Dear Teabaggers

[Phatscotty]

he is just way behind on the tea party smear job

[Mach1tosh]

Now I'm really pissed. Here in Canada the AVERAGE is that for all taxes paid, we don't see any of our paycheque until July which means we are paying over 50% ON AVERAGE!!!

[Phatscotty]

Now I'm really pissed. Here in Canada the AVERAGE is that for all taxes paid, we don't see any of our paycheque until July which means we are paying over 50% ON AVERAGE!!!

In America it is at least July as well....probably Ausust now

[Timminz]

being for small government and being a Republican is almost incompatible. The corporatist interest in the Republican party is NOT interested in small government. They are just interested in government spending that benefits their corporations.

Yup.

How does this study define taxes?

Do fees I pay to the Gov't count?
Like the fee for my dog license or drivers license... or the fees on my phone and cable bills that are labeled "fee" but are really taxes.

Oh noes! They've put "taxes" on completely elective luxuries! The only way to not pay that, is to choose to live without those luxuries. The horror!

[thegreekdog]

Just for future reference, the Tea Party movement is not simply about lower taxes. It is also about lower spending and the cessation of borrowing habits that can only lead to the failure of the government (and higher taxes). So, for example, the Healthcare Bill, which does not actually provide healthcare to 100% of Americans, did not result in higher taxes in 2010. However, it will result in higher taxes in the future.

The Tea Party movement is also about personal accountability. For example, I recently heard a protest by a woman whose loan was foreclosed by some major bank. My suggestion to her (if I could make such a suggestion) was that she should not have purchased a home without first ensuring that she had the financial wherewithal to purchase that home. Therefore, I do not blame the bank; I do not think the government should pay for this woman to live in her house; rather I think (and Tea Partiers do as well) that she should take personal responsibility and perhaps spend the time she uses to protest on finding a job and working.

[Johnny Rockets]

The Tea Party movement is also about personal accountability. For example, I recently heard a protest by a woman whose loan was foreclosed by some major bank. My suggestion to her (if I could make such a suggestion) was that she should not have purchased a home without first ensuring that she had the financial wherewithal to purchase that home. Therefore, I do not blame the bank; I do not think the government should pay for this woman to live in her house; rather I think (and Tea Partiers do as well) that she should take personal responsibility and perhaps spend the time she uses to protest on finding a job and working.

Jrock

[tzor]

A few points:

"Federal, state and local income taxes " ... doesn't include state & local property taxes. It doesn't take into account that the money not raised because of stimulus law is going to have to be paid eventually, plus interest. And all that lower taxes (mostly at the state level) is causing local governments to go to dangerous levels, all the while the debt we owe foreign countries (like China) that do not share our vision of democracy and freedom goes higher and higher and higher.

And if you can quote the article, can I quote the comments.

The first problem with the article is the misplaced importance of Tax Rates, as opposed to Tax Revenue. Regardless of whether tax rates go up or go down, the deficit is a result of Tax Revenue falling short of government spending.

And while Tax Rates may be at a 60 year low, Tax Revenue is up. In fact, Tax Revenue as percentage of GDP is above 20 year, 40 year and 60 year averages. Why didn't the USA Today article point out this fact?
1) Was the journalist not aware of this fact?
2) Is it because the article didn't want to highlight the point that tax rate cuts can actually increase tax revenue?
3) Is it because liberals will use the historically low rates as a means to justifying a tax rate hike?
4) Some combo of the above?

The second problem I have with the article is the loose connection between low tax rates and the Tea Party Movement's concern about high taxes. Granted, the article does state that the Tea Party is worried about excessive gov't. spending, but those on the left are jumping to the conclusion that this article is some sort of proof that the Tea Party doesn't know what it's talking about.

The third problem I have with the article is the use of average income and average tax rate. It only tells part of the picture. Why didn't the article include median income and median tax rates? May favorite sentence in this article is as follows:

“That means a $3400 annual tax savings for a household paying the average national rate and earning the average national household income of $102,000.”

The first thing that ought to jump out at you as a huge red flag (or red herring in this case) is the $102,000 average annual income.

