So Dems Want To Raise Taxes Then Raise Taxes on Everyone

[red states rule]

So Dems still have the hots to raise taxes. OK, but raise taxes on EVERYONE. Raise taxes on the "poor" as well since the bottom 50% of earners pay a measly 3% of all Federal income taxes

Stop targeting the successful risk takers and punishing acievement. After all, Pres Obama,the Dems, and the liberal media are running around talking about "shared sacrifice" so let the "poor" sacrifice as well.

With the current tax code, there is now a majority of people who feel they are entitled to other peoples money, and liberalism contnues to feed them at the expense of other peoples hard work

Of course if Dems tried this plan those currently paying no taxes would start screaming at the top of the lungs how unfair it is. Despite the fact they stood silent as others pay nearly all the taxes

[ConHog]

That's what I'm screaming. Before we raise taxes on those who are already paying the majority of the taxes, how about we start collecting from those who pay nothing. Hell, we have people who are making money, and some are making quite a lot, off of the IRS via the Earned Income Credit. Get rid of that. See how much more money our government has.

[red states rule]

This is the best example on who pays taxes and what happens when tax cuts are passed.



http://www.citydebate.com/florida/miamibeach/stories/0104150710.jpg






<TBODY>
How Taxes Work . . . the story of ten men going out to dinner representing how our tax system in the U.S. works... and why its not smart to continually overtax the rich?
This is a VERY simple way to understand the <NOBR>tax laws (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#)</NOBR>. Read on -- it does make you think!!

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men — the poorest — would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man — the richest — would pay $59.

That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement — until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a <NOBR>tax cut (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#)</NOBR>).

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six — the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, Then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man who pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too . . . It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!".

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man, "why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! Imagine that!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college <NOBR>instructors (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#)</NOBR>, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Monaco and the Caribbean.

Where would that leave the rest? Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straightforward logic!






© 2000 - 2007 City Debate Publishing Company, CityDebate.Com



0104150710




</TBODY>


http://www.citydebate.com/florida/miamibeach/template.php?url=0104150710.htm

[Missileman]

That's what I'm screaming. Before we raise taxes on those who are already paying the majority of the taxes, how about we start collecting from those who pay nothing. Hell, we have people who are making money, and some are making quite a lot, off of the IRS via the Earned Income Credit. Get rid of that. See how much more money our government has.

While I agree there are too many Americans who pay no taxes, I would argue that the federal government needs to eliminate every cent of non-essential spending before coming to us for more money.

[Kathianne]

There will never be an elimination of a cent or even a 10% waste factor, basically impossible in a well managed business, never mind a bureaucracy. However, I agree that accountability needs to be required, starting with a budget.
While I agree there are too many Americans who pay no taxes, I would argue that the federal government needs to eliminate every cent of non-essential spending before coming to us for more money.

[ConHog]

While I agree there are too many Americans who pay no taxes, I would argue that the federal government needs to eliminate every cent of non-essential spending before coming to us for more money.



Oh, we're agreed there.

[Kathianne]

Oh, we're agreed there.

That would be so cool, and your plan to verify?

[red states rule]

While I agree there are too many Americans who pay no taxes, I would argue that the federal government needs to eliminate every cent of non-essential spending before coming to us for more money.


You can start with Congress




snip



For those entering any of the 535 seats in Congress next year, here's a glance at the world of juicy perks coming their way:

Fun Money: The base salary for a member of Congress is $174,000. But all members enjoy access to a separate piggy bank (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#) (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#) known as their "allowance." This funding generally goes toward maintaining their offices and building up a legislative entourage. In the House, representatives are allowed to spend more than $900,000 on salaries for up to 18 permanent employees. They get about a quarter-million dollars more for office expenses, including travel, and additional funding for a well-known congressional perk known as "franking." Franking is the term for the mass constituent mail sent out by members of Congress and paid for courtesy of the taxpayer.

Senators enjoy the same privilege but get a much bigger allowance for their office expenses. According to a Congressional Research Service report, the average allocation for fiscal 2010 was more than $3.3 million. Personnel money (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#) varies depending on how big of a state a senator represents -- a senator from New York is going to get more than a senator from Montana. But for starters, each senator is given a $500,000 budget to hire up to three legislative assistants.

Nice Digs: A seat in Congress comes with office space -- lots of it. Not only do members move into an office on Capitol Hill, they maintain space in their home districts and states too. For senators, this benefit has a pretty high cap - up to 8,200 square feet. The CRS report said there is "no restriction" on the number of offices they can open in federal buildings in their home states. Plus senators get to shop at the equivalent of Congress' IKEA -- furniture supplied through the Architect of the Capitol. Every senator gets $40,000 -- and potentially more -- for furniture in their home-state offices.

