Jay Bookman

By hillbilly ragger

October 7, 2008 1:01 PM | Link to this

THANK YOU! I’ve been wondering when you’d get around to tearing this conservative lie a new one.

By hillbilly ragger

October 7, 2008 1:11 PM | Link to this

But Jay, what’s this? “For decades now, the payroll tax has been bringing in a lot more revenue than needed for Social Security”

That can’t be! It’s going bankrupt! it’s in CRISIS!

Remember when W. told us all about it in Jan. 2005? And how the only answer was to privatize SS?

By Klondike Kat

October 7, 2008 1:15 PM | Link to this

Jay you have stated below this paragraph:

As of 2007, a total of $2.25 trillion of payroll tax money paid into the Social Security and Medicare trust funds had been diverted to general fund use and replaced with government IOUs. In effect, the trust funds are an illusion. Payroll taxes and income taxes go into the same pool of money and are withdrawn from that same pool of money to fund government.

Now would you care too expunge on who, and what party went into our government system and created this mess?

The general masses are waiting on your “pearls of wisdom” here.

By Morningstar

October 7, 2008 1:16 PM | Link to this

Jay, I believe it more appropriate that my prior post appear here. Hence, here it is, from your previous column.

By Morningstar October 7, 2008 12:52 PM | Link to this I give up. I just had a conversation with someone who thinks all our security problems, lack of funds to provide assistance to needy families, adequate health care and education, and you name it is due to all the services we provide to “illegal aliens” in this country.

LORD HELP US. We are seriously in need! Some simply cannot understand the cost of the War on Terror, vs. money saved by those who exploit illegals. Now who do you suppose commits that little atrocity?

By Doc

October 7, 2008 1:17 PM | Link to this

Like most in the tank reporters, you misrepresent the facts. The no tax line is based upon the fact that after they file taxes, the deductions these persons are allowed to claim amount to a figure that is greater than their tax liablility. Thus, their refund creates a net balance in the taxpayer’s favor. Thus, over 50% of the people don’t actually pay any income taxes.

By Mrs. Godzilla

October 7, 2008 1:20 PM | Link to this

Thanks Jay.

Compassionate conservatism has put over 5 million more Americans on the poverty roles.

Shame.

By Mrs. Godzilla

October 7, 2008 1:25 PM | Link to this

POOR PEOPLE NEED TO INCOPORATE

WASHINGTON (AP) - Two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, according to a new report from Congress.

THAT’S 67% OF CORPORATIONS PAID NO INCOME TAX.

If poor folk just incorporate, even more of them won’t have to pay any taxes AND the conservatives will appluad them!

By mm

October 7, 2008 1:33 PM | Link to this

Yet the wingnuts claim we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Well, if all corporations paid their fair share then we probably could drop the tax rate.

But to wingnuts, it’s ok if corporations fail to pay taxes.

It’s just not ok for individuals.

Hypocrisy, as usual.

By RW-(the original)

October 7, 2008 1:34 PM | Link to this

Nice article Jay B.,

One paragraph to build a straw man and nine more to knock it down. I would truly love to see evidence that it’s a favorite right wing talking point that says people that aren’t paying traditional income taxes aren’t deserving of respect or a voice in politics.

I’m sure some of your toadies, or perhaps even yourself, can find a scattered example, but a scattered example does not a favorite right wing talking point make.

By getalife Inc.

October 7, 2008 1:37 PM | Link to this

I am incorporated and will pay no tax for them to give bailouts to their friends.

Looks like Cramer was right folks.

By Mrs. Godzilla

October 7, 2008 1:37 PM | Link to this

MM

We tossed this topic around a few weeks back.

We do have one of the highest corporate tax rates of all the industrialized nations….however, because of loop holes and stuff and nonsense, we have one of the lowest rates of revenue for corporate taxes.

They whine about the rate, and then find a way successfully not to pay it.

Don’t just give poor folks clothes, shelter and food - help them incorporate!

By hillbilly ragger

October 7, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this

Doc, even if I take you at your word (which I don’t), what do you call that interest-free loan to the US government our working poor provide?

And nice dodge of the point Jay’s making, which is that EVERY income earner in America does, indeed, pay taxes.

EVERY ONE. FROM THE FIRST PENNY EARNED.

Conservatives, stop lying. I know it’s hard, but you can stop if you really pull yourselves up by your precious little bootstraps and try!

By @@

October 7, 2008 1:44 PM | Link to this

As of 2007, a total of $2.25 trillion of payroll tax money paid into the Social Security and Medicare trust funds had been diverted to general fund use and replaced with government IOUs. In effect, the trust funds are an illusion. Payroll taxes and income taxes go into the same pool of money and are withdrawn from that same pool of money to fund government.

Kinda goes against the liberals’ argument that conservatives should willingly/happily pay more taxes in the interest of the government’s welfare?

Sorry jay, but I have trust issues.

But hey!……..liberal voters are more than welcome to trust the government. The majority of them certainly trusted congress to bail ‘em out. Bush they hate, but congress went along for the ride with Bush driving.

I’ve been checking out The Constitution Party. Close enough to McCain’s platform to suit me.

I’ve cast my vote in opposition to George Soros, the man behind OBlahMa’s curtain.

By tcoach

October 7, 2008 1:45 PM | Link to this

They get all of what they pay into payroll tax. That is theri taz refund check. They do not pay taxes all they get is help from the gov. in saving some money. I know when I was a senior in college I was one of those not making enough money to actually pay taxes. The gov. took money out of my check every other week, but after I filed my taxes I got all of it back. So no I did not pay taxes. If I would have recieved a tax break back then it would have just meant I was going to get even more money from the gov.

Jay you just told a few truths and then lied. That is what you are consistant at though. You tell a couple of truths then got to using big ideas and words in hope that you confuse the people. This guy though was one of the people in that 38% and I did not Pay any taxes to the government. I let them borrow with no interest some of my money, nothin more nothing less.

Jay you proved to me today you are nothing more than a dirty lying liberal, that has an ageda to get a candidate elected and no concern for what lies or half truths you have to tell in order to get that done. I hope you get exactly what you want and we have nothing but democrates in all offices. When it all goes to crap you my friend had better be the first voice I hear saying I was so wrong and I am sorry for what I have helped to get done.

I fear that will go just as the congressional elections 2 years ago went. You lied and promoted all of the dem. to get elected. Yet when they have been n obvious failure you do not have the set to tell people maybe I was wrong in some of my assesments.

You truely are a coward and I am embarressed for you and anyone related to you. No honor at all, you as a citizen is exactly what is wrong with our great nation. Accept responsibility when you are wrong, but I guess that goes against your liberal mind set.

By Mrs. Godzilla

October 7, 2008 1:52 PM | Link to this

somebody tinkled in tcoachs wheaties!

By BS Aplenty

October 7, 2008 1:53 PM | Link to this

I must respectfully disagree.

I pay sales taxes, property taxes, ad valorem taxes (cars, etc.), FICA (payroll) taxes, Medicare taxes, motor fuel taxes and all of these taxes are paid out of my income - but none of them is part of the very distinct brand of slavery called income taxes.

That my fine Dem friend is what the federal, state and/or local governments tax after all the allowable deductions are confiscated from your income. And for the individual, those deductions DO NOT include payroll taxes.

You’ll notice that when you owe individual income taxes, the government does not allow you to deduct payroll taxes you might have paid from the income tax you owe.

That should be a really clear indication that they are not the same tax AND approximately animal.

According to The Tax Foundation, new tax proposals by both Obama and McCain will dramatically increase the number of filers with zero tax liability to a remarkable 44% of all filers.

If you click on this link to The Tax Foundation, you can read their analysis and note the table about midway down.

So it’s estimated to be 44% - or 50% when you’re a TV journalist.

By E

October 7, 2008 1:54 PM | Link to this

Do you believe it’s okay to take from the poor to become rich?

Because generally speaking, that’s how one becomes rich; by increased use of that which belongs to no one and everyone, the commons. The infrastructure.

The group (in terms of income) on which the highest percentage of tax dollars is spent per capita is the bottom 10%.

The second highest? The top 10%.

Pay your taxes; they’re the membership dues to a civil society.

Obama/Biden ‘08

By Ray

October 7, 2008 1:55 PM | Link to this

Bookman,

Get your facts straight. Approx. 132M tax returns were filed in 2007 by American taxpayers. 66M of those who filed a return earned less than 31K/ yr and were responsible for only 3.07% of taxes paid. The top 1% of taxpayers paid a greater dollar amount in taxes than the next 90% of taxpayers. If you divide 132M/66M, it comes up to close to 50% of the population payed only 3% of the tax burden. As income went below 31K, essentially no taxes were paid at all. Ref….www.taxfoundation.org “Tax refunds” are given across the board, even to those who did not pay a dime. We are getting tired of paying other people’s bills.

By Paul

October 7, 2008 1:57 PM | Link to this

Jay

A week or so ago I mentioned to Mrs. Godzilla the “half” number was high, gave a reference to somewhere under 40 percent. That would be 38. So, would the point be lost if the statements began “the claim that 38 percent of American households…”

Regarding your second point, that “because they don’t pay any tax in the first place; second, those households are somehow less deserving of respect or even a voice in politics because they aren’t paying their own way.” I’ll grant, even though I can’t recall any instances, that some here may have taken that position, but in the larger, general political discourse? It seems this may be a case of introducing a point to substantiate a position, which point is not held as a general proposition. But you wrote “tax”, not “income tax.” So now we make the change in what constitutes ‘income tax.’

“Even that number is grossly exaggerated, because it excludes what people pay through the payroll tax.”

Most articles I’ve read include that rejoinder (a rather new rejoinder, at that) even though the topic is the Federal Income Tax. The US Treasury considers both revenue derived from income. They do not use the term “Income Tax” to refer to the Social Security (payroll) tax.

You provide a very good description of why the Social Security tax is regressive – those with lower incomes pay a larger percentage of their income. I was rather hoping you’d have an explanation of why Obama wants to exempt income between $102k and $250k from the tax. Middle class is moving up! Uh, no. Couldn’t have anything to do with not wanting to alienate a significant block of voters, could it?

“Technically, payroll tax receipts are supposed to be reserved for paying for Social Security and Medicare, which is what allows some people to claim it is not an income tax.”

If you were to sit for a tax exam and list the payroll tax synonymously with the Federal Income tax program because the funds are siphoned off to the general fund, I don’t think you’d be granted a diploma. If the test question was, ‘is the payroll tax applied against income’ you might.

But, Congress and Presidents have never warmed to Al Gore’s ‘lock box.’ Too much money to play with, too many constituencies to pay off. Are your proposing we do just that, restrict Social Security tax revenue to only the SS program? Really? Really? Get ready for some great offsets.

Your conclusion: if one can define any word or subject to mean whatever one wants, one can make any argument. While both Federal Income Tax and Social Security tax are based on income, the programs are separate. Separate agencies administer them. Payment rules that apply to one do not apply to the other. People recognize this. Just look at how the candidates’ Federal Income tax returns are treated. No where have I read a journalist say “candidate A didn’t pay $20,000 income tax as reported on his Form 1040, he really paid $40,000 in income tax because of the payroll tax.”

