2012 Elections in the USA

Tres, a question, since you believe it's appropriate to include social security and medicare contributions in a person's total federal tax rate. Do you believe people who make over $250,000 a year should pay for the retirement and medical expenses of those less fortunate? And how do you expect this would work, since increasing their taxes enough to do this would potentially bankrupt many of them?

Please note in my reply below, I did include social security and medicare contributions in the total federal tax rate, and even then the federal system is steeply progressive.

Before you get excommunicated from the board I wished to post this for your edification Snake.

I wrote the Nam missive right after reading a post from you denigrating the 'Great Satan' for bombing the poor folks in Laos who had only slingshots to defend themselves. I have gone back over your prior posts and have been unable to find that particular post again. Did you delete it?

If anyone remembers this post by Snake please confirm it if you recall it.

Otherwise, I may have confused Snake's ranting with another liberal hate American numskull on a different site and I would owe Snake an apology.

See, Conservatives are always willing to admit if they are mistaken, while liberals never admit they are wrong.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 424811]Before you get excommunicated from the board I wished to post this for your edification Snake.

I wrote the Nam missive right after reading a post from you denigrating the 'Great Satan' for bombing the poor folks in Laos who had only slingshots to defend themselves. I have gone back over your prior posts and have been unable to find that particular post again. Did you delete it?

If anyone remembers this post by Snake please confirm it if you recall it.

Otherwise, I may have confused Snake's ranting with another liberal hate American numskull on a different site and I would owe Snake an apology.

See, Conservatives are always willing to admit if they are mistaken, while liberals never admit they are wrong.[/QUOTE]Let me volunteer my despicable self as the "liberal hate American numskull". So Conservatives are all righteous and will all go to heaven. It is a relief to know, as I consider myself a conservative.

Vietnam, like the Cultural Revolution for China, is a chapter in our history that tends to embarass us and is best forgotten. This is not intended to disparage any Vietnam Vets.

[QUOTE=SnakeOilSales;424806]Don't be such a biased hypocrite. I posted a link to a legitimate news story about a current event from a legitimate source (yahoo) to back up the leak.[/quote]What do you call someone who says one thing and does another?

It is almost like Saul Alinsky is here in the room with us. I think that it is important to make a distinction between what SOS / MOPD is and run of the mill democrats and / or liberals. SOS / MOPD is not an independently-minded democrat or liberal. He is, to the discussion, what dysentery is to a toilet. He isn't here to engage in the free exchange of ideas, he is here as a propagandist trying to further Marxist ideology and contribute, knowingly or not, to the destruction of many of the things that most of us love about the US.

In a public forum that falls under the auspices of US law most people have the right of free speech, even if what they have to say is idiotic or deleterious to the Country, its institutions and certain individuals (certain public figures). However, this forum is neither public nor subject to US law, (despite the fact that its owner may be). Jax has been pretty consistent that AP members need contribute to the primary mission of the forum, the gentleman's pursuit of the finer things in Argentina. Further, Jax has been pretty consistent in trying to eliminate personal attacks. You have not contributed to the pursuit of the finer things in Argentina and you have distributed lies about an individual. By joining Harry Reid in your attempt to smear Romney with lies, you are participating in perpetuating a lie and an unfounded personal attack. Harry Reid is a despicable human being who, despite never having a real job (I. E. Private sector) and coming from a poor family, has amassed an extraordinary amount of wealth. Harry Reid also has never publicly disclosed his own tax returns, despite holding public offices for the past 44 years. I'the like to know how a public servant, whose boyhood home didn't have an indoor toilet, has become a multimillionaire. I'the like to see Harry Reid's tax returns. I question whether or not you understand the definition of hypocrisy.

