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.

(Today)   The 47% is now down to 43%. Thanks Obama   (today.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, income taxes, wage earners  
•       •       •

5142 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Sep 2013 at 7:19 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-09-09 05:44:53 PM  
When will Erick son of Erick restart the "We are the 57%" movement?
 
2013-09-09 05:47:52 PM  
This thread will break 500.

But here you go:

That "47 percent" quote that helped sink Mitt Romney's presidential hopes? Better make that 43 percent now.

The share of households who aren't paying any federal income tax has fallen, and a new analysis from the Tax Policy Center predicts that it will continue to shrink in years to come.

That's partly because a slew of temporary tax cuts enacted during the Great Recession have started to expire. And it's partly because an improving economy means people's incomes should slowly start to increase, adding to their income tax bill.


I blame liberals for making more people like the 1%.
 
2013-09-09 06:05:16 PM  
This proves that Obama is raising taxes because more people are paying taxes.  What a bastard!

Also, too many people are still not paying taxes under Obama.  What a bastard!
 
2013-09-09 06:09:21 PM  
A slew of tax cuts about to expire, it says. Whaaaa?
 
2013-09-09 06:10:13 PM  

Nadie_AZ: This thread will break 500.

But here you go:

That "47 percent" quote that helped sink Mitt Romney's presidential hopes? Better make that 43 percent now.

The share of households who aren't paying any federal income tax has fallen, and a new analysis from the Tax Policy Center predicts that it will continue to shrink in years to come.

That's partly because a slew of temporary tax cuts enacted during the Great Recession have started to expire. And it's partly because an improving economy means people's incomes should slowly start to increase, adding to their income tax bill.

I blame liberals for making more people like the 1%.


Didn't you hear?

"[Washington Post Reporter Dan] Balz tried to point this out: "But when you said there are 47 percent who won't take personal responsibility-." Romney interrupted: "Actually, I didn't say that... That's how it began to be perceived, and so I had to ultimately respond to the perception, because perception is reality." "
 
2013-09-09 06:10:39 PM  
I'd be willing to bet Mitt still despises at least 51% percent (popular vote) of the rest of us.
 
2013-09-09 06:19:35 PM  

meat0918: "[Washington Post Reporter Dan] Balz tried to point this out: "But when you said there are 47 percent who won't take personal responsibility-." Romney interrupted: "Actually, I didn't say that... That's how it began to be perceived, and so I had to ultimately respond to the perception, because perception is reality." "


3 jumps to the article later:

You mean that you were insensitive to a whole group of people? I asked. "Right," he responded. "And I think the president said he's writing off 47 percent of Americans and so forth. And that wasn't at all what was intended. That wasn't what was meant by it. That is the way it was perceived." I interjected, "But when you said there are 47 percent who won't take personal responsibility - " Before I finished, he jumped in. "Actually, I didn't say that....That's how it began to be perceived, and so I had to ultimately respond to the perception, because perception is reality."

Just to illustrate how out of touch this guy is, just keep in mind that he got his ass handed to him in the General Election:

"Well, clearly that was a very damaging quote and hurt my campaign effort," he said. "I came back in October. I led in a number of polls. I think I could have won the presidency. We came remarkably close. Would I like to have been closer? Absolutely. But the number of votes that could have swung to our side could have made a difference. You have to congratulate the president on a very good turnout effort. We were not competitive on our turnout effort with his. So could I have won? Absolutely. And did I recognize that coming as a person who has a great deal of wealth that in that environment that would be an obstacle? Yeah, I recognized that. But I thought I could get over it."

He is the Don Quixote of politics. Intelligent, well spoken on other topics, and completely mad.
 
2013-09-09 06:29:15 PM  
Taxes buy you civilization.

With out them the nation would be an Ayn Rand paradise.

Picture it... Got it?

Now describe it in this thread.
 
2013-09-09 06:31:23 PM  

meat0918: Nadie_AZ: This thread will break 500.

But here you go:

That "47 percent" quote that helped sink Mitt Romney's presidential hopes? Better make that 43 percent now.

The share of households who aren't paying any federal income tax has fallen, and a new analysis from the Tax Policy Center predicts that it will continue to shrink in years to come.

That's partly because a slew of temporary tax cuts enacted during the Great Recession have started to expire. And it's partly because an improving economy means people's incomes should slowly start to increase, adding to their income tax bill.

I blame liberals for making more people like the 1%.

Didn't you hear?

