $29,662/yr with 2 kids. Awesome.

Farkers, I have a conundrum. How will I be able to pull myself up by the bootstraps when I can't afford boots?

I have boots, but I only had enough money for strapless ones...


my boots have extra straps just for the sole purpose of not lending them to you

/heehee
//"sole"
 
2012-09-21 04:54:24 PM  
So subby accounted for 6% of that 47% I guess the other 94% gets a pass too now.
 
2012-09-21 04:55:03 PM  

namatad: I dont have children. but I pay taxes which go to schools and school lunches. Why?
Why should I have to support anything????

/seriously - I LOVE paying taxes for education. period. it is one of the greatest goods that I can do in society.



^^^THIS^^^

Even if I didn't have kids of my own, I would have no problem with this for two major reasons(Among many others):

1. Someone did it for me, my friends, my wife, my family, eyc.

2. These kids are the ones who wil be taking care of the country when we get old, why the fark wouldn't we want to make sure they get the best education possible?
 
2012-09-21 04:55:29 PM  

Weaver95: poor people not paying any taxes - OMG! OH MY F*CKING GOD! THIS IS THE END OF EVERYTHING!
rich corporations not paying any taxes - hey, we can't tax corporations, that would be communism! you aren't a commie, are you? no taxes on corporations!

*sigh*

look, if the GOP wants to go this route, then lets tax people who actually HAVE money. that includes corporations.


You and your strawmen arguments get more deranged by the day.
 
2012-09-21 04:55:43 PM  

Weaver95: fringedmyotis:

Don't forget - it's the dirty libs that are waging class warefare.

I really don't understand the Republicans anymore.


They got taken over by the Ross Perot/Tea Party/"Moral Majority".
They havent been the Conservative Party since Reagan took over. Slashed taxes and increased spending.
That is not conservative. not by any definition.

The history of the GOP from 1964 to now has been a pretty straight line. Whiter, older, more intolerant, more divisive, etc. Toss in warmongering.

Strangely enough, the DEMs have slid right during the same period. Carter - Clinton - Obama.
 
2012-09-21 04:56:30 PM  

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: serial_crusher: a typical poor family - two kids, $33,479 in income

Listen, that is not enough money to feed four people. We need to address that problem.

First and foremost: don't have kids until your income is at a level that can feed them (I don't know, I don't have an exact number. Let's say $25K per person?). If you DO have kids when you're this poor, you should go to jail, and your kids should be raised in a well-funded orphanage. Yes, increase my taxes to pay for the orphanage.

If you have a well-paying job and lose it, I'm happy with you getting welfare until you get back on your feet. But I want sufficient controls in place to say that you are looking for a job that meets your needs.

What if you have kids while making $50k a year, then five years later you're laid off and can't get better than $33.5k?

Kids are a 20-year responsibility. It's nearly impossible to forecast financially with any kind of accuracy beyond five years.

/support your local single mothers


Well, you probably got laid off due to your illiteracy, because I covered that in my original post. If you have a well-paying job and lose it, I'm happy with you getting welfare until you get back on your feet. But I want sufficient controls in place to say that you are looking for a job that meets your needs.

If the best you can make right now is $33K, let's give you $17K to fill the gap, as long as you're spending a reasonable amount of your free time looking for that 50k+ job.

But, I should also point out that under my original post, if the combined income of both parents is only $50k, they shouldn't have had the kid in the first place. Both parents are on the hook, so combined income needs to be $75k before anybody has a kid. If you're a single mom making less than $75K who doesn't know who the dad is, off to jail for you and off to the well-funded orphanage for that kid of yours.
 
2012-09-21 04:57:03 PM  

Mikey1969: Even if I didn't have kids of my own, I would have no problem with this for two major reasons(Among many others):

1. Someone did it for me, my friends, my wife, my family, eyc.

2. These kids are the ones who wil be taking care of the country when we get old, why the fark wouldn't we want to make sure they get the best education possible?


To some degree, this is the definition of society.
Remembering where you came from and that you did nothing on your own.
Remembering that you will be old some day and that you dont want to live in a sewer.
 
2012-09-21 04:58:09 PM  

skullkrusher: Notabunny: skullkrusher: Blue_Blazer: skullkrusher: Notabunny: [img.photobucket.com image 537x699]

not sure that's the analogy you wanted to go with there :)

Why not? Liberals tend to support social justice, which includes a more equitable distribution of wealth, sometimes referred to as redistribution of wealth.
Whether President Obama actually gives any more than lip service to this goal remains to be seen.

