Friday, September 30, 2011

No Taxes

A little too busy to be doing a whole lot of blogging these days, but I loved this picture and thought you might, too.


Blogger Theresa said...

Lots of people pay no taxes already.

Here are the numbers, assuming family of three and two parents in Montgomery, only deduction is state and local taxes.

200K family pays 37K federal taxes, effective tax rate 18%

100K family pays 6.3K federal taxes, effective tax rate 6.3%

50K family pays NO FEDERAL income taxes, and receives 1.5K back.

25K family pays NO FEderal income taxes and receives 8700 back from the federal government and 1000 from maryland.

So when the president says the rich aren't paying their fair share... HE'S LYING.

How can anyone look at that table and say the rates aren't progressive enough ?

September 30, 2011 2:50 PM  
Blogger Theresa said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 30, 2011 2:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama is really talking about a small group of about 400 of the uppermost wealthy who pay lower rates

but if you look at the sheer amount they pay, you'd be staggered

furthermore, they only pay a lower rate if you consider solely their personal income tax and ignore the fact that their wealth is tied up in corporations who pay taxes before distributing it to them, when the money is taxed again

and, finally, even if we confiscated all their wealth, it wouldn't come close to paying our debt

aside from that 400, the wealthy, on average, pay a higher rate

and, at the other end, people who well exceed the poverty level still pay no tax

we can only hope Obama makes this a debate topic in fall 2012

September 30, 2011 3:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.

While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.

These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.

Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.

To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

September 30, 2011 4:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.

Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.

The taxes I refer to here include only federal income tax, but you can be sure that any payroll tax for the 400 was inconsequential compared to income. In fact, 88 of the 400 in 2008 reported no wages at all, though every one of them reported capital gains. Some of my brethren may shun work but they all like to invest. (I can relate to that.)

I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn’t mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering.

Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country’s finances. They’ve been instructed to devise a plan that reduces the 10-year deficit by at least $1.5 trillion. It’s vital, however, that they achieve far more than that. Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country’s fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness. That feeling can create its own reality.

Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can’t fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.

But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.

My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.

Warren Buffet

September 30, 2011 4:12 PM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

Paying taxes is the price we pay for living in a civilized society.

If they don´t want to pay taxes, maybe the should not be standing on a road paid for by taxes.

September 30, 2011 5:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

...or setting up their chair on a sidewalk, or next to street signs, or traffic lights, or power lines, or public land mowed by public employees all paid for by tax dollars.

I wonder how many of those older people with gray hair are collecting Social Security or covered by Medicare.

September 30, 2011 5:49 PM  
Blogger Theresa said...

14.17% 496 child tax credit, earned income credit, food stamps
8.00% 280 child health insurance, medicaid
12.91% 452 medicare
20.20% 707 social security
20.14% 705 national defense (irag/afghanistan 150 billion)
7.00% 245 veterans benefits
2.00% 70 scientific research
3.00% 105 transport
3.00% 105 education
1.00% 35 international aid
2.00% 70 all other
more interesting numbers
also bush tax cuts per year are 129 billion, but welfare programs...700 billion or more.
all welfare should come with strings. ie, you have to retrain, you have to work for it.

September 30, 2011 6:28 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Theresa said "also bush tax cuts per year are 129 billion, but welfare programs...700 billion or more.
all welfare should come with strings. ie, you have to retrain, you have to work for it.".

Theresa take your B.S. and stuff it. The bush tax cuts cost 330 billion a year:

and welfare spending excluding things people don't normally think of as welfare such as medicaid, social security, education programs, etc. is 167 billion (cash, food, and housing aid):

October 01, 2011 11:39 AM  
Blogger Theresa said...

this is where I got the budget numbers from :

Safety net programs: About 14 percent of the federal budget in 2010, or $496 billion, went to support programs that provide aid (other than health insurance or Social Security benefits) to individuals and families facing hardship.

that didn't include Medicaid....

Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP: Three health insurance programs — Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) — together accounted for 21 percent of the budget in 2010, or $732 billion. Nearly two-thirds of this amount, or $452 billion, went to Medicare

October 01, 2011 1:00 PM  
Blogger Theresa said...

Heritage is a conservative site, I will have to go look at that link as well. I was trying to track down where the drastic increase in govt spending between the bush years, 2.2 trillion or so and the obama years, 3.5 trillion or so, specifically came from....

I found this site, which is fabulous since it has local spending and the presviou years, but haven't had a chance to analyze it yet.

I got the bush tax cut numbers from the washington post, Priya, here :

I just divided by 10.

I will look at your wikepedia link.

October 01, 2011 1:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"all welfare should come with strings"

Theresa thinks no state should have the right to decide how it wants to set up their own welfare programs.

" I was trying to track down where the drastic increase in govt spending between the bush years, 2.2 trillion or so and the obama years, 3.5 trillion or so, specifically came from...."

You might want to look at unemployment and foreclosure figures to see the results of the Bush tax and regulation cuts and how many more people were in need of assistance (unemployment, Medicaid, food stamps, and housing) once Bush left office, right when the bottom was dropping out of our "sound economy" as a result of his and the GOP heinous economic policies.

October 01, 2011 1:53 PM  
Blogger Theresa said...

Not to get off track, but the foreclosure figures were because of the housing bubble. The housing bubble was because of easy credit, and the community reinvestment act. McCain actually put a bill in place to try and reform what was going on with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, SB 190, which did not make it out of committee, (failed on a party line vote and guess which party voted against it).

And for this, I hate Palin. Because she was directly asked what did McCain do to try and prevent the meltdown. That was a softball and she should hit it out of the park. Instead she said she didn't know and would have to get back to Katie. I'll forgive her because she had a 4 month old baby at the time, but I will never vote for her.

October 01, 2011 3:09 PM  
Blogger Theresa said...

Maxine Waters: Through nearly a dozen hearings, we were frankly trying to fix something that wasn’t broke. Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and particularly at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Franklin Raines. [Raines would barely avoid prosecution for fraud.]

October 01, 2011 3:17 PM  
Anonymous Inconvenient facts said...

Don't forget this boneheaded idea by the Bushmeister:

"President Bush's weekend campaign promise that he will push legislation allowing for no money down on some federally insured mortgages could cost taxpayers as much as $500 million over four years because of a higher rate of defaults, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The election-year idea may appeal to those who can't save as fast as home prices are rising. But some financial planners warn that increasingly common no- and low-down-payment programs can be ruinous for some consumers -- especially if home values decline.

If housing prices fall, consumers with little or no money of their own invested in the home are more vulnerable to ending up with mortgages larger than the value of the house...."

Sounds just like what's happening today.

Let's not forget forget whose idea it was:

"The Bush administration finally got its “Dream Act” pushed through Congress in the fall of 2003. The House leadership chose freshman congresswoman Katherine Harris (the Republican hero of the Florida 2000 recount) for the honor of sponsoring the bill. Harris declared,

"As our nation continues to confront daunting threats both at home and abroad, we cannot neglect the most basic security of all, and that is a safe, clean, adequate place to live."

One congressional staffer raised the question of whether “HUD will soon send out maids to ensure our right to a clean house.”

When Bush signed the act on December 16, 2003, he declared,

"One of the biggest hurdles to homeownership is getting money ... so today I’m honored to be here to sign a law that will help many low-income buyers to overcome that hurdle, and to achieve an important part of the American Dream."

He plaintively added,

"The rate of homeownership amongst minorities is below 50 percent. And that’s not right, and this country needs to do something about it."...

The Bush administration and Republicans portray down-payment giveaways as if they were primarily targeted to minorities:

After Bush visited a black neighborhood in Atlanta in 2002 to hype his housing-aid proposal, his first HUD secretary, Mel Martinez, explained, “We sell it that way, as a program for minorities, because we want minority buyers for these homes, but it’s available to anyone” who qualifies under income guidelines.

