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 37
    More: Scary, GOP, poverty line, Tim Kaine, child tax credit, House Majority Leader, CBPP, Earned Income Tax Credit, Tax Policy Center  
•       •       •

2053 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Sep 2012 at 3:57 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-09-21 10:33:26 AM  
5 votes:

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.
2012-09-21 04:02:29 PM  
3 votes:
"Skin in the game" sounds too much like a pound of flesh to me.
2012-09-21 04:09:15 PM  
2 votes:

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.
2012-09-21 04:03:25 PM  
2 votes:
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 01:45:37 PM  
2 votes:
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 12:58:36 PM  
2 votes:
The GOP wants to collect income tax on retired people.
2012-09-21 11:57:38 AM  
2 votes:
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 11:45:06 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2012-09-21 11:21:17 PM  
1 votes:
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 07:35:06 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:30:53 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:19:45 PM  
1 votes:

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


Neither does Mitt Romney.
2012-09-21 06:59:39 PM  
1 votes:
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 06:55:43 PM  
1 votes:

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


Iran?
2012-09-21 06:03:38 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:41:29 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:10:40 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:55:43 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:55:03 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:51:48 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:49:35 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:47:51 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:38:15 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:37:22 PM  
1 votes:
Come on, you farks, do it. Help us get a hundred thousand people in the streets.
2012-09-21 04:31:27 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:14:53 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:02:02 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:28:32 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:48:30 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:20:20 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:20:56 PM  
1 votes:
THAT'S A FEATURE NOT A BUG
2012-09-21 01:12:24 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:06:08 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:59:39 PM  
1 votes:
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 10:58:14 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:54:27 AM  
1 votes:
So, taxing the poor puts more people onto government programs? BRILLIANT.
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-09-21 10:40:21 AM  
1 votes:

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.
 
Displayed 37 of 37 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report