Let's Get This Real Tea Party Started

Categories: Get Off My Lawn

SHZ_GetOffMyLawn_TitleImageV2.jpg
Guess what. Maybe it has started. The great gray horse may be rising to her feet at last. Maybe the sane middle class of America isn't dead in its tracks after all.

I have a column in this week's paper talking about a real Tea Party movement in the UK -- not a fake AstroTurf thing like the American Tea Party, bought and paid for by the Koch brothers to keep old white people addle-pated. The movement in Great Britain, called UK Uncut, is the real deal, a true grassroots movement aimed right at the throats of the fat-cat, tax-cheating, omnivore corporations that are responsible for the underfunding crisis in England. And here.

I said in my column, "We Americans are going to have to rise up from our La-Z-Boys and take to the cobblestones." A reader commenting on-line pointed out that the great La-Z-Boy evacuation may already be under way.

Two weeks ago a 23-year-old former public radio reporter in Kentucky named Carl Gibson formed US Uncut, based on the British model but aimed at some high-value American targets -- huge corporations that pay zero dollars in U.S. income tax -- a trillion dollars in dodged taxes.

Instead of shutting down the public school system, how about making these people pay their damned taxes?

us uncut.jpg
I talked to Gibson at the end of last week, and I will write more about him and the US Uncut movement in my column in the newspaper March 17. He said the response so far has been staggering, leading him to conclude that "people have just been waiting for a chance" to do something.

It's all online, on Facebook, Twitter and the US Uncut web page. They raise no money. It's all do-it-yourself volunteer. And it really seems to be lighting up. Maybe it will be the American Tahrir Square.

Next week I will also be writing again about the calamity facing our public school systems, which have been deliberately and disastrously under-funded by the Rick Perry Republican regime in Austin. I said last week we needed to take to the cobblestones. Tell me. Is that shoe leather we're beginning to hear out there as we speak?

My Voice Nation Help
113 comments
doubter
doubter

the opening line indicates the delusional status of the authro

steve bourg
steve bourg

Jim, you REALLY don't get it. Corporations at least employ people and produce goods and services that you use to stay alive. What's so evil about that? Corporate federal income taxes are about $100-200B year. Employees, all workers at anything, pay about $1.0T in income taxes and 1.0T in FICA taxes. Our federal govt is OVERSPENDING $1.7T/year. So Jim, THAT'S the magnitude of our problem. Try to understand that, and then you'll realize that the GOVT is the problem -- fed, state, local --- they've gone WILD. Should be a new show -- GOVT GONE WILD.

chasd00
chasd00

I agree that closing corporate tax holes and modernizing the whole tax system needs to be done but Amarksp has a point, the scope of the problem is larger than taxes. Any changes to the tax system results in a drop in the bucket at best.

I don't think a lot of people fully grasp the breadth and depth of banking crisis that hit in 2008. The mortgage bust was the catalyst but the crisis was worldwide with consequences that have yet to even be felt. Couple the crisis with the high level of corporate influence on policy making and it can only end in one way, the status quo maintained until it completely fails. No transitioning, no fixing, the ship sails until it sinks.

At the end of the day, I see a default in some form or the other in store for the US. I'd watch Europe as they start to go down as a foreshadow of what to expect.http://www.calculatedriskblog....

Pecos_Drifter
Pecos_Drifter

Some if not all of you need to get laid........this just in, we are all going to die

Have a Nice Day Message Board Warriors

Nriddle
Nriddle

Hey Jim, way to go on marginalizing Tea Party proponents across the country as mindless Fox News drones. The fact of the matter is, with the economy still in the gutter (despite endless attempts to characterize an unquantifiable "comeback"), rising taxes (thanks in no small part to the current administration's policies, not the least of which is Obama's healthcare "reform"), and unemployment rate showing no signs of change many Americans are tired of both Republican and Democrat rhetoric and want to elect like-minded people to government offices that share their views on a republic built on the Constitution and a smaller overall government working FOR the people, not taxing them into oblivion while cutting-off circulation with additional red tape from endlessly-multiplying bueracratic agencies.