The fact is, an increasing number of households have been exempted from the Federal Income Tax while they have not been exempted from paying tax designated for Social Security. The number of households so exempt expanded under the Bush Administration. Sen Obama is being disingenuous in stating households that pay no Federal Income Tax will receive a tax cut because they’ll receive a check based upon their household size and income. Saying these households pay income tax because they pay the Social Security tax is a smokescreen to obscure expanding transfer payments to buy political support.

By hillbilly ragger

October 7, 2008 1:59 PM | Link to this

They get all of what they pay into payroll tax. That is theri taz refund check.

tcoach, even if I fix your typos, this is rong. rong rong rong.

By SD Student

October 7, 2008 2:03 PM | Link to this

Jay,

I am a high school student. We are studying and debating this right now.

Your so called “payroll tax” is for social security and medicare, not income tax. Please stick to the subject of federal income taxes which are taxes IN ADDITION to the required social security and medicare taxes.

And please answer this:

If the purpose of federal income taxes is to fund federal government expenses, then why is increasing taxes on those earning over $250,000 a year while at the same time giving wage earners who pay no income tax a reimbursable tax credit (in the form of a check from the US Treasury) not simply a means to redistribute personal wealth?

By hillbilly ragger

October 7, 2008 2:09 PM | Link to this

Reich Wing gave us “I would truly love to see evidence that it’s a favorite right wing talking point that says people that aren’t paying traditional income taxes aren’t deserving of respect or a voice in politics.”

Here ya go. Rush Limbaugh has been barking at visitors to his website that “ONLY THE RICH PAY TAXES!”

You imagine maybe he might just be contributing to the notion that “people that aren’t paying traditional income taxes aren’t deserving of respect or a voice in politics”, just a little, by lying about this stuff?

By Roy

October 7, 2008 2:22 PM | Link to this

Evidently Bookman doesn’t know that income taxes and payroll taxes are two different things. The ones who pay no income taxes do indeed pay payroll taxes. That is for a benefit they will receive in the future. The people who do pay income taxes also pay payroll taxes, so they are paying BOTH. The fact is about 50% of the American people do not pay income taxes, despite Bookman’s claim to the contrary. What a dim bulb.

By Citizen of the World

October 7, 2008 2:22 PM | Link to this

Even if that 38 - 50 percent (whatever) who only pay payroll taxes get all their payroll taxes back in a refund, that’s all right with me.

Can you imagine living on their salaries, probably with no sick leave or health insurance? They barely make enough to eke out a subsistence for themselves and their families, much less pay for health insurance or college or a decent place to live in a safe neighborhood. They live so far out on the economic edge, they’re hanging on for dear life by their fingernails half the time. One thing goes wrong — car breaks down, kid gets sick, company lays off — and they’re sunk. They are not as likely as the more affluent to enjoy good public schools, our parks and playgrounds, our state universities (even our military protection, given that disproportionately more of them join the military as a way out of poverty, only to get shot at and killed).

Whether you want to admit it or not, their poverty subsidizes your wealth. Perhaps if we insisted on a living wage for these people instead of golden parachutes for our CEOs, they could make enough to share a greater portion of the tax burden.

Yes, there are bums who don’t do anything but put their hand out to the government, but most of the poor work and work very hard for meager pay. Have some compassion and don’t begrudge them a tax break.

By Bosch

October 7, 2008 2:28 PM | Link to this

server test. my connection keeps dropping.

By RW-(the original)

October 7, 2008 2:28 PM | Link to this

ragger,

You might have been onto something if your link backed up your lie, but even if it had you’d be hard pressed to show he had been very effective in making it a favorite right wing talking point that people not paying traditional income aren’t deserving of respect or a voice in politics.

By Paul

October 7, 2008 2:29 PM | Link to this

hillybilly ragger

I went to the link - it was Limbaugh’s site. I didn’t see where he said people exempt from paying Federal income tax don’t deserve respect or a voice in politics. Could you please provide another link?

SD Student

Sounds as if you have a pretty good school and teacher. A key point is both the Federal Income tax and SS (payroll tax) are based upon income. But to refer to both as “income tax” is to introduce new meaning to generally accepted terms.

“Income redistribution’ is a tenet of the Left. It’s a means to help people who are having a tough time paying bills or going to college.

Link: Sen Obama on income redistribution

They mix the term “progressive income tax” in with it, but that is not the same as “income redistribution.”

We’ve had it for year, usually in the form of noncash assistance. We are now seeing a move towards direct cash transfer.

Be ready for arguments detailing similar kinds of tax breaks, credits, payments, etc for corporations, wealthy people, etc. They are a reality. Don’t get suckered by the argument that one bad thing justifies another. Just keep in mind the tax code is used not solely to fund the federal government, but as a tool for social policy. It gives great power to those in Congress who disburse the revenue collected from the citizenry.

Part of the angst many have with ‘income redistribution ’ is the unwillingness of advocates to acknowledge what it is (see earlier link and comingling ‘progressive tax’). Makes people suspicious. Very rarely do we hear a politician or supporter clearly state (I’m going to take money from you because you make $500,000 a year and give it to you because you make $30,000 a year.” It may be a laudable social goal. It may not. But it should be called what it is.

By sunshine and thunder

October 7, 2008 2:31 PM | Link to this

JAY

So let me get this straight. You are claiming that the lower 50% of earners are actually paying taxes because congress is stealing their retirement funds and spending the money to buy votes for - who else - democRATs.

Is that about it?

And according to intrepid newsman Jay Bookman the big story here is that some people claim that the bottom 50% of earners pay no taxes. NOT that everyone’s retirement funds are being stolen by elected thieves.

UNCLE SAM: gimme some money to save for your retirement.

CITIZEN: what happened to the money I gave you last week?

UNCLE SAM: I spent it.

CITIZEN: maybe I should put some of this money in the stock market.

UNCLE SAM: nah, too risky.

By Jack

October 7, 2008 2:36 PM | Link to this

Bookman’s claim of fraud is intentional misinformation. Nowhere in his blog is the EIC mentioned. Most poor workers get a refundable credit based on earned income and effectively pay no tax.

By sunshine and thunder

October 7, 2008 2:39 PM | Link to this

How do any of you left nuts justify a tax system where the bottom 50% of voters pay no tax and will soon learn that they can out vote the upper 50% and vote themselves any manner of largesse from the public treasury?

That’s where we’re moving aren’t we? How will we survive when that happens? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

By Mrs. Godzilla

October 7, 2008 2:41 PM | Link to this

Citizen of the World

Very well said.

By hillbilly ragger

October 7, 2008 2:41 PM | Link to this

well, Paul, maybe I’m just being a trifle sensitive. Maybe I’m reading too much into a guy who claims “only the rich pay taxes” (it is there on his web site; you might have to click “facts about taxes” on the Flash thingie at the bottom).

But you want contempt for the working poor? Here’s the vile Neal Boortz:

“You know, most of the people that earn minimum wage are teenagers. They’re in the job market for a short period of time, they’re learning some job skills, they’re learning workplace skills. Most of the people who aren’t teenagers that have a minimum-wage job, it lasts about three to four months, and they’re off making more money. I want you to think for think for a moment of how incompetent and stupid and worthless, how — that’s right, I used those words — how incompetent, how ignorant, how worthless is an adult that can’t earn more than the minimum wage? You have to really, really, really be a pretty pathetic human being to not be able to earn more than the human wage. Uh — human, the minimum wage.”

By Bosch

October 7, 2008 2:44 PM | Link to this

Paul,

Good post to high school student.

It’s pretty predictable to know where a tax topic on this blog will go. Right: poor people are just lazy and are ruining our country - Left: corporations are full of greedy criminals who are ruining our country.

My knowledge of taxes boils down to I drop by the local H&R Block office and sign some papers where the tax man tells me to - I usually get a good refund back which we spend on a shrimp dinner for the fam, and put the rest back for our annual Christmas party.

But even though I am “tax challenged” it seems that McCain’s plan is to continue with the policies of giving corporations a break and as we’ve seen in the past years/months/weeks/days, that plan isn’t working so well.

I know the economy situation is more than just that, but it seems to me that anything that has been done in the past - tax breaks to corporations, deregulation, etc. isn’t working out so well for middle America and just like Afghanistan, needs a wholesale re-evaluation.

By JAY BOOKMAN

October 7, 2008 2:44 PM | Link to this

“Should Americans Who Don’t Pay Taxes Have a Say?”

by Robert R. Eberle

Robert R. Eberle is a conservative columnist and Republican Party activist in Texas, and is president and chief executive officer of GOPUSA.

By SD Student

October 7, 2008 2:44 PM | Link to this

Hillbilly ragger said:

“Income redistribution’ is a tenet of the Left. It’s a means to help people who are having a tough time paying bills or going to college.”

My parents have little money (none really) to help with college.

But if I don’t skip classes, take AP courses and spend my free time studying instead of hanging out at the mall, I will do well in high school and get scholarships for college.

Should my classsmates who choose poorly and don’t get good grades and scholarships receive college assistance from the government when it’s really their own fault for screwing off in high school?

By Left Nut

October 7, 2008 2:45 PM | Link to this

Kind of sad when a supposed high school kid knows more and seems to understand more about our tax system than a person who ‘specializing in foreign relations, the environment and state and local politics’

By LM

October 7, 2008 2:46 PM | Link to this

Meanwhile…

(http://www.ajc.com/services/content/metro/stories/2008/10/07/georgiavoterregistration.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=13)

By Citizen of the World

October 7, 2008 2:48 PM | Link to this

Jack @ 2:36 — the key word in your post is poor. These people are poor. Why should anyone work 40 hours a week in the “richest country in the world” and be poor?

I’m so tired of hearing people talk about how they should pull themselves up by their bootstraps, I’d like to take a bootstrap and whomp them upside the head with it.

How easy would it be for any of us to go out and earn ourselves into a higher socio-economic status? Let’s all get started today and see just how easy it is.

It’s not that likely we could, so why should we expect it of the poor who have disadvantages we can only dream of in our worst nightmare.

By Paul

October 7, 2008 2:49 PM | Link to this

Mrs Godzilla - Citizen of the World

I understand the general philosophy. Do either of you have specific proposals for what income and family sizes should receive payments? And what the amount of those payments should be?

The devil, they say, is in the details.

“No matter how much you make, you can always find a way to spend more.”

“No matter how much you make, you can always find someone who makes more.”

By Mrs. Godzilla

October 7, 2008 2:50 PM | Link to this

Pardon me…..poor folks taxes got some of y’all all wound up?

This is worse.

And so is this

Why do compassionate conservatives hate poor folks, but love the rich ones?

By getalife

October 7, 2008 2:50 PM | Link to this

Hey kid,

Did your parents tell you life is not fair?