/plus that snake is a drunk bastard

I think most supporters of BO might not like the "steals from the rich to give to the poor" characterization :)

I don't think people who would primarily characterize Robin Hood as a criminal are going to vote for Obama, anyway.

I suppose there may be 1 or 2 people who view the story of Robin Hood as that of an unrepentant felon escaping punishment for his crimes.

umm I meant the "steals from the rich" part - most supporters of BO do not characterize taxation as theft


You're right. Sorry, it's past my nap time.
 
2012-09-21 04:58:48 PM  
I would love for a liberal here to show any country that is successful where only half the populace pays income taxes. You won't find an example in Europe. US has one of the most progressive systems in the world. Not even a vat tax which really hits people in regressive manner.
 
2012-09-21 05:03:12 PM  

serial_crusher: if the combined income of both parents is only $50k, they shouldn't have had the kid in the first place. Both parents are on the hook, so combined income needs to be $75k before anybody has a kid. If you're a single mom making less than $75K who doesn't know who the dad is, off to jail for you and off to the well-funded orphanage for that kid of yours.


so you are completely insane?
so now we take a struggling mother, who is paying no federal incomes taxes (which is not the same as no taxes). who is working to feed and house her children. and you are doing what?
1) jail for her - for how long? life? ok but now we are paying for that. thanks
2) orphanage for her kid - for 18 years. ok, but now we are paying for that. thanks

ignoring the moral insanity of your position, the costs alone GREATLY exceed the cost of covering her being poor and getting a LITTLE government assistance.

so
you are either insane, a troll or both
thanks for sharing
buh bye
 
2012-09-21 05:03:53 PM  

Mikey1969: So are you going to make abortion taxpayer funded? Contraceptives free? People fark, I don't know if you've figured that out yet, but they do it, and the reason that poor people seem to have more kids is most likely a combination of not having affordable contraception and not a whole Hell of a lot of other things to occupy their time.


IMHO free contraception, but criminalize abortion. Catholics can STFU.
Poor people who don't avail themselves of the free contraception (or gamble and lose) get to go to jail while their kids have a grand old time at the well-funded orphanage.

Mikey1969: And $25K per person is ridiculously high. My wife and I make about $80k combined, and my brother in law lives with us, adding a mouth and another adult to our 3 kids, and we still make plenty to live on. IN other words 6 people live on $80k, not the $150k you threw out there.


Agreed. I think I was pretty upfront about pulling that number out of my ass.
Local cost of living has a lot to do with it too. Same as minimum wage, I'd like to see the federal government establish a minimum standard of living, then set income expectations based on local cost needed to attain that standard of living.
 
2012-09-21 05:04:41 PM  

nomike1: didn't the Dems already push those folks below the poverty line? And are keeping them there?


Nope. Anymore stupid questions?
 
2012-09-21 05:08:16 PM  

MyRandomName: I would love for a liberal here to show any country that is successful where only half the populace pays income taxes. You won't find an example in Europe. US has one of the most progressive systems in the world. Not even a vat tax which really hits people in regressive manner.


I have one.

The United States of America.
 
2012-09-21 05:09:09 PM  

namatad: jail for her - for how long? life? ok but now we are paying for that. thanks


Jail is supposed to be a deterrent and a rehabilitation tool. So, however long it takes to deter people from having unplanned kids, or to convince them not to have another unplanned kid. Like I said during my latest jury selection, I'm not qualified to know how long it takes to rehabilitate somebody. That's what experts are for.
 
2012-09-21 05:10:40 PM  

Fart_Machine: Most of these people own a refrigerator so they're not really poor.


Because it's cheaper than having botulism, salmonella, and other food poisonings because their food has gone bad.
 
2012-09-21 05:13:01 PM  

mcsmiley: Fart_Machine: Most of these people own a refrigerator so they're not really poor.

Because it's cheaper than having botulism, salmonella, and other food poisonings because their food has gone bad.


Also, as I pointed out upthread, that "stat" is bullshiat anyway, since almost every rental comes with a fridge and stove, quite often a dishwasher and even sometimes a microwave. That "study" was the biggest piece of bulllshiat I think has ever been perpetrated on the American Public...
 
2012-09-21 05:14:33 PM  
So what were these people doing before Bush cut their taxes and increased their deductions until they paid no income taxes? I do not remember anachy in the streets during the Clinton days.
 