When the House passed the American Dream Down Payment Act on October 1, 2003, House Speaker Dennis Hastert hailed the bill: “We will help lift up our African-American and Hispanic communities.”

HUD secretary Alfonso Jackson declared in February 2004 that the Bush administration efforts “will help more Americans, particularly minorities, achieve that dream” of homeownership.

If the down-payment program actually specifically targeted minorities, it would violate numerous federal laws and the U.S. Constitution.

...The percentage of Americans who own homes rose from 66.2 percent in 2001 to 68.6 percent in late 2003. But the foreclosure rate is rising much faster than the homeownership rate. The foreclosure rate for home mortgages has tripled since the early 1980s. The rate has especially “gone up a lot ... in struggling neighborhoods in big cities,” according to Federal Reserve Board governor Edward Gramlich."

October 01, 2011 3:41 PM  
Blogger Theresa said...

let's not forget this :

Disagree with the American Dream downpayment act, Bush was not a true conservative (as evidenced by his share of running up the national debt)

Did Bush's programs have an impact? The significant program that came out of that was the American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI). Several years after those programs were put into effect, the GAO looked into their effectiveness and found:
Officials from the jurisdictions GAO contacted indicated that ADDI has not had a significant impact on local homeownership rates because the program has been modestly funded and is relatively new. In addition, some jurisdictions reported difficulties in serving populations that the program targeted for outreach, such as recipients of rental housing assistance.

So Bush's program had a negligible impact inflating the housing crisis.

Though you are right, it did contribute so he takes some blame as well. Nothing compared to the Dems in Congress or Clinton however. and bush is gone, most of the dems reponsible for this mess are still around (barney frank, maxine water, etc.)

October 01, 2011 4:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From Theresa's Wiki page link

"Sen. Phil Gramm (R, Texas), Rep. Jim Leach (R, Iowa), and Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R, Virginia), the co-sponsors of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act."

They are all Republicans, and Gingrich was their Speaker of the House who determined which bills he wanted Clinton to sign.

"Officials from the jurisdictions GAO contacted indicated that ADDI has not had a significant impact on local homeownership rates"

Apparently Bush's GAO officials didn't contact the right or enough "jurisdictions." Bush's White House reported "The US homeownership rate reached a record 69.2 percent in the second quarter of 2004. The number of homeowners in the United States reached 73.4 million, the most ever. And for the first time, the majority of minority Americans own their own homes.

...American Dream Downpayment Act which will help approximately 40,000 families each year with their downpayment and closing costs.

...The Administration proposed the Zero-Downpayment Initiative to allow the Federal Housing Administration to insure mortgages for first-time homebuyers without a downpayment. Projections indicate this could generate over 150,000 new homeowners in the first year alone.

...The President proposed $2.7 billion in USDA home loan guarantees to support rural homeownership and $1.1 billion in direct loans for low-income borrowers unable to secure a mortgage through a conventional lender. These loans are expected to provide 42,800 homeownership opportunities to rural families across America."

That's a lot of new mortgages and new home owners every year.

"because the program has been modestly funded and is relatively new."

Your unnamed source is wrong again, Theresa.

"Congress appropriated ADDI funding for fiscal years 2003-2008.
FY2008 - $10,000,000
FY2007 - $24,750,000
FY2006 - $24,750,000
FY2005 - $49,600,000
FY2004 - $86,933,113
FY2003 - $74,457,526"

That's $270 Million and with a limit of "$10,000 or 6% of the purchase price" for a home that a purchaser who makes no more than "80% of the area's median income," that's a lot of new home owners.

Maybe you can find the stats for how many of those new mortgages borrowed by those new home owners have now been foreclosed on and the families tossed out on the streets needing housing, food stamps and who knows what else.