I have no problem with democrats or liberals. In fact, while I may disagree with them, I fully support their right to express themselves. I welcome the spirited exchange of ideas and the art of debate. However, the liberal minority (of the US population) is driven by a core of Leftists, who are not independently-minded, self-described democrats and liberals. That Leftist core can't advance its agenda through the truthful articulation of what it is, because America has repudiated it, many times during her history. The Leftists don't engage in debate, don't articulate and support arguments and won't intentionally reveal its fundamental tenets to the full American public, for fear of becoming an even smaller minority. Therein lays the difference between Conservatives and the Leftist. That is in fact a double-edged sword of freedom. The genuine exploitation of freedom must coexist with the expected abuse of freedom, even when those abuses are harmful to the nation, because any alternative construct, whatever it may be, is not freedom. In essence, we must hold the door open for SOS / MOPD and his ilk and allow them to try their best to damage the country. I feel that it is important for us to defend the country and repudiate Marxism, in all of its forms, manifestations and derivatives on the battlefield of ideas, where we have an enormous advantage, the truth. The left knows this and has known this since one of its grandfathers, the seditious Aaron Burr, assassinated one of the Founders. That is why they need the tactics of Alinsky, derived from their heroes of thought Mao, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Gini and Engels. The Leftist Obama has never engaged in a truthful, public debate or discussion of his philosophy. When he goes off-script (off-teleprompter) he gives us a glimpse at the man behind the curtain. Look at how fast they pull the curtain back to hide the reality.

So is SOS / MOPD immune to reason? Why is he unwilling to make and support arguments? Is it because he doesn't understand, chooses to ignore or is afraid to reveal what lies beneath his ideology? SOS / MOPD has the right to be a cool aid drinker, if he so chooses. However, furthering his ideology at all costs, without regard for the country, its institutions or any specific individual, reveals his true identity. My question: is damaging the nation his intent, or is he just a useful idiot? So, SOS / MOPD, are you a committed Marxist or mindless sycophant?

Doppelganger, You may be right about Snake. You've confused Esten and me. While Esten would probably be great to have a beer with, we're usually polar opposites on this board.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt; 424812]Let me volunteer my despicable self as the "liberal hate American numskull". So Conservatives are all righteous and will all go to heaven. It is a relief to know, as I consider myself a conservative.

Vietnam, like the Cultural Revolution for China, is a chapter in our history that tends to embarass us and is best forgotten. This is not intended to disparage any Vietnam Vets.[/QUOTE]No Black Shirt all conservatives are NOT going to heaven and all liberals are NOT going to hell, this was only about admitting when you are wrong.

Hell, I'm not going heaven since I wouldn't know a damn person there.

You know what they say you go to heaven for the climate and to hell for companionship

Tres, are you aware the great majority of employees only pay HALF of the Social Security and Medicare Payroll Taxes? Employers pay the other half unless the employee is self employed, then they get the privilege of paying both sides, employer and employee payroll assessments.

I would assume you wish to include Social Security & Medicaid in the "Total" tax payersis so the 49+% of folks who do not pay federal income taxes can now be included as "tax payers" for your argument regarding the tax system.

This premise is false on its face as those who pay Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes will benefit far beyond the amounts they contribute into these partially self funded Direct Benefit systems. It falls to the 50% of the citizens who do pay FEDERAL INCOME TAXES to make up the short fall in the Medicare and Social Security systems as well as the totally UNFUNDED welfare, food stamp, Medicaid and myriad of other Federal give away programs.

Do the math, the increases Obama wants will not even begin to pay for the deficit spending Obama has run up THIS YEAR much less pay off the debt. This pure class warfare at its worst.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 424813]What do you call someone who says one thing and does another?

It is almost like Saul Alinsky is here in the room with us. I think that it is important to make a distinction between what SOS / MOPD is and run of the mill democrats and / or liberals. SOS / MOPD is not an independently-minded democrat or liberal. He is, to the discussion, what dysentery is to a toilet. He isn't here to engage in the free exchange of ideas, he is here as a propagandist trying to further Marxist ideology and contribute, knowingly or not, to the destruction of many of the things that most of us love about the US.

