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.

(Huffington Post)   Top 2% to GOP: Tax us, you dolts   (huffingtonpost.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, GOP, human beings, United Technologies Corp., National Press, Pratt & Whitney, Scott DesJarlais, John Thune, aerospace industry  
•       •       •

6062 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Dec 2012 at 1:07 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-06 02:04:11 PM  

Carn: k1j2b3: Please go ahead and write your checks directly to the government to pay down the debt. Then we'll talk.

No one is stopping these wealthy bozos from ponying up more cash. But yet, I never hear about one of them doing so.

Please go talk to the 'wealthy' who make between $200K and $1M a year. I have a feeling you wouldn't be getting the same answer from them.

People who make between 200K and 1M aren't part of the 2%.


Yes, in fact they are. $200K puts you over 97%, so technically you're a 3%er. The 2% break is somewhere around $225K, household.
 
2012-12-06 02:04:48 PM  

k1j2b3: It is about CUTS, people. Not more taxes.


Average spending over last 30 years is 22% of GDP.
Current spending is 24% of GDP

Average Tax Receipts of last 30 years is 19% of GDP
Current taxes are 15.4% GDP

Please explain to me again how 2% > 3.6%, and by extension how this is a spending issue and not a revenue issue.

its both, but it is far more a revenue issue than it is a spending issue - Cutting the military budget in half (or as others would call it, pre-war levels) makes up the entirety of that 2% of GDP.
 
2012-12-06 02:05:09 PM  

Rent Party: verbaltoxin:
That this kind of idea is being floated around both sides of the isle today should worry everyone. They should change the definition of capital gains and tax the people that don't work more than they tax people that do.

You were good up until about here. Then it became, "Change it so others get taxed more, not me."

No, it should be changed to encourage genuine capital investment. I have no problem with dropping the cap gains rate to 0% so long as the dollar getting invested went to actual capital improvements, expansion, and business operations, rather than two assholes just buying and selling stock on the market.

If I buy stock X from some company, that dollar goes to the company and they use it to improve business. Gains on that dollar can be as low as you want. If I buy stock X from you, the company doesn't see it, you do. Any gains made on that dollar should be taxed as regular income, because that is exactly what it is.


I agree with you, but you went about saying that in a way that was, like your profile says, douchey.
 
2012-12-06 02:05:14 PM  

k1j2b3: verbaltoxin:

It's already been explained why that isn't a feasible option, but please have more of this rope.

Read those posts...basically, no, you can't overpay the IRS, but you can write a check directly to the U.S. Treasury. That is what I meant by my comment.

Also, if you meant that it would only be a small dent in the debt...then also a dumb comment b/c that is in essence what you are asking the wealthy to do...pony up more in taxes to make a minuscule dent in the problem.

It is about CUTS, people. Not more taxes.


No, it's about both. There aren't enough loopholes to remove to make up the deficit. There aren't enough cuts to make unless you take a giant ax to the military budget, SS, and Medicare. The left and the right are diametrically opposed on these so cuts to any will end up being moderate. This leaves us tax increases. They will not solve the deficit by themselves either. Since you can't solve the problem with one of these things alone, the only viable choice (which happens to be the moderate, pragmatic, realistic, and rational one) is a combination of cuts and tax increases. Stop trying to argue that we can do it on cuts alone. It's not politically feasible, and it would seriously damage a fragile economy. Take out a trillion dollars worth of government spending and all its corresponding effects on the economy and we'll plunge headfirst back into depression. Taxing incredibly wealthy people on the other hand, will help with the problem and not hurt them in the slightest.
 
2012-12-06 02:05:53 PM  

meat0918: I thought China had surpassed Japan as the largest. Major Foreign Holders of Treasury Securities


Thanks for the update. I missed that. And by that chart it actually looks like Japan is catching back up.
 
2012-12-06 02:07:42 PM  

sammyk: DamnYankees: To be fair to the GOP, this is sort of dumb. Rich people do want tax cuts. Anecdotally pulling out a few people who don't doesn't mean anything.