While I have no reason to doubt the average income in the US to be $102,000, the 2009 median income in the US was roughly $50K (I’ve researched median income from several sources and the numbers range from $46.5K to $52K). Median income simply means that 50% the households in the US earn less than $50K and 50% of the households earn more than $50K. In fact, if you look at the distribution of income across the US, less than 20% of the US population makes $102K or more. So, something like 4 out of every 5 American households make less than the published average. The reason economists have always chosen to use median income instead of averaage income is to avoid the discrepancy below.

But what makes America sound wealthier?
1. An average income of $102K?
2. A median income of $50K?

The fourth problem I have with this article is that is does nothing assess government spending. To reiterate, the deficit is a result of Tax Revenue falling short of government spending.

Obama targeted tax increases for the rich, and he defined rich as households earning $250K per year or more. Are we to assume that the multi-trillion dollar deficit will be recovered by taxing the rich. Only 1.3% of the households in America earn $250K or more per year. Wake and smell the math problem. There simply is not enough of a tax base to recoup that level of spending. If there was plenty of tax revenue to tap from the rich, then why do you think the Obama administration is considering a VAT?

Bottom line:
1. Taxes are not as low as the article would like you to think.
2. People making less than $250K will also see their taxes go up fairly soon, maybe not as an income tax, oh�but you WILL be taxed.

[Phatscotty]

being for small government and being a Republican is almost incompatible. The corporatist interest in the Republican party is NOT interested in small government. They are just interested in government spending that benefits their corporations.

Yup.

How does this study define taxes?

Do fees I pay to the Gov't count?
Like the fee for my dog license or drivers license... or the fees on my phone and cable bills that are labeled "fee" but are really taxes.

Oh noes! They've put "taxes" on completely elective luxuries! The only way to not pay that, is to choose to live without those luxuries. The horror!

Man you are open about imposing taxes on everyone else.... I dare you to talk this way in a crowded place of strangers....

[Phatscotty]

The study s complete bullshit! It's been broughten to you by the Center for American Progress! (as biased as you can possibly get)

Whats next, a media matters update?

[bradleybadly]

If nothing else, at least we now learned that Keith Olbermann lives in a Boston penthouse

[Phatscotty]

If nothing else, at least we now learned that Keith Olbermann lives in a Boston penthouse

I refrained from calling him an Olbermann wannabe from the beginning, just because I know how much is truly hurts my feelings when people say I am just a Glenn Beck worshipper. I laugh harder than they do

[Timminz]

And if you can quote the article, can I quote the comments.

Does that mean it's cool if I start doing the same thing when people post youtube videos.

Oh noes! They've put "taxes" on completely elective luxuries! The only way to not pay that, is to choose to live without those luxuries. The horror!

Man you are open about imposing taxes on everyone else.... I dare you to talk this way in a crowded place of strangers....

What the fuck are you talking about ("everyone else")? I have no problem paying taxes (or "fees") on luxury items, and services. If I can afford totally non-essential things like cars, and pets, and cable, I can afford to contribute accordingly to the services my government provides. Sure, they aren't perfect, but they sure are a whole lot better than what we would get without them.

Then again, I (mostly) have faith in the system of governance in my country. I don't think I could say the same thing if I were in your position.

[stahrgazer]

I am "far right" on issues of spending, but being for small government and being a Republican is almost incompatible. The corporatist interest in the Republican party is NOT interested in small government. They are just interested in government spending that benefits their corporations.

Unfortunately true... now. Not when the R party began, but now, it's so. They also only seem interested in tax breaks for corporations, and "free trade" agreements... and the only thing corporate breaks and free trade got us was "our" jobs shipped overseas while the moneyholders pay less percentage on earnings (after their breaks) than a minimum wage worker.

[thegreekdog]

I am "far right" on issues of spending, but being for small government and being a Republican is almost incompatible. The corporatist interest in the Republican party is NOT interested in small government. They are just interested in government spending that benefits their corporations.

