Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[classicman]

Originally Posted by DanaC

*grins*

Ya, but like, your goalposts are different (inferior) to our goalposts :P

scuse me? Our goalposts are larger than your goalposts.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Did you click on the link? It says what I posted. I stated my understanding of it to V.

I did click on the link. It was quite entertaining. Please stop being so disingenuous. You are far to clever to not understand the term "cherry picking."

[DanaC]

hahahaha "tea coloured glasses"

I fucking love that.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Still wrong. You must not have paid any Federal Income tax in a long time.

EVERYONE pays FICA and guess what? Some in our country think that Social Security is a trust fund -- in other words, there's a pile of money being accumulated. That's just simply not true. The money -- payroll taxes going into the Social Security are spent. They're spent on benefits and they're spent on government programs. There is no trust.

In the words of W. himself. So, everyone who pays into "social security" has an interest in what government programs we are ALL going to have to pay for now or next year. HM is right. There are no zero liability voters. The taxes we pay just have different names, but we pay them all the same. You act like people who don't pay Federal Income Tax have a complete free ride. Just continuing to repeat the same dogma doesn't make it anymore valid than it was the first time you started whining about the Federal Income Tax. Get over it.

There is no trust. A tax by any other name is still a tax.

[Fair&Balanced]

"The Earned Income Tax Credit is the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress."

~ Comrade Ronald Reagan

[TheMercenary]

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by SamIam

EVERYONE pays FICA and guess what? Some in our country think that Social Security is a trust fund -- in other words, there's a pile of money being accumulated. That's just simply not true. The money -- payroll taxes going into the Social Security are spent. They're spent on benefits and they're spent on government programs. There is no trust.

In the words of W. himself. So, everyone who pays into "social security" has an interest in what government programs we are ALL going to have to pay for now or next year. HM is right. There are no zero liability voters. The taxes we pay just have different names, but we pay them all the same. You act like people who don't pay Federal Income Tax have a complete free ride. Just continuing to repeat the same dogma doesn't make it anymore valid than it was the first time you started whining about the Federal Income Tax. Get over it.

There is no trust. A tax by any other name is still a tax.

As long as nearly half the population has no responsibility to pay for the majority of programs in this country that are taken directly from Federal Income Tax we will have a class of voters known as zero liability voters. If you are not paying into the system and all you do is take from the system and rely on others to foot your bill, whatever your excuse, you have no dog in the hunt and no hesitation to continue to vote for others to pay your way as well as to place a greater burden on those who already pay the majority of all Federal Income Tax in order to further support those who pay little to nothing. So yea, Zero Liability Voters are real. It is easy for those who pay little to nothing to state that the rest who pay the majority are doing nothing but "whining" but it makes the facts no less real. As I stated numerous times everybody pays something, but not all pay an equal share of Federal Income Tax, and that is where the majority of the funds come from. Everyone who pays into Social Security only has an interest in what happens to Social Security. To say that, "everyone who pays into "social security" has an interest in what government programs we are ALL going to have to pay for now or next year.", is a completely disingenuous statement. That is one program and it should only be paying into that program, even though politicians have raped it blind. So you think that because you paid some small portion of your lifetime income you have a say in how all Federal Income Tax is taken from a minority of the population and redistributed to the rest of the population? Seriously?

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

As long as nearly half the population has no responsibility to pay for the majority of programs in this country that are taken directly from Federal Income Tax we will have a class of voters known as zero liability voters. If you are not paying into the system and all you do is take from the system and rely on others to foot your bill, whatever your excuse, you have no dog in the hunt and no hesitation to continue to vote for others to pay your way as well as to place a greater burden on those who already pay the majority of all Federal Income Tax in order to further support those who pay little to nothing. So yea, Zero Liability Voters are real. It is easy for those who pay little to nothing to state that the rest who pay the majority are doing nothing but "whining" but it makes the facts no less real. As I stated numerous times everybody pays something, but not all pay an equal share of Federal Income Tax, and that is where the majority of the funds come from. Everyone who pays into Social Security only has an interest in what happens to Social Security. To say that, "everyone who pays into "social security" has an interest in what government programs we are ALL going to have to pay for now or next year.", is a completely disingenuous statement. That is one program and it should only be paying into that program, even though politicians have raped it blind.