If you want to argue the GOP shouldn't listen to its base, go for it. But the base is the base.

%2 of the population constitutes a base?


No, the base is people who are GOING to be in the 2%, just as soon as the President stops being near.
 
2012-12-06 02:07:47 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: A very simple, we will approve the tax increases on June 1, once you proved that you cut the spending in the first 5 months of the year.


Yes, because the Republicans have never gone back on their word in any negotiation in the past 4 years.

Also, taxes are going up on January 1 (not June) regardless. The only question right now is "How many people are going to have higher taxes."
 
2012-12-06 02:08:29 PM  

k1j2b3: Please go ahead and write your checks directly to the government to pay down the debt. Then we'll talk.


They're willing to pay more if they get something for paying more.

A systematic increase on taxes on the top 2% will give them a decreased deficit.

A "two percenter" donating an extra 4% of their income over $250,000 gets them nothing.

Idiot.
 
2012-12-06 02:08:48 PM  

verbaltoxin: k1j2b3: verbaltoxin:

It's already been explained why that isn't a feasible option, but please have more of this rope.

Read those posts...basically, no, you can't overpay the IRS, but you can write a check directly to the U.S. Treasury. That is what I meant by my comment.

Also, if you meant that it would only be a small dent in the debt...then also a dumb comment b/c that is in essence what you are asking the wealthy to do...pony up more in taxes to make a minuscule dent in the problem.

It is about CUTS, people. Not more taxes.

Too late, already had an election on that issue, and it lost. Two wars, one bailout. PAY UP.


Wut.
You do know the GOP shellacked the Dems in the House in 2010 and kept the House in 2012, right?
Ways and Means Committee, how does that work?
Tea Party call for spending less, how doe that work?
 
2012-12-06 02:09:31 PM  

Rent Party: Carn: k1j2b3: Please go ahead and write your checks directly to the government to pay down the debt. Then we'll talk.

No one is stopping these wealthy bozos from ponying up more cash. But yet, I never hear about one of them doing so.

Please go talk to the 'wealthy' who make between $200K and $1M a year. I have a feeling you wouldn't be getting the same answer from them.

People who make between 200K and 1M aren't part of the 2%.

Yes, in fact they are. $200K puts you over 97%, so technically you're a 3%er. The 2% break is somewhere around $225K, household.


Ah, I was thinking wealth, not income. But I'm still fine with the taxes up on 250k+ idea as well as an additional 1M+ bracket at 40-45%
 
2012-12-06 02:10:00 PM  

verbaltoxin: Rent Party: verbaltoxin:

I agree with you, but you went about saying that in a way that was, like your profile says, douchey.


If you wrestle with the douche, expect....

Ah, hell with that.
 
2012-12-06 02:13:06 PM  

Carn:

People who make between 200K and 1M aren't part of the 2%.


Yes, they are:

"As the Democratic president and his Republican opponents debate whether to extend the George W. Bush-era tax cuts for the top 2 percent of U.S. taxpayers -- individuals earning more than $200,000 a year and married couples making more than $250,000 -- their poll-tested phrases obscure the truth about who would be affected."

From Bloomberg, but you can find it other places.
 
2012-12-06 02:14:53 PM  

verbaltoxin: k1j2b3: verbaltoxin:

Too late, already had an election on that issue, and it lost. Two wars, one bailout. PAY UP.


Winning an election cannot change the facts. Increasing taxes will hardly put a dent in our problem. We need MAJOR CUTS. NOW.

Where are Democrats willing to cut? I am willing to cut from EVERY department. Yes, even the Defense Dept.

Where's your offer????
 
2012-12-06 02:15:06 PM  

Carn: k1j2b3: verbaltoxin:

It's already been explained why that isn't a feasible option, but please have more of this rope.

Read those posts...basically, no, you can't overpay the IRS, but you can write a check directly to the U.S. Treasury. That is what I meant by my comment.

Also, if you meant that it would only be a small dent in the debt...then also a dumb comment b/c that is in essence what you are asking the wealthy to do...pony up more in taxes to make a minuscule dent in the problem.