2012-09-21 05:15:31 PM  

serial_crusher: But, I should also point out that under my original post, if the combined income of both parents is only $50k, they shouldn't have had the kid in the first place. Both parents are on the hook, so combined income needs to be $75k before anybody has a kid. If you're a single mom making less than $75K who doesn't know who the dad is, off to jail for you and off to the well-funded orphanage for that kid of yours.


Wow, you really are good at making people's heads hurt online... Are you typing all of this in a straight jacket on Thorazine, using your forehead on the keys? It's the only thing I can guess...
 
2012-09-21 05:19:33 PM  

serial_crusher: MusicMakeMyHeadPound: serial_crusher: a typical poor family - two kids, $33,479 in income

Listen, that is not enough money to feed four people. We need to address that problem.

First and foremost: don't have kids until your income is at a level that can feed them (I don't know, I don't have an exact number. Let's say $25K per person?). If you DO have kids when you're this poor, you should go to jail, and your kids should be raised in a well-funded orphanage. Yes, increase my taxes to pay for the orphanage.

If you have a well-paying job and lose it, I'm happy with you getting welfare until you get back on your feet. But I want sufficient controls in place to say that you are looking for a job that meets your needs.

What if you have kids while making $50k a year, then five years later you're laid off and can't get better than $33.5k?

Kids are a 20-year responsibility. It's nearly impossible to forecast financially with any kind of accuracy beyond five years.

/support your local single mothers

Well, you probably got laid off due to your illiteracy, because I covered that in my original post. If you have a well-paying job and lose it, I'm happy with you getting welfare until you get back on your feet. But I want sufficient controls in place to say that you are looking for a job that meets your needs.

If the best you can make right now is $33K, let's give you $17K to fill the gap, as long as you're spending a reasonable amount of your free time looking for that 50k+ job.

But, I should also point out that under my original post, if the combined income of both parents is only $50k, they shouldn't have had the kid in the first place. Both parents are on the hook, so combined income needs to be $75k before anybody has a kid. If you're a single mom making less than $75K who doesn't know who the dad is, off to jail for you and off to the well-funded orphanage for that kid of yours.


For a married filing joinly couple to make 100k a year, that puts them in the 68th percentile of household incomes. You really think that only 30% of the population "gets" to have a child? You don't see any negative long term impact from a policy like this? You didn't think this out very well, did you?
 
2012-09-21 05:21:04 PM  

Mikey1969: mcsmiley: Fart_Machine: Most of these people own a refrigerator so they're not really poor.

Because it's cheaper than having botulism, salmonella, and other food poisonings because their food has gone bad.

Also, as I pointed out upthread, that "stat" is bullshiat anyway, since almost every rental comes with a fridge and stove, quite often a dishwasher and even sometimes a microwave. That "study" was the biggest piece of bulllshiat I think has ever been perpetrated on the American Public...


Wait, somebody actually did a "study" that came to that conclusion? And this was recently, not like 1920? That's pretty ridiculous.
 
2012-09-21 05:25:29 PM  

serial_crusher: namatad: jail for her - for how long? life? ok but now we are paying for that. thanks

Jail is supposed to be a deterrent and a rehabilitation tool. So, however long it takes to deter people from having unplanned kids, or to convince them not to have another unplanned kid. Like I said during my latest jury selection, I'm not qualified to know how long it takes to rehabilitate somebody. That's what experts are for.


What the fark am I reading?

I'm voting troll on this one.
 
2012-09-21 05:41:29 PM  

Baryogenesis: serial_crusher: namatad: jail for her - for how long? life? ok but now we are paying for that. thanks

Jail is supposed to be a deterrent and a rehabilitation tool. So, however long it takes to deter people from having unplanned kids, or to convince them not to have another unplanned kid. Like I said during my latest jury selection, I'm not qualified to know how long it takes to rehabilitate somebody. That's what experts are for.

What the fark am I reading?

I'm voting troll on this one.


Wow, I wish I was smart enough to achieve that level of subtlety intentionally. But no, I meant deter people from taking unnecessary risks that lead to unplanned kids. Use the free contraception and/or keep it in your pants.
 
2012-09-21 05:42:49 PM  
The day I tried to live
I stole a thousand beggars' change
And gave it to the rich
 
2012-09-21 05:51:07 PM  

Mikey1969: Also, as I pointed out upthread, that "stat" is bullshiat anyway, since almost every rental comes with a fridge and stove, quite often a dishwasher and even sometimes a microwave. That "study" was the biggest piece of bulllshiat I think has ever been perpetrated on the American Public...