The ranks of those whose federal income tax burden nets out to zero -- or less -- have grown in recent years for two reasons.

The first is the times we currently live in

The downturn in the economy has hurt household incomes which means that fewer taxes are being collected now than there were a few years back before the financial institutions decided to rip off the American public for an obscene amount of ill gotten gains. Congress furthered reduced tax bills by stimulus legislation which offered Americans temporary tax breaks to lessen the economic pain.

The second reason is that the tax code is filled with hundreds of tax breaks to encourage economic activities the government favors. For example, the law offers credits to supplement the wages of low-income workers, help families pay for college and encourage them to buy homes and have children.

Temporary tax policies, such as the Bush-era tax cuts and the tax breaks passed under President Obama, have also increased the ranks of the non-payers.

But lower income Americans are not alone in receiving tax breaks. Statistics from the IRS show that the tax bite on the very highest income taxpayers has fallen as their incomes have risen. For example, in 2007, the top 400 individual tax returns had an average adjusted gross income of $345 million, up from $47 million in 1992. But their average tax rate was just 17%, down from 26% in 1992. So, by your reasoning this group should now have 9% less say on government spending than they did in 1992.

In 1980 the average tax rate for the upper 50% in income was 17.29%. In 2000 it was 16.43% or a drop of .89% over 20 years - while the percentage reduction for the top 1% in income went from 34.1% to 27.45% over the same time period - a drop of 4.65% which is about 5 times more than the entire upper 50%.

Going by your reasoning, the wealthiest 1% should be able to vote on only one in 5 government spending bills, since they have irresponsibly refused to pay their fair share of taxes.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

So you think that because you paid some small portion of your lifetime income you have a say in how all Federal Income Tax is taken from a minority of the population and redistributed to the rest of the population? Seriously?

Who? Me? First of all, you have no idea what percentage of my lifetime income I have paid into Federal Income Taxes. And more importantly, if you will recall the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, every US citizen has the EQUAL RIGHT to vote in Federal and State elections and petition the government for the redress of wrongs.

What you are suggesting is nothing less than the creation of a plutocracy where the wealthy will have even more control over the governance of the rest of us than they already do. So, you think that just because you are a fat cat that you get to disenfranchise me and millions of other Americans who happen to fall into the lower 47% of the national income bracket? Seriously?

[Spexxvet]

If those who are in a position to hire people and pay them well would do just that, they'd be taxpayers. Instead, the wealth keep their money clench inside them like it's a turd made of gold.

The wealthy can keep more, and pay more in taxes, or they can pay their employees more, it's their decision.

[Fair&Balanced]

I get the sense that Mercenary doesnt really care about the adverse economic impact of his position or that it would probably cost him as a taxpayer more in the long run as result.

Which is the case with most ideologues. The practical application of their extremists positions just doesnt come into the equation.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

If those who are in a position to hire people and pay them well would do just that, they'd be taxpayers. Instead, the wealth keep their money clench inside them like it's a turd made of gold.

The wealthy can keep more, and pay more in taxes, or they can pay their employees more, it's their decision.

CEO's could also cease the practice of sending American jobs and manufacturing to the third world. I'm not holding my breath.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by SamIam

Who? Me? First of all, you have no idea what percentage of my lifetime income I have paid into Federal Income Taxes.

I didn't mean to imply such, I meant it more as a general statement about how much we all pay into the system, esp for the 47% that pay none. As for things like SS, which I think is a small part of our total. I support raising the ceiling amount that is currently taxed for SS and then preventing Congress from using it for anything BUT for what it was intended.

What you are suggesting is nothing less than the creation of a plutocracy where the wealthy will have even more control over the governance of the rest of us than they already do.