Unfortunately true... now. Not when the R party began, but now, it's so. They also only seem interested in tax breaks for corporations, and "free trade" agreements... and the only thing corporate breaks and free trade got us was "our" jobs shipped overseas while the moneyholders pay less percentage on earnings (after their breaks) than a minimum wage worker.

Tax breaks for corporations are meant to keep employees in the U.S. I'm not sure about trade agreements. What has made companies move operations overseas is the... wait for it... lack of taxation overseas and... wait for it... the ability not to pay a manufacturing employee $50 an hour (i.e. unions).

Are corporations responsible for the exodus of jobs overseas? Yes. So are unions. So is the U.S. tax system.

[tzor]

And if you can quote the article, can I quote the comments.

Does that mean it's cool if I start doing the same thing when people post youtube videos.

Seeing that I generally don't post youtube videos, I can't see why not.

Note that there is a difference between watchers of youtube videos and readers of online news articles, but offhand I can't think of what that might be.

[rockfist]

I am "far right" on issues of spending, but being for small government and being a Republican is almost incompatible. The corporatist interest in the Republican party is NOT interested in small government. They are just interested in government spending that benefits their corporations.

Unfortunately true... now. Not when the R party began, but now, it's so. They also only seem interested in tax breaks for corporations, and "free trade" agreements... and the only thing corporate breaks and free trade got us was "our" jobs shipped overseas while the moneyholders pay less percentage on earnings (after their breaks) than a minimum wage worker.

Tax breaks for corporations are meant to keep employees in the U.S. I'm not sure about trade agreements. What has made companies move operations overseas is the... wait for it... lack of taxation overseas and... wait for it... the ability not to pay a manufacturing employee $50 an hour (i.e. unions).

Are corporations responsible for the exodus of jobs overseas? Yes. So are unions. So is the U.S. tax system.

This is spot on. The best thing this country could do for itself is not allow unions to represent governmental employees for a start.

[ritz627]

If nothing else, at least we now learned that Keith Olbermann lives in a Boston penthouse

I refrained from calling him an Olbermann wannabe from the beginning, just because I know how much is truly hurts my feelings when people say I am just a Glenn Beck worshipper. I laugh harder than they do

Too bad Olbermann's a tool. I gave up on television media a while ago, unless it's pbs

[ritz627]

Just for future reference, the Tea Party movement is not simply about lower taxes. It is also about lower spending and the cessation of borrowing habits that can only lead to the failure of the government (and higher taxes). So, for example, the Healthcare Bill, which does not actually provide healthcare to 100% of Americans, did not result in higher taxes in 2010. However, it will result in higher taxes in the future.

The Tea Party movement is also about personal accountability. For example, I recently heard a protest by a woman whose loan was foreclosed by some major bank. My suggestion to her (if I could make such a suggestion) was that she should not have purchased a home without first ensuring that she had the financial wherewithal to purchase that home. Therefore, I do not blame the bank; I do not think the government should pay for this woman to live in her house; rather I think (and Tea Partiers do as well) that she should take personal responsibility and perhaps spend the time she uses to protest on finding a job and working.

And just for future reference: I'm not saying that the Tea Party is just about taxes - that is a common complaint of theirs. They have every right to complain about taxes, and I have every right to say they shouldn't...b/c in all honesty they probably shouldn't be. It's difficult to expect our government lower your taxes, while at the same time paying off our national debt - which we haven't been able to do in years.

I'm all for personal accountability...and it sounds nice on paper...but the fact is people are always going to be taking out loans they can't pay off, especially if they are in a difficult financial situation. I wish everyone were fiscally responsible - that everyone only bought what they could pay for, but that's simply not the case. And the only way you're going to stop this is to actually step in and prevent banks from making these loans.

When it comes to helping these people out - that is in the interest of the country as a whole. Homelessness would skyrocket if we didn't. The distribution of wealth would become even more uneven, among other problems. For these reasons, I believe that helping these people out and keeping them off the streets is a just enough cause for a percentage of my tax dollars to be going towards.

[pimpdave]

Wait, I thought George W. Bush hated the poor.

No that's black people.

Why do black people hate the poor?