"[Washington Post Reporter Dan] Balz tried to point this out: "But when you said there are 47 percent who won't take personal responsibility-." Romney interrupted: "Actually, I didn't say that... That's how it began to be perceived, and so I had to ultimately respond to the perception, because perception is reality." "


"I didn't say what I said, I just said what you think I said because other people think I said it, but don't say I said what I said because I only said it because people think I said it, not because I said it.."
 
2013-09-09 06:43:26 PM  

BKITU: meat0918: Nadie_AZ: This thread will break 500.

But here you go:

That "47 percent" quote that helped sink Mitt Romney's presidential hopes? Better make that 43 percent now.

The share of households who aren't paying any federal income tax has fallen, and a new analysis from the Tax Policy Center predicts that it will continue to shrink in years to come.

That's partly because a slew of temporary tax cuts enacted during the Great Recession have started to expire. And it's partly because an improving economy means people's incomes should slowly start to increase, adding to their income tax bill.

I blame liberals for making more people like the 1%.

Didn't you hear?

"[Washington Post Reporter Dan] Balz tried to point this out: "But when you said there are 47 percent who won't take personal responsibility-." Romney interrupted: "Actually, I didn't say that... That's how it began to be perceived, and so I had to ultimately respond to the perception, because perception is reality." "

"I didn't say what I said, I just said what you think I said because other people think I said it, but don't say I said what I said because I only said it because people think I said it, not because I said it.."


Sigh. Give it up. He's not going to preside over you.
 
2013-09-09 06:59:27 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: I'd be willing to bet Mitt still despises at least 51% percent (popular vote) of the rest of us.


Oh don't sell him short.  He despises the people who voted for him too.
 
2013-09-09 07:21:55 PM  
Less pay for the poor!  Hurray Obama!!
 
2013-09-09 07:23:42 PM  
And it's partly because an improving economy means people's incomes should slowly start to increase, adding to their income tax bill.

YOU FOOLS! THIS WILL ONLY MAKE THE DEFICIT LARGER!
 
2013-09-09 07:25:02 PM  

tbeatty: Less pay for the poor!  Hurray Obama!!


Obama isn't the one that goes into a foaming-at-the-mouth rage every time someone suggests raising the minimum wage.
 
2013-09-09 07:29:01 PM  

Heliovdrake: Now describe it in this thread.


An Ayn Rand paradise?  I'd imagine a lot of amphetamines and welfare checks would be involved.
 
2013-09-09 07:29:48 PM  

LordJiro: tbeatty: Less pay for the poor!  Hurray Obama!!

Obama isn't the one that goes into a foaming-at-the-mouth rage every time someone suggests raising the minimum wage.


He doesn't seem to mind eating into it from the bottom.  Increasing taxes by $4/hr while increasing wages by $3/hr is only a good thing in the mind of OWSers and Liberal Elite.
 
2013-09-09 07:30:58 PM  
Ein Rand wrote thousand-page anti-communist pamphlets.
Her books suck, Ray.

And the movie is unwatchably stupid.
 
2013-09-09 07:33:12 PM  

tbeatty: LordJiro: tbeatty: Less pay for the poor!  Hurray Obama!!

Obama isn't the one that goes into a foaming-at-the-mouth rage every time someone suggests raising the minimum wage.

He doesn't seem to mind eating into it from the bottom.  Increasing taxes by $4/hr while increasing wages by $3/hr is only a good thing in the mind of OWSers and Liberal Elite.


WTF are you on about now?  Many OWSers were talking about making the tax rate for the first $20K of income a big fat 0%.  In otherwords, every working American would get the first 20K exempted from taxation.  Somehow, this was a big socialist plot...

It's pretty simple.  Want to stimulate the economy? Give those with the most propensity to spend (rather than the greatest propensity to save) more money in their pockets.
 
2013-09-09 07:34:21 PM  

meat0918: tbeatty: LordJiro: tbeatty: Less pay for the poor!  Hurray Obama!!

Obama isn't the one that goes into a foaming-at-the-mouth rage every time someone suggests raising the minimum wage.

He doesn't seem to mind eating into it from the bottom.  Increasing taxes by $4/hr while increasing wages by $3/hr is only a good thing in the mind of OWSers and Liberal Elite.

WTF are you on about now?  Many OWSers were talking about making the tax rate for the first $20K of income a big fat 0%.  In otherwords, every working American would get the first 20K exempted from taxation.  Somehow, this was a big socialist plot...

It's pretty simple.  Want to stimulate the economy? Give those with the most propensity to spend (rather than the greatest propensity to save) more money in their pockets.


Sorry, that supposed to be exempt the first 20K from taxation and raise the minimum wage.
 
2013-09-09 07:35:11 PM  

meat0918: tbeatty: LordJiro: tbeatty: Less pay for the poor!  Hurray Obama!!

