Funny

C

Canceled.LTroll.28

Banned
http://www.theatlantic.com/business...a-partiers-pay-no-federal-income-taxes/38924/

The Earned Income Tax Credit pushes many Americans' federal income tax burden to zero. The EITC is a Republican creation. It was enacted in 1975 under President Ford (Republican), and expanded numerous times over the last 35 years by Republicans. So why ain't the Teabagtards targeting the GOP?

Of course, they do (most likely) pay payroll taxes, state, local, sales and excise taxes.

:cof1:
 
if thats the case, then there are a whole lot of people living at or below the poverty line. I didn't make alot last year and still paid in 7% income tax.
 
I'd suggest you consult a tax expert, if you feel you paid more than you should have.

And yes, there are a lot of folks at or below the poverty line.

In 2008, in the United States of America, the poverty threshold for a single person under 65 was $11,201. I wonder how many of them share your disdain for safety-net programs.
 
Superfreak said:
what tax cuts are those Desh? Did Obama drop the income brackets?
Click to expand...
They're calling tax credits "cuts" these days. You know, all the credits you could have gotten if you'd only put yourself in hock up to the giraffe's eyebrows. Of course, if you chose to stay out of debt, then you pay your taxes like a good citizen and STFU.

And, speaking of STFU, let's not mention the close-to $700 billion in new or additional corporate and business taxes put in place. After all, it's the businesses that pay for those, not the people who end up buying the products, right?
 
Here's a few:

If you bought a house (not a second home, but your principal residence) on or after January 1, 2009, or if you buy one between now and December 1, 2009, you can take the first-time homebuyer's tax credit of up to $8,000 on your 2009 tax return.

A new payroll tax credit of $400 per worker and $800 per couple in 2009 and 2010 cut taxes for more than 95% of working families in the United States.

Unemployed people can exclude the first $2,400 in benefits from being taxed. This should please you Teabaggers who can't get jobs and spend all day posting here.

For people bought a car between February 17 up to December 31, 2009, on your 2009 tax returns you could have deducted state and local sales taxes to your standard deduction or in addition to your itemized deductions.
 
From the article:

"Obama's expensive and ambitious package of federal spending and tax cuts is designed to revive the economy...It also will add to a rapidly growing national debt."

I'm no economist but if we don't curb the debt of this nation (which I attribute to all presidents past) we're gonna be in trouble.

 
Government stimultion of the economy has worked in the past and is working now.

Why is you people are only worried about the deficit when dems ares in control?
 
evince said:
Government stimultion of the economy has worked in the past and is working now.

Why is you people are only worried about the deficit when dems ares in control?
Click to expand...

Sorry desh. I worry about it all the time. Just a problem I have I suppose. I can't stand that I still owe the bank 2k on our house. Can't wait to get it paid off.
 
Now, to address the article itself:

First, the title is an outright lie. They have nothing to back up the claim.

Second: Just MAYBE those who want lower taxes are TIRED of paying for the bare-minority who pay NOTHING, and sometimes even get a refund back after having paid nothing. Tax breaks for the poor are well and good. But using the tax codes to instill another entitlement program where people get back after paying nothing in is just another demonstration of using sneaky, corrupt means to achieve an unpopular goal. (Entitlement programs were getting a pretty bad rep at that time.)

And I don't give a ripe pig fart WHAT party voted for it (democrats held both houses of congress) or signed it into law (a republican who has the distinction of being the only appointed president in history).

Also, what is with all the talk of "under $50,000" when talking about who pays taxes and who does not? I know a WHOLE bunch of people who make less that $50,000, and almost all of them pay federal income taxes. So what if 45% of Tea Party activists make less than $50,000? That does NOT in any way indicate how many of them pay no federal income taxes. It is a deliberate misdirection using statistics to imply an unsupported conclusion.

Third: the article also tries to gloss over the fact that federal income taxes are NOT the only taxes the people are paying - or complaining about.

Fourth, notice the article does not address the BIGGEST demand of the Tea Party, which is to DECREASE SPENDING.

It is easy to criticize one's opponents when you deliberately misrepresent who they are and/or skew their message.
 
Good Luck said:
Now, to address the article itself:

First, the title is an outright lie. They have nothing to back up the claim.

Second: Just MAYBE those who want lower taxes are TIRED of paying for the bare-minority who pay NOTHING, and sometimes even get a refund back after having paid nothing. Tax breaks for the poor are well and good. But using the tax codes to instill another entitlement program where people get back after paying nothing in is just another demonstration of using sneaky, corrupt means to achieve an unpopular goal. (Entitlement programs were getting a pretty bad rep at that time.)

And I don't give a ripe pig fart WHAT party voted for it (democrats held both houses of congress) or signed it into law (a republican who has the distinction of being the only appointed president in history).

Also, what is with all the talk of "under $50,000" when talking about who pays taxes and who does not? I know a WHOLE bunch of people who make less that $50,000, and almost all of them pay federal income taxes. So what if 45% of Tea Party activists make less than $50,000? That does NOT in any way indicate how many of them pay no federal income taxes. It is a deliberate misdirection using statistics to imply an unsupported conclusion.

Third: the article also tries to gloss over the fact that federal income taxes are NOT the only taxes the people are paying - or complaining about.

Fourth, notice the article does not address the BIGGEST demand of the Tea Party, which is to DECREASE SPENDING.

It is easy to criticize one's opponents when you deliberately misrepresent who they are and/or skew their message.
Click to expand...

Read and discuss: http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
 
evince said:
Government stimultion of the economy has worked in the past and is working now.

Why is you people are only worried about the deficit when dems ares in control?
Click to expand...
Why is it people like you always lie about when people like us complain about deficit spending. The biggest criticism from conservatives of Bush was his liberal spending policies. If you are intellectually honest you can see that in all the articles and rhetoric during the Bush years.

But since you bring up the topic of hypocrisy, I notice you defending deficit spending now as a "needed" practice. Did you complain about deficits under Bush?
 
Good Luck said:
Why is it people like you always lie about when people like us complain about deficit spending. The biggest criticism from conservatives of Bush was his liberal spending policies. If you are intellectually honest you can see that in all the articles and rhetoric during the Bush years.

But since you bring up the topic of hypocrisy, I notice you defending deficit spending now as a "needed" practice. Did you complain about deficits under Bush?
Click to expand...

and the standard liberal line here is going to be that deficit spending is necessary to bail us out of the bush mess.
 
Smarter Than All Y'All said:
Read and discuss: http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
Click to expand...
Well, first thing noticeable is the tables prove that the article's use of "under $50,000" as an indicator of who pays federal income taxes is, indeed, arbitrary and misleading. The bottom-half cutoff is actually $32,879. Thus, stating that 45% of Tea Party members make less than $50K has no statistical validity, and any conclusions drawn from the $50K figure are equally invalid. In fact, since 50% of the general population makes less than $32K, and the pollsters had to raise the bar to $50K to cover 45% of Tea PArty members, that would indicate that their conclusion is dead wrong: Tea Party members are more likely to be paying federal income taxes than the general populace.

In short, the Tax Foundation data proves the writers of the article to be flat out liars.


The Tax Foundation also shows that 1 percent of tax payers are paying over 40% of total tax revenues on less than 23% of total taxable income. That should make anti-wealth liberals somewhat happy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top