Comments on: And The Horse He Rode In On

By: Bryan

Bryan — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 15:06:14 +0000

If he wanted more people to pay incomes taxes, he could sponsor a military pay raise that would get the lower ranks off food stamps and making enough money to be taxpayers. That combat exclusion benefit that says you don’t pay income taxes when you are deployed in a combat zone is worthless to the lower ranks. I doubt the two months he spent in the Army Reserve in 1967 left him with much of a feeling of camaraderie for the military.

My general feeling from personal experience is that the people at the top are the ones who use all of the government services, so they should pay for them. The State Department and Commerce Department are of almost no benefit to the people at the bottom, but they are important to the 1%. The wealthy have the access and get the services, so they should pay for them.

As for national defense, I don’t see many of the wealthy volunteering to get shot at when the country goes to war. The trenches are filled with people who don’t make enough to pay taxes. Putting your life on the line ought to count for more than just cash, but it doesn’t to today’s GOP.

If you ever hang around with really wealthy people, as I did in Southern California, it is amazing how little they actually buy. With more than two-thirds of the US GDP dependent on consumers, the wealthy aren’t really pulling their weight.

Chuck, you can’t explain anything to people whose paycheck is based on remaining ignorant. As you say, there are reasons for a progressive tax system, but the Repubs would rather blame the poor.

By: chucklenuts

chucklenuts — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 05:23:00 +0000

No one will push back on his lies or use any critical thinking to see through this bogus argument. Though I do not know the figures exactly, but I believe the top 2% of Americans hold 40% of the wealth, bottom 6o% hold something like 5% of the wealth. The basic principles of math will give the conservatives talking points a run for the money. lets say for sake of argument, that there is a group of people that make 10,000 per year, and a group of people who make 100 per year. Let’s make another assumption that in this example the tax rate for both is 20%. The first group will pay $2000 in taxes, the second $20. So the 10,000 group as a unit will be accountable for a higher percentage of the tax revenue, not becasue they are over-taxed, but because they make more money, the second group pays same percentage, but will be accountable for a smaller percentage of the tax revenue
So now we look at the bigger picture, for the group that is earning 100 per year, the 20 dollars, though the same percentage as the 10,000 group, is more of a burden because the basic neccesities to survive in a year (food, housing, etc) costs $ 90, so the gov’t decided to give this group a break on the taxes so they could manage to survive the year and in turn, by partcipating in the necessities, they put money into the economy

What seems to be a common inference in the talking points is that the percentage of americans who pay no INCOME TAX, somehow do not particpate in society economic engine, and those who do, are the true americans. This is the lie

By: Steve Bates

Steve Bates — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 05:18:00 +0000

Turtleface can go suck eggs. Few GOPers are more personally offensive.