ptarmigan

Those people would have voted for the dems either way (and the 47% number includes a lot of groups that just do not earn enough to be taxed, so not really the "moocher" class, in fact many of them are tea party supporters).

No, the Republicans lost because people like me have had it with the religious right. I would not ordinarily have even looked at this, but I have to say I mostly agreed with the sentiment.

FDXLAG

Considering 70 million Americans and illegal aliens receive the Earned Income Tax Credit I doubt if the majority of the 47% pay any net SS or medicare taxes.

FDXLAG

Why yes the 47% do include a lot of groups that dont earn enough to be taxed. I had not thought of that. I wonder why they vote for dems who like to spend tax money. What a mystery.

Good for you, you really stuck it to them. Dont worry cutting off your nose to spite your face isnt a biblical reference, you dont have to tear your eyes out for reading it. I guess we have the moocher class and the idiot class.

Flightnurse

One can talk economics and business theory all they want but in the end unlike physics it is all dealing with humans who are full of emotion (greed, pride,power lust, anger as well as love compassion and honor) and therefore unpredictable. There is no utopian society as much as we would want it.It is still sad to see how this left right divide can cause so much hate and no desire for understanding.

On another note, after reading these posts about fairness in taxation I was reminded of this:
41 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents.
43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”Mark 12:41-44
The hallmark of a great society including it's government is how it looks after its most vunerable. With the size and complexity of our society it means that reliance on voluntary organizations and donations to help those most vunerable is not realistic.

Lastly this is Nov 11 Veterans day, Remembrance day in Canada. It is a day to honor our veterans. They not only fought for liberty and freedom but to make ours a great society for everyone.

Peace to all

FLMD11CAPT

There are no "funny numbers" here......in Fact these are the only "Real" numbers in this paragraph. The bottom 47% of wage earners pay NO tax, the next 33% of wage earners pay 6.9% of all revenues collected and the top 20% pay 94.1% of all revenues collected. Those are real, hard numbers. And those "loopholes" you mention are available (plus many more that are not available to the top 20%, ie:retirement savings, daycare, education expenses etc.) to all wage earners. What you are railing about is that the top 20% are smart enough to invest their money, allow it to generate income which is then taxed at the current capitol gains rate of 15% (which is available to all wage earners by the way). So, by your own definition of fair share, paying the least percentage you can, why does that not apply to everyone?

FDXLAG

Carefull if you say the J word you scare off the anti-values voters. Will the Temple take my Obamaphone?

JamesNoBrakes

Ahh yes, the republican doctrine: "If you don't agree with me, you must be lazy and not work"

Again, you still don't get it...

JamesNoBrakes

Well, to some extent, but that's their own foot that the republicans shoot themselves in by not saying what loopholes would be closed, how they'd ensure that the top income earners would pay at least as much in taxes (%) as the middle class, etc. The numbers posted here say one huge thing, that there is a huge disparity between the top income earners and even middle class, not to mention lower class. This maybe isn't always inherently a bad thing, but you got to take that into account and make sure people can believe in "reaching" those higher classes. When you are allowed to shift money around to avoid taxes, it only keeps the rich richer. There was some huge issue with the republicans addressing these things for some reason.

When I think about tax rates, I'd like to compare it to the middle class most of the time. As stated by a number of earlier posts, you are not going to gain all that much revenue from lower classes, besides below a certain point they won't be able to sustain themselves and pay for basic things.

Gunter: Perhaps you've missed the news where the bush tax cuts would not be extended to the wealthy? It was maybe 2 days ago that I read this. It's in direct conflict with your claim of: "while you would limit deductions for all, the Democrats in charge have not and will not. In fact they will do just the opposite if left to their own devices."

No, this isn't some hail-mary pass that's going to magically fix the economy and we'll live happily ever after, we're past that point IMO. This is about actually cutting spending and making the tax code more fair across the line.

Busboy

That's too funny. Check your math.

FDXLAG

What a koinkydink:

Record High Enrollment for Food Stamps: 46,681,833 | The Weekly Standard

I get it completely. Obama got 100% of the vote in some precints in philly. Think they were the rich ones?