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 152
    More: Scary, GOP, poverty line, Tim Kaine, child tax credit, House Majority Leader, CBPP, Earned Income Tax Credit, Tax Policy Center  
•       •       •

2050 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Sep 2012 at 3:57 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



152 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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,
 
Displayed 50 of 152 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report