Think the UK has it so great? By all means, please pack it up and move over there. I'm also amused that you think somehow there is no voice shouting from the streets and rooftops that the public school systems in this country are increasingly under siege. I went to a public schools in Texas and even just several years out it's amazing to hear stories of how unruly kids can be in this day and age. Teachers aren't substitutes for solid parenting, but it doesn't mean we just shovel more money into districts and schools that consistently under-perform and produce students unable to read or do basic math. I don't want to send my kids to school so they can learn primarily about how to avoid teen pregnancy and accept the US is not an exceptional country compared to the rest of the world.

Many liberals and conservatives don't always follow party lines, despite what you may think. Many Tea Party supporters support core values and a return to limited government as outlined in the Constitution by our country's founders. The reason so many people are tired of the exact sort of liberal tripe you spew (I might add as easily as your hyped "right-winger" talking heads) is because there are too many people just talking and not DOING what the people want.

Conservatives woke up to this fact, and those footfalls you're hearing on the cobblestones? Those are the sounds of a groundswell of American conservatives standing-up for what they believe is right, not what's politically correct per the daily AP newsfeed.

JimS
JimS

Let me see if I can read between the code words. You don't want public education for black kids? Or you don't want public education for Latino kids? I guess you may mean you don't public educaton for poor white kids -- or just any poor kids. I'm going to guess you're not a rich guy -- just one of these middle class people who know their place and look to the rich for command. It's a good thing more of your kind of thinking wasn't around in the 1770s. We'd still be bowing to the queen and paying those tea taxes. Jefferson wrote about European societies being divided between the sheep and the wolves. He understood that for that to work the sheep had to see themselves as sheep. They had to know their place, The thing he loved about the American peasant was that he didn't know his place -- he was uppity and skeptical of power and wealth. That's why I think it's so ironic to sea the Tea Party embracing Jefferson. Believe me, the respect would not have been mutual.

Anonymous
Anonymous

I really hate to agree with you in a thread where you moan about the fixes to social security in the 1980s (even the most liberal among respected economists does not see it your way). But invoking the nation's founders is definitely an ironic part of the Tea message. They were vigorously opposed to dynastic wealth, which is basically what our country is getting back to.

JimS
JimS

Amarksp demonstrates the bait and switch that the richocrats are doing now in this debate. When it comes to economic growth, they say, the only factor is business -- and the top of the pyramid, at that. Only entrepreneurs and CEOs create wealth. But when it comes to the budget of the government, the only factor is tax cuts. The only way to attack the deficit is to cut programs.What this ignores is history --that the nation was prosperous and the government ran surpluses when our economy was more balanced in germs of the gap between rich and poor and the country is generally poorer and the government out of balance now that our economy looks more like Bolivia in terms of inequality. We can balance the books by balancing the society, using the power of politics to steer wealth out of the clutches of the few and back into the hands of the productive many. This is not about envy. It's more about a commitment to the communitarian values of a strong and healthy nation.

JimS
JimS

Terms. not germs, above. Typo. Sorry.The richocrats should concede that economic growth will balance the government's budget -- never cuts. The question is how to achieve that growth. I say our experiment with banana republicanism should be about over.

PLFarmer
PLFarmer

I reply to Steve,Would really like to hear your ideas of the responsibilities of the rich are, if any.

Amarksp
Amarksp

Yes, let's get the party started.

This Month's federal budget deficit is $223 Billion.http://www.washingtontimes.com...

Total Corporate Welfare payments are $175 Billion per YEAR."America spends $175 billion per year on corporate welfare. Much of it takes the form of tax breaks."http://www.cato.org/pubs/handb...

Jim S, ending corporate welfare for a full year would not even balance the US Budget Deficit for the current month. Ending corporate welfare is a start and should be done, but how about commenting on some real solutions involving putting Medicare and Medicaid on the table as well as Dept of Defense and eliminating entire government agencies. Posting comments on saving $175B is pocket change.

Please get up to speed on this issue.