In a public forum that falls under the auspices of US law most people have the right of free speech, even if what they have to say is idiotic or deleterious to the Country, its institutions and certain individuals (certain public figures). However, this forum is neither public nor subject to US law, (despite the fact that its owner may be). Jax has been pretty consistent that AP members need contribute to the primary mission of the forum, the gentleman's pursuit of the finer things in Argentina. Further, Jax has been pretty consistent in trying to eliminate personal attacks. You have not contributed to the pursuit of the finer things in Argentina and you have distributed lies about an individual. By joining Harry Reid in your attempt to smear Romney with lies, you are participating in perpetuating a lie and an unfounded personal attack. Harry Reid is a despicable human being who, despite never having a real job (I. E. Private sector) and coming from a poor family, has amassed an extraordinary amount of wealth. Harry Reid also has never publicly disclosed his own tax returns, despite holding public offices for the past 44 years. I'the like to know how a public servant, whose boyhood home didn't have an indoor toilet, has become a multimillionaire. I'the like to see Harry Reid's tax returns. I question whether or not you understand the definition of hypocrisy.

I have no problem with democrats or liberals. In fact, while I may disagree with them, I fully support their right to express themselves. I welcome the spirited exchange of ideas and the art of debate. However, the liberal minority (of the US population) is driven by a core of Leftists, who are not independently-minded, self-described democrats and liberals. That Leftist core can't advance its agenda through the truthful articulation of what it is, because America has repudiated it, many times during her history. The Leftists don't engage in debate, don't articulate and support arguments and won't intentionally reveal its fundamental tenets to the full American public, for fear of becoming an even smaller minority. Therein lays the difference between Conservatives and the Leftist. That is in fact a double-edged sword of freedom. The genuine exploitation of freedom must coexist with the expected abuse of freedom, even when those abuses are harmful to the nation, because any alternative construct, whatever it may be, is not freedom. In essence, we must hold the door open for SOS / MOPD and his ilk and allow them to try their best to damage the country. I feel that it is important for us to defend the country and repudiate Marxism, in all of its forms, manifestations and derivatives on the battlefield of ideas, where we have an enormous advantage, the truth. The left knows this and has known this since one of its grandfathers, the seditious Aaron Burr, assassinated one of the Founders. That is why they need the tactics of Alinsky, derived from their heroes of thought Mao, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Gini and Engels. The Leftist Obama has never engaged in a truthful, public debate or discussion of his philosophy. When he goes off-script (off-teleprompter) he gives us a glimpse at the man behind the curtain. Look at how fast they pull the curtain back to hide the reality.

So is SOS / MOPD immune to reason? Why is he unwilling to make and support arguments? Is it because he doesn't understand, chooses to ignore or is afraid to reveal what lies beneath his ideology? SOS / MOPD has the right to be a cool aid drinker, if he so chooses. However, furthering his ideology at all costs, without regard for the country, its institutions or any specific individual, reveals his true identity. My question: is damaging the nation his intent, or is he just a useful idiot? So, SOS / MOPD, are you a committed Marxist or mindless sycophant?[/QUOTE]Politically, AP is a conservative think tank?

[QUOTE=Tres3;424808]Read the entire post! I said, in capital letters, TOTAL. That means Social Security, Medicare, and Income taxes. Only a small portion of the tax paying population pays 87% of their income in tax.[/quote]I think that you may misinterpreted that first group of statistic. I was illuminating the fact that the poor pay no taxes, at all.

[quote=]Most of the wealthy can afford good tax planners and advisers, so they pay far less than 87. I agree that the rate increases, but that is only the statutory rate, NOT the actual, effective rate paid.[/quote]You are correct about the progression. Just to be clear, the statutory marginal income tax rates run from 10% to 35%. When you add up the marginal impact on an W-2 income of $1 million, the actual rate, with no deductions is 41.2%. Good tax planning can help to reduce the rate, but it isn't that simple.

[quote=]There are quite a few millionaires who pay NO federal taxes. I was one of the "Best and Brightest" who helped them pay no, or very little, Federal tax, and was well compensated for doing so.[/quote]There are plenty of ways to legally reduce taxes and in some cases it can result in little or no tax being owed on significant income. If all of one's income comes in the form of capital gains, you can start off with a 15% rate, which is a pretty big head start on reducing the 41.2%. Big lefty Bill Gates has always had a relatively small salary. I wonder if he overpaid his taxes to make up for the disparity. However, if you are doing this legally, you need to have legitimate items to offset almost all of the positive numbers that contribute to adjusted gross income. I'm not saying that it is impossible, but a return with $1 million of income, but no taxable income is a red flag at the IRS.