That and one can easily get a fridge for $300. It's not like its a Benz or something.
 
2012-09-21 05:53:12 PM  

serial_crusher: Mikey1969: mcsmiley: Fart_Machine: Most of these people own a refrigerator so they're not really poor.

Because it's cheaper than having botulism, salmonella, and other food poisonings because their food has gone bad.

Also, as I pointed out upthread, that "stat" is bullshiat anyway, since almost every rental comes with a fridge and stove, quite often a dishwasher and even sometimes a microwave. That "study" was the biggest piece of bulllshiat I think has ever been perpetrated on the American Public...

Wait, somebody actually did a "study" that came to that conclusion? And this was recently, not like 1920? That's pretty ridiculous.


They've been making that the argument for 50 years.

Youtube link, sorry for the poor sound quality.
 
2012-09-21 06:03:38 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: "Skin in the game" sounds too much like a pound of flesh to me.


Indeed. Just ask the disabled vets who've left a limb or two behind in the Middle East. How dare they ask the rich to compensate them in return.
 
2012-09-21 06:13:20 PM  
So what if 9 million people are below the poverty level.

They'll get over it. They'll settle for shiat jobs, it'll pay the bills until the economy improves, and then when it does, they'll either keep working those shiat jobs or get fired and be forced to take another shiat job.

What's the problem?
 
2012-09-21 06:20:04 PM  

WordyGrrl: HotWingConspiracy: "Skin in the game" sounds too much like a pound of flesh to me.

Indeed. Just ask the disabled vets who've left a limb or two behind in the Middle East. How dare they ask the rich to compensate them in return.


Hell Broke Luce (nsfw language)
 
2012-09-21 06:31:33 PM  
I'll just leave these here.

www.washingtonpost.com

www.washingtonpost.com 

The one tax graph you really need to know
 
2012-09-21 06:33:09 PM  

impaler: Mikey1969: Also, as I pointed out upthread, that "stat" is bullshiat anyway, since almost every rental comes with a fridge and stove, quite often a dishwasher and even sometimes a microwave. That "study" was the biggest piece of bulllshiat I think has ever been perpetrated on the American Public...

That and one can easily get a fridge for $300. It's not like its a Benz or something.


shiat I got one from my buddy for free.

/beer fridge
 
2012-09-21 06:33:30 PM  

MyRandomName: US has one of the most progressive systems in the world.


Tax systems, yes. Spending? No.
 
2012-09-21 06:35:41 PM  

fusillade762: I'll just leave these here.

[www.washingtonpost.com image 567x377]

[www.washingtonpost.com image 564x357] 

The one tax graph you really need to know


Does the "total tax bill" include property taxes? Cause in states like Texas, we just don't have state income taxes but our property taxes are higher. Seems like there might be a higher incentive for somebody with a high income to move to a state that has less state income tax...
 
2012-09-21 06:48:15 PM  

serial_crusher: fusillade762: I'll just leave these here.

[www.washingtonpost.com image 567x377]

[www.washingtonpost.com image 564x357] 

The one tax graph you really need to know

Does the "total tax bill" include property taxes? Cause in states like Texas, we just don't have state income taxes but our property taxes are higher. Seems like there might be a higher incentive for somebody with a high income to move to a state that has less state income tax...


Never mind. your linked article links to this jpeg which has the answer to that question in a footnote, so it must be accurate.
Interesting to also note that they included some employer-paid taxes as "income", which seems just a little bit shady to me.

Anyhow, I think they're missing a big point about states' rights. I don't think the Federal government should worry about how fair the states' tax codes are, or try to adjust anything to compensate for it.
 
2012-09-21 06:49:00 PM  
I have to say, if anyone was to turn out to be a secret conspiracy of communists trying to start a violent workers' uprising, it would be the Republicans as much as they're instigating and literally destroying this country.
 
2012-09-21 06:53:04 PM  
"nonpartisan but liberal leaning"

Wait, what?
 
2012-09-21 06:55:43 PM  

WorldCitizen: It will be like Mad Max but with some crazy hell fire and brimstone preacher leading the mob.


Iran?
 
2012-09-21 06:59:39 PM  
I know if I had to pay taxes I'd be farked. That would be probably about a grand I wouldn't get back from the government which I need to cover college costs. As an interesting aside, students apparently don't qualify for food stamps either unless they also work 20 hours a week.
 
2012-09-21 06:59:39 PM  

gameshowhost: How R|R is polling above 23% is beyond me.