It is about CUTS, people. Not more taxes.

No, it's about both. There aren't enough loopholes to remove to make up the deficit. There aren't enough cuts to make unless you take a giant ax to the military budget, SS, and Medicare. The left and the right are diametrically opposed on these so cuts to any will end up being moderate. This leaves us tax increases. They will not solve the deficit by themselves either. Since you can't solve the problem with one of these things alone, the only viable choice (which happens to be the moderate, pragmatic, realistic, and rational one) is a combination of cuts and tax increases. Stop trying to argue that we can do it on cuts alone. It's not politically feasible, and it would seriously damage a fragile economy. Take out a trillion dollars worth of government spending and all its corresponding effects on the economy and we'll plunge headfirst back into depression. Taxing incredibly wealthy people on the other hand, will help with the problem and not hurt them in the slightest.


IIRC, the 0bama tax increases would be address about 10% of the budget deficit.
Weird, huh, that he spends so much time talking about that instead of the other 90% or how to improve the economy and create jobs.

It is all about class warfare, putting a band-aide on a gushing wound and failing to address the real issues.
 
2012-12-06 02:17:00 PM  

lennavan: CapeFearCadaver: Bleg. I'll shut up. Guess I just needed to get that shiat off my chest.

I know what you mean. Really I want to say it to their faces but I won't, they're family and I have to see them around the holidays. We do our best to not talk about politics.

Last one off my chest - we have a blind guy who married into the family who has been on government assistance for 30+ years who biatches about the government and wears a "I don't need sex, the government screws me every day" t shirt. Really dude?


The number of shut-ins I have as clients who are anti-govenment and anti-welfare, while receiving disability and what not is staggering.
 
2012-12-06 02:18:24 PM  
As a member of the 98%, let me add: Tax everybody, you dolts. Nothing wrong with a return to Clinton rates. At least for those who are legitimately concerned about the deficit.
 
2012-12-06 02:19:41 PM  

t3knomanser: I love the, "Well, why don't they just pay more voluntarily?"

Because the IRS can't actually use that money. Overpayments get banked into an account for the overpayer. They can collect interest, and they can be applied to future liabilities, but the IRS can't keep that money. In fact, if you overpay, you can go back to the IRS and get that refund from them.

I actually overpayed recently due to some confusion. It was trivially easy to get my money back, and the IRS has some of the best customer service I have ever experienced.


You can check a box on your tax return and enter the amount extra you want to pay. I often wonder if that box has ever been checked.
 
2012-12-06 02:19:59 PM  

Weaver95: "In the near term, [income tax rates] need to go up some," Langstaff said. "This is a fairness issue -- there needs to be recognition that we're not collecting enough revenue. In the last decade we've fought two wars without raising taxes. So I think it does need to go up."

translation: look, they're on to our little scam. we'll kick in a few extra bucks and rearrange the deck chairs a bit then play nice nice with the peasants for a little while until they calm down and get distracted by the next shiny object. then once things are calm, we'll activate a contingency plan, get our money back and go right back to screwing over everyone else. tell Grover to STFU for a while, its all part of the plan.


HOLY SHIAT!!! So you're actually complaining that a wealthy person is willing to be taxed at a higher rate? And telling the GOP that he thinks their current tax plan sucks? Are you that jaded and cynical you can't accept an olive branch any more? What is wrong with you?!? You sound like a Republican!

Here's the thing. A few wealthy people voluntarily paying more taxes is meaningless because--as has been pointed out already--the IRS assumes it was accidental and merely banks the excess for repayment, first of all; and second, because any one or two people making a gesture, no matter how noble or craven is just that--a gesture. It makes them feel good and us feel vindicated, but accomplishes about as much as the Occupiers sitting outside Wall Street, to wit, nothing. What needs to happen is what these guys want to make happen: A legislated tax increase, which they're indicating they won't argue against or fight, that requires ALL of them to pay, equally, a bigger tax.