[quote=]I stand by my original post, that without the suspension of the Social Security tax, the TOTAL Federal tax actually paid by the tax paying public is regressive.[/quote]You are absolutely entitled to your opinion.

[quote=]Many of the poor people who pay no income tax still pay Social Security and Medicare tax. You can call the taxes what you want, but they are still income taxes collected by the Federal Government.

Tres3[/QUOTE]FICA is 7.65% (6.2% for social security and 1.45% for medicaid) , which is significantly below the average paid by high income earners. If you are calculating taxation of the poor, you need to net out the total value of fungible government benefits received (food stamps, welfare, free healthcare, etc.). Further, a significant portion of the recipients of such assistance report no income to the government and therefore are being paid by the government, which continues the progressive nature of the system onto non-earners.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt;424817]Politically, AP is a conservative think tank?[/QUOTE]Not at all. Most of the AP'ers that I have met in person don't agree with me on most political topics. Unless they enjoy political debate, it isn't part of our interaction. Like I have said many times before, I stand for the rights of everyone to express their beliefs, if they feel compelled to do so. Most of my friends (I have a couple) , probably fall into the middle of the political morass and a couple of them are hardcore leftist (who openly admit that they are for socialism and Marxism). I generally find that I have to spend a fair amount of time explaining what being a conservative means to me. That is in large part thanks to our leftist activists and the media (is that redundant) , who have been deliberately misinforming the public about conservatism and anything related to it. They paint it all with a religious brush and scream guns and abortion at the top of their lungs.

I was drawing a clear distinction between individuals who are self-described democrats or liberals and political operatives like SOS / MOPD.

[QUOTE=Tiny12; 424810]Tres, a question, since you believe it's appropriate to include social security and medicare contributions in a person's total federal tax rate. Do you believe people who make over $250, 000 a year should pay for the retirement and medical expenses of those less fortunate? And how do you expect this would work, since increasing their taxes enough to do this would potentially bankrupt many of them?

Please note in my reply below, I did include social security and medicare contributions in the total federal tax rate, and even then the federal system is steeply progressive.[/QUOTE]As I said earlier, an income tax is still an income tax. It does not matter what you call it. If you wish to call the tax that an employed person, his employer, or the self-employed a "contribution" call it what you want, but it still walks like a duck, talks like a duck, flies like a duck, swims like a duck, etc, etc. The tax "contribution" is levied, by statute, as a percentage of a person's INCOME, with a statutory limit on the amount of income on which the "contribution" is assessed. This limit is what makes the "contribution" regressive.

I noted with interest that your CBO quote: 1) Neglected to mention the percentage of total Federal tax revenue paid by each group, only the effective rate; and. 2.) That none of the groups you mentioned paid more than 30% of their income in Federal income taxes. How "steep" is 30% It still leaves 70% of income untaxed at the Federal level. Do you remember when the top Federal bracket was 90% of taxable income?

You brought a new argument to the table with your $250, 000 per year question, and I will not argue a hypothetical question. I posted only the facts as stated in existing law. What I personally believe with regard to proposed law is not material. It is not yet law, and may never become law. The fact is, under present law, an individual making more than $250, 000 per year exceeds the statutory limit on that person's "contributions" to Social Security and Medicare.

Tres3

[QUOTE=Black Shirt;424812]Let me volunteer my despicable self as the "liberal hate American numskull".[/quote]I don't think that most democrats and / or liberals hate America. I do think that there is a significant core that is bent on destroying many of the things that have contributed to making America great. I have no idea if they are motivate by hate or any other emotion. I also hope that you recognize that my harshest, sharp-tongued commentaries are reserved mostly for SOS / MOPD, his prior handle Move On and Esten. Although, I respect the fact that Esten personally subscribes to a Marxist / socialist philosophy and is not an operative just here to distribute propaganda.