JimS
JimS

There is nothing surprising in the attack on social security in the current congress. Of course right-wingers are attacking social security. It's what they do. It's what they have been doing since David Stockman tried to declare the social security system bankrupt in 1981.What kills me are the commenters I see here on Unfair Park eagerly parroting the line that we've got to slash social security benefits. I'm afraid the ultra-right cabal may have been successful in selling this bullshit to young people, so that they now actually believe they are going to have slave in salt-mines to, God forbid, support their parents in their old age.C'mon, people. Read about this stuff.Tip O'Neill and the Democrats in Congress cleaned Ronald Reagan's clock when he went after social security in '81. Americans know a good deal when they see one, and social security is probably the best deal our society has to offer.The Republicans came back, of course, two years later with the Greenspan Commission and subsequent “reforms” by which the entire baby boom generation has been over-charged for its premiums ever since. The government has been storing the extra money in the so-called social security trust fund.The trick with the trust fund is that the federal government borrows all of it. Since Reagan, the trust fund has been used to paper over the huge losses in government revenues caused by successive waves of tax cuts for the rich.You remember George W. Bush's big idea, right? He wanted to put social security in the stock market. That was not too long before Bush's other policies set off the worst stock market crash since the Great Depression.The story about a shrinking workforce is bullshit, too. Yeah, the native-born workforce may be shrinking, but the immigrant workforce has been fattening up quite nicely and paying a healthy chunk into social security all along.Talk of cutting social security is a way for conservatives to Welsh on the deal struck by the Greenspan Commission. Older Americans have overpaid their premiums for years. Now they should be able to cash in at the levels they were promised.If we really need more money to fund social security, economist James K. Galbraith at UT has suggested a handy and effective mechanism. We should enact an 80 percent tax on estates over $50 million and credit the entire tax to social security. That way the government could the honorable ting and meet its contractual obligations to its own most productive citizens.

Steve
Steve

Poor Jim, so envious that others have more than he does. Hey, you know who else thinks taxes are too low on those evil rich people? Warren Buffett. He's always bitchin' and moanin' that the government isn't taking enough of his money, and yet, there's nothing stopping him from giving the government every cent he has or at least 80% of it or so which is a figure i'm sure you'd approve of Schutze, so why doesn't he? Why does Buffett freely admit to using every trick he can to avoid paying taxes while complaining that government isn't taxing him enough?

And while we're on the subject, why aren't all those Democrat Senators and House members who are millionaires many times over giving 80% of their wealth to the government right now? All this brings to mind the global warming nonsense and how the public was told over and over again by jet setting celebrities and politicians who lived in huge energy sucking mansions how we had to do our part to save the planet and eventually people noticed that all those celebrities and politicians who were demanding we do our part, weren't doing their part and so a saying popped up and spread which basically went "when celebrities and politicians start acting like global warming is an emergency and give up their polluting ways then so will we". And the constant insistence from the political left about the dire need to raise taxes on those horrible rich people is the same, when Warren Buffett and all the other uber rich on the left start handing over their money to the government, so will we. Until then, i'll just hang onto my hard earned cash, thanks.

DoubleOJoe
DoubleOJoe

"and yet, there's nothing stopping him from giving the government every cent he has or at least 80% of it or so"

Yes, there is. Regardless of how you think government works, the IRS is not allowed to take money that isn't owed. There's no donation bucket out on the front steps. We each pay the taxes we owe, and if we end up paying more, the IRS has to give it back. That's the law. Buffet can be as altruistic as he wants, but come April 15, the government would have to send him a check.

Talking points are only talking points when they make sense.

Tad Banyon
Tad Banyon

The only actual point you make that isn't regurgitated conservative talk-show bullshit- such as people who think the rich are insufficiently taxed are just envious of their wealth, or completely off-topic ramblings about global warming and celebrities- is that the rich are taxed plenty enough already. So, if that's true, you can't very well be simultaneously arguing that they aren't doing their part. If you believe its plenty enough already, then you must believe it IS their part. But it doesn't matter, you're rght. There are a lot more people we can put out of work and a lot more essential services we can eviscerate before we have to stoop to forcing people who benefit obscenely from the system to help stabilize it.

Steve
Steve

Feel free to point out where i said the rich shouldn't do their part.

Tad Banyon
Tad Banyon

Thats an odd response from a guy who is arguing that the rich shouldn't have to "do their part" (your words).

Steve
Steve

Asking why rich people aren't doing their part is a radical conservative talking point? Who knew?

Tad Banyon
Tad Banyon

Surely you can wedge in a couple more radical conservative talking points than that. That's it? All hail the rich and global warming is a hoax? Come on.