If Langstaff were to make a voluntary overpayment of his taxes, yes, that would be very nice. It would also be a drop in the bucket because he himself can't pay much compared to the deficit. He might as well keep his money. But if he and his buddies leaned on their fellow CEOs and their crony Senators not to oppose a tax increase and they ALL had to pay higher taxes next year--which is what he's essentially offering to do--then they'd all pay a whole lot more even with their carefully-managed deductions, and we'd start seeing a decrease. Even with good accountants, if tax rates go up, there's only so much they can keep out.

There's being cautious and practical; and there's being defeatist and cynical. Don't go overboard on the latter.
 
2012-12-06 02:21:02 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: IIRC, the 0bama tax increases would be address about 10% of the budget deficit.
Weird, huh, that he spends so much time talking about that instead of the other 90% or how to improve the economy and create jobs.

It is all about class warfare, putting a band-aide on a gushing wound and failing to address the real issues.


Compared to the GOP plan, which is: just trust us.

Link

Yet Republicans, led by Boehner, have objected to any increase in tax rates, even for the wealthiest Americans. They have said an agreement must include major reforms of entitlement programs such as the Medicare and Medicaid government-run health-care programs for senior citizens, the disabled and the poor.

Their plan offered Monday proposed $800 billion in deficit savings through tax reform, including an unspecified amount of revenue raised by eliminating tax deductions and loopholes.
 
2012-12-06 02:21:05 PM  

t3knomanser: I love the, "Well, why don't they just pay more voluntarily?"

Because the IRS can't actually use that money. Overpayments get banked into an account for the overpayer. They can collect interest, and they can be applied to future liabilities, but the IRS can't keep that money. In fact, if you overpay, you can go back to the IRS and get that refund from them.

I actually overpayed recently due to some confusion. It was trivially easy to get my money back, and the IRS has some of the best customer service I have ever experienced.



That was because you did it wrong.

First, even if you did it by overpaying, there is a limitation on how far back you can file an amended return to get some money back (or make sure your place of residence is the state you want to run for governor of).

Secondly, if you intend a gift, just do a "Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public". Follow the instructions here:

Link 

/Don't change you mind later. That money is gone.
//credit cards accepted? wow
 
2012-12-06 02:21:10 PM  

k1j2b3: verbaltoxin: k1j2b3: verbaltoxin:

Too late, already had an election on that issue, and it lost. Two wars, one bailout. PAY UP.

Winning an election cannot change the facts. Increasing taxes will hardly put a dent in our problem. We need MAJOR CUTS. NOW.

Where are Democrats willing to cut? I am willing to cut from EVERY department. Yes, even the Defense Dept.

Where's your offer????


Prior to the Supercomitte fiasco Obama came to the table with four trillion in cuts over a decade and the GOP told him no because it would have raised the top marginal rate.

The GOP has been completely intransigent on the issue. The Bush tax cuts are a huge part of this mess.
 
2012-12-06 02:21:27 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: As a member of the 98%, let me add: Tax everybody, you dolts. Nothing wrong with a return to Clinton rates. At least for those who are legitimately concerned about the deficit.


I agree with this statement. I also want a cap on mortgage tax reduction and I think it should be phased out in the next 5-10 years. It's bad policy. Also also, remove all corporate welfare now.
 
2012-12-06 02:23:29 PM  

k1j2b3: verbaltoxin: k1j2b3: verbaltoxin:

Too late, already had an election on that issue, and it lost. Two wars, one bailout. PAY UP.

Winning an election cannot change the facts. Increasing taxes will hardly put a dent in our problem. We need MAJOR CUTS. NOW.

Where are Democrats willing to cut? I am willing to cut from EVERY department. Yes, even the Defense Dept.

Where's your offer????


Hey, we have a member of the House Ways and Means Committee right here on Fark!
 
2012-12-06 02:23:34 PM  

Carn: Debeo Summa Credo: As a member of the 98%, let me add: Tax everybody, you dolts. Nothing wrong with a return to Clinton rates. At least for those who are legitimately concerned about the deficit.

I agree with this statement. I also want a cap on mortgage tax reduction and I think it should be phased out in the next 5-10 years. It's bad policy. Also also, remove all corporate welfare now.