So tell us Theresa, if Bush was not conservative enough for you, who did you vote for in 2000 and 2004, Gore and Kerry or did you vote for Bush anyway?

October 01, 2011 5:46 PM  
Blogger Theresa said...

says that gramm-leach-biley actually softened the blow, and this was clinton's position.

and that the bill based with broad bi-partisan support.

If 270 million was given out in downpayment money, that means 2.7 billion in houses, which I think is a relatively small number. I was trying to find a number for total housing market per year in the us, the only thing I located was about 4.5 million a month sold, and average home price of 180,000. If you multiple these out, you get 8.6 trillion in exchanged houses every year, which means that even if you say that the bush ADDI program enabled 2.7 billion a year in sales, it was 0.03%. Thus, not a big driver though I still disagree with it. I think the easy credit and the adjustable rate loans and the fact that the people buying these homes HAD NO IDEA what a ballon rate meant caused a lot of the problem. Ie, put the blame on the mortgage bankers who are thieves. I tried several times to explain mortage rates to a renter of mine who was attempting to purchase a house in the mid 90's.

It's complicated, folks don't understand, the mortgage bankers take terrible advantage. Couple that with easy no downpayment no income no asset loans (NINJAs) and you have a disaster.

Who caused the banks to make these loans ? Here I am going straight back to congress for the blame, who was fining banks if they didn't make these loans....

but sure, there is a lot of blame to go around.

and I will always vote for the more conservative candidate, which of course was not Kerry or Gore.

October 01, 2011 7:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

how do you guys support this hypocrite?

his views are "evolving"...

we all know his view is that he'd like to be re-elected:

"WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama has said his stand on gay marriage is "evolving," but don't look for any change when he addresses a leading gay rights group.

His appearance before the Human Right Campaign on Saturday night comes less than two weeks after the military ended its ban on openly gay service members.

The president has said that, for now, he supports civil unions but not same-sex marriage.

With the president increasingly focused on his 2012 campaign, some gay advocates believe Obama will wait until after the election to make any significant announcement about gay marriage."

why doesn't Hillary seize the day?:

"Manchester, New Hampshire (CNN) - Sixty-five percent of New Hampshire residents disapprove of President Obama's handling of the economy, according to a new poll.

The American Research Group's September 2011 Quarterly New Hampshire Poll also found the president's approval rating in the first-in-the-nation primary state is pegged at 31%."

October 01, 2011 7:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"WASHINGTON -- President Obama forcefully called for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act on Saturday night at the annual Human Rights Campaign fundraising dinner, but he did not come out in support of marriage equality, as some hoped he would do.

The 3,000 attendees at the dinner, which took place at the Washington Convention Center, gave the president multiple standing ovations when he touted the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," hospital visitation rights for same-sex couples and spoke out against the bullying of LGBT youth.

The most electric reaction, however, came when Obama sharply criticized the GOP presidential candidates for staying silent when audience members at a debate booed a gay soldier who asked a question about DADT.

"We don't believe in the kind of smallness that says it's okay for a stage full of political leaders -- one of whom could end up being the president of the United States -- being silent when an American soldier is booed. We don't believe in that," said Obama to loud cheers and a standing ovation.

"We don't believe in standing silent when that happens. We don't believe in them being silent since. You want to be commander in chief? You can start by standing up for the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States, even when it's not politically convenient. We don't believe in a small America. We believe in a big America -- a tolerant America, a just America, an equal America -- that values the service of every patriot."

so then, booing the ideas of all patriotic citizens is inappropriate, or just soldiers

I think the Dem dogs are barking up the wrong tree

soldiers, who are not all of the same mind, want to be equal participants in our national discussions

they're not porcelain dolls

they can handle it

if they're in a forum where booing is common, they want their opponents to boo them

btw, I watched South Carolina play Navy a few weeks ago and saw military players being lustily booed by patriotic citizens of the Palmetto state

the Navy players were happy to be part of it

same applies to the political debates

booing is part of it

these gay advocates are shameless

there's little they won't stoop to

October 01, 2011 11:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The most electric reaction, however, came when Obama sharply criticized the GOP presidential candidates for staying silent when audience members at a debate booed a gay soldier who asked a question about DADT.

