Tea Party

[Cheering472]

That's because under Clinton the top 5% were burdended with paying over 70% of all the revenue the federal government took in, while middle income (top 26% to 50% of earners) paid far less - around 15%. Bush pushed the top 5% burden down to around 61%, while also decreasing the middle class contribution levels to around 10%. The top 25% of earners currently foot the bill for 87% of all federal revenue the government takes in, a vast majority of which benefits the lower 75%!

The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data

That's right. Doesn't that just repeat exactly what I said; that the tax burden is not constantly on one group? Obama is now letting it shift back. It won't be permanent. This is like being at the playground, while on the see-saw you are up and down. Just hang on, it'll change.

 

[scooterbug44]

The Obamas paid $855,323 in federal taxes, $78,765 in state income taxes, and contributed $172,050 to charity. ($1,106,138 total)

So, approximately 41% of their income went to taxes and charity.

You may not like his tax policies or his politics, but at least they are putting their money where their mouths are.

 

[30ashopper]

That's right. Doesn't that just repeat exactly what I said; that the tax burden is not constantly on one group? Obama is now letting it shift back. It won't be permanent. This is like being at the playground, while on the see-saw you are up and down. Just hang on, it'll change.

Well, the shifts though don't solve a core problem - decreasing wages for the middle class caused by competition through globalization. Democrats love to decry the drop in wages but the only solution they seem to have is to wallpaper over the problem with redistribtion. Demonizing Bush's "tax cuts for the rich" which were in fact "tax cuts for all" is just a scape goat. We're not solving the core problem. You can't drop lower and middle income tax rates down to zero or below.

 

[30ashopper]

The Obamas paid $855,323 in federal taxes, $78,765 in state income taxes, and contributed $172,050 to charity. ($1,106,138 total)

So, approximately 41% of their income went to taxes and charity.

You may not like his tax policies or his politics, but at least they are putting their money where their mouths are.

I commend him for it, but should he have the right to force the same contributions on everyone else at his income level?

 

[Lynnie]

The Obamas paid $855,323 in federal taxes, $78,765 in state income taxes, and contributed $172,050 to charity. ($1,106,138 total)

So, approximately 41% of their income went to taxes and charity.

You may not like his tax policies or his politics, but at least they are putting their money where their mouths are.

Dang, that's a lot of money. They made $2,697,898. Was most of that from the book?

I think I'm gonna a write a book. All Y'all get a chapter......it will be juicy, too! Similar to War & Peace :funn:

 

[poppy]

where were the teabaggers during gw's reign of terror?

Sitting on their asses eating "Freedom Fries". These teabagging parties will acheive the same goal, expending huge amounts of energy to benefit no one.

 

[hnooe]

So, that means YOU and hnooe are Republicans?

No Ms. Kitty. I'm just your everyday angry Socialist But the household here is in the upper 5. Yes, we are glutons for punishment, but we are patriotic!

 

[TooFarTampa]

Well, the shifts though don't solve a core problem - decreasing wages for the middle class caused by competition through globalization. Democrats love to decry the drop in wages but the only solution they seem to have is to wallpaper over the problem with redistribtion. Demonizing Bush's "tax cuts for the rich" which were in fact "tax cuts for all" is just a scape goat. We're not solving the core problem. You can't drop lower and middle income tax rates down to zero or below.

But Obama is actually making attempts to solve some of our core problems; who knows if he will succeed but I admire him for it. You can't really accuse him of wallpapering over most of our biggest issues.

I commend him for it, but should he have the right to force the same contributions on everyone else at his income level?

He and Congress will be letting tax cuts expire, just as was designed by Bush and the Republicans way back in the day. So whose fault is it?

 

[Lynnie]

But Obama is actually making attempts to solve some of our core problems; who knows if he will succeed but I admire him for it. You can't really accuse him of wallpapering over most of our biggest issues.



He and Congress will be letting tax cuts expire, just as was designed by Bush and the Republicans way back in the day. So whose fault is it?

Unless the wallpaper is green and has Franklins and Grants on them.

Sorry, just kidding - couldn't resist. I like the attempt and the desire. To date, am not digging the way. ;-)

 

[30ashopper]

But Obama is actually making attempts to solve some of our core problems; who knows if he will succeed but I admire him for it. You can't really accuse him of wallpapering over most of our biggest issues.

Well, I'll wait to see on that, his solutions during the campaign for the core problems I see as most important weren't very good.

He and Congress will be letting tax cuts expire, just as was designed by Bush and the Republicans way back in the day. So whose fault is it?

The democrats that refused to vote for the bills unless there was a time out?