The Obamanation

[TheMercenary]

I agree with some of your examples, but not all of them.

[Happy Monkey]

The only "disagreement" I see is that the raise improvement isn't huge, and you don't think Bill Gates should count. You're not disagreeing with the examples, just about how much they factor in.

Even ignoring those examples, my point stands. It's easier to make more money if you have more money.

[OnyxCougar]

It seems to me that it doesn't matter who is in charge, the Federal Reserve is calling the shots. Doesn't matter who sits in the big chair.

[TheMercenary]

Who needs to read the bill? Holy fucking shit! You people are so drunk on the koolaid that this does not bother you!?!?!

WTF?

Guys this is so telling of how the Demoncrats are taking care of your future...

During his speech at a National Press Club luncheon, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.), questioned the point of lawmakers reading the health care bill.


“I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill,’” said Conyers.


“What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”

And you trust your future to these people?????????????

http://cnsnews.com/public/content/ar...51610&print=on

[Shawnee123]

And you trust your future to these people?????????????

Thank FSM I'm not entrusting my future to your ilk. Not right now.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Thank FSM I'm not entrusting my future to your ilk. Not right now.

What is my "ilk??"

Describe it to the rest of us.

[Shawnee123]

Closed-minded. Always right. Never any real reasons for being so except for what you've been spoon-fed, which satisfies your hunger for being a power. Oh, and using too many question marks.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Closed-minded. Always right. Never any real reasons for being so except for what you've been spoon-fed, which satisfies your hunger for being a power.

Damm, you talking about Redux again?

Spoon fed?

A pile of shit from the Demoncrats maybe.

8 years of Republickin Bull shit and now a shit sandwhich of Demoncratic Bull shit. Yea, the American public is getting a huge dose of it. I can't agree more.

[Shawnee123]

You change it. Good luck.

I need to sleep. Damn, merc, I stayed up this late to argue with you? haggis!

[TheMercenary]

Good point. Again.

A waste of time.

[TheMercenary]

Who pays the majority of taxes in this country?

The Democrats war on successful people continues unabated. Nancy Pelosi's choice comments yesterday, referring to insurance companies as "villains" is only the latest in what has been a series of statements and actions from Obama on down that show the Democrats aren't only anti-business; they're anti-businessman.

Now comes new data from the IRS that put to rest the myth that the rich don't pay enough in taxes. In fact, the data shows that the top 1% of taxpayers pay considerably more of their income as a percentage of the whole than the bottom 95% of taxpayers.

Scott Hodge writing on the Tax Policy Blog:


Newly released data from the IRS clearly debunks the conventional Beltway rhetoric that the "rich" are not paying their fair share of taxes.

Indeed, the IRS data shows that in 2007-the most recent data available-the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.4 percent of the total income taxes collected by the federal government. This is the highest percentage in modern history. By contrast, the top 1 percent paid 24.8 percent of the income tax burden in 1987, the year following the 1986 tax reform act.

Remarkably, the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers combined. In 2007, the bottom 95 percent paid 39.4 percent of the income tax burden. This is down from the 58 percent of the total income tax burden they paid twenty years ago.

To put this in perspective, the top 1 percent is comprised of just 1.4 million taxpayers and they pay a larger share of the income tax burden now than the bottom 134 million taxpayers combined.


This has all taken place under the evil Bush regime that, as everyone knows, favored rich people and stuck it to the middle class.

In fact, a study done last year showed that it wasn't France, or Sweden, or any European country that had the most "progressive" tax system in the developed world. It was the good old USA.

Don't expect any change in the Democrat's tactics of attacking the rich. They have to have a scapegoat for their own failures and the rich fill the bill nicely.

by Rick Moran

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...crats_who.html

[Griff]

We have a completely different tax structure than the Euros. We'd have to include all taxation and then sus out who is paying what. For example SS hits the working poor hardest but isn't included.

We need to be very careful when using O'Reilly as a source on anything that requires math.

[TheMercenary]

O'Reilly?

I was only addressing Federal Income Tax. Nothing to do with SS. They collect their tax. Completely different.

[Griff]

I assumed that since you were using O'Reilly's tactic on intentional misunderstanding of the tax levels, you were modeling after him, I guess you get your marching orders elsewhere. Moran is being intentionally deceptive on tax rates by excluding FICA which is capped at $106,800. Tax structure is too complicated and too individual to each country to be compared without a serious accounting of all taxes by all levels of government. As a percentage of income, FICA and gas taxes lean harder on the working poor, but are not included in the Income taxes are the only measure paradigm. I'm not saying I know what an honest accounting of taxation would reveal but I am saying that Moran is intentionally omitting the taxes that hit the working poor.

[TheMercenary]

Sort of like the VAT in the UK, right? That certainly does not affect the poor.

Moran is addressing the only thing I have addressed. That the progressive income tax is unfair and unbalanced.