“After Bailout, AIG Execs Head to California Resort Rescued by Taxpayers, $440,000 for Retreat Including “Pedicures, Manicures”

They should.

By AJC/DNC Management

October 7, 2008 2:51 PM | Link to this

The bottom 50% of wage earners pay about 3% of all taxes so I guess kookman has the most minuscule of legitimate reasons to write such an article but, should Oblahma get elected, you can bet your sweet patootie that this 3% “burden” will be immediately removed from them and placed on everybody else, plus some.

By RW-(the original)

October 7, 2008 2:53 PM | Link to this

Jay B.,

That was even more pathetic than ragger’s attempt. An article from 2003 by a Texas conservative hardly makes that a favorite talking point of the right wing.

Ragger at least came up with something that sounds like a show of contempt, but that further undermines your case that it’s become a favorite talking point.

By hillbilly ragger

October 7, 2008 2:56 PM | Link to this

SD, I think you have me confused with Paul. I did not say what you claimed that I said about “income redistribution.”

Furthermore, I find the scare-phrase “income redistribution” only slightly lower in bovine-excrement-content than “political correctness” when uttered in earnest by conservatives.

By Mrs. Godzilla

October 7, 2008 2:58 PM | Link to this

Paul,

No I don’t have any specific plans, but I trust Obama to make the best and most informed choices.

By Bosch

October 7, 2008 3:01 PM | Link to this

SD Student,

To generally answer your question: NO.

But many of your classmates will come to realize life as you do, and most will need assistance.

If we give up on kids who screw around in high school, then our country is doomed - you are a minority, not racially, but how you view things, and I’m glad you take your education so seriously.

But you also have to understand that very few students, even those who take education as seriously as you do, get full rides to college. Scholarships mostly pay for tuition only, some, but not most, do not pay for housing, dining hall plans, and books. So even though you get scholarships, is not a guarantee that your hard work will pay for everything you need.

My son started college this year and he was a very good, serious student, many scholarships and awards, etc. but he still had to take out a loan for many incidentals that his scholarships didn’t cover.

Now don’t get me wrong, I am very glad to see a young person working hard and trying to do well, but life isn’t black and white.

Keep up the good work.

By getalife

October 7, 2008 3:01 PM | Link to this

“Pakistan Faces Bankruptcy, Wants $100bn Handout”

Geez.

No taxation without representation was the basic principle on the founding of our country.

Looks like it needs refounded.

By Left Nut

October 7, 2008 3:01 PM | Link to this

SD Student, better check into taking those AP courses. Somehow the state has figured a way to discount the grade point average of AP courses. My daughter had a 3.9 GPA after taking 4 AP classes and 1 non- AP class. When we applied for the HOPE scholarship, the state recalculated her GPA to a 2.9 BECAUSE of all the AP classes. No HOPE for her! However, the local high school gets additional funding if more students take AP classes. My son has now dropped ALL his AP classes. His GPA will of course be higher and he should qualify for the HOPE.

By Paul

October 7, 2008 3:01 PM | Link to this

hillybilly ragger

That Boortz fellow sounds like one who confuses theory with reality. And I still don’t know how much of what they say the Rush Limbaughs of the world actually believe. When you have a $30 mil contract. Still, as Jay said, nearly everyone with an income pays some form of tax.

That Boortz comment: I’ve asked others if the only criteria is ‘hard work’ and ‘pull yourself up by your bootstraps”:

You wake up tomorrow. Your job is gone, with it your insurance. Your checking and savings are gone. Your child was just diagnosed with cancer, your wife with MS. You have no contacts in your former world.

Start tuggin’ on those bootstraps.

Jay 2:44

Isn’t it great? Nearly anyone with any idea can get published. I well and truly hope the ideas represented in his book are not held by many.

SD Student 2:44

I believe that was a quote I offered with a link to Sen Obama.

Not to disillusion you, but doing the things you list is not even close to a guarantee of a scholarship, let alone one that will cover significant costs. You will likely go heavily into debt to finance your education and will pay it off for years.

The same as the guy who chose poorly.

Welcome to life.

By sunshine and thunder

October 7, 2008 3:04 PM | Link to this

MRS GODZILLA

You wrote:

Why do compassionate conservatives hate poor folks, but love the rich ones?

The real question is: Why do left nuts think conservatives hate poor folks? We don’t. We hate getting robbed by lying politicians who claim they are doing it for the “poor folks” and seeing the poor folks get worse and worse year after year. IOW, whatever the liars are doing with our money it isn’t working

How about a different thought?

Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach him to fish and feed him for a lifetime.

“You cannot help a man by doing for him what he could and should be doing for himself”. A. Lincoln.

“If you’re going to pay people to be poor you’re going to have more poor people”. Milton Friedman on the War on Poverty.

By Taxpayer

October 7, 2008 3:06 PM | Link to this

I’d like to see all these “corporations” that make their money off of the people that earn $50k or less per year try to survive without these very people. Do any of you Republicans even stop to use your brains for anything other than spewing what you’ve been told is “truth”. Stupid Baby Stupid.

By Paul

October 7, 2008 3:09 PM | Link to this

Mrs. Godzilla 2:58

I think part of what gets some riled up are the ‘unknowns.’ People supporting your position may be thinking “125% of the Federal poverty level.” People opposed may think “these guys want to take my money and give it to a family of four making $45,000 a year”. Farfetched? Take a look at some programs - what was it, CHIPS, and what income levels could qualify, especially with waivers.

I think most wouldn’t object to helping out but get antsy to think they may have to pay for another’s household, year in and year out, especially when that household isn’t all that different from what they grew up in or what they had in their early career years (adjusted for inflation, of course).

So that’s why I was trying to nail it down. I’d be more inclined for the “N percent over the poverty level” route, myself.

By Citizen of the World

October 7, 2008 3:14 PM | Link to this

Paul @ 2:49 — no, I do not have a specific proposal, but you can be sure that I will vote for someone who offers tax relief to the poor and middle class, rather than to the rich and connected.

I don’t know who you were quoting in your post, but as far as making and spending go, probably one reason I don’t really mind paying my taxes is because I live well within my means, and I count myself fortunate enough to be able to do so. My husband and I make enough to pay our mortgage on a nice home, we have one car — a Prius — that’s less than a year old, and another car that’s 13 years old. Half of the accessories in my home came from yard sales. My college graduate children went to school on the HOPE scholarship, and I just got one married off in a nice wedding with no lingering debt.

I’m saying all that to say this: When you make decent money, you can choose how to spend it — where to splurge and where to be frugal so that the net result is solvency. The poor often have no such option. It takes everything they have and then some to live.

By AJC/DNC Management

October 7, 2008 3:16 PM | Link to this

Hahahaha:

A Nevada secretary of state’s office spokesman said Tuesday that investigators are looking for evidence of voter fraud at the office of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, also called ACORN.

Secretary of State spokesman Bob Walsh says ACORN is accused of submitting multiple voter registrations with false and duplicate names.-Breitbart

Buh bye democracy!

By getalife

October 7, 2008 3:17 PM | Link to this

Our friends on the right still using the same old ideology arguments of the past.

We are socialists now silly.

Change is constant, try to keep up.

By hillbilly ragger

October 7, 2008 3:17 PM | Link to this

Paul @ 2.49, who gave us “I understand the general philosophy. Do either of you have specific proposals for what income and family sizes should receive payments? And what the amount of those payments should be?”

That’s a good question, albeit one you didn’t ask of me, specifically, hope you don’t mind if I have a crack at it.

My belief is that first, you do no harm. While I’m a progressive, I don’t want what is always a fragile economy (even when it seems “robust”) to go into a tailspin. Nor do I want to stifle entrepreneurship, and I certainly have no interest in specifically punishing those who’ve made a comfortable life for themselves. So I wouldn’t propose any radical tax code changes; I think those who do rarely have the nation’s best interest at heart (I’m looking at you, Boortz and Linder.)

I think Obama’s on the right track in re-instituting the same tax brackets for upper earners that Clinton proposed and got back in the mid-90s. I think he’s probably unrealistic in trying to provide tax cuts for lower income earners; I think that revenue would be better spent getting our budget back to something approaching balance, and I think world markets would welcome this.

I wouldn’t do a damn thing any time soon about FICA taxes. I would kick that can down the road another four years at least. I think it’s immoral to go outside the original parameters of Social Security and start treating it like an investment; it’s NOT. It is insurance, and current contributors are supposed to be paying for current recipients, not future ones.

Medicare/Medicaid, I would seriously look into simply expanding it for everyone — call it “single payer,” call it “commie medicine” — and take the heat for it. Unless everyone else using a system like this is lying, and I don’t think they are, we’d wind up saving a good deal of money this way. Oh, there’d be upheaval—some insurance company people would be displaced, of course, and that’d hurt, but we could absorb it from the cost savings and re-train them.

That is, believe it or not, the short answer. You probably think it’s foolish, but I think it’s the most responsible approach to take and, as stated before, mostly I just don’t want to mess things up.

Lastly, while I have at many of the conservatives here and probably paint them with too broad a brush, I have no problem with those who keep me honest. I consider you to be one of those, and if I’ve ever been less than respectful to you, mea culpa.

By sunshine and thunder

October 7, 2008 3:18 PM | Link to this

TAXPAYER

What came first, the corporation or the job?

The people earning 50K or less are a lot more plentiful than the corporations that pay them.

But you left nuts want to penalize the few corporations that are still in America.

You’ve run the rest off with

High taxes

Regualtions

Threat of litigation

Union wage scales

Anything else you want to do to destroy the job creation engine?

By Mrs. Godzilla

October 7, 2008 3:22 PM | Link to this

Sunshine and thunder

You state:

“We hate getting robbed by lying politicians who claim they are doing it for the “poor folks” and seeing the poor folks get worse and worse year after year:

And still you support failed conservative economic policies and the candidates that have done or will continue to do just what you hate!

And, I have been teaching folks to “fish” all my life. Just like my mom and dad taught me.

(There are those that think Milton and his boys and their philosophy is part of the problem)

By Left Nut

October 7, 2008 3:28 PM | Link to this

CotW, * How easy would it be for any of us to go out and earn ourselves into a higher socio-economic status? Let’s all get started today and see just how easy it is.*

Can it happen in one generation? Possible. My grandparents did not have squat, my parents, lacking even a high school education, bettered themselves. I have improved somewhat over what my parents had and my kids are the first generation to attend college.

Did my parents go from poor to rich? No, they went from poor to getting by on hard work and a good work ethic.

Did I go from poor to rich? Nope, I went from getting by to making a decent living. 10K a year in my 20’s to just over 6 figures in my 50’s.

My plans for my kids, which may or may not pan out, is for them to go from a family who made a decent living to what some might consider well off.

Now, did this happen over night? No, it took hard work and little gains by each generation. If you want to go from dirt poor to filthy rich in one generation, you will probably stay dirt poor. And have no one to blame but yourself. Did I want everything when I was young? Yes, did I work hard and stay focused? Yes. Did I get everything right then? No!