JimS
JimS

Amarksp: I will give you this. The fundamental problem is not tax breaks. It's tax levels. We need to return the taxes on the rich to the much higher levels that brought us prosperity in the 20th century, instead of the banana republic free ride for the rich that is making us a Second World Nation in the 21st century.

Amarksp
Amarksp

Good point, but... The US Dept of Education has no business managing a meals program. Either another US federal agency can manage this program and/or the states can. You can likely fund this entire meals program with Dept of Education staff cuts and provide cash grants to the states for this meals program.

trashtalk
trashtalk

Exactly--the deficit can be grown out of by increasing substantive employment.

As far as blowing up the Department of Ed, the only agency that will help keep schools alive over the next decade of Tea Party freaks will be federal funding. If federal funding is cut, kiss programs for really poor kids good bye--including a free breakfast and lunch. For those who deem these meals the work of the Devil, fast for a few days and look at your own productivity.

We have one of the largest populations of poor kids of any industrialized nations, and in the ugly mood covering Texas right now, there are many who would cut every life line away from the poor and old and autistic and abused. This state is in a perfect position to become much poorer and much dumber if cuts at the state level continue.

Texas is rated 50th or 47th, depending on who cuts the number, in spending per capita. Blow up the Dept of Ed, and another safety net for kids is gone.

Rick Perry may believe that poverty is a great motivator or that hunger is something poor kids deserve.

We can only hope that he soon decides to resign and run for president. He will fail miserably, but we will be rid of a threat to our public schools and universities.

trashtalk
trashtalk

The argument that social security and other entitlements HAVE to be cut because, because, because, the world will end tomorrow is bull.

Believe it or not, it wasn't that long ago that George W inherited a surplus and proceeded to blow it by giving millionaires huge tax cuts and by starting a war for no reason except that someone had offended his daddy.

Prosperity can return if full employment returns. Neither party seems in the least bit interested in doing what is necessary to increase employment. Obama waffles continually on anything that Wall St doesn't want or that the wonderful Bush family might not like...since he has now proven himself infatuated with Jeb ....yes, sir.

Maybe we need to elect a real Democratic candidate next time instead of the wonderful, speech-making faux Democrat who fiddle faddles worse than a bad version of Hamlet.

Return to taxing those with the greatest wealth at the greatest percentages. Trickle down bullshit aside, it seems we are hell bent on reliving the worst abuses of the Gilded Age. The anger over immigration, the wealth is God philosophy, blatant social Darwinism in the form of the current legislators and Rick Perry, and now we're in a quandry over "government schools," the same schools that gave Baby Boomers a head start in life now seem just too darned expensive.

Too much wealth in too few hands and presidents bought off by Wall ST. Obama attended school with these elites and he just can't seem to rid himself of them.

Why the attack on school teachers rather than Goldman Sachs who never seems to be more than an inch away from every financial scam in this country?

scottindallas
scottindallas

You say eliminate all subsidies yet you then say, to encourage natural gas. You've utterly contradicted yourself. If natural gas can substitute as a fuel source for trucks (I'm not sure that's realistic, as I believe their range is severely limited) Further, I don't want to favor domestic energy production over foreign. There's no benefit, frankly what you don't realize is that if all subsidies were dropped domestic production would fall off. Our sources of oil aren't as cheaply tapped as foreign reserves.

But, if you're gonna be serious about cutting the deficit we've got to stop supporting boondoggles. And, frankly T. Boone's Windpower initiative was a way for him to get billions in utilities subsidies. Those made his windpower a viable business model, or allowed him to build something for OSU's football team. He's a regular Robin Hood.

Amarksp
Amarksp

Yes, you have Scott and there are some good ideas you have.

Ok, you want my ideas, here they are:*Raise social security and medicare retirement age to 72 and index to life expectancy.*Eliminate all corporate welfare payments.*Elimiate Departments of Education, Agriculture, and Energy. This will show that we admit to having a serious deficit problem more than anything else, mostly symbolic and pocket change.*Raise excise tax on gasoline by $2.00*Our biggest problem is the Trade Deficit, specifically oil imports. This is not part of the budget deficit, but if US starts using more of the own energy it produces, then more US jobs created and thus more US taxpayers. Thus, phase in a law that all large Trucks must run on natural gas by 2014 and stimulate US shale gas production industry. Make oil imports expensive enough to encourage more US energy production of coal, nuclear, and alternative energy, and thus more US jobs.*Implement a new national sales tax or VAT tax. Personally I prefer national sales tax since this would likely be easier to administer.