Because Jesus, teh ghey and Scary Mooselimbs. Also the president is a ni*BONG*.
 
2012-09-21 07:11:09 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Mangoose: But what would it do for the other 290 million people?

Well, if you put those 9.2 million people back under the poverty line, they'll have absolutely no money to spend on anything, which means they fall off the grid as consumers. Their lack of consumer activity will severely impact businesses of all types, leading to decreased revenues. the reduced business activity will lead to more job losses, which will put more people in danger of poverty, thus beginning the cycle again.

So, to sum up: If you put 9.2 million more people into poverty and remove their ability to earn net income, the other 290 million folks will be farked as well.


Hey, it worked during the Great Depression! Let's try it again!
 
2012-09-21 07:11:50 PM  

Notabunny: WordyGrrl: HotWingConspiracy: "Skin in the game" sounds too much like a pound of flesh to me.

Indeed. Just ask the disabled vets who've left a limb or two behind in the Middle East. How dare they ask the rich to compensate them in return.

Hell Broke Luce (nsfw language)


Wow. That's a pretty intense video. Sums it right up.
 
2012-09-21 07:19:45 PM  

SevenizGud: They just don't report their income from their drug-running and theft.


Neither does Mitt Romney.
 
2012-09-21 07:21:53 PM  

lamecomedian: "nonpartisan but liberal leaning"

Wait, what?


It means they understand, like most informed people, that the Democratic Party is right-of-center politically.
 
2012-09-21 07:21:55 PM  
The obvious remedy is to lower the poverty line. Define it in terms of net income instead of gross.
 
2012-09-21 07:26:06 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: The obvious remedy is to lower the poverty line. Define it in terms of net income instead of gross.


100K is just above the poverty line right now. How much lower can it go?
 
2012-09-21 07:26:45 PM  
At this point, the Republicans are thinking the best way to shrink government is to bring on another French Revolution. They're just trying to get into power to sell off more of America like Romney did the corporations Bain bought. That's the totality of the Republican Party's real goal: sell off America, and then move to the next country.
 
2012-09-21 07:30:53 PM  

whidbey: BarkingUnicorn: The obvious remedy is to lower the poverty line. Define it in terms of net income instead of gross.

100K is just above the poverty line right now. How much lower can it go?


Meh, it should really be defined in terms of whether anyone, individual or family, can obtain basic services and needs. A single person making $50K is probably in better shape financially than a family of four making $150K, depending on their situation.

I know this would require treating everyone on a case by case basis instead of putting it on a neat little chart, but you could use the savings from fraud, appeals and redundancy and use it to hire more caseworkers.
 
2012-09-21 07:35:06 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Meh, it should really be defined in terms of whether anyone, individual or family, can obtain basic services and needs. A single person making $50K is probably in better shape financially than a family of four making $150K, depending on their situation.


Seems to me a family taking in a 150K should be investing as much of that money as possible, if they're having financial problems. To the rest of us mere mortals making less than 50K, they appear damned comfortable.
 
2012-09-21 07:49:56 PM  

KushanMadman: MyRandomName: I would love for a liberal here to show any country that is successful where only half the populace pays income taxes. You won't find an example in Europe. US has one of the most progressive systems in the world. Not even a vat tax which really hits people in regressive manner.

I have one.

The United States of America.


I'm not seeing the point here either. Japan's taxes go from 5% to 40%. China goes from 3% to 45%. Do you think that the USA's tax plan is more progressive?

If you really want a country where half the people don't pay income tax, I'll take Monaco. If you want countries that are more progressive, there are lots of choices.
 
2012-09-21 07:59:46 PM  

whidbey: lamecomedian: "nonpartisan but liberal leaning"

Wait, what?

It means they understand, like most informed people, that the Democratic Party is right-of-center politically.


That's moronic. How do you define "center"? Obviously not by "median voter", because if that were the case you'd have a hard time explaining the composition of the legislature. How can you define "center" in such a way that parties comprising the entire House are all on one side of it?

The US House represents the ideological spectrum of the voting public (averaged per CD, as of the time of the most recent election). That means that, as of 2010, the center of the US is about 10% into the Republican party, and the Dems are nearly all left of center.
 
2012-09-21 08:08:32 PM  
Nothing makes wealth more enjoyable than watching rabble trying to scratch out a meager existence.
 