Bonus Tax Deduction: Members of Congress can deduct up to $3,000 for expenses while outside their home districts or states.

Insurance/Retirement: All members of Congress can sign up for the same health plan and <NOBR sizcache="15" sizset="9">life insurance policy (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#)</NOBR> available to other federal workers. But there's more. In an age when the 401(k) often becomes a substitute for a pension, representatives and senators enjoy access to both. First, members of Congress can sign up for a 401(k)-style "Thrift Savings Plan," a tax-deferred investment in which members' contributions are matched up to 5 percent.

Then there's Social Security (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/social-security.htm). Then there's the pension plan. The pension payments and eligibility vary -- in a nutshell, members are eligible for an immediate, full pension at age 62 if they've served five years or more; they're eligible at age 50 if they've served 20 years; and they're eligible at any time after they've served 25 years. The annual amount of the pension depends on a lawmaker's salary and the number of years he or she served -- typically the amount is considerably less than a lawmaker's outgoing salary.

Down Time: Perhaps there's no such thing as down time for a member of Congress, what with the constant shuttling back and forth between Washington and their districts, media appearances and constituent meetings. But the work week lately has been relatively sparse. The Senate has averaged about three working days on Capitol Hill - three-and-a-half if you count Monday nights. Plus there are several breaks, which Congress calls "work periods," penciled in the calendar throughout the year. This year, members of Congress returned to their districts for a Presidents Day break, a spring break, a Memorial Day (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/holidays/memorial-day.htm) break, an Independence Day (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/holidays/independence-day.htm) break and a summer break. Congress is about to adjourn again until early November so members can campaign. Of course, that's good old-fashioned time off for senators not up for re-election this year.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/29/benefits-members-congress-shabby/#ixzz1U2wxlDMH

and




Some perks have more to do with convenience than money. Members of Congress and their staffers only have to go to the basement of their office buildings to find banks, barber shops, post offices and even shoe shines – and all at a reasonable price.

Members of the House also can pay a “nominal” monthly fee to work out at the Wellness Center reserved for members and former members only (except those who have become lobbyists, who are not allowed inside), said Dave Helfert, a spokesman for Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, head of the House gym committee.

Neither Hodes nor Shea-Porter uses the gym, according to their offices, but Gregg does pay for a membership at the Senate gym.

http://www.bu.edu/washjocenter/newswire_pg/spring2009/stories/jorgensen/Perks.htm

[Missileman]

That would be so cool, and your plan to verify?

For starters, we can get rid of the 800,000 non-essential employees identified during the almost-government shutdown.

[ConHog]

That would be so cool, and your plan to verify?


To verify what?

[Kathianne]

For starters, we can get rid of the 800,000 non-essential employees identified during the almost-government shutdown.

I'll agree with that, a very good place to start. Also combining and eliminating several cabinet positions and attending bureaucrats.

[ConHog]

I'll agree with that, a very good place to start. Also combining and eliminating several cabinet positions and attending bureaucrats.

Oh Okay I got ya. You were asking how I would verify waste.


I'll tell you a few things I would do.

1. I would sell all national parks to for profit agencies. Now for sure I would stipulate that they remain parks open to the public, but there are private companies already running parks at a profit

2. I'd get rid of the Air Force. Sorry we have no need for it.

3. Bye bye NASA

4. I'd eliminate our "intelligence" agencies by half

5. Close ALL military bases abroad unless the host country wishes to foot the bill

6. Pull out of the UN

7. Pretty much gut the IRS and go with a national sales tax

8. Cut the state department in half, closing many embassies around the world

9. Cut all foreign aid, sorry we can't afford it right now

10. Set Congress up so they can work from home , eliminating the need for US taxpayers to foot the bill for all of them living in DC. Videoconference fools, it works.

Those 10 things would be a great start.

[red states rule]

Of course we have the Wish List of the left and how they will once gain use the "poor" as political pawns to spread that wealth around

Some even think Obama is someone to be feared right now






Progressives and other peeved supporters of President Obama who aren’t happy with the all-cuts-no-revenue deal to raise the debt ceiling need to see it as the beginning of a very long (and necessary) process to get the nation’s fiscal house in order. But it also means that the president will have to be more aggressive in his use of presidential power. In short, I want him to use everything the bully pulpit has to offer to get what he wants, including shutting down the government if he must. After what we just went through to avert economic catastrophe, padlocking Washington ain’t no big thing.
Ruth Marcus runs down all the opportunities Obama will have to take a stand.