The trick is to have our GDP (gross domestic product) grow faster than the budget deficit. The USA can thus grow out of its deficit, i.e. the deficit is smaller in % terms to its GDP. The US must be careful not to raise its tax rate so much that it results in a decrease to GDP. Policies must be implemented in such a way that GDP growth exceeds budget deficit growth. This is the key issue in resolving the budget deficit, the best solution is to grow out of it.

scottindallas
scottindallas

hey deaf guy, I've presented cuts and increased revenue far beyond any politician has proposed. Furthermore, many of the numbers you're citing are using the stimulus funds, which aren't recurring expenditures. I've suggested substantial cuts to medicare and will offer another, anyone can buy into medicare for cost plus 10%. Which I'd demand remain with medicare. You've not presented ANYTHING close to what I've proposed. Where's your changes. By the way, my proposals will encourage domestic investment and hiring. What you got?

Amarksp
Amarksp

Jim, here is what we are up against:http://www.fundmasteryblog.net...

Please review carefully.

You can double every US citizen's income tax and still have a budget deficit of $.4 Trillion. You can double every US citizen's income tax and EVERY corporation's income tax and still have a budget deficit of $.2 Trillion. This ignores the fact that many US taxpayers would find ways around the higher tax rates, and not only the wealthy..., e.g. underground economy.

Jim, there is just no viable solution without budget cuts, including cuts to social security and medicare. But please, you do the math. I am looking for a credible plan from you with your own calculations.

Amarksp
Amarksp

Jim, you can tax the rich at a 50% or even 75% rate and it is still just pocket change. You need to grasp the SIZE of the US budget deficit.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/n...

There are simply not enough wealthy taxpayers (e.g. using top 5% of high income taxpayers) where a tax increase could generate enough revenue. And top 5% average gross income is below $200,000.

It is going to take both tax increases and budget cuts. It is going to take Social Security and Medicare cuts. (e.g. increasing retirement age to 72). Back when FDR implemented social security the average age of death was age 65 and benefits started at age 65. Social Security, Medicare, and Welfare transfer payments make up 50% of US budget. Raising the retirement age has a signficant impact on our budget deficit, but YES it will cause pain.

Jim, why don't you perform the math yourself, that way you will have a better understanding of the issue. That is, assume the rich are taxed at your 50% or 75% tax rate and see how much income tax dollars that raises. Then, compare this with the budget deficit.

I look forward to your calculations and reply.

scottindallas
scottindallas

Amark, hold on tight, here it is. Bring the boys home from Afghanistan you save another $100B. Top marginal tax rate on incomes exceeding $2m/yr of 50% plus lift the cap on SS. Introduce a VAT that favors domestic production and enforce Sherman Anti-trust. Raise capital gains to 25%, offer sped up depreciation on capital improvements. Finally, tell those who wish to sell here, to build here, no exceptions. Raise the ages on entitlements modestly over time, and encourage some limitations on end of life care. Done. We balance the budget and pay the debt to 10% of GDP the elites, those who have more influence over gov't can get their tax rate reduced to 45% till no debt remains. Then, they can dissolve the tax till deficits return.

Amarksp
Amarksp

Scott, I will not challenge any significant budget cut. "I'm a bit surprised you're not challenging the point."Best to put everything on the table.

The budget cuts I prefer to challenge are the ones that involve only pocket change. There are no easy fixes.

