The following is a brief exchange between me and run. I’ve posted it here because I think that the topic it focuses on deserves wider and deeper discussion and analysis.
Jack said…
My latest dream regarding my financial future is to one day have enough income to actually benefit from a Republican tax cut. Does anyone know what percentage of income earners did so under the Bush II tax cuts? Is there any prognostication regarding either Ryan’s or Trump’s proposals? Just how much income does one have to have to actually vote one’s own personal gain when voting Republican? This kind of information should be part of the general knowledge and discussed routinely between friends at the barber shop and local gin mill.
December 20, 2016 at 11:57 PM
Bill H aka run75441 said…
Jack:
The 1% of the taxpayers making greater than $500,000 annually.
December 28, 2016 at 10:33 PM
Jack said…
Yikes, I don’t even come close. Thank goodness I’ve been voting Democrat all these years, but I’m not sure I’ve seen, or experienced, any benefit from that habit. The wife and I retired two years ago and that made it all the more apparent that I’m paying taxes on the FICA taxes that are finally being paid back to me as benefits. Some how that seems very regressive; I pay taxes on the return of formerly paid taxes. It’s not as though I’m getting back a windfall on my FICA invested funds.
January 2, 2017 at 2:44 PM
The 1% making > $500,000 accrued 30+% of the 2001 tax break. There are < 1 million taxpayers in this group. The higher the income the more accrued to them with the 1 tenth of 1% gaining the most .
it seems regressive. but no more unfair that “double taxing” dividends.
no taxing is entirely “fair.” but there is always a rationale. in the case of the tax on your Social Security check, you are probably getting back more than three times what you put in. Of course much of this is inflation, but if i put money in the bank and earn interest at even less than the rate of inflation, i pay tax on that interest.
i think what it comes down to, at least to my small brain, is that you tax what’s easy to tax (count) and rely on “the market” to adjust for fairness.
for example, when you buy a bond, you pay taxes on the income. knowing that you factor it in when considering the interest on the bond and whether it’s “worth it.” it usually is.
the same is true about paying high tax rates for high income earners…. if you don’t think what’s left after taxes is worth the work you did to “earn” the money, just turn down the job.
easier than stewing about oh, the injustice of it all.
i think half of your SS, is tax exempt in any case (maybe only 15% is exempt if you are a very high earner). so you are getting a break on your tax on SS, and the idea, again, is that SS is insurance, so if you “don’t need” the insurance, then you pay taxes on the income. this works out a little different than just not paying the benefit to high earners.
in the latter case that would indeed be a cut in your income if you had nothing else coming in. but if your income is in the 50k range, a tax that includes tax on half or more of your SS, still leaves you with a “comfortable” income.
not justifying it, just sort of putting it in perspective.
Hmmm, so how much of an income haircut are the rest of us takinng to allow for a transfer of astronomical income to two hundred people.
“In 2015 the top 1% was an income greater than $250,000.
This is a big number,….”
I’ll say, and admit to have reached that number, though as two people income, a few times late in our careers. And we could live comfortably and be good to our children. So who the devil needs $50 million? And how many generations are benefiting from that one income. We’re living in a third world economy with everyone chipping in to the benefit of the few at the top of he pyramid. Are there really that many dumb ass voters who can’t see the truth of Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and their ilk? And its actually getting worse.
The words of the Immortal come back to me:
“When, then, will the people be educated? When they have enough bread to eat, and when the rich and the government cease bribing treacherous pens and tongues to deceive them; when their interests are identified with those of the people.
When will this be? Never.”
To answer the original question ( Does anyone know what percentage of income earners did so under the Bush II tax cuts?), since approximately 50% of taxpayers pay no federal income tax, then approximately 50% of taxpayers did benefit from the tax cuts. Of course, some people benefited much more than others, but that is always the case.
I understand that people that pay no income tax get no benefit. It is the idea that saying lower income people got tax cuts(without doing the math) that is offensive to me.