Obama isn't the one that goes into a foaming-at-the-mouth rage every time someone suggests raising the minimum wage.

He doesn't seem to mind eating into it from the bottom.  Increasing taxes by $4/hr while increasing wages by $3/hr is only a good thing in the mind of OWSers and Liberal Elite.

WTF are you on about now?  Many OWSers were talking about making the tax rate for the first $20K of income a big fat 0%.  In otherwords, every working American would get the first 20K exempted from taxation.  Somehow, this was a big socialist plot...

It's pretty simple.  Want to stimulate the economy? Give those with the most propensity to spend (rather than the greatest propensity to save) more money in their pockets.


That sounds an awful lot like socialism to me, so that automatically means you are EXACTLY LIKE STALIN.
 
2013-09-09 07:39:46 PM  

meat0918: meat0918: tbeatty: LordJiro: tbeatty: Less pay for the poor!  Hurray Obama!!

Obama isn't the one that goes into a foaming-at-the-mouth rage every time someone suggests raising the minimum wage.

He doesn't seem to mind eating into it from the bottom.  Increasing taxes by $4/hr while increasing wages by $3/hr is only a good thing in the mind of OWSers and Liberal Elite.

WTF are you on about now?  Many OWSers were talking about making the tax rate for the first $20K of income a big fat 0%.  In otherwords, every working American would get the first 20K exempted from taxation.  Somehow, this was a big socialist plot...

It's pretty simple.  Want to stimulate the economy? Give those with the most propensity to spend (rather than the greatest propensity to save) more money in their pockets.

Sorry, that supposed to be exempt the first 20K from taxation and raise the minimum wage.


Doesn't sound like that happened.  Taxes went up, wages stayed the same (probably declined).  And it's household's too so "median" is the word here.   Practically a leftist Utopia - oh wait, it's a "everybody is poor except the 1%" utopia.
 
2013-09-09 07:42:25 PM  
1) Yeah, but they pay payroll, and that's a 15% income tax on your first $110K.  The payroll tax dropoff makes everything just about even once you make it up to $50K or so in income and hit the 25% bracket.   I did another post in another thread where I just assumed the standard and eyeballed it and it's pretty flat.  (Of course, since getting up to $50K is relatively free even without EITC, we still have a progressive income tax system).

2) The fact that it's pretty trivial to not pay federal income tax on an income of $29K (and noting that you're paying 7.35% in payroll and another 7.35% in payroll that you never, ever see) is problematic.

/Seriously, I've made $58K the last 3 years, and paid a total of ~$3000 in taxes, including -$2550 in income taxes.  That's really, really high to get paid money.
//And that's before we get into the EITC (because college students don't get to take them, though they do get $1000 in refundable tax credits).  You could bounce off $40K with a kid (and in the South/Midwest, that's pretty doable) and functionally pay no income taxes.
 
2013-09-09 07:42:48 PM  

meat0918: It's pretty simple. Want to stimulate the economy? Give those with the most propensity to spend (rather than the greatest propensity to save) more money in their pockets.


Please could you explain how this works? Preferably with an analogy involving coconuts?
 
2013-09-09 07:45:35 PM  

tbeatty: meat0918: meat0918: tbeatty: LordJiro: tbeatty: Less pay for the poor!  Hurray Obama!!

Obama isn't the one that goes into a foaming-at-the-mouth rage every time someone suggests raising the minimum wage.

He doesn't seem to mind eating into it from the bottom.  Increasing taxes by $4/hr while increasing wages by $3/hr is only a good thing in the mind of OWSers and Liberal Elite.

WTF are you on about now?  Many OWSers were talking about making the tax rate for the first $20K of income a big fat 0%.  In otherwords, every working American would get the first 20K exempted from taxation.  Somehow, this was a big socialist plot...

It's pretty simple.  Want to stimulate the economy? Give those with the most propensity to spend (rather than the greatest propensity to save) more money in their pockets.

Sorry, that supposed to be exempt the first 20K from taxation and raise the minimum wage.

Doesn't sound like that happened.  Taxes went up, wages stayed the same (probably declined).  And it's household's too so "median" is the word here.   Practically a leftist Utopia - oh wait, it's a "everybody is poor except the 1%" utopia.


It's almost like OWS' ideas didn't get implemented because America has a conservative party with a few centrist members, and an extreme-right fascist party, so actual liberals have almost no power.
 
2013-09-09 07:46:01 PM  
If you tax something, you get less of it.  So tax the living schitt out of the poor.  That'll larn 'em to be poor.
 