Amarksp
Amarksp

pocket change:"Top marginal tax rate on incomes exceeding $2m/yr of 50% plus lift the cap on SS"

Yes, VAT will raise some revenue:"Introduce a VAT"

Has to be done:"Raise the ages on entitlements modestly over time"

scottindallas
scottindallas

again, those policies will encourage hiring and investment. I've made the claim many times, I know it's controversial in some quarters, I'm a bit surprised you're not challenging the point. Certainly everyone on Fox would.

scottindallas
scottindallas

Jim, I have to say that on-line I'm starting to see the higher taxes on the wealthy, the linking of the wars to cuts at home. The people are starting to clearly articulate their defense of modest gov't. They seem to be coming out of the woodwork, but we've yet to see serious people in the media. We saw that the Pentagon was using psy-ops on not only senators and generals but on think tanks and pundits. Is there any doubt the Wall St. firms are pulling their own psy-ops on these reporters, flattering them and dazzling them to assume that all that glitters is gold and all the bullshit they peddle is honest. But, there are new sources of information that are disseminating quality information, from trade journals and serious, non partisan professional assessments. Sadly, I fear it will be too late. I fear we're without advocates. Obama said WE can do it, one thing for sure, he ain't gonna do it for us.

Montemalone
Montemalone

The "reporters" work for conglomerates whose profits depend on favorable reporting. Those 7 figure paychecks guarantee good "news". Those "reporters" wouldn't stand a chance if they had to get real jobs.

Jay
Jay

scottindallas......give a politician the choice of fixing the economy or fixing the next election, they'll choose to fix the next election 100% of the time.

ts
ts

Didn't the Tea Party actually start more on the grassroots level via Ron Paul's campaign? Of course, it was eventually hijacked and Ron Paul distanced himself from it at that point. Influence peddlers have a habit for sniffing out the winds of change and finding a way to co-opt it. If this movement gains any steam, expect that to occur again.

Jay
Jay

I don't know who started the beverage party, but if Dick Armey is involved in it's leadership, it has no legitimacy with me.

Eric Hilton
Eric Hilton

I love the unfairpark blog. It is too bad that this type of stuff is finding its way on here more and more. I don't tow too many lines, but come on man... Let's not muck the pretty solid beat reporting and blogging on the Dallas area up with severely slanted politics. It's one thing to call it like you see it - it's another to get on here and talk about the massive stiffy you got from a movement in the UK you deem respectable.

trashtalk
trashtalk

Since the rest of us have to be insulted on a daily basis by Fox---let's just call it even-steven.

Which blog isn't political? Blogging=extremely biased viewpoint with little attempt to mascarade as traditional journalism, which died with CNN reporting on the Gulf War like it was a football game.

Besides, the Third Estate has pretty much been eaten away. I'd rather have some source of news that simply uses porno ads as revenue rather than having the Lepperts of the world use Belo for their world domination plans.

kilroy
kilroy

"Since the rest of us have to be insulted on a daily basis by Fox"

So, there's somebody forcing you to watch Fox? Oh wait, you mean you just don't want anyone with a viewpoint opposite yours having a venue being the true free speech lovin' tolerant liberal you are.

scottindallas
scottindallas

No, some of us like to monitor the full range of debate. If you would expand your horizons to the left or right, you would no doubt agree. Try reading www.LewRockwell.com for a venerable libertarian perspective.

Jay D
Jay D

You mean we aren't really solving problems here? Who knew?

J. Erik Jonsson
J. Erik Jonsson

You know, when I spend too much, I usually am tempted to go around scapegoating other people and calling in markers where ever I think I can get a few bucks. But then I finally accept that I just need a little better fiscal discipline and try to do a little belt-tightening.

fitzgerald
fitzgerald

Okay boss Jim. I am one of those old white addle-pated people without needed suppport from the Koch brothers. However, I do not belong to the astroturf tea party. However, I do agree with some of their stuff and some don't agree with the rest of their stuff. For many years I have been a political independent. Don't blame the huge corporations that don't pay taxes. They take advantage of any loopholes available and will send jobs overseas when their own country's tax and other laws gives them a slam dunk every time they raise their heads. A lose lose proposition regardless of who is in the white house or whole controls the legislative branches. I feel better now. Back to my addle-pated position.

scottindallas
scottindallas

Then we should ask them to sell their goods in other markets, just as the Chinese and Japanese have done.

Preston Holler
Preston Holler

Almost 50% of the American population pays ZERO federal income tax.