"We don't believe in the kind of smallness that says it's okay for a stage full of political leaders -- one of whom could end up being the president of the United States -- being silent when an American soldier is booed. We don't believe in that," said Obama to loud cheers and a standing ovation."

and we're to believe these same people, who are suddenly so concerned about the feelings of soldiers, wouldn't have booed a straight soldier who came out and suggested he didn't want to shower with guys who having lewd fantasies about him?


we all know they'd act up

October 02, 2011 8:32 AM  
Anonymous American Autumn said...

"LOS ANGELES -- The Occupy Wall Street protests have migrated across the country, landing in Los Angeles.

On Saturday morning, hundreds of protestors gathered in Downtown LA for a peaceful march and, for some, the beginning of an overnight occupation. Like the protesters in New York, who have occupied Wall Street since mid-September, or the protesters in San Francisco, who surrounded a Bank of America, Angelenos gathered around the most visible symbol of power they could find -- City Hall.

The crowd, which one protester's sign said represented the "other 99%" of America, was a mix of families with young children, self-described members of the working class, white-collar professionals, the jobless, students and boomers.

Andrew Prediletto, a member of National Nurses United who came with his wife and four children, told The Huffington Post, "It's time for Wall Street to pay for the damage that they've done to main street." His 10 year old son Hunter chimed in: "I heard from my Dad about how Wall Street takes money away from poor people, and that's really messed up."

Jeff Moore, who dressed up as the Grim Reaper, said simply, "We've got to take back America from the corporatocracy."

Matt Hollingsworth, who held a sign about belonging to the "top 10%" income bracket, explained, "what the bottom 25% doesn't realize is that most in the top 10 percent agree with them. His friend Francis Della Vecchia agreed with his message, saying, "I invite everybody to join us, even the Tea Party. Because their interests are aligned with ours," not with the nation's wealthiest.

"Thank you Arab Spring," Della Vecchia added. "Welcome American Autumn.""

October 02, 2011 9:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"wouldn't have booed a straight soldier who came out and suggested he didn't want to shower with guys who having lewd fantasies about him?"

No, they wouldn't have booed him. They'd have pointed out the repeal of DADT allows for private showers for those soldiers too frightened or nervous to shower with the same guys they have been showering with at their latest deployment because of what they think others might be thinking.

There is also treatment available for those who suffer from paranoid delusions of what "fantasies" they fear others might be having about them.

Any contact between soldiers is still against the law.

What are you asking for, more special rights and special protections than private showers for scared, delusional, straight soldiers?

October 02, 2011 9:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It may not have been politically convenient for those GOP presidential debaters to speak up, but did every last one of them have to be such an ungrateful, unpatriotic coward?

Any politician who stands by silently while a US soldier on active duty fighting to defend our liberty is booed will never get my vote.

October 02, 2011 2:54 PM  
Anonymous Occupy DC said...

EVENT: Stop the Machine

TIME: Thursday, October 6th @ 9AM

LOCATION: Freedom Plaza, Washington DC




October 03, 2011 7:53 AM  
Blogger shaed said...

How many people turned right on red because the traffic sign got lost in the "no taxes" signs?

October 07, 2011 7:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

looks like the van in the picture is doing it

October 07, 2011 8:26 PM  
Blogger Stew said...

Residence Arkansas and would like to get your body pierced? How about enjoying cards in the state of Alabama? Should you choose, get ready to settle taxes for the purchase. Resulting from a lot of weird and simply foolish tax rules, these kinds of states get to demand taxes on these items and even more. Uncover what you're charged in taxes where you reside.

July 10, 2012 10:25 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home