The problem with a number of folks is that if they cannot ‘earn’ their toys by next month, they figure it isn’t worth the effort. That is why they stay in their economic class. Work, save, earn, then reevaluate if that new ‘toy’ is really worth it.

Making poor decisions is what will keep the poor poor.

By getalife

October 7, 2008 3:28 PM | Link to this

sunshine,

Outsourcing.

Free trade.

Globalization.

Bailout.

Greed.

Moron.

By AJC/DNC Management

October 7, 2008 3:29 PM | Link to this

“Whatever the question, whatever the issues, there’s always a back story with Senator Obama … Our current economic crisis is a good case in point. The crisis started in our housing market in the form of subprime loans that were pushed on people who could not afford them” McCain said during an event in Albuquerque, NM.

“Bad mortgages were being backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and it was only a matter of time before a contagion of unsustainable debt began to spread,”

“This corruption was encouraged by Democrats in Congress, and abetted by Senator Obama.”

I’m AJC/DNC Management and I approve this message.

bwa.

By Truth

October 7, 2008 3:29 PM | Link to this

I know this is sort of off topic, but I am so sick of those bicyclers (sic) riding on the road. Why dont they pay taxes like we do for driving our cars on the road?

By mm

October 7, 2008 3:32 PM | Link to this

I’m sick of you wingnuts claiming you are the only ones paying taxes. Contrary to what you believe, and are being told by your GOP politicians, there are also rich democrats and poor republicans (not sure why they would support the GOP).

We all pay taxes if we are middle class.

It’s some of the rich and poor and corporations who do not.

Most poor live off of their income and don’t request government assistance. I can deal with that.

I cannot deal with the fact that some of the wealthier people in this country can hire tax lawyers and take advantage of the antiquated tax laws.

By the way, it is rich congressmen that write the tax laws and continue to leave loopholes in the tax code for themselves and their cronies.

I believe I read that the tax code is now over 1000 pages. It’s time to throw this thing in the trash and start over.

Wake up wingnuts. If you’re going to whine about the poor not paying taxes, you should be a heck of a lot more p*ssed about the rich not paying taxes.

By "The Corporal"

October 7, 2008 3:32 PM | Link to this

Jay

This is why this election is so important. Supreme Court appointments trump everything because that lasts for years and years !

High Court lets decision in favor of “Choose Life” license plates stand

The U.S. Supreme Court denied review Monday of a challenge to an Arizona specialty license plate featuring the words Choose Life. We will now start seeing more of these plates in every state !

By Paul

October 7, 2008 3:37 PM | Link to this

Citizen of the World 3:14

I was quoting myself.

Your post intersects nicely with my 3:09.

hillybilly ragger 3:17

Thanks for the answer. I like ideas. Don’t think yours are foolish at all.

I don’t get McCain with his adherence to not letting the cuts expire for the top tier. I think the arguments used to support his position are a bit long on theory. I’m rather hoping, whichever one gets elected, they’ll pull a Clinton - first month, address the nation and say “I know what I said during the election, but I’m in now, this is the reality and this is what we’re gonna do.”

You’re one of many who’ve put me in the “conservative” camp. If I wanted to have fun at Wooten’s I’d probably get put in the ‘liberal’ camp. Trust me - with my thoughts on reductions in the Defense budget, education reform, general pullback in the world arena, I view many of the liberals here (having fun, now) as pretty much hardcoreuberneocons.

By Swami Dave

October 7, 2008 3:38 PM | Link to this

Jay:

Good try, but it is a logical fallacy to expect that people who pay little to nothing in income taxes should get a cut. Under any fair plan that cuts taxes in proportion to those paid, upper income earners would expectedly benefit greater; they pay more.

To Eberle’s point, all Americans should have some income tax liability. There should not be a mechanism for a growing group of Americans to abdicate the responsiblity for funding the operations of the government. Tax cuts for those who already pay little to no in income taxes is asinine.

Frankly, instead of expecting tax cuts when one pays little to nothing in income taxes, they should be satisfied and say thank you (to those higher income earners) for the benefits that they already enjoy.

That would seem to be a pretty ungrateful argument that you are voicing. Maybe if those currently not participating in the funding of our government operations would step us and joing those of us who already are, it would be for the better benefit of us all.

America needs more engines to drive our economy. Enabling more people to become cars waiting on others to pull them around is the wrong direction for our country to head.

-Swami Dave

By rd

October 7, 2008 3:41 PM | Link to this

When it is stated “half of all Americans pay no income tax”, it is PLAIN that we are talking about FEDERAL INCOME TAX, not “Payroll tax”. FEDERAL INCOME TAX is what runs the federal government, and it is not to be confused with Social security or Medicare taxes. And, in that vein, the claim is not bogus and you become a liar. Further, most of those people will get MOST or ALL of their “payroll” taxes back at retirement. THEY PAY NO TAXES AT ALL over time.

But I digress. It gets worse. A good deal of those people get earned income credits, which means they not only DONT pay their fair share for Federal government, they get money back. That’s socialism in a nutshell.

The problem is that when people pay nothing for government, they really dont care how the federal government spends money or (worse) they use the power of government to give themselves more. They want programs and healthcare paid for out of other people’s money. It’s morally and ethically wrong, but it is how our system now works. So we have approximately 50% who pay for government, and approximately 50% who dont. That is REALITY. SS and Medicare dont pay for the federal government. To suggest otherwise, Jay, is a lie.

It means that half (or more) of the people reading this pay no federal income tax, and will get far more back from SS or Medicare than they ever paid in. THEY PAY NO TAXES. PERIOD.

Our republic cannot continue like this. All people must pay for government, and all people must hold government accountable. If you are in the bottom 50% of wage earners, you are getting a free ride, and you have no reason to complain.

By CatherineAtlanta

October 7, 2008 3:41 PM | Link to this

Thank you so much for pointing out these conservative lies. I’ve long believed that the SS ceiling is to low. Why aren’t all wages taxed? Just imagine what good shape things would be in if all those golden parachutes had been taxed the same as my “below the ceiling” wages.

By sunshine and thunder

October 7, 2008 3:42 PM | Link to this

MRS GODZILLA

You wrote:

And still you support failed conservative economic policies and the candidates that have done or will continue to do just what you hate!

Aha! Now there’s a debate.

You call them failed economic policies. I call them failures of a regulated economy along with a failure of political schemes such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and CRA.

A little history:

In 1995 the CRA was given “teeth” by the Clinton administration and banks were put on notice that they would be effectively blackmailed into making loans to sub prime borrowers. (I don’t know if you remember the headlines of the day but they were full of stories about bank mergers, new branches, etc that were held up by community activism with the blessing of congress and the OCC.)

Fannie and Freddie relaxed their standards accordingly and, when the dot com bubble burst, interest rates went to zero to restimulate the economy.

With interest rates at zero, liquidity flooding the world thanks to Central Bank intervention, and Washington pressuring banks and mortage companies to make sub prime loans, the lenders went on a field day of making, packaging and re-selling them.

Sometimes they even paid one of the only three or four rating agencies blessed by the government to give them AAA ratings.

With interest rates at zero investors were looking for ANYTHING to invest in - especially after the dot com fiasco had decimated pension plans and endowments.

What could be better than AAA sub prime tranches of CMO’s?

Everyone was making money because the Fed had poured it on after the dot com.

Have you ever heard of the “Greenspan put”?

It was the idea that you could take unprecedented risk and the Fed would eventually bail you out.

Why not? It has been doing that ever since WWII.

By RW-(the original)

October 7, 2008 3:43 PM | Link to this

(m)ental (m)idget,

Are you having the same delusions that Jay is about what right wingers are commonly saying? I haven’t heard anybody say that only Republicans pay taxes, although I’m sure somebody can find some obscure example of it.

[You better update your page number for the tax code. According to the chart here it was almost 55,000 pages in 2003.

Throwing it in the trash and starting over is a good idea though. It’s just gonna take a bigger landfill.

By hillbilly ragger

October 7, 2008 3:48 PM | Link to this

“Our republic cannot continue like this. All people must pay for government, and all people must hold government accountable. If you are in the bottom 50% of wage earners, you are getting a free ride, and you have no reason to complain.”

Um, free ride? Really? Free to live in the world’s richest nation, that can’t be bothered providing healthcare and education to all of its citizens regardless of ability to pay? That has a tizzy-fit if unemployment gets too low, because that means those uppity workers are going to start expecting to be paid fair-market wages?

You can take that “freedom” and shove it, rd.

By NRB

October 7, 2008 3:50 PM | Link to this

What we need to do is totally abolish the IRS and the tax code completely and put a 10% flat sales tax in place.

That way we all pay the same percentage. Certainly even poor people can handle a 10% tax. And those “evil rich” that you lame brain liberals hate so much will still be paying more in dollar amounts because they earn more and can spend more.

The government can then cut all entitlement programs. We wont need them anymore because people will be automatically getting a raise due to a drastically lowered income tax.

more take home money=less dependence on our dumb government.

The lousy government will just have to cut way back and learn how to do what it needs to do under a 10% flat tax.

All we need is military and infrastructure upkeep, which the government can easily handle on a 10% flat tax.

Everything else is garbage and WASTE.

But liberals like Bookman will never support a 10% flat tax because they would lose power over the Democrat voting base. They need high taxes because government can control you with high taxes.

By Citizen of the World

October 7, 2008 3:50 PM | Link to this

Perfectly reasonable response, Left Nut @ 3:28. I have a similar story. I am only one generation off the farm on one side, and two generations on the other side. And these weren’t big farms, but hardscrabble farms run by people with, like, 3rd grade educations.

Interestingly, though, my maternal grandfather left the farm to work for the post office (a government job) and my father left the farm to join the military (a government job). I bet many of us could look back through our family history and see how the government, or the union, or the church or some other entity or institution helped. Maybe today we consider ourselves “self-made,” but if anyone in your up-line benefitted from the government, etc., then you did, too, by extension.

Yes, it can take a generation or more to come out of poverty, but many of these bloggers seem to think that “poof!” people can just lift themselves out of poverty overnight if they work or try hard enough. That’s why I say, let them try raising their socio-economic status from middle class to rich — starting today — and see how easy it is. Good luck!

By getalife

October 7, 2008 3:53 PM | Link to this

If sunshine would quit running his ignorant mouth long enough and watch the hearings, he would see his gop talking points and old ideology has been debunked.

He is stuck on stupid like these wingnuts:

In Clearwater, arriving reporters were greeted with shouts and taunts by the crowd of about 3,000. Palin then went on to blame Katie Couric’s questions for her “less-than-successful interview with kinda mainstream media.” At that, Palin supporters turned on reporters in the press area, waving thunder sticks and shouting abuse. Others hurled obscenities at a camera crew. One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him, “Sit down, boy.”

Geez.

By Swami Dave

October 7, 2008 3:59 PM | Link to this

Citizen:

That is what many of us are doing. I am sure that it will not occur overnight and I am sure that it will be anything but easy.

However, the biggest limitations that we all encounter are those that we place upon ourselves.