2013-09-09 07:46:05 PM  
But I thought unemployment and government assistance was up because Obama made everyone lazy. After all, government assistance is like slavery because it steals people's drive to succeed. With all the blah people and Messicans growing in numbers and white Christians on the decline, shouldn't the number be perpetually growing?
 
2013-09-09 07:46:14 PM  
This problem would be solved with a national sales tax or VAT, like those European countries liberals are so fond of.
 
2013-09-09 07:46:38 PM  
This game is taking forever. Kickoff was 36 minutes ago and we're barely halfway through the first quarter.
 
2013-09-09 07:48:45 PM  

meyerkev: 1) Yeah, but they pay payroll, and that's a 15% income tax on your first $110K.  The payroll tax dropoff makes everything just about even once you make it up to $50K or so in income and hit the 25% bracket.   I did another post in another thread where I just assumed the standard and eyeballed it and it's pretty flat.  (Of course, since getting up to $50K is relatively free even without EITC, we still have a progressive income tax system).

2) The fact that it's pretty trivial to not pay federal income tax on an income of $29K (and noting that you're paying 7.35% in payroll and another 7.35% in payroll that you never, ever see) is problematic.

/Seriously, I've made $58K the last 3 years, and paid a total of ~$3000 in taxes, including -$2550 in income taxes.  That's really, really high to get paid money.
//And that's before we get into the EITC (because college students don't get to take them, though they do get $1000 in refundable tax credits).  You could bounce off $40K with a kid (and in the South/Midwest, that's pretty doable) and functionally pay no income taxes.


Payroll taxes are funding your own future benefits. Your eventual benefit is determined by how much you pay. It's not an income tax because for the most part you are buying something (retirement, survivorship, or disability insurance) with your contribution.
 
2013-09-09 07:49:25 PM  
It's irresponsible to ignore state, local and Social Security/Medicare taxes in this discussion.

Any news organization which omits them is perpetuating a right-wing myth.

www.washingtonpost.com
 
2013-09-09 07:50:50 PM  

Wyalt Derp: meat0918: It's pretty simple. Want to stimulate the economy? Give those with the most propensity to spend (rather than the greatest propensity to save) more money in their pockets.

Please could you explain how this works? Preferably with an analogy involving coconuts?


Wait... wrong analogy
 
2013-09-09 07:51:15 PM  
www.whitehouse.gov
 
2013-09-09 07:52:37 PM  

meat0918: Wyalt Derp: meat0918: It's pretty simple. Want to stimulate the economy? Give those with the most propensity to spend (rather than the greatest propensity to save) more money in their pockets.

Please could you explain how this works? Preferably with an analogy involving coconuts?

Wait... wrong analogy


Grrrr, Fark at my picture...

i457.photobucket.com
 
2013-09-09 07:59:04 PM  
More stimulus please.
 
2013-09-09 08:10:51 PM  
If you tax something, you get less of it...but if you are already getting nothing, you can't spend it at all. To have a moving economy, poor people need to be making enough to have a discretionary income, regardless of whether they are paying taxes on it.

Here's how poverty works: If you have zero income (excluding welfare), you can't buy "nonessentials" or luxury items--all your money goes to food, clothing, rent, transportation; all those line-item necessities essential to basic survival.

Now, if you have an income, ANY income, no matter how tiny, then it's irrelevant how much of that is invisible due to taxes, because you never actually see that. Your paycheck is your TAKE-HOME amount, not your "gross". Now you may or may not have sufficient money to purchase luxury items after essentials, because your take-home can change (if there is overtime, a second job, etc.).

But all this nattering about the poor paying taxes, how taxes impact the poor, etc., is, in terms of their ability to participate in the economy, not relevant. It's whether they are working and have discretionary income. A person on welfare by definition has no discretionary income and thus cannot participate in the economy to any meaningful degree. A person who IS working, by definition HAS discretionary income and thus CAN participate in the economy, because they have actual money to spend on nonessential items. Whether or not they pay income taxes and if so how much is, in terms of the market, totally irrelevant. They are buying merchandise and producing something (labor, parts, whatever). So long as there is a net gain to the economy in terms of what they produce and purchase vs. what they use, the economy improves.

One reason we have recessions, Depressions and so on is that as people become unemployed, they stop buying. As they stop buying, companies stop making goods, which leads to more unemployment. Giving unemployed people money for necessities doesn't stimulate the economy, because people will always find ways to have those--what they need is money for extra stuff. Now we are seeing more people employed--not just able to buy necessaries, but luxuries. So the economy improves. So there will be more jobs, leading to more people able to buy more luxuries.