2012-09-21 08:57:27 PM  

Cup_O_Jo: How did "47% of people are not paying taxes" turn into Taxing the 47%? No really. The point of what he was saying before was that "IF YOU ARE NOT WORKING or below the poverty level you are not paying taxes" If we get these people jobs and get people up above the poverty level--yes you will be paying taxes but you will also have a JOB. Why is this so hard for people to understand. I just.. ARGHHH


Aren't you the troll that claims to be on disability?
 
2012-09-21 09:06:04 PM  

oren0: whidbey: lamecomedian: "nonpartisan but liberal leaning"

Wait, what?

It means they understand, like most informed people, that the Democratic Party is right-of-center politically.

That's moronic. How do you define "center"? Obviously not by "median voter", because if that were the case you'd have a hard time explaining the composition of the legislature. How can you define "center" in such a way that parties comprising the entire House are all on one side of it?

The US House represents the ideological spectrum of the voting public (averaged per CD, as of the time of the most recent election). That means that, as of 2010, the center of the US is about 10% into the Republican party, and the Dems are nearly all left of center.


oren0: whidbey: lamecomedian: "nonpartisan but liberal leaning"

Wait, what?

It means they understand, like most informed people, that the Democratic Party is right-of-center politically.

That's moronic. How do you define "center"? Obviously not by "median voter", because if that were the case you'd have a hard time explaining the composition of the legislature. How can you define "center" in such a way that parties comprising the entire House are all on one side of it?

The US House represents the ideological spectrum of the voting public (averaged per CD, as of the time of the most recent election). That means that, as of 2010, the center of the US is about 10% into the Republican party, and the Dems are nearly all left of center.


This really isn't rocket science. The Democratic Party rules from the center right.

If they were truly liberal we'd have Universal Health Care and no more bombing the f*ck out of brown people.

Now, granted, Obama deserves praise for trying to break out of that cycle, but seeing as how he's operating in a center-right political environment, Obamacare and at least a commitment to GTFO out of Afghanistan/Iraq is the best we got.

Not that I'm complaining, to me there has been substantial progress nonetheless, but I don't have illusions about the Democratic Party being "the libbiest libs who ever libbed."

They're actually a lot more conservative politically. Which makes the opposition's cries of "but Socialism!" even more asinine and ignorant.
 
2012-09-21 09:37:41 PM  

fusillade762: I'll just leave these here.

[www.washingtonpost.com image 567x377]

[www.washingtonpost.com image 564x357] 

The one tax graph you really need to know


wait wait wait - FACTS ????
:D
 
2012-09-21 09:42:58 PM  

oren0: That's moronic. How do you define "center"?


Because Political Center is define by political positions. not the number of people holding them.
Left and Right are traditionally used for Liberals and Conservatives.
People often add a second dimension to the chart, with Authoritarian to the top and libertarian to the bottom.

Great Examples

Did that answer you problem with misunderstanding the word center when discussing politics?
 
2012-09-21 10:12:36 PM  
Well, so much for getting any days off.

Can't call in sick nor dead?!
 
2012-09-21 10:12:42 PM  

WorldCitizen: tallguywithglasseson: To think that at one time, there were actually Republicans who were proud of eliminating taxes on the poor.

Instead of the raise taxes on the poor and middle class while lowering them on the wealthy party? I think Republicans have just decided a dystopian future sounds really cool, so they're going to make it happen as soon as possible for their own amusement.

It will be like Mad Max but with some crazy hell fire and brimstone preacher leading the mob.


Who runs bartertown?
 
2012-09-21 10:19:54 PM  

Fart_Machine: Cup_O_Jo: How did "47% of people are not paying taxes" turn into Taxing the 47%? No really. The point of what he was saying before was that "IF YOU ARE NOT WORKING or below the poverty level you are not paying taxes" If we get these people jobs and get people up above the poverty level--yes you will be paying taxes but you will also have a JOB. Why is this so hard for people to understand. I just.. ARGHHH

Aren't you the troll that claims to be on disability?


And then rails against those slackers sucking on the government teat because they are lazy fakers. But not her. She really deserves the money. Yep.
 
2012-09-21 11:21:17 PM  
I see, the more poor people we have, the more we need to give to the rich, so that more "trickles down." It's a three phase plan for Republicans:

Step 1: trash the economy so most people are poor
Step 2: give more of what's left to the rich
Step 3: escape to their private islands in the South Pacific before someone builds a domestic pitchfork and torch factory
 
2012-09-21 11:40:55 PM  

whidbey: Gyrfalcon: Meh, it should really be defined in terms of whether anyone, individual or family, can obtain basic services and needs. A single person making $50K is probably in better shape financially than a family of four making $150K, depending on their situation.