Functionally, most of us get what we want. It is our failure to answer that specific question (“What do you want - and what are you going to do to get it?”) that most people never answer.

Money, like all other tools, simply responds in expected ways depending upon how it is used (or misused).

But thanks for the support, I’ll keep you updated on my progress….smile

-Swami Dave

By "The Corporal"

October 7, 2008 4:00 PM | Link to this

What do Osama and Obama have in common ? They both have friends who bombed the Pentagon.

By NRB

October 7, 2008 4:01 PM | Link to this

The crowd of 3000 should have removed the reporters from the premises and dealt with them as the traitors to our nation that they are.

The left wing news media needs to be punished for helping to destroy the country. Good for the crowd in Clearwater for doing the right thing, and I hope it happens more often and with an increasing degree of force.

By citizen

October 7, 2008 4:03 PM | Link to this

AIG created a vehicle called ‘credit default swaps’ that was a mortgage debt insurance. The problem was, it was called a swap instead of an insurance policy and so ‘credit default swaps’ were not regulated. We have just lost 1200 points on DOW and $2 trillion in pensions and retirement funds. Gotta love creative financing.

By RW-(the original)

October 7, 2008 4:06 PM | Link to this

Calm down Polly, baseball and that great beer commercial where the guy freezes everybody at the pool party will be back in a couple days.

By GOP has lost its way

October 7, 2008 4:08 PM | Link to this

Nutcase du jour = Mr. Corporal….What an absolutely pathetic excuse.

By Mrs. Godzilla

October 7, 2008 4:10 PM | Link to this

JUST FOR CORPORAL

what’s the difference between sarah palin and a pit bull?

A pit bull’s son doesn’t mainline Oxycontin then chooses to enter the military instead of going to jail.

By Taxpayer

October 7, 2008 4:11 PM | Link to this

Sunshine and thunder at 3:18.

Why don’t you tell me all you know about Corporate America and which came first, sunshine or thunder? Tell me how you have determined that I’m a “left wing nut” and how I want to penalize those few corporations still here…come on S&T, show me what you’ve got. Tell me all about my past. Tell me about my education and my career in Corporate America. Tell me when I retired and why, genius.

By getalife

October 7, 2008 4:12 PM | Link to this

Tell us private,

What should be done with McPalin inciting violence at their rallies.

Should they be arrested?

By Mrs. Godzilla

October 7, 2008 4:15 PM | Link to this

JUST FOR CORPORAL

What’s the difference between a porcupine and John McCain’s campaign jet? Answer: the porcupine has p*ks on the outside!

By TN Gelding

October 7, 2008 4:15 PM | Link to this

Bosch

October 7, 2008 3:01 PM

I don’t want to get personal, but you had 18 years to save for your son’s college education. Why did he have to take out a loan?

If we truly valued education, we’d come up with a better way of funding it. How rich do the college endowment funds have to become before they would stop charging tuition? I guess they’ve taken a big hit recently tho. I saw recently that some of the richer ones weren’t charging tuition to low income students. Seems many of them are more interested in research and padding their own nest eggs than they are in educating our young ones.

I’m very impressed by the student. It’s encouraging to know some of them are getting a good education. He made our point better than I could have.

By Left Nut

October 7, 2008 4:24 PM | Link to this

CotW, Fortunately or unfortunately, no one in my direct past every worked for the government or in a union shop. I’ve got relatives (uncles and aunts) that were in the service and have had government jobs (fire chief in Podunk Kansas) but not my dad, mom or any of their parents. I did serve 4 years in the Army in the 60’s but I do not think that it help my eco-standing that much.

Going for poor to rich over night is not a good thing. Just look at M.Vick and some of the lottery winners. Working for it and earning it are the only way to make it worth anything.

The government did help in one way, they took the family farm in OK. and put a highway through the middle of it. Otherwise, I might still be working that farm. But at the time, it sure was not a help!

We still own the mineral rights to that land and I get a check every 3 months for the natural gas that is being pumped. The last check was for $1.26. It might reach $2.00 by next March! Beverly Hills here I come!!

By sab

October 7, 2008 4:30 PM | Link to this

Corporal….They can’t handle the truth,can they?

By "The Corporal"

October 7, 2008 4:32 PM | Link to this

Why should the vote of a convicted felon, drug addict on welfare who has had tons of assistance and refused multiple chances to reform count as much as a fully productive, taxpaying, law abiding citizen?

Or in other words, why should Democrat votes count as much as Republican votes ?

By RB from Gwinnett

October 7, 2008 4:33 PM | Link to this

Note to liberals. The poor will always be poor as long as they continue to do what makes them poor. I know you’re all going to call me mean and bunch of other silly things, but think about it. You’ve been playing this “help the poor” game for how many years now? If it works, why do we still have poor people? Because they continue to do what makes them poor.

Like it or not, if you took our entire population and spread all the money evenly, in a number of years, the rich would become rich again and the poor would become poor again. It’s not a matter of “those with money were fortunate and those without were less fortunate” as you libs would have the world believe. That’s a load of crap and you know it.

By Hillbilly Deluxe

October 7, 2008 4:36 PM | Link to this

I must be some sort of abomination cause I’ve never made $50k in a year and I’ve paid taxes since the day I started work.

I think alot of people miss the point on taxes. It doesn’t matter if you are paying Income Tax, Payroll Tax, State Tax, Property Tax, Sales Tax, SPLOST Tax, Ad Valorum Tax, Gasoline Tax, Telephone Tax, etc. etc. it’s still coming out of your pocket. I wonder what percentage of total taxes the average working class taxpayer payes from his/her total income. I’m thinking it would be substantial. You can cut your purchases somewhat and lower some of your tax burden but you have to spend a certain amount to live also. Thank goodness that we only pay sales tax on goods so far.

Other than the Lottery there aren’t really any voluntary taxes.

By Citizen of the World

October 7, 2008 4:36 PM | Link to this

NRB @4:01, do you not realize that the free press is why you are free?

All of you who rail against the media don’t seem to comprehend that, for all its flaws, it is what most clearly differentiates democratic nations from totalitarian, dictatorial and theocratic regimes.

And you should seek your news, information and opinion from as many sources as possible so that you don’t fall victim to groupthink and propaganda. The news is not here to reflect you, it is here to cause you to reflect.

Unfortunately, studies show that the same 25 percent of the population who can be easily brainwashed are the same 25 percent who don’t think they could ever be brainwashed!

I was being facetious there, but I wouldn’t doubt if that were true.

By "The Corporal"

October 7, 2008 4:40 PM | Link to this

AJC Vents for today:

Maybe it’s time to change the symbol of the Democrat party from a jack-a* to a poisonous snake.

Those who would use the IRS to deny the freedom of political speech from the pulpit would have made good Tories at a time when brave patriotic ministers were preaching against the tyrannical excesses of the Crown.

John McCain can’t use a computer? Barack Obama can’t land on a carrier at night!

To the ventor who opined about ignoring a subpoena and insinuating that Gov. Palin ignored hers, I would suggest to avoid contempt of court you instead get an attorney to fight it as she did. That’s a big difference.

By "The Corporal"

October 7, 2008 4:44 PM | Link to this

Are we talking a possible Kenyagate here ?? Stay tuned.

By Taxpayer

October 7, 2008 4:49 PM | Link to this

Psc Corporal,

It’s your turn. Repeat after me: President Obama. Commander-In-Chief Obama. That has a nice ring to it, don’t you think.

By Citizen of the World

October 7, 2008 4:50 PM | Link to this

RB from Gwinnett @4:33 — For much of history, the populace has been divided into a very few rich and many, many poor, with perhaps a small merchant class. Only rarely in the grand scheme of things have societies developed a significant middle class, and it was often because of government intervention and the institution of fair and democratic policies. The problem is, the middle class tends to make a lot of noise and demand a certain level of accountability, which governments nor the rich like, so they’re constantly trying to undermine our wealth and power.

I agree that the poor can and do create some of their own problems, but I also know that most people who improve their social status are able to do so because certain policies and cultural values pave the way instead of shut the door.

By Ray

October 7, 2008 5:10 PM | Link to this

Back to Bookman’s original premise that ” The half of Americans who pay no income tax, fraud”. Even when you are proven wrong and when you post a lead in that is blatantly false, you will still not retract, admit you are wrong and move along. All of the liberal suck as**es on this blog fall in lock step with you, no matter what you say. You could say that the earth is flat and Ms G, Taxpayer, G-Man, etc would nod their heads and agree with you. Just like the entitlement crowd and the Demo ticket. Wouldn’t want to kill the goose, now would we?

By RB from Gwinnett

October 7, 2008 5:13 PM | Link to this

Citizen, that was a nice post at 4:50, but that’s NOT what’s going on in this country. It’s the poor making the noise with the help of the democratic party. They constantly tell the poor they’re simply victims of rich people and if you vote for me, I’ll take their money away and make it right for you.

The brilliance of Obama’s campain is he’s trying to convince the middle class to join the poor in the “victims of the rich” category and with the help of the media, it’s working. That strategy will be the pivotal issue in getting him elected.

The failure of it is the rich will do what makes them rich. If that means moving jobs off shore or moving their own accounts off shore where tax laws are favorable to them, that’s what they’ll do. Silly attempts by politicians to change that will never work because they are FREE TO ENGAGE IN CAPITALIZM. To try to stop that would be very dangerous. Proof? See “Hugo Chavez”.

By sunshine and thunder

October 7, 2008 5:16 PM | Link to this

get a life

Sorry you have taken such offense to my comments. It always happens when a left nut is faced with the truth. Words such as “moron” and “ignorant” are used to attack the opponent. Never a reasoned, logical argument.

This is what must be taught in government schools these days: yell at your opponent and call him names.

Is that about right? Do you have anything to say to defend your position or are you going to act like a third grader?

By Taxpayer

October 7, 2008 5:22 PM | Link to this

Ray,

Tell us what voice you fall in behind. Let me see, is it Bush when he proclaims that the economy is in a soft patch or McCain when he sings bomb, bomb, bomb Iran, for example. I’ll bet you are one of those people that listens to Rush or Neal or OReilly or all three and you probably get all beet-faced and fighting mad as they rant on and on about how evil everyone except their man or woman is and you just want to go and strangle someone or beat something and let it all out. Am I close. It’s all right, Ray. I understand.

By Midori

October 7, 2008 5:23 PM | Link to this

Getalife - you should feel flattered.

I see S&T has pulled the “third grader” card on you.

Appears that’s what he/she/it resorts to whenever he/she/it’s back is against the wall, and can’t adequately answer a charge.

By sunshine and thunder

October 7, 2008 5:31 PM | Link to this

How many times has ACORN been found guilty of vote tampering?

And there’s this:

“I’ve been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work.” — Barack Obama, Speech to ACORN, November 2007

By Taxpayer

October 7, 2008 5:34 PM | Link to this

Midori and getalife,

Sunshine and thunder doesn’t even attempt to defend the rantings that he/she directed toward me. Obviously, S&T is simply incapable of addressing someone that was nice enough to use the word “genius” (that would be me, sunshine and thunder) in his reply instead of “moron” or some other “insulting” word.