As if it was a cycle that politicians really have no impact on, except to natter about.
 
2013-09-09 08:13:44 PM  
funnycatwallpapers.com

STARVE THE BEAST
 
2013-09-09 08:23:08 PM  

super_grass: STARVE THE BEAST



images.t-nation.com
 
2013-09-09 08:26:02 PM  

jaytkay: super_grass: STARVE THE BEAST


[images.t-nation.com image 650x976]


Oh-kay?
 
2013-09-09 08:32:52 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: This problem would be solved with a national sales tax or VAT, like those European countries liberals are so fond of.


Your chicken must be nearly tenderized with your loins by now.
 
2013-09-09 08:34:50 PM  

Fart_Machine: Debeo Summa Credo: This problem would be solved with a national sales tax or VAT, like those European countries liberals are so fond of.

Your chicken must be nearly tenderized with your loins by now.


Isn't he proposing a left-wing solution?
 
2013-09-09 08:38:36 PM  

super_grass: Fart_Machine: Debeo Summa Credo: This problem would be solved with a national sales tax or VAT, like those European countries liberals are so fond of.

Your chicken must be nearly tenderized with your loins by now.

Isn't he proposing a left-wing solution?


Because liberals in the US are clambering for a VAT or Fair Tax?

Even European countries that use VAT only get 30% of their taxes from it; the rest comes from income taxes.
 
2013-09-09 08:40:55 PM  

Fart_Machine: super_grass: Fart_Machine: Debeo Summa Credo: This problem would be solved with a national sales tax or VAT, like those European countries liberals are so fond of.

Your chicken must be nearly tenderized with your loins by now.

Isn't he proposing a left-wing solution?

Because liberals in the US are clambering for a VAT or Fair Tax?

Even European countries that use VAT only get 30% of their taxes from it; the rest comes from income taxes.


US liberals are what people commonly refer to as "tools" and have very little relation to actual liberalism.

www.taxpolicycenter.org
 
2013-09-09 08:45:40 PM  
So theoretically those people should all be voting republican next election, game set checkmate, fartbongo you will not see the oval office again.
 
2013-09-09 08:47:35 PM  
I would imagine the lower home ownership rate contributes to that as well.  For all the yammering about moochers, the 57% isn't about to give up their mortgage and property tax deductions.
 
2013-09-09 08:50:21 PM  

super_grass: Fart_Machine: super_grass: Fart_Machine: Debeo Summa Credo: This problem would be solved with a national sales tax or VAT, like those European countries liberals are so fond of.

Your chicken must be nearly tenderized with your loins by now.

Isn't he proposing a left-wing solution?

Because liberals in the US are clambering for a VAT or Fair Tax?

Even European countries that use VAT only get 30% of their taxes from it; the rest comes from income taxes.

US liberals are what people commonly refer to as "tools" and have very little relation to actual liberalism.


By "people" you mean libertarian wankers who think they're the only "true" liberals.
 
2013-09-09 08:58:37 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: This problem would be solved with a national sales tax or VAT, like those European countries liberals are so fond of.


Or the revenue problem could be solved with small increases in the top marginal rates, perhaps an additional bracket or two above the current ones. It also could be solved by not giving preferential treatment to investment income over labor and increasing the tax on capital gains to be the same or closer to the tax on ordinary income. It could also be solved by a small transaction tax on equity trades. When it comes to ways to increase revenues there are many potential solutions. On the scale of good to bad ideas a VAT rates about a "meh" and a national sales tax "terrible".
 
2013-09-09 08:59:47 PM  
si0.twimg.com
 
2013-09-09 09:10:58 PM  

Thrag: Debeo Summa Credo: This problem would be solved with a national sales tax or VAT, like those European countries liberals are so fond of.

Or the revenue problem could be solved with small increases in the top marginal rates, perhaps an additional bracket or two above the current ones. It also could be solved by not giving preferential treatment to investment income over labor and increasing the tax on capital gains to be the same or closer to the tax on ordinary income. It could also be solved by a small transaction tax on equity trades. When it comes to ways to increase revenues there are many potential solutions. On the scale of good to bad ideas a VAT rates about a "meh" and a national sales tax "terrible".


fiscal conservatives are not fond of taxes that don't hurt the poor and middle class the most.
 
2013-09-09 09:12:11 PM  
www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com
Not to pile on a man when he's down, but this amused me.
 
2013-09-09 09:15:05 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Just to illustrate how out of touch this guy is, just keep in mind that he got his ass handed to him in the General Election


Of course he did. On a silver platter. Do you think he ever picks up his own ass?
 
Displayed 50 of 164 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | 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