Seems to me a family taking in a 150K should be investing as much of that money as possible, if they're having financial problems. To the rest of us mere mortals making less than 50K, they appear damned comfortable.


You think? Let's see: (These figures are based on living in So Cal, btw. Assuming the family lives in Wyoming, things might be different)

150,000 annually = 12,500 per month. Sure seems nice. But remember, they have two kids. So they have to have a house, probably. Let's say a nice three-bedroom in a nice area. That's going to be a $300-500K house, depending. so the mortgage is going to run anywhere from $2000-4000 a month. Split the difference and call it $3000/mo.

$9500 left. Since we're in So Cal, mom and dad each have a car. Another ~$500 per month, plus car insurance (ruinously high, here in LA) so let's say average $700/mo. Throw in $45 weekly each for gas x 4 = $360; take off $1000 per month for transportation. $8500/mo left.

Family of four is going to eat a lot of food, even if they don't eat out much. As a single person, I spend around $80 weekly on food, so let's conservatively double it: $160 x 4 = $640/mo for food. Call it an even $700 because people will eat out now & then. (also makes my math easier)

$7800 left. Bills--electricity, gas, water, cable, phone (cell phone for each); ~$1500/mo might be overestimating, but it's been hot this summer. $6300/mo left.

OK, that's for basics. Now let's see. Mom and Dad each put money into a college fund for the kids, probably $500 each a month, maybe more if they can; but let's pretend $1000/mo for the kids to go to school. $5300 left. Kids have school events that were free when you & I went to school but aren't now: Band, football, etc. Depending on the event, it can run up to a thousand per year, or $83 a month; so let's say another $100 when you add in all the little things the schools always forget. $5200 left

Younger kid has to go to day care after school; that's another $1000 monthly for the kind of safe, molester-free day care parents seem to want; down to $4200. Knock off another grand for things I forgot or don't know about, being single, and lets say they have $3000 monthly to invest.

Sure, that's some good money to invest if you can; but most people don't know how. Maybe these folks have a good IRA or CD to put their cash into; but you won't be playing the market on three grand a month. Besides, some of that goes for property taxes (again, high down here) and earthquake or other local insurance...

So yeah, they're living "comfortably"; I'm not denying it. But so's our single person making $50K a year living in a one-bedroom apartment. The point is, just saying "Oh, they make $X so they're in poverty, those people make $Y so they're not is foolish.
 
2012-09-21 11:45:06 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Sure, that's some good money to invest if you can; but most people don't know how.


Well then, I really don't see where they have a lot of room to biatch, just because they haven't figured out how. The stakes are much higher when you have those kinds of bills you mentioned.


So yeah, they're living "comfortably"; I'm not denying it. But so's our single person making $50K a year living in a one-bedroom apartment. The point is, just saying "Oh, they make $X so they're in poverty, those people make $Y so they're not is foolish.


The point is that they're still making way more money. Three times the single person's salary. And if they can't find a way to turn that to their advantage, it's hard to find sympathy.
 
2012-09-22 12:29:45 AM  
Here's a thought... how about we stop arguing about what "class" pays what rate and who pays no taxes, and get rid of income taxes all together and institute a National Sales Tax... there is no skirting it, there would be no deductions, no refunds. Oh wait... then we would have to get rid of the IRS as we now know it and a lot of politcal cronies would be out of jobs. Can't have that! Well then... carry on with the asinine, overly-complicated mess of a tax system we have now and people can just keep arguing about this who-isn't-paying-their-fair-share crap in perpituity and never get anywhere in fixing it. I mean, what empty promises would the politicians have to make us to get themselves elected if they were to fix the tax system?
 
2012-09-22 12:51:08 AM  

arobb00: Here's a thought... how about we stop arguing about what "class" pays what rate and who pays no taxes, and get rid of income taxes all together and institute a National Sales Tax... there is no skirting it, there would be no deductions, no refunds. Oh wait... then we would have to get rid of the IRS as we now know it and a lot of politcal cronies would be out of jobs. Can't have that! Well then... carry on with the asinine, overly-complicated mess of a tax system we have now and people can just keep arguing about this who-isn't-paying-their-fair-share crap in perpituity and never get anywhere in fixing it. I mean, what empty promises would the politicians have to make us to get themselves elected if they were to fix the tax system?