[thegreekdog]

Just for future reference, the Tea Party movement is not simply about lower taxes. It is also about lower spending and the cessation of borrowing habits that can only lead to the failure of the government (and higher taxes). So, for example, the Healthcare Bill, which does not actually provide healthcare to 100% of Americans, did not result in higher taxes in 2010. However, it will result in higher taxes in the future.

The Tea Party movement is also about personal accountability. For example, I recently heard a protest by a woman whose loan was foreclosed by some major bank. My suggestion to her (if I could make such a suggestion) was that she should not have purchased a home without first ensuring that she had the financial wherewithal to purchase that home. Therefore, I do not blame the bank; I do not think the government should pay for this woman to live in her house; rather I think (and Tea Partiers do as well) that she should take personal responsibility and perhaps spend the time she uses to protest on finding a job and working.

And just for future reference: I'm not saying that the Tea Party is just about taxes - that is a common complaint of theirs. They have every right to complain about taxes, and I have every right to say they shouldn't...b/c in all honesty they probably shouldn't be. It's difficult to expect our government lower your taxes, while at the same time paying off our national debt - which we haven't been able to do in years.

I'm all for personal accountability...and it sounds nice on paper...but the fact is people are always going to be taking out loans they can't pay off, especially if they are in a difficult financial situation. I wish everyone were fiscally responsible - that everyone only bought what they could pay for, but that's simply not the case. And the only way you're going to stop this is to actually step in and prevent banks from making these loans.

When it comes to helping these people out - that is in the interest of the country as a whole. Homelessness would skyrocket if we didn't. The distribution of wealth would become even more uneven, among other problems. For these reasons, I believe that helping these people out and keeping them off the streets is a just enough cause for a percentage of my tax dollars to be going towards.

While I certainly could agree that it is in the best interest of the country to help people out, it perpetuates the idea that you have a fallback (i.e. the government). So, Mr. and Mrs. Homebuyer get a bailout, AIG gets a bailout, Car Company X gets a bailout... what is the incentive for those parties not to go out and buy a house they cannot afford (again), make poor investments (again), and make shitty cars and pay workers insane pensions (again). Sometimes these people and companies must fail in order for the same things not to happen again.

[nesterdude]

I'm all for personal accountability...and it sounds nice on paper...but the fact is people are always going to be taking out loans they can't pay off, especially if they are in a difficult financial situation. I wish everyone were fiscally responsible - that everyone only bought what they could pay for, but that's simply not the case. And the only way you're going to stop this is to actually step in and prevent banks from making these loans.

Actually yes and no.

Companies aren't going to loan (as a general rule) money to people who are bad investments...i.e. the community reinvestment act, and the fallout of such legislation.

As well, if we empower communities more and less the fed, I'd wager that we'll see a drastic reduction (not elimination) in irresponsible public domain behavior from the common citizen. that still doesn't solve the problem of the inverse that occurs when the pendulum swings that way of elitism, corporate abuse and the like. But yeah, we've gone too far the other way at this point.

But of course, we can't trust individuals right?

[Phatscotty]

Just for future reference, the Tea Party movement is not simply about lower taxes. It is also about lower spending and the cessation of borrowing habits that can only lead to the failure of the government (and higher taxes). So, for example, the Healthcare Bill, which does not actually provide healthcare to 100% of Americans, did not result in higher taxes in 2010. However, it will result in higher taxes in the future.

The Tea Party movement is also about personal accountability. For example, I recently heard a protest by a woman whose loan was foreclosed by some major bank. My suggestion to her (if I could make such a suggestion) was that she should not have purchased a home without first ensuring that she had the financial wherewithal to purchase that home. Therefore, I do not blame the bank; I do not think the government should pay for this woman to live in her house; rather I think (and Tea Partiers do as well) that she should take personal responsibility and perhaps spend the time she uses to protest on finding a job and working.

And just for future reference: I'm not saying that the Tea Party is just about taxes - that is a common complaint of theirs. They have every right to complain about taxes, and I have every right to say they shouldn't...b/c in all honesty they probably shouldn't be. It's difficult to expect our government lower your taxes, while at the same time paying off our national debt - which we haven't been able to do in years.