And tax capital gains as ordinary income.
 
2012-12-06 02:24:04 PM  
If they reinstate all the Bush tax cuts for everyone. Decide to not do the cuts to the military and SS.

Taxes are still going up on

Dividends
Capital gains
Medical devices

There is also a .9 increase in taxes for incomes over the 200,000/250,000
 
2012-12-06 02:24:14 PM  
Paul Krugman tells us that deficits don't matter, so why do we have to raise taxes on anyone?
 
2012-12-06 02:25:00 PM  
And break the sacred tax oath to the holy man child?

Never!
 
2012-12-06 02:25:12 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: k1j2b3: verbaltoxin: k1j2b3: verbaltoxin:

Too late, already had an election on that issue, and it lost. Two wars, one bailout. PAY UP.

Winning an election cannot change the facts. Increasing taxes will hardly put a dent in our problem. We need MAJOR CUTS. NOW.

Where are Democrats willing to cut? I am willing to cut from EVERY department. Yes, even the Defense Dept.

Where's your offer????

Hey, we have a member of the House Ways and Means Committee right here on Fark!


If I were to be told I had to take an income cut of 10% or declare bankruptcy I could manage.

I believe our government could do the same.
 
2012-12-06 02:26:08 PM  

jst3p: Carn: Debeo Summa Credo: As a member of the 98%, let me add: Tax everybody, you dolts. Nothing wrong with a return to Clinton rates. At least for those who are legitimately concerned about the deficit.

I agree with this statement. I also want a cap on mortgage tax reduction and I think it should be phased out in the next 5-10 years. It's bad policy. Also also, remove all corporate welfare now.

And tax capital gains as ordinary income.


Especially that. Put a floor on cap gains that will still be taxed at 15% and call it the movin on up bracket. Up to $100K in cap gains taxed at 15%. After that, progressively as income, same rates.
 
2012-12-06 02:28:19 PM  

Somacandra: Not to mention the idea of rich people giving voluntarily while those of lesser means contribute under compulsion is inherently disgusting.


So the idea of someone "contributing" under compulsion isn't disgusting, per se. It's only disgusting when it offends your personal idea of "fairness."
 
2012-12-06 02:30:07 PM  

jst3p: Carn: Debeo Summa Credo: As a member of the 98%, let me add: Tax everybody, you dolts. Nothing wrong with a return to Clinton rates. At least for those who are legitimately concerned about the deficit.

I agree with this statement. I also want a cap on mortgage tax reduction and I think it should be phased out in the next 5-10 years. It's bad policy. Also also, remove all corporate welfare now.

And tax capital gains as ordinary income.


Again with this nonsense?
 
2012-12-06 02:30:59 PM  
Let's all remember that this is the expiration of a stupid tax CUT that has already been extended.

The question is "do 100% of people return to earlier taxes, or do 2%?"

The GOP seems ready to answer "100%" to stay on the good side of the Kochs and Adelsons of America.

And non-rich people still vote for these assholes.
 
2012-12-06 02:31:10 PM  

lennavan: I don't like telling that story, I really like my FIL, he's a really great guy. I don't think he said it or believes it because he's a jerk, I think he just never considered other people.


He sounds like an asshole.
 
2012-12-06 02:31:35 PM  
Why is the Government's answer to everything a tax hike? Why don't these people just spend less of our money? Yes I realized I answered my own questions, but the truth is, every family in America knows if your expenses exceed your income, you cut your expenses. Like every family in this recession, I've learned to live on less money, the government needs to do the same thing. There should not be one farking penny in tax increases on anyone, millionaires included, until there are massive budget cuts. This government spends 10 billion a day and that's still not enough for them.
 
2012-12-06 02:32:48 PM  

bdub77: fark the GOP. fark them totally. Start campaigning against your Congresscritters. It's not that hard to get a deal. Obama has put a ton on the table and the best the GOP can do is 'nuh-uh.'

Hell Obama is even offering to raise tax rates by a smaller amount, maybe 3% instead of almost 5%.