[quote=]So Conservatives are all righteous and will all go to heaven. It is a relief to know, as I consider myself a conservative.[/quote]Much of that depends on whether or not you see it coming. I know that I will need a little lead time, since I'll probably have some explaining to do.

[quote=]Vietnam, like the Cultural Revolution for China, is a chapter in our history that tends to embarass us and is best forgotten. This is not intended to disparage any Vietnam Vets.[/QUOTE]I think that the subject of Vietnam has been so politicized, since LBJ was in office, that it is difficult to reconcile the millions of different agenda-driven snippets into any form of discernible mosaic. However, it is a very important part of our recent history replete with crucial lessons, many of which we forgot long ago. It is also the figurative birthplace of the contemporary leftist movement. That element is very interesting, yet rarely discussed. Who were we fighting in French Indochina? Was Charlie the enemy or a proxy for our true enemy. The true enemy, had a history of nearly 50 years of trying to infiltrate and destabilize the US. That true enemy found very fertile ground to sow its seeds of dissent and to grow dreams of Marxist utopia. After all, in the wake of McCarthyism a Marxist was nearly untouchable. What was it that I was saying about that Alinsky guy? I feel like I am going in circles, I'm getting dizzy. I think I am going to lie down.

[QUOTE=Tres3;424820]1) Neglected to mention the percentage of total Federal tax revenue paid by each group, only the effective rate; and. 2.) That none of the groups you mentioned paid more than 30% of their income in Federal income taxes. How "steep" is 30% It still leaves 70% of income untaxed at the Federal level. Do you remember when the top Federal bracket was 90% of taxable income?[/QUOTE]Tres,

1.) That's irrelevant to progressivity, but it doesn't paint a pretty picture for your side. The top 1% pay 35% to 40% of total federal income taxes. Admittedly that doesn't include social security and medicare contributions, but irregardless you'll find higher income groups pay far more in federal taxes per capita, however you define taxes.

2.) Add state and local income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes and you're probably getting to 40% to 50%. I don't understand your argument. Are you proposing to increase the Federal tax rate to 100%? Do you think certain people should be milked for every dime they've got? Or only 90%?

Is not about de jure rate for "taxable" income. It is about a ratio of tax paid to de facto income, which includes income in tax heaven.

[QUOTE=Tiny12; 424809]What you wrote above is absolutely not true. This is from a recent study by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, and shows the average tax rate paid by people in various income groups. If you want to check me, go to.

[url]http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43373[/url]

And click on the first supplemental table. The figures below include ALL federal taxes, including social security tax:

Top 1%: 28. 9% average federal tax rate.

Top 5%: 24. 1% average federal tax rate.

Top 20%: 23. 2%

Fourth Quintile: 15. 1%

Third Quintile: 11. 1%

Second Quintile: 6. 8%

Bottom 20%: 1. 0%

Your belief is common. I believe it stems from two things:

1. Democrats like Obama knowingly lie because they think it will get them more votes. This is why Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer favor only raising taxes on those making more than $1 million per year. Because they realize the "tax the rich" thing is populist bull shit, and a $1 million threshhold gets them more votes than a $250, 000 threshhold. There are a lot of people who make in the $250, 000 to $1, 000, 000 range in San Francisco and Manhattan, and Nancy and Chuck want their votes.

2. The desire of the majority to steal from the minority. People bend the truth to suit their beliefs and desires. They don't realize there are unintended consequences (on businesses, savings and investment) of stealing a large share of income from the wealthy.

If you download the Excel table I describe above on the CBO's web site, you'll see that your argument that the federal tax system would be regressive if not for the 2% reduction in social security tax doesn't wash. There's data there from 1979 to 2009, and the federal tax system is steeply progressive in all years.[/QUOTE]

I think there was a poll on AP members last year. Surprisingly, majority of respondents were liberal. I cannot locate the post of the poll results. If somebody could, please repost the poll results. Thanks.
BTW, why the name of Black Shirt? Reminds me of the Italian facist party.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt;424817]Politically, AP is a conservative think tank?[/QUOTE]