So, come on sunshine and thunder. Are you going to ignore the ones that don’t insult you right back after you insult them. What’s it going to be.

By TN Gelding

October 7, 2008 5:37 PM | Link to this

“The Corporal”

October 7, 2008 4:40 PM

McCain was bottom rung, not Top Gun. He might have been able to land on an aircraft carrier at night, but he had trouble keeping his aircraft(s) aloft.

By Midori

October 7, 2008 5:39 PM | Link to this

Taxpayer,

all that person has is insults. he/she/it feeds on them.

just look at his/her/its posts.

that’s all he/she/it has.

By sunshine and thunder

October 7, 2008 5:41 PM | Link to this

MIDORI

I see you take the easy way out.

Try to insult me through another of your left nuts pals. (A common chat room technique for the weak among us.)

Well if that’s all the game you got I’m not interested in playing. I’d rather be engaged by honest people than lied about behind my back by snivilers.

Do any of you lefties have the fortitude to engage in honest debate?

I guess I should go the Democrat Underground where at least the DUmmies are straightforward.

By Cal

October 7, 2008 5:41 PM | Link to this

RB from Gwinett @5:13

Your statements are correct. I am one of those mean, nasty rich people that employ over 600 people. Moving jobs off shore is an option for me. That will put that many Americans out of a job but the laws in this country are becoming too hard on business owners. We can’t compete with the global market because they don’t have the regulations that we have in this country. We have been becoming a country that produces nothing for years and it will only get worse.

By TN Gelding

October 7, 2008 5:52 PM | Link to this

Cal

October 7, 2008 5:41 PM

It will only get better under Obama.

By Cal

October 7, 2008 5:55 PM | Link to this

I assume that is a sarcastic remark.

By sunshine and thunder

October 7, 2008 5:56 PM | Link to this

The list of Obama’s misstatements, lies, poor associations and pork spending is vast. If anyone would like to defend them we are all ears.

If Senator McCain had any of the above the media - and you left nuts - would be spouting them from the rooftops.

This thread’s way too long. On to the next one.

By @@

October 7, 2008 5:57 PM | Link to this

So here’s my question. If OBlahMa raises the tax on the job providers and they rebel, as is their right, won’t that increase the number of those who don’t pay taxes?

They’ll be without jobs with none to be had.

Are welfare recipients required to pay taxes?

Don’t worry about me, I’m good.

I just saw a liberal pundit on T.V. advising everybody to take their money out of the market if they’re wanting to purchase a car, pay for college, buy a house.

Then Dave Ramsey (he looks like my husband — yummy) comes on and proclaims liberals are bi-polar thumbsuckers. I agree.

Had lunch with a friend Sunday after church. He had just bought two houses in the previous week. They were on the county’s tax books at a value of $147,000 each. He snatched ‘em up for $25,000 each — rented them out for $850.00 a month. Goin’ back for more.

Anyway, just wanted the bi-polar thumbsuckers to know my husband and I will be leaving our stocks in place with a couple of minor shifts from this stock to that stock.

I cannot believe there are liberals out there provoking a total collapse.

Unpatriotic idiots lacking compassion for their fellow man.

Don’t worry, me and mine have got the thumbsuckers covered.

Dave Ramsey is hot, bald, and bearded with a familiar twinkle in his eye.

By sunshine and thunder

October 7, 2008 6:06 PM | Link to this

TAXPAYR

I don’t recall engaging you at all. Forgive me.

It could be that I missed your post. (With this board so primitive, you can imagine.)

Or it could be that the thread was moved to the back of the line.

Or it could be that you made no impression whatsoever.

Either way, I’ll be glad to engage you if you’ll please address my by bold type.

Thank you.

By Taxpayer

October 7, 2008 6:52 PM | Link to this

S&T,

Try 3:18 and then 4:11. Feel free to impress me any time.

By sunshine and thunder

October 7, 2008 8:33 PM | Link to this

TAXPAYER

So you do have life in you after all.

Too bad it’s so bitter. Are you a corporate castoff? Get fired? Laid off?

You have that attitude.

I don’t have a clue about your corporate history but you certainly sound like a loser on the ladder.

Why don’t we talk about the issues instead of your seeming failed career?

By jane

October 8, 2008 6:03 AM | Link to this

Do Seniors’ Deserve This?

While the cost of living has quadrupled, the group of people most negatively affected group in the society is the seniors, who are on fixed income. And some of us who had managed to invest in stocks and lived on interest incomes during the boom years in the mid to late 1980s have just witnessed the major evaporation of savings we made over our life time disappear in a span of weeks. We not only lost the interest income but the principle amounts as well. Surprisingly, it does not appear that this down slope of our standard of living would soon improve. On Sunday, I could not believe listening to statements by Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Sen. McCain’s senior policy adviser that if elected, Senator McCain intends to reduce medicare and medicaid spending to offset tax cuts to pay for his proposed health plan. He further elaborated by saying that the savings would come from eliminating or reforming payment policies to lower the overall cost of medicare and medicaid. In addition, he will increase medicare premiums for the wealthier seniors.

On Tuesday October 7, 2008 while in Pensacola, FL the VP candidate attempted to explain the matter but made it worse. She said that if her ticket was victorious they would give every middle class American family a 5,000 dollar tax credit to pay for health care. But, she did reiterate that their administration would impose a spending freeze on government that would cover all, but the most vital functions, “We have to do this. You know, we’re in a hole. What do you do when you’re in a hole? You don’t want to be there. You stop digging.” The more I listen to these candidates the more I get distressed that the ills of this generation are being pushed to its seniors or passed to the future generation - our grand kids.

By Taxpayer

October 8, 2008 8:55 AM | Link to this

S&T,

I see that calling you out for your lies only brings out more of that hate you seem to have stored up within you. You are a vile person as well as a liar. Now go back and provide proof of your statements that you have made about me, if you dare, little person.

By Mike

October 9, 2008 2:09 PM | Link to this

I’ve taken the time to read all the posts. I’m saddened that what started out as an interesting debate of ideas has declined into grade school name calling and petty insults. I am a conservative constitutionalists. For those of you that come acreoss as republicians, shame on you! For those of you that come across as democrats, shame on you! The thread was sopposed to be about income taxes and who pays what. It’s not about “respect” or anything like that. Try to stay on point without the name calling.

By Eric

October 9, 2008 8:52 PM | Link to this

Twist the facts, distort figures, whether republican or democrat, you all try to ‘swing’ opinion by distortion and misrepresentation. “payroll tax” vs. “income tax”. You very well know the difference and to say that ‘Payroll tax’ (social security) and ‘income tax’ are one in the same is sad and flat out wrong. You have a pen and ink so you think what you say has relevance when it does not and to try to distort and misrepresent the truth is a shame.

By joann

October 17, 2008 1:53 PM | Link to this

The argument about the payroll tax is an entirely separate issue from the one about the income tax. Yes, everyone who works pays the payroll tax, and it is regressive, but it eventually will come back in social security payments. How come the writer didn’t quote numbers about the number of “taxable units” who don’t pay payroll tax OR income tax? That would be the unemployed, plus retired folks on social security.

Some people may consider non-taxpayers less worthy, but I don’t, and I don’t think that’s the point. The point is that a large percentage of people don’t pay income taxes and are therefore happy to elect someone who will increase income taxes, because it won’t apply to them.

By joann

October 17, 2008 1:53 PM | Link to this

The argument about the payroll tax is an entirely separate issue from the one about the income tax. Yes, everyone who works pays the payroll tax, and it is regressive, but it eventually will come back in social security payments. How come the writer didn’t quote numbers about the number of “taxable units” who don’t pay payroll tax OR income tax? That would be the unemployed, plus retired folks on social security.

Some people may consider non-taxpayers less worthy, but I don’t, and I don’t think that’s the point. The point is that a large percentage of people don’t pay income taxes and are therefore happy to elect someone who will increase income taxes, because it won’t apply to them.

By Chuck

October 18, 2008 9:42 PM | Link to this

What part of FITW vs FICA don’t you understand? It doesn’t matter what shell games the government plays with the money once it reaches the coffers, the two taxes are nevertheless collected under separate federal laws.

By Henry

October 19, 2008 6:15 PM | Link to this

Despite the fact that the FICA and Medicare taxes are comingled with other money collected by the Federal Government, assuming one lives to at least age 62 he will begin to recover the money paid into FICA and later, money paid into Medicare. And if he lives long enough the money returned to him will far out pace that originally paid into the system. Further, various tax credits allow some people to receive more back than was deducted and classified as taxes withheld on one’s W-2. Others like my sister-in-law whose only income is social security and had not filed an income tax return in years, filed one this year to receive the stimulus payment. Can anyone say “welfare”?

By the way, for those of you who by the line that corportations don’t pay their fair share - news flash. For every dollar a corporation pays in taxes - where do you think they get their money - from a tree? Corporations merely pass on to the consumer all costs of doing business, which includes a substantial amount to their bean counters who have to fill out a multitude of federal forms just for the privelege of doing business.

The Fair Tax is the only tax that would be truly fair. But then, politicans would not be able to play the class warfare game pitting those who are “rich” whatever that is against those who, whether by poor life choices or other reasons, are not rich.

In case you’re wondering, my income level is in the lower of the middle income range. I just don’t believe the government owes me anything more than providing for the national defense, some level of transportation (roads) and a few other necessities that the states, local communities or myself personally cannot reasonably be expected to take care of.

By teresa sanft

October 19, 2008 10:08 PM | Link to this

there are a few states that have “no state income tax”, texas, washington,s. dakota…..

By Concerned Taxpayer

October 20, 2008 12:01 PM | Link to this

Hey, why does this article attempt to discredit a claim about INCOME taxes by including PAYROLL taxes? Payroll taxes are supposed to be “retirement savings”. the original claim is only about INCOME taxes. Why don’t you argue against the original point? Because you can’t. don’t include payroll taxes and the original claim is completely factual. Nice try.

As for corporations - I am sure you are all aware than individuals pay all taxes all the time. Corporations simply pass on the tax liability to consumers. This is econ 101. No wonder this newspaper is such a nationwide joke, if articles like this are any indication.

By A Real Taxpayer

October 22, 2008 7:10 PM | Link to this

You forgot the third argument of us “right wingers”. Obama is “cutting” the taxes of those who don’t pay income tax by giving them a “refund” anyway. Under his tax “cut”, you don’t even have to work, let alone pay taxes, to get a “tax cut”. Years ago, we called that welfare. Vote Robin Hood for President!

By franklin

October 22, 2008 10:53 PM | Link to this

“Vote Robin Hood for President!” You do realize that McCain is proposing a refundable tax credit of $5,000 for married joint filers and $2,500 for single filers, right? Exactly how is that different from Obama offering refundable tax credits? Also, how is letting legislation run its course (the “Bush tax cuts” that were passed as time-limited legislation) the same as “raising” taxes? Finally, please explain to us the disastrous consequences of a 39.6% top marginal rate, the one that was in effect during the greatest economic period in modern US history (Clinton’s two terms). Thanks.