Guillotine: 2014.


Short term, Obama is obviously going to win this.

But he could also do some real damage long term if he came out with a few troll statements like "We know the GOP will cave in sooner or later, we just have to give them time to get the Tea Party nutcases off their backs and the Koch brother parasites out of their pockets"
 
2012-12-06 02:34:01 PM  

Pinner: rufus-t-firefly: Weaver95: Jackson Herring: [j.wigflip.com image 553x768] 

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 292x302]

[p.twimg.com image 500x375]

Can we get a "Hai guys, what's going on here?" stingray photobomb shop for that?


i865.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-06 02:34:52 PM  

ManRay: "We have the morals to comply if you make us pay, but not enough to do it on our own because we believe it to be the right thing."


I see this has been rightfully trounced on already, but I can't resist. First, the argument is a Tu Quoque argument, just because they don't already do what they are suggesting doesn't make it a bad idea. Secondly, this is the very nature of the tragedy of the commons. It is in no individuals best interest to act differently even though if EVERY individual acted differently each individual would benefit.

Also, in general this is not an argument any onewould make in normal circumstances, so I don't see why people make it here. An example:


Bill: hey, it's Jeff's birthday, if we all pitch in $20 we can get him that bottle of Johnny Walker Blue he's always wanted to try.
Bob: I don't want to pay, but if you think it's such a good idea why don't you give the liquor store $20?
Bill: Because that won't get Jeff the bottle.
Bob: So aren't you being a little hypocritical asking me to give $20 when you can, and aren't?
Bill: ...? That doesn't... What? ::face palm::
 
2012-12-06 02:34:54 PM  

CreamFilling: lennavan: CapeFearCadaver: Bleg. I'll shut up. Guess I just needed to get that shiat off my chest.

I know what you mean. Really I want to say it to their faces but I won't, they're family and I have to see them around the holidays. We do our best to not talk about politics.

Last one off my chest - we have a blind guy who married into the family who has been on government assistance for 30+ years who biatches about the government and wears a "I don't need sex, the government screws me every day" t shirt. Really dude?

Back off, he has no idea what his shirt says.


So you could swap his Tshirt for one with a better bumper sticker slogan.
 
2012-12-06 02:35:11 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: Their plan offered Monday proposed $800 billion in deficit savings through tax reform, including an unspecified amount of revenue raised by eliminating tax deductions and loopholes.


And I'm happy to add, that in the year that Republicans have been campaigning to regain the Presidency and the post-election cycle and the fiscal cliff negotiations, they still have not come out and said which loopholes they intend to cut. Not once.

If anybody (especially any Fark Independents) have a link that lays out the actual, specific GOP fiscal plan and which loopholes they intend to do away with (legitimate news source), I'll buy them a free month of Total Fark.
 
2012-12-06 02:35:28 PM  

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Taxation only works when it is applied consistently to an income bracket. The argument of "You can always write a check for as much as you want to the IRS and they'll take it" is smug, pseudo-intellectual nonsense.


It's a perfectly valid argument. If you believe the government should have more money, then by all means give it to them. Be a volunteer. Put your money where your mouth is. Lead by example. But no, you believe that others should be forced to pay despite what they think about it.
 
2012-12-06 02:35:53 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: jst3p: Carn: Debeo Summa Credo: As a member of the 98%, let me add: Tax everybody, you dolts. Nothing wrong with a return to Clinton rates. At least for those who are legitimately concerned about the deficit.

I agree with this statement. I also want a cap on mortgage tax reduction and I think it should be phased out in the next 5-10 years. It's bad policy. Also also, remove all corporate welfare now.

And tax capital gains as ordinary income while also allowing corporations to deduct dividends from their bottom lines.

Again with this nonsense?


Can we just take it as read and avoid this stupid debate for the 8 billionth time?
 
2012-12-06 02:36:19 PM  

Carn: Debeo Summa Credo: As a member of the 98%, let me add: Tax everybody, you dolts. Nothing wrong with a return to Clinton rates. At least for those who are legitimately concerned about the deficit.