No, what I always supported is a flatter tax where everyone pays a percent of their income while we close most loopholes for deductions. Where is the evidence that the " wealthy will have even more control over the governance of the rest of us than they already do."

So, you think that just because you are a fat cat that you get to disenfranchise me and millions of other Americans who happen to fall into the lower 47% of the national income bracket? Seriously?

Who says I am a fat cat? I just happen to be in the group that always pays taxes. And is that not telling about the whole issue. People who pay taxes, according to you are "fat cats", and people who don't are "disenfranchised". All I have said all along is that for all people to feel invested they have to pay into the system to feel responsible for it. And IMHO everyone should pay something into the system to feel a part of it.

I mean no personal disrespect to you or your personal situation and I don't want to even know anything about it. I am speaking of the current broken system of Federal taxation and have not really changed my views in years. But of course all of this will be mute if they don't come to some consensus and raise the Debit Ceiling.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

All I have said all along is that for all people to feel invested they have to pay into the system to feel responsible for it. And IMHO everyone should pay something into the system to feel a part of it.

No, this is what you said:

So you think that because you paid some small portion of your lifetime income you have a say in how all Federal Income Tax is taken from a minority of the population and redistributed to the rest of the population? Seriously?

Right there, you are saying that me and the rest of the Americans who fall into that 47% statistical group should have no voice in how government spending is appropriated.

You can't have it both ways. I agree that people who pay into "the system" feel more invested in it or "responsible" as you would say, but as I and others here have pointed out to you, Americans pay plenty of taxes despite the fact that some temporarily do not have to pay the Federal Income Tax.

I am active on other forums - one quite huge - and believe me, people in that lower 47% are from the far right to the far left and have all sorts of suggestions on government spending. They are scarcely like Oliver Twist holding out his bowl and begging, "More please."

I realized that you are deeply entrenched in your position, and I'm not going to waste anymore time trying to get you to look at other points of view.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I mean no personal disrespect to you or your personal situation and I don't want to even know anything about it...

Well, thank you. And no one, even you, is going to find out about my personal situation until I get my book contract signed.

Who says I am a fat cat? I just happen to be in the group that always pays taxes. And is that not telling about the whole issue. People who pay taxes, according to you are "fat cats", and people who don't are "disenfranchised".

Well, I can't resist pulling your tail. And from what you post here, it sounds as though you are doing quite well and are resentful of your tax burden as well as government oversight and regulation of big buisnesses both here and at home, with the petroleum companies as just one example. That to me sounds like a weight challenged cat who owns oil shares among other things.

But I could be wrong. Maybe you live in a cardboard box and connect to the Internet via a public library terminal. I don't know and really don't want to, either.

Paying taxes is not a criteria of mine for defining "fat cats", and you are the one who suggested that people in the lower 47% should not have a say in government spending, thus disenfranchising them.

[Spexxvet]

Anybody who has enough disposable income to afford a boat is a fat cat, IMHO.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by SamIam

No, this is what you said:

Yes, and as I said I was generalizing.....

Right there, you are saying that me and the rest of the Americans who fall into that 47% statistical group should have no voice in how government spending is appropriated.

You can't have it both ways. I agree that people who pay into "the system" feel more invested in it or "responsible" as you would say, but as I and others here have pointed out to you, Americans pay plenty of taxes despite the fact that some temporarily do not have to pay the Federal Income Tax.

No what I have said and always said is the everyone should pay something and no one should pay nothing because they are not invested.

...resentful of your tax burden as well as government oversight and regulation of big buisnesses both here and at home, with the petroleum companies as just one example. That to me sounds like a weight challenged cat who owns oil shares among other things.

Yes resentful; no I don't own oil shares; no not a cat.

Paying taxes is not a criteria of mine for defining "fat cats", and you are the one who suggested that people in the lower 47% should not have a say in government spending, thus disenfranchising them.

"disenfranchising"... your words, not mine. All I want is everyone to pay something to be invested. I could care less if you make $20,000 a year or $20,000,000 a year, everyone should pay something equal in percent of their income and close all the loop holes.