I'm all for personal accountability...and it sounds nice on paper...but the fact is people are always going to be taking out loans they can't pay off, especially if they are in a difficult financial situation. I wish everyone were fiscally responsible - that everyone only bought what they could pay for, but that's simply not the case. And the only way you're going to stop this is to actually step in and prevent banks from making these loans.

When it comes to helping these people out - that is in the interest of the country as a whole. Homelessness would skyrocket if we didn't. The distribution of wealth would become even more uneven, among other problems. For these reasons, I believe that helping these people out and keeping them off the streets is a just enough cause for a percentage of my tax dollars to be going towards.

While I certainly could agree that it is in the best interest of the country to help people out, it perpetuates the idea that you have a fallback (i.e. the government). So, Mr. and Mrs. Homebuyer get a bailout, AIG gets a bailout, Car Company X gets a bailout... what is the incentive for those parties not to go out and buy a house they cannot afford (again), make poor investments (again), and make shitty cars and pay workers insane pensions (again). Sometimes these people and companies must fail in order for the same things not to happen again.

GD always say it with class. Ritz, you did in fact say the tea baggers were only about low taxes, and used a real piece of propaganda (CfAP). you did that by naming your thread title "dear teabaggers" and not "are taxes really that high?" or something else. You called the Tea Party out, straight up.

Another note, you can stop all this backpedaling by changing the name of your thread. Otherwise, you are assuming all the baggage the comes with "dear teabaggers" for a title. This forum had it's Tea Party "moment" a while back....
However, I like how the discussion is going

[ritz627]

GD always say it with class. Ritz, you did in fact say the tea baggers were only about low taxes, and used a real piece of propaganda (CfAP). you did that by naming your thread title "dear teabaggers" and not "are taxes really that high?" or something else. You called the Tea Party out, straight up.

Another note, you can stop all this backpedaling by changing the name of your thread. Otherwise, you are assuming all the baggage the comes with "dear teabaggers" for a title. This forum had it's Tea Party "moment" a while back....
However, I like how the discussion is going

The topic of this thread is taxes...or at least it was. And I never said the teabaggers were only about taxes, haha. But I'm sorry of I implied it. I called them straight out because they are infamous for complaining about it - to the point of protest. And again, Im not saying they don't have the right to, I'm just saying they shouldn't be.

As for article...the statistics come straight from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Hardly a biased source. In fact, your not gonna find a much more credible source than that.

[ritz627]

As well, if we empower communities more and less the fed, I'd wager that we'll see a drastic reduction (not elimination) in irresponsible public domain behavior from the common citizen.

Where's you're logic in that? "I'd wager" is you're best explanation?

And how exactly do we "empower" these communities?

If there is anything that deregulation has shown, it is that companies take advantage of it for their own personal gain, and the consumer and often the nation as a whole, pay for it.

Regulations on business were put there for a reason, and are typically enacted as the result of a poor business practice in the past - something deemed unethical or hurtful to consumers or the state/national economy. So unless were looking for past problems to repeat themselves, it doesn't really make logistical sense to go and start repealing these acts.

[Phatscotty]

GD always say it with class. Ritz, you did in fact say the tea baggers were only about low taxes, and used a real piece of propaganda (CfAP). you did that by naming your thread title "dear teabaggers" and not "are taxes really that high?" or something else. You called the Tea Party out, straight up.

Another note, you can stop all this backpedaling by changing the name of your thread. Otherwise, you are assuming all the baggage the comes with "dear teabaggers" for a title. This forum had it's Tea Party "moment" a while back....
However, I like how the discussion is going

The topic of this thread is taxes...or at least it was. And I never said the teabaggers were only about taxes, haha. But I'm sorry of I implied it. I called them straight out because they are infamous for complaining about it - to the point of protest. And again, Im not saying they don't have the right to, I'm just saying they shouldn't be.

As for article...the statistics come straight from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Hardly a biased source. In fact, your not gonna find a much more credible source than that.

I did not know complaining about taxes makes you a membr of the tea party. Does that also mean landslide?

Your article was spun by the center for American progress. notorious liars. it's the truth