I agree with this statement. I also want a cap on mortgage tax reduction and I think it should be phased out in the next 5-10 years. It's bad policy. Also also, remove all corporate welfare now.


I'd phase out elimination of mortgage tax deduction over much longer period.

If you phase it out over only 5 to 10 years you will immediately reduce the market value of homes, farking over people who own homes as well as restarting the financial crisis.

Also, both Obama and Boehner have discussed eliminating corporate loopholes (ir welfare)and reducing corp rates.
 
2012-12-06 02:36:23 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Again with this nonsense?


What's your objection to taxing capital gains as income? I understand your double-taxation objection to taxing dividends as income, but why capital gains? Or was that a summary dismissal of the entire idea, corporate welfare & mortgage deduction included?
 
2012-12-06 02:37:06 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: CapeFearCadaver: My father loves lambasting the 47%, his household and both of my sisters' households would be counted among those in the 47% of 'moochers'. I am the ONLY person in my family who pays a fair share of individual taxes and am beholden to no personal government assistance.

But I voted for Obama, so I'm just a dirty LIB looking for a handout.

Ever point this out to him?


Probably not. He's still waiting for the inheritance.
 
2012-12-06 02:37:56 PM  
holy crap if these guys are top 2%ers, I wonder how rich the 1%ers actually are!
 
2012-12-06 02:38:33 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Let's all remember that this is the expiration of a stupid tax CUT that has already been extended.

The question is "do 100% of people return to earlier taxes, or do 2%?"

The GOP seems ready to answer "100%" to stay on the good side of the Kochs and Adelsons of America.

And non-rich people still vote for these assholes.


And of course, anybody who is remotely interested in the long term fiscal health of the country would say 100%. The GOP wants 0%.
 
2012-12-06 02:40:02 PM  

verbaltoxin: It is about CUTS, people. Not more taxes.

Too late, already had an election on that issue, and it lost. Two wars, one bailout. PAY UP.


Nope. The Republicans won the House (where All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate).
 
2012-12-06 02:40:50 PM  

Optimus Composite: Why is the Government's answer to everything a tax hike? Why don't these people just spend less of our money?


The US Traditionally spends 20.8% of GDP on Funding items (1970-CY)
The US Traditionally Takes in 18.3% of GDP in receipts Every year (1970-CY)

We are currently spending (FY 2012) 22.6% of GDP
And taking in 15.7% GDP in Receipts (FY 2012).

Both of these numbers are estimates, currently.

What this means is, we are currently spending 1.8% more than we usually do, on average.
And We are making 2.6% Less than we usually do, on average.

2.6% our expenditure deficit from normal is, very roughly, 50% larger than 1.8%, or spending deficit from normal.

Therefore, our problem with the current deficit is largely a result of losses in receipts, rather than, a ballooning of the budget.

Furthermore, if one studies the years Bill Clinton's budget ran a surplus, the only years in the last fifty the government has done so, one finds that while his spending levels dipped below the averages of the last 30 years (from 20.8 to perhaps 19.5%) his tax receipts went up nearly 50% more than that, to the 20%-20.5% range. that, and of course that there is a strong correlation to the tax cuts in 2001 and the subsequent recession of government income from the mid-20's to around 16%-17%
 
2012-12-06 02:40:50 PM  

Pinner: CapeFearCadaver: lennavan: Last one off my chest - we have a blind guy who married into the family who has been on government assistance for 30+ years who biatches about the government and wears a "I don't need sex, the government screws me every day" t shirt. Really dude?

Wow.

Is he biatching because he doesn't get ENOUGH govt money? Maybe he doesn't know that he owns that shirt.


Ok, I lol'd hard. I don't know if I should feel bad about it though...
 
2012-12-06 02:42:44 PM  

jigger: Nope. The Republicans won the House (where All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate).


Oh, so now we care about the Constitution. Seems it was just days ago that all this fiscal cliff, debt ceiling, budgetary armageddon was solely Barack Obama's own personal fault.
 
Displayed 50 of 286 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

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