The coming crisis points are manifold. The current spending deal — the one reached on the brink of government shutdown — expires in September. Extended unemployment benefits run out at the end of the year. The temporary cut in the payroll tax expires.I like the way Marcus described the harrowing drama of the last few weeks. She decried it as part of the new normal here in Washington: “endless rounds of legislative carjacking” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gops-carjacking-on-capitol-hill/2011/08/02/gIQAFxO9pI_story.html) where “]o]ne side wanted the car, had a gun and wasn’t afraid — certainly not afraid enough — to use it. The other had a child in the back seat.”
How perfect is that imagery? The Tea Party certainly wasn’t afraid to force the country into default. That it got its way in the debt deal will no doubt embolden it to push Obama into more compromising positions that don’t reflect the will of the people (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/mitch-mcconnell-wrong-on-the-will-of-the-people/2011/03/04/gIQAzlQwrI_blog.html).
If they try it, Obama must introduce their “carjacker” to his “Keyser Söze.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keyser_S%C3%B6ze)

If you’ve seen the brilliant movie “The Usual Suspects,” you know who this diabolical character is and what he did to gain mythical status. Suffice it to say that Söze so out-crazied the crazies that he became a person not to be messed with — a symbol of fear and grudging respect.

In the coming fights over the next budget, unemployment benefits and payroll tax cuts, I want Obama to show the Republican Party in general and the Tea Party in particular that he isn’t afraid to out-crazy the crazies. If that means vetoing bills, taking the fight to individual districts, shutting down the government, so be it.

Of course, the expiration of the extension of the Bush tax cuts in December 2012 will be a major flash point and may require the president to take on his party. As Ezra Klein correctly points out (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/one-shot-on-taxes-dont-blow-it-democrats/2011/08/02/gIQAEMOhqI_story.html), “[t]o govern responsibly, Democrats cannot simply raise taxes on the rich and call it a day.” Hopefully, by the time that fight is upon us, the folks at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue will have learned that he is not someone to be messed with.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/time-for-obama-to-be-feared-by-the-tea-party/2011/03/04/gIQAlubJsI_blog.html

[red states rule]

Well it looks like the libs got what they wanted. The "rich" are losing money which chould bring a smile to their face

What they forgot is, the government also loses money





snip

All numbers below are based on the latest IRS data (http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=134951,00.html), specifically Table 1.1. (Note: Table 1.1 is for all tax returns, not just the taxable ones.) The comparisons are between the years 2007 and 2009, capturing the depth of the Great Recession.
The main reason federal revenues were down was that personal incomes were down. Total adjusted gross incomes (AGI) less deficits declined $1.1 trillion, or 12%. However, due to our progressive income tax, the percentage decline in taxes collected was even greater: 22%.

You see, when you get rid of rich people, like class warriors want, you also get rid of the taxes they used to pay. Of the $250-billion drop in personal income taxes, $175B (70%) was due to declines in incomes over $200K. No rich people, no taxes from rich people.

The chart below shows the total incomes of those making over $200K and over $1M per year from 2006 through 2009. The total income on those making over $1M was cut almost in half from 2007 to 2009.
In the Great Recession, the "rich" suffered the most.


http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/congratulations_class_warriors.html

[Gunny]

So Dems still have the hots to raise taxes. OK, but raise taxes on EVERYONE. Raise taxes on the "poor" as well since the bottom 50% of earners pay a measly 3% of all Federal income taxes

Stop targeting the successful risk takers and punishing acievement. After all, Pres Obama,the Dems, and the liberal media are running around talking about "shared sacrifice" so let the "poor" sacrifice as well.

With the current tax code, there is now a majority of people who feel they are entitled to other peoples money, and liberalism contnues to feed them at the expense of other peoples hard work

Of course if Dems tried this plan those currently paying no taxes would start screaming at the top of the lungs how unfair it is. Despite the fact they stood silent as others pay nearly all the taxes

A simple strategy that works on simple minds. "We" promise you something for almost nothing ... you just have to mindlessly sell out your vote.

If you make between $50 and 100K, you might as well quit work and jump on the entitlement wagon. While you're slaving away trying to get ahead, you are actually not living a much better lifestyle than those that make $20K or less. The difference is incomes is being redistributed from the former to the latter.

[red states rule]

A simple strategy that works on simple minds. "We" promise you something for almost nothing ... you just have to mindlessly sell out your vote.

If you make between $50 and 100K, you might as well quit work and jump on the entitlement wagon. While you're slaving away trying to get ahead, you are actually not living a much better lifestyle than those that make $20K or less. The difference is incomes is being redistributed from the former to the latter.

What gets me is the left will never "get" when taxes are collected that takes money OUT of the economy. For some reason, libs think government creates jobs and not the private sector

Perhaps they want as many public sector UNION employees so when dues are taken away from the workers, the money finds its way into the campaigns of Dems. It is a bigger money laundering scheme then the Mafia ever had