Cob,
This double taxation thing is pure bs. There are benefits that accrue to corporate investments. When you buy one, you accept those benefits that accrue.
‘[The] idea that saying lower income people got tax cuts (without doing the math) that is offensive to me.”
There is little math required. The lowest rate went from 15% to 10%, so anyone who was paying federal income taxes got a cut there. The standard deduction also went up. The Child Tax Credit went up from $500 to $1000 per child AND became refundable, so low-income people with children could actually have a NEGATIVE tax rate.
i agree about the “double taxation” complaint being somewhat dishonest … a kind of perverse misunderstanding of what “taxes” are.
nobody likes taxes. but the general idea in america is to tax those who can afford it. and the general idea among tax payers is to “tax the other guy” or lower taxes so the poor starve in the street until they are willing to work for nothing whenever the economy recovers.
had to laugh at paul ryan today. the “wonkish young gun” was explaining that “obamacare has failed. we have to understand that. obamacare is failing EVEN AS WE SPEAK!” yep, sound policy, sound argument, deep, wonkish analysis.
would any sane person vote for someone who thinks of himself as a “young gun”?
Republicans have had nearly 8 years to figure out a replacement for Obamacare. What makes anyone think they can do it now? They are Obstructionists, not Constructionists.
“Where in the Constitution did the States cede that power to the U.S. government?”
The Constitution means what the SCOTUS says it means, neither more nor less. The SCOTUS ruled explicitly that the ACA is Constitutional. Read the decision and all of the legal references cited. Simply bleating questions without bothering to read the answers doesn’t contribute to the discourse here.
Warren: you can think for yourself but Supreme Court rulings are the law regardless of what you think.
Why should the government provide a replacement for Obamacare? So that angry voters, deprived of their insurance coverage don’t throw the Republicans out on their asses. Wait. . . maybe the government shouldn’t provide a replacement.
I didn’t miss it. It was also after they reelected President Obama to his second term. It was also after the Civil War, the Bears’ 1985 Super Bowl, the Cubs’ World Series win, the Republicans’ promise to replace Obamacare with something truly, bigly, tremendous, and a lot of things.
“I accept SCOTUS rulings, unlike your trite bleats here on AB, are the law.”
I did not say otherwise. I simply asked Jerry where in the Constitution the States ceded that power to the U.S. government.
Even Sec. Clinton acknowledges that the Supremes rulings are the law, but she believes that DC v. Heller was wrongly decided. Is SHE just “bleating” when she makes such statements?
Warren: Odd that they reelected Obama, isn’t it? I guess those voters just aren’t rational.
Why do they have to replace Obamacare? You’re right that the constitution doesn’t require it although I didn’t notice anyone contending otherwise. It’s good old fashioned politics. Take something away from people, they blame you. How unreasonable of them but there you are.
” Is SHE just ābleatingā when she makes such statements?”
If her argument is “because unconstitutional,” yes. Please post a link to HRC’s statements concerning the constitutionality of DC v. Heller. Take all the time you need.
“Isnāt that the whole point of the Democrat Platform ā that people arenāt rational enough to take care of themselves, so the government has to do it?”
no actually. the democratic platform is that if the states are going to allow lynching of black people, the federal government is going to stop them.
but if you want to go back a few years, the platform was that if the holy pfree enterprise system is going to starve half the people, the people can, through their elected government, make some arrangements so the people don’t starve… making them available to fight wars to defend capitalism, and of course to provide workers to make the rich richer when they find the courage to start investing again.
if it was just a matter of the people being too stupid to take care of themselves, the government would have to put Warren in a home. he is so stupid he doesn’t know the government is taking care of him… as we speak… and took care of his dad, and his mom when he beat her… and his daddies before them even when they took up arms against the government.
The link you posted doesn’t quote HRC as stating that DC v. Heller is unconstitutional. It simply quotes her as saying the SCOTUS application of the 2nd Amendment in the case was wrongly applied. Can you spot the difference?