Um, the Fair Tax (which is what you're getting at) wouldn't get rid of the IRS. You'd still need an over-reaching agency to collect those funds on the Federal level.
 
2012-09-22 04:24:17 AM  

Notabunny: [img.photobucket.com image 537x699]


media4.dropshots.com
 
2012-09-22 02:50:00 PM  

SevenizGud: I'd be happy just to stop paying people to be career criminal crotch-droppers as part of a derpocrap vote-breeding project.

These people aren't in poverty. They just don't report their income from their drug-running and theft.



True, I bet they have a lot of offshore bank accounts like in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland. They probably pay some ridiculous tax rate like 15% or less while everyone else with millions or hundreds of thousands pays over 30%
 
2012-09-22 02:51:25 PM  

TheOther: When the Democrats and Republicans, (or. Republicans and Democrats. if you prefer,) get done with the middle class, it will ALL be below the poverty line. In this feudal republic, those two parties will still have a binopoly on federal and state government, which means they control voting and ballot rules, which means they will still have a binopoly on federal and state...etc.

'Reform' aint gonna get it done.



Agreed. I can't believe anyone even had any money after the disaster of 8 years of Clinton's Presidency.
 
2012-09-22 02:52:48 PM  

MyRandomName: I would love for a liberal here to show any country that is successful where only half the populace pays income taxes. You won't find an example in Europe. US has one of the most progressive systems in the world. Not even a vat tax which really hits people in regressive manner.



I would love for the conservatives to point out a successful country that only taxes the poor and middle classes while the rich pay half or less of what they should.
 
2012-09-22 02:54:04 PM  

AcneVulgaris: Nothing makes wealth more enjoyable than watching rabble trying to scratch out a meager existence.



The true belief of a sociopath
 
2012-09-22 11:18:26 PM  
"53% of Americans no longer have dinner seated at an ironing board. Some still eat tuna fish."

When it comes to political commentary, Margaret and Helen are hilarious.

/Unless you're a douchebag or Sarah Palin.
 
2012-09-23 01:50:29 AM  
The lottery is taxing the poor, lest you get a dime from then
 
2012-09-23 02:13:48 AM  

intelligent comment below: I would love for the conservatives to point out a successful country that only taxes the poor and middle classes while the rich pay half or less of what they should.


The USA is one, poor and middle class don't pay federals income tax. The rich earn around 29% on income, yet pay near 40% of that income taxes. How much is a fair amount to your? How much is a fair amount for them, and how much is a fair amount for the bottom that don't pay any fed income, yet they still use the roads, sewers, water, etc.
 
2012-09-23 03:00:38 AM  

5Nickels: The USA is one, poor and middle class don't pay federals income tax. The rich earn around 29% on income, yet pay near 40% of that income taxes. How much is a fair amount to your? How much is a fair amount for them, and how much is a fair amount for the bottom that don't pay any fed income, yet they still use the roads, sewers, water, etc.



The USA is not a successful country, and the only reason the rich pay that percentage of taxes is because they control that percentage of wealth

Your numbers are completely fabricated

The top 1% control 40% of the wealth

The top 20% control 80% of the wealth

The GOP plan is to lower the taxes for all these people

So the bottom who use all those services don't pay for them? Apparently they don't pay payroll taxes, gas taxes, water bills, etc.

I'm not sure if you're serious with what you posted because it sounds like straight from the mouth of a 19 year old college republican,
 
2012-09-23 08:50:09 AM  

intelligent comment below: 5Nickels: The USA is one, poor and middle class don't pay federals income tax. The rich earn around 29% on income, yet pay near 40% of that income taxes. How much is a fair amount to your? How much is a fair amount for them, and how much is a fair amount for the bottom that don't pay any fed income, yet they still use the roads, sewers, water, etc.


The USA is not a successful country, and the only reason the rich pay that percentage of taxes is because they control that percentage of wealth

Your numbers are completely fabricated

The top 1% control 40% of the wealth

The top 20% control 80% of the wealth

The GOP plan is to lower the taxes for all these people

So the bottom who use all those services don't pay for them? Apparently they don't pay payroll taxes, gas taxes, water bills, etc.

I'm not sure if you're serious with what you posted because it sounds like straight from the mouth of a 19 year old college republican,


Look like this is from a 47% er who does not pay any taxes, or he would know how wrong he is.
 
2012-09-23 05:51:56 PM  

5Nickels: The USA is one, poor and middle class don't pay federals income tax.


derp
 
Displayed 152 of 152 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report