By Hurting 1

October 23, 2008 2:59 PM | Link to this

According to WSJ, under the Obama’s “tax benefit” plan, 46% of Americans will get enough tax credits to receive more from the fed than they contribute.
Effectively, that 46% will now be able to reach directly into the pocket of the other 54% if they vote D.
Under O’bama’s plan, we empower the poor to steal from the taxpayer.

By Colleen

October 24, 2008 1:48 PM | Link to this

In response to Franklin-I believe that $5000 is to use for your health insurance and would go directly to them. Let me know where I can find more info according to what you are saying so I can look it up for myself. Thanks

By mark

October 24, 2008 3:18 PM | Link to this

You left out the Earned Income Tax Credit that offsets most payroll taxes. Mutes your point.

By Larry

October 24, 2008 11:58 PM | Link to this

As a besmirched right-winger, just wanted to respond to a couple of fallacies in Jay’s article: 1) The only time right-wingers bring this issue up is when they are responding to the left-winger’s whine that the tax cuts are only going to the rich, with the implication being that the poor are getting screwed. The right-wingers are simply pointing out the math that the rich are the ones benefitting from tax cuts because they are the ones paying taxes. 2) I’ve never heard anyone in any context suggest “second, those households are somehow less deserving of respect or even a voice in politics because they aren’t paying their own way”. The only thing implied is that if they pay zero taxes under the old plan and zero taxes under the new plan, why do they care? The only ones with less money to spend after a tax cut are the sleazy politicians. 3) Social security wasn’t designed to be a welfare plan. The idea is that what people pay into it is at least loosely tied to what they expect to get out of it. The poor pay a higher percentage of their income in social security “premiums”, but then when they retire and get the benefits they receive a higher percentage of their pre-retirement wages. What keeps social security going is the idea that people think “I paid into it, I should get something out of it.” If the left-wingers keep insisting on refunding social security taxes they undermine that claim. Then SS becomes a welfare plan that is easier to terminate. Why should you get something out of it if you didn’t pay into it.

By Richard Fay

October 27, 2008 10:33 AM | Link to this

Are you kidding me? “Income Tax” isn’t a concept that you can change the definition of to make your liberal point of view. “Income Tax” is a specific tax with a definition and a line on a tax return and yes 38% of people in this country pay nothing of this tax. Now you want to argue that other taxes (with their own definitions) are being used like income taxes that is fine. But the conservatives are stating a fact - 38% of people do not pay the “Income Tax”. It is absolutely true.

By IncomeTax Definition

October 27, 2008 10:37 AM | Link to this

Are you kidding me? “Income Tax” isn’t a concept that you can change the definition of to make your liberal point of view. “Income Tax” is a specific tax with a definition and a line on a tax return and yes 38% of people in this country pay nothing of this tax. Now you want to argue that other taxes (with their own definitions) are being used like income taxes that is fine. But the conservatives are stating a fact - 38% of people do not pay the “Income Tax”. It is absolutely true.

By MIke Jones

October 27, 2008 4:32 PM | Link to this

Simply put the author is an idiot and/or choses not to tell the whole story. Payroll taxes don’t count because you’re paying them to yourself - it’s called Social Security. Are we now supposed to pay for lower earners social security as well?

By Parnelli

October 28, 2008 9:22 PM | Link to this

You can call a payroll tax whatever you want but that doesn’t make it INCOME TAX so YOU are the liar here. I had to pay the full payroll tax plus $40,000 in income tax last year, but that doesn’t give me any more government services than those who pay no income tax — less in fact, than the average food stamp user.

By Al Galli

October 29, 2008 9:08 AM | Link to this

You neglect the fact that the payroll tax provides benefits that far exceed their cost. This is the reason thoughtful people separate payroll taxes and federal income taxes.

By JD

October 29, 2008 10:03 AM | Link to this

Cut the writer some slack. He makes a very good point that the poor/lower middle class still contribute $1.17 trillion to the federal govt in taxes. Conservative talking heads like Rush would have you believe the poor pay NOTHING and are nothing but leeches to society.

The author is also correct in pointing out that payroll taxes still go to general funds, for stuff like Wall Street bailouts. And as for the argument that SS/Medicaire will still be around when anyone currently in their 20s and 30s retire, fat chance. The American govt will be bankrupt long before then the way we’re going.

By geez

October 29, 2008 11:23 PM | Link to this

unbelievable…there really is a sucker born every minute and the author proves the fact that stupid people are bleeding the smart ones dry

who is the sucker here?

By Bob Brown

October 30, 2008 12:25 PM | Link to this

Thank you. This data is extremely hard to find. I am a good searcher and it took me almost an hour to find this article. Is there an easy source for this data?

38% is much higher than I anticipated as you will pay tax if an individual’s income without itemizing is more than$8,655 ($17,305 for married filing jointly). Is the myth that some high income earners pay nothing real? Is there a source showing the AGI of individuals paying no tax?

I try to live by the old American maxim “I will fight to the death for the right of any man to hold his opinion. However, I grant no man to be wrong in his facts”.

A major reason I love my country but do not trust my government is that real data on this country is almost impossible to find and is almost always hidden in statistical “gook”.

By Bob Brown

October 30, 2008 12:26 PM | Link to this

Thank you. This data is extremely hard to find. I am a good searcher and it took me almost an hour to find this article. Is there an easy source for this data?

38% is much higher than I anticipated as you will pay tax if an individual’s income without itemizing is more than$8,655 ($17,305 for married filing jointly). Is the myth that some high income earners pay nothing real? Is there a source showing the AGI of individuals paying no tax?

By Walter Belhaven

November 3, 2008 4:35 PM | Link to this

All of theses issues are simple:

One group of people in this country is willing to take from others

The other group would like the opportunity to work and be successful.

Why is it not possible for others to leave people alone and their income!

By Everett Bennett, Jr

November 5, 2008 1:35 PM | Link to this

People wake up! Everyone on this posting is paying a 21 to 23% embedded tax whenver you buy a product, grocery, etc. All of the payroll taxes, corporate taxes are all rolled out and paid by you, me, everyone. You can tax businesses as much as you want, but only 2 things will happen. The Tax will be passed to you in the form of higher prices or jobs will be forever lost. Where is the government going to get the money when no one is able to earn more than $10.00 / hour? You of course, the poor idiot who actually thinks they can trust people who are able by law take your money and give to you what they think you should have no matter how hard you work!

By Everett Bennett, Jr

November 5, 2008 1:44 PM | Link to this

I’ve just received this update from FairTax.org. Quit pointing fingers at each other about taxes and help fix our Government. Read this exerpt from an letter from FairTax.org and understand that it is time to get our Government back………remember both Democrats and Republicans have managed to mess up our whole economy…..some people won…some people lost. It is time to control our Government……….if we do not, we are doomed to follow history and no longer be the Great USA!

n the past year, the FairTax has achieved historical support in Congress mostly via Republican backing in the House and Senate. With yesterday’s returns, GOP ranks—including FairTax supporters—were thinned both by retirement decisions and the ballot box, meaning come January we’ll be rebuilding our co-sponsorship levels. Yet, that challenge is a welcome one for it affords us the opportunity to remind grassroots supporters, as well as national political figures, that the FairTax is not a Republican issue. Nor is it Democrat. It’s an American one and in this, one of our darkest financial hours in decades, it’s the solution we need to save the American economy.

So for Republicans or Democrats (or any other political stripe for that matter) with their retirement or college savings plans being decimated by a falling stock market, the FairTax is the solution. For Republicans or Democrats trying to make their mortgage payments and keep a roof over their heads, the FairTax is the solution (after all, most banks don’t bother asking your political party when foreclosing). For Republicans or Democrats whose jobs were shipped overseas for cheaper production costs and favorable taxation, the FairTax is the solution. And for a way to jumpstart the American economy with a $10 trillion dollar stimulus program funded with private investments, the FairTax is the solution.

You know, we heard a lot about change this election and we couldn’t agree more. Let’s us focus on real change: Bringing power back to people, not just powerful Washington insiders. Don’t think for a second that “our enemy” is either Democrats or Republicans. Indeed, the tax code is manipulated by both parties in Congress alike with reckless abandon to punish enemies and reward supporters at the hands of well-heeled lobbyists and their privileged access to Congressional tax-writing committees. Ending that practice is the kind of change we seek.

By Michael Hood

November 12, 2008 11:35 AM | Link to this

That which you call “payroll tax” is thesocial security and medicare deduction which is NOT INCOME TAX. You are the fraud because the percent who pay no income tax is a much larger perecentage of people than you say.

By Brett

November 21, 2008 1:46 PM | Link to this

Payroll taxes are not income taxes, and you know it, SS and Medicare are meant to be self-sufficient, you can’t lie your way around the IRS’s OWN FIGURES on (income) tax paying Americans!

By TheFreedomThinker.com

November 27, 2008 2:21 PM | Link to this

Hey, your data is from 2003 why don’t you use some current data that way you won’t look like such an idiot.

Second, if you pay somebody to fix your car and they change your tires you wouldn’t say well it’s all for the same vehicle that is fine. So, why would you count social security for other things. Social security if for social security, regardless if the government steals it and uses it for other things.

I don’t know why you think it’s ok for the government to steal from social security I think that stealing and lying is bad. But I’m a person of integrity that’s just me.

By Chernevog

December 3, 2008 12:22 AM | Link to this

Most conservatives neglect one fact.

First, 98 percent of families pay taxes on less than half of their gross income, due to the to several hidden government entitlement programs. The first is the mortgage interest deduction. Contrary to the assertion, the mortgage deduction has no effect on the percentage of people owning homes. Many nations do not allow mortgage deductions, Canada being the closest. Yet just about the same percentage of Canadians own homes as Americans. On the other hand, many adverse effects result from this deduction, the first being to drive the prices of homes up beyond affordability for large percentages of Americans. Over the last ten years, the prices of Canadian houses have increased modestly and none of the massive drops in housing prices has occured in Canada similar to those that have occured in the United States. This is a simple economic principal. When the government subsidizes any personal expenditure though tax deductions, this has a distorting effect on the prices of those purchases.

The second major government entitlement is not taxing employer provided health care as regular income. This too, is a major contributory factor in the large increased in medical care.

The third government entitlement program is the lower rate at which capital gains are taxed. It is asserted that this in some way encourages investment, but every most Congressional Budget Office analyses of this assertion shows that this only occurs for a very short period after the capital gains tax is lowered. The net effect over time is a reduction of government revenues to the point that any gain caused by the lower capital gains taxes is lost.

These three subsidies of particular personal choices and expenditures cost the government enormous amounts of revenues, but do not actually do what is asserted. Many conservative citizens tax organization call for the elimination of not taxing health benefits, the elimination of the mortgage deductions, and taxing capital gains at the same rate as any other income. Anyone who has taken Economics 101 knows that taxing one kind of income or spending at a lower rate than others distorts the markets.