So, I'll tell you what -- I'll trade closing the corporate "loopholes" once the bottom 50% starts paying SOMETHING in federal income taxes.

scottindallas
scottindallas

Those people pay substantial payroll taxes, 15% and they pay a disproportionate portion of their income to fees and services. Finally, they all presumably pay property taxes as renters indeed pay the taxes of the apts. they may dwell in. But, nice attempt at obfuscating the issue.

Preston Holler
Preston Holler

The top 20% of household wage earners in the US pay about 37% of federal income tax -- so they pay about twice the percentage of taxes vis-a-vis their percent of income.

On the other hand, the bottom 50% of wage earners pay only about 25% of federal income tax -- so they pay about half of the percentage of taxes vis-a-vis their percentage of income.

So, if anyone is not paying their "fair share" of federal income taxes, it is the bottom 50% of wage earners.

As for payroll taxes, that is to fund social security -- something that they will get back in the future (provided the Democrats don't bankrupt us by then). The "rich" pay the same amount for the same benefit. It is absolutely equal.

Thus, you have one system with absolute fairness to all (i.e. all pay the same amount for the same benefit) and another system where the lower 50% pay practically nothing but free enjoyment of all the benefits.

trashtalk
trashtalk

OMG- Preston Holler-Be glad you are not a student in a Texas school. You wouldn't graduate because you wouldn't be able to pass your math TAKS. The bottom half paying half the federal taxes? Are you completely stupid or do you not understand what proportion of their income would have to be taxed for this feat to occur?

If we made income taxes totally regressive in this country, it would mean those in poverty could either pay their income taxes or their rent, but not both.

Your freaking stupidity is getting old. Right now the wealthy have so many loopholes--including ridiculous mortgage tax breaks, that the tax structure for them looks like swiss cheese.

Add to it the limit at around $100k of social security taxes instead of paying social security taxes on every check. We pander to the wealthy in this country because they have the power to write the tax codes.

Capital gains tax of 15% on a million dollars? Let's be totally ridiculous.

Preston Holler
Preston Holler

@trashtalk:

Your comprehension of arithmetic is a bit, how shall we say, Hinojosa-ish. I am well aware that the "poor" pay less income tax because they make less money. The problem is that they make about 35% of the income but pay only about 17% of the taxes. If they make about 35% of the income, their "fair share" of the tax burden should around 35%. Instead, they pay about half of their "fair share." On the other hand, the top 10% of wage earners make about 20% of the income but pay about 40% of the taxes. Their "fair share" should be 20% but they are paying DOUBLE their "fair share."

The problem is that something like a third of Americans pay no taxes at all. None. They enjoy the same benefits as all other Americans. But, essentially, they are freee loaders. Thus, they have no incentive not to insist (and vote) on for candidates that want to spend, spend, spend. What do they care? It's all free to them anyway.

scottindallas
scottindallas

Dollars is dollars. What's totally disingenuous is that those hard earned social security dollars went on loan to the income tax payers. Now, that those loans are due, the rich are trying to make the poor pay the money they loaned the income tax payers. You get more of a vote than the poor. You voted for voodoo economics and now that you've bankrupted the system so you could keep your low taxes, and now you blame the poor and powerless?

Indeed sir, the party that is not paying their fair share look to those who pay your checks. Their, (the uber rich) tax burden is terribly low. And the reality is that if we raised their taxes, they'd suppress their takings, rather investing in capital development and hiring assistants here. If they refuse to work as hard, that means they'll hire others to keep their cash cow creme.

trashtalk
trashtalk

Good lord--apparently Preston Holler has never had a salary climb WAY up there and outrun having to pay social security taxes most of the year.

If we made EVERYONE pay all year, many ss problems would be solved. Only those in the lower income brackets get dinged every paycheck.

Your arithmetic is a bit, shall we say, DISD-ish? Of course the poor pay less income tax because they make less money. Would you prefer we turn British circa 1500 or 1600 or 1700 and tax the poor?

The poor in this country pay a much higher percentage of their income in taxes throughout the year because of regressive sales taxes, vehicle motor registration,etc. Maybe we should return to having child labor so we could squeeze the poor more effectively.

scottindallas
scottindallas

In fact, all those guys got a tax increase under Obama while the wealthy got a rather large tax break, under Obama, below Bush's rates.

Printer
Printer

Let's get them up above the poverty level with good paying jobs, and hell yes, let's tax them too!

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...