And anyone who quotes Breitbart as their source is unserious.
“the democratic platform is that
if the states are going to allow
lynching of black people, the
federal government is going to
stop them.”
But these words are just over the top. Where do you get this stuff? Do you fantasize things like this often?
“Warren – he is so stupid he doesnāt know
the government is taking care of himā¦
as we speakā¦ and took care of his dad,
and his mom when he beat herā¦ and his
daddies before them even when they
took up arms against the government.”
and did i mention Krasting is mentally ill. it doesn’t take a ph.d. to see that?
these are not fantasies, krasting. in your case it is serious diagnosis. in warren’s case it is part an accurate assessment of the state of his knowledge ot history, law, and the general conditions of life in america. with a little speculation about how he got that way.
now, a serious reader would have spotted the flaw in my citation of Statistical Abstracts..
I’ll leave it to any serious reader to discover it. no fun for me to give it away… especially as the actual facts might turn out not to be exactly what the “half of all taxpayers don’t pay any income tax” faction wants to imply.
oh, the bit about lynching blacks is just history. you might be too young to remember it, and it sure as hell isn’t likely you ever read any history besides the comic book version they gave you in Alabama.
“The link you posted doesnāt quote HRC as stating that DC v. Heller is unconstitutional. It simply quotes her as saying the SCOTUS application of the 2nd Amendment in the case was wrongly applied. Can you spot the difference?”
What is the difference between her says a decision is incorrect, and MY saying a decision is incorrect? Neither of us are saying that the ruling is not the current “law of the land,” only that the Supremes made the wrong decision.
Coberly, you are confusing the government’s proper role, protecting people from the predation of others, with an improper role, which is protecting people from the consequences of their own actions.
i am not confusing them. i am quite clear on the difference.
but it need not be either predation (as by bankers, which our government has strangely become indifferent to) or by “consequence of their own action.”
if a hurricane devastates your town, the government will help you. if a depression devastates your income… neither predation nor anything your actions could have prevented… the government will help you. unless the government is in the hands of those who think a depression “disciplines” the work force (to accept a less than living wage) and are themselves immune… for a while… from the effects of that depression.
thinking in cartoons does not help you understand what is going on, or what people will do to try to protect themselves.. even to the point of “conspiring” through something called government to protect themselves better by acting collectively than by trying to go it alone.
this is not the same as soviet communism, though people like you can’t tell the difference.
back in the day, people collectively built a fort to protect themselves from indians. worked better than standing out in the front yard like john wayne and picking them all off with your very own six shooter.
you could extrapolate from there.
meanwhile there are predators among us of great wealth and political influence. the government you are afraid of is in the hands of the people who keep yelling “private enterprise uber alles.”
so yes, we need to worry about government. but we need to be smart enough not to fall for the lies that would prevent us from acting together to protect ourselves from the top predators.
“What is the difference between her says [sic] a decision is incorrect, and MY saying a decision is incorrect? Neither of us are saying that the ruling is not the current ālaw of the land,ā only that the Supremes made the wrong decision.”
Now you’re moving the goalposts. You questioned the constitutionality of the ACA upthread. My response is that what is constitutional is determined by the SCOTUS. What you believe is “correct” or “incorrect” doesn’t interest me and has nothing whatsoever to do with the constitutionality of the ACA.
” protecting people from the consequences of their own actions.”
The problem is defining what “consequences of their own actions” means. To the libertarian right-wing, being poisoned by impure food or drugs or being injured or killed by faulty tires or cars are consequences of our own actions. It is an excuse to allow kids to grow up without educations and access to libraries (why should government be in the business of public schools or forced education?). It tolerates the Bernie Madoffs who steal by lies rather than by force. Blaming the victim.
Feh.
As a society, we “promote the general welfare” by making and enforcing laws that protect people from exploitation. If you believe that is socialism, you don’t understand the word. If you believe it is unconstitutional, tell it to the SCOTUS.
Joel, what YOU believe is correct or incorrect DOES interest me