Looking at the fact that 98 percent of families pay taxes on less than their entire income, in fact less than half of their total income on average, the next consideration is who benefits the most from government spending. On the whole a family of four uses up a lot more of these services than a single person. The result of this is that about 98 percent of family do not pay enough taxes to cover the government programs they benefit from. Indeed if you send two kids to public school a family earning 100,000 a year barely pays enough salary to cover the amount the government sends back to the states per child.

When you add in the child dependent deductions, this is amplified to an even greater degree.

The irony is that a single person who could be considered “low income” often pays more in actual tax dollars than a family earning much more, and this person tends to get less in government benefits than the dollar amount they pay out in taxes.

A single worker starts paying taxes on every dollar they earn after 10,300. That is a single person is paying taxes on salaries lower than the poverty level for a single person.

Now a family of four does not start paying federal income taxes until their income goes over 43,000 dollars a year. This is due to the “reproduction deduction” alone. If one were to look at a family that buys a median priced home and takes the mortgage interest deduction, the amount of income on which that family pays taxes goes up, depending on the amount of morgage interest they can deduct. Basically the government provides this family a “tax subsidy” and in this way, the government is purchasing a part of every home owners home through this deduction. Those who professional deal with taxation, define tax deductions that are given when a taxpayer spends money in certain ways a “subsidization” of that spending.

Basically in order to determine who does not pay taxes, one must also subtract out the amount money that comes back to them in the form of government spending on everything the goverment spends tax dollars on, like the military budget, roads, clean water, public education, faith based initiatives and so on.

The only people who can be said to actually be PAYING taxes, that is have a net positive in the relationship between what they pay out and what they benefit from are those who end up paying more in taxes than they use in services.

The vast majority of families do not fit this description. The very wealthy do, and much less affluent and even poor single people do. Not many families do.

By Mooie

December 18, 2008 5:48 PM | Link to this

“Employers technically contribute half the 15.3 percent, but economists classify the entire amount as a tax burden on the worker because it is a tax on their labor.”

Maybe, but that statement makes no sense in this context. The conservative argument is that people who don’t pay taxes are not a good source of information on the tradeoffs involved in taxation; they only see the benefit and don’t share in the costs. The 7.65% their boss pays certainly does not change this argument.

By Trudy

January 27, 2009 2:27 PM | Link to this

A convuluted argument to say the least. It was your beloved Democrats who decided long ago to siphon off the payroll taxes. Anyone who has spent more than 5 minutes looking at Social Security knows that it is also skewed in the benefits that it pays - in other words, the lower paid workers receive a higher benefit in relation to the taxes that they paid in.
Bush derangement syndrome always seems to appear in these blogs. I imagine I’ll get hammered now by these idiots.

By Trudy

January 27, 2009 2:27 PM | Link to this

A convuluted argument to say the least. It was your beloved Democrats who decided long ago to siphon off the payroll taxes. Anyone who has spent more than 5 minutes looking at Social Security knows that it is also skewed in the benefits that it pays - in other words, the lower paid workers receive a higher benefit in relation to the taxes that they paid in.
Bush derangement syndrome always seems to appear in these blogs. I imagine I’ll get hammered now.

By JuliaAnn

February 2, 2009 12:47 PM | Link to this

Citizen of the World ~~ I love the name you chose and your thoughtful contribution to this otherwise heartless thread.

By Ken

February 3, 2009 11:37 AM | Link to this

Thank you Mr. Bookman for pointing out that Social Security is indeed a scam. It’s a way of taxing us to hell and back while hiding it behind “insurance.”

Now that you’ve admitted that payroll taxes like Socialist Insecurity are indeed regular taxes, I added that 15.3% tax to my current approximate 20% income tax rate. That means the federal government is taking 35% of my income. The state of Georgia then takes another 6% which means that before I even get a penny of my money the government has taken 41%.

This leaves me only 59% of the money I sweat to make every day. Oh, wait. Then I need to add all of the sales taxes, ad valorem taxes, property taxes and other junk government fees on my phone, electricity, cable, internet, etc. Over a year, that all probably equals at least another 10%, leaving me a whopping 49% of my income to support myself, save for retirement and give to charity.

So that means that even someone like me, who isn’t anywhere near being rich, actually pays over half of his money to various levels of government. Am I paying my fair share yet?

By Elderglo

February 9, 2009 10:25 AM | Link to this

As a professional who worked over 50 years in hospitals and government and non profit agencies ,I always paid income taxes. The argument about payroll taxes not being income taxes is fraudulent. I always had more taken out during the year so that I would not owe anything at report time. This means that the government had free use of my money. There was never a time when I received more than I put in. I played by the rules even after I retired , I worked part time and had to pay income tax + social security taxes + medicare insurance + medical,eye and dental insurance + property taxes, sales taxes ,taxes on services ( grass cutting etc. It is obscene to make these crazy untrue statements while defining income some other way for the ” Wealthy” folk who supposedly pay income taxes.We the people need some relief while the discussion locally by each level of government is to increase taxes. Where are we supposed to get the money to increase taxes locally while the “Powers ” talk about tax cuts to the wealthy? Planning is not just about temporary stuff while our children, veterans and non dependent elders squeeze or eke out a living. Elderglo

By N.J.

February 11, 2009 10:41 PM | Link to this

The most insidious act with regard to payroll taxes was when Ronald Reagan created the “surplus” by raising the percentage of money taken out for payroll taxes.

In 1984, Congress looked at what Social Security adjustments would be necessary to provide benefit for the baby boomers. There were two options, to wait until 2013, and raise the payroll deduction to 13 percent, or to raise it 25 years earlier, create a surplus, and save it for future use. Also by having the Social Security Administration invest this money in safe investments, there would even be more money than necessary to fund the boomer benefits.

As soon as the tax was raised, Reagan cut income taxes again, increased defense spending and started the massive borrowing campaign from the Social Security Trust fund to finance it. This was the largest redistribution of wealth in American history. Almost half of the trust fund, paid on income less than 100,000 dollars a year, went to provide 100,000 dollar tax cuts to millionaires. When you calculate the total amount that gets put into the trust fund per worker, in 1984 at least, the total amount of both employee and employer contributions would never be higher than around 14,000 dollars a year, because of the income cap on payroll taxes. But there was no cap on how much those who made more than 100,000 a year could suck out from the trust fund in the form of the Reagan taxes. Reagan took the nations retirement savings account and wrote very large checks to people who even if they did pay into the trust fund, never paid more than someone making 100,000 a year. But they got back eight time more when Reagan simply moved the money from one account to another.

By Dan

February 13, 2009 3:16 PM | Link to this

Actually when Obama was campaigning he said that payroll tax was actually a contribution. Since it is only really a contribution none of what you said makes sense, and the percentage of people not paying taxes is far higher than you say. Funny how people can change the definition of a word when handy.

By David

February 15, 2009 11:05 AM | Link to this

First, unless you know some sort of distorted, liberal math then no, you cannot lower taxes on someone who pays no taxes. Secondly, if you do not pay taxes you do not have a right to say how the money should be spent. Do I tell you how to spend money in your home? No. That’s because I didn’t contribute to your household income. Lastly, it foesn’t count to say you pay taxes, but then get a refund higher than you contributed. Oh, one last point… I notice this more and more from liberals: they have a tendency to resort to spewing hatred, name-calling, misrepresentations, insinuations, flat out lies, twisting and turning of words, and avoiding the topic altogether by going off on some other tangent to divert attention away from the argument they know they cannot win.

By caz1158

February 17, 2009 3:09 PM | Link to this

NOW!! Who does’nt think it’s time for FAIR TAX? or some form of.

By Reasonsjester

February 22, 2009 3:46 PM | Link to this

You’re a douche-bag. You insult tax-paying Americans which such left-wing tripe. One-third of tax filers pay no income tax. That’s a g******* fact, according to the IRS and the Tax Foundation. The 12-30 million illegal immigrants pay no income tax, and you can stick it up your a* if you try to refute that. Millions of other adults pay no income tax. So you tell me if 50% is a ball-park figure. Go f*** yourself lefty.

By Jason Needham

February 23, 2009 7:08 PM | Link to this

Nice try, Jay, but your progressive argument has a huge hole in it and all of your logic is falling, not leaking, falling through that hole. You’ve referred to the Medicare and Social Security taxes, and completely left out the most important, the Federal Income Tax, which is at the center of this discussion, it’s not the Social Security and Medicare taxes. Plus, taxpayers don’t pay the full 15.3%, they only pay 7.65%, their employers pay the other half (this is outlined above but not very well).

And, saying it’s a larger burden on the lower income earners is a crock o’ crap, too. Lower income earners get the same, and usually better, benefits, as a percentage of total income, than those who earn more money during their lifetime.

You spew this garbage and wonder why our country is going down the tubes. If you’re going to educate the public, educate them, don’t keep them in the dark with bold faced lies. Typical progressive (liberal, that is), contributing to the dumbing down of America in an underhanded grab for power, that even you don’t fully understand, at the expense of the people you’re supposed to be helping. Do you think the folks you protect and side with care about you, Jay? I’ll answer that for you right now, that’d be ‘No’, ‘No’ for you, Jay.

By WMD

March 4, 2009 9:34 AM | Link to this

If the amount of payroll taxes being paid by American workers is providing more than enough for social security and medicaid and we are diverting excess funds elsewhere, why is social security going bankrupt and why are medicaid benefits ‘excessively’ low?
Economists predict social security to run out before generation ‘X’ retires. How so if we are paying more than enough into this trust? One expample of medicaid underpayment is that in Missouri no dental benefits are offered to adults (none at all over age 18). A patient almost died recently as a direct result of a dental abcess. The patient could not recieve treatment for a ‘dental’ abcess because no benefits were available. Additionally, the fees paid for pediatric proceedures are on the order of 30% of the usual and customary fee. Please tell me why social security and medicaid seem to be failing with all this excess money coming in!!

By Stephen Kunz

March 9, 2009 4:01 PM | Link to this

Think of it this way. If the lower income groups payed no payroll tax, and received no benefits, would they be better off? Obviously not. That is why payroll taxes cannot be analogous to income taxes, (which are definitely not payed by a large number of people.) Progressive taxation is a fact.

By segersg

March 13, 2009 2:09 PM | Link to this

All of you are suckers anyway. Where is the law that say we have to pay income tax?

By duggles

March 15, 2009 1:02 PM | Link to this

A tax is a tax is a tax. Since the 80’s there hasn’t been much difference between income tax and payroll tax, it’s all income tax. In our progressive tax system, the rich pay more because they have more wealth. Seems only fair, they have more to lose if the United States government ‘tanks’ for one reason or another. It could also be thought of that they have a higher vested interest in the roads that bring them their customers, or the military that protects their way of life, etc. The total tax that the different strata pay is pretty much in proportion to the amount of wealth that they own. For instance the top 10% of taxpayers own about 70% of the wealth and they pay about 70% of the taxes (federal). I don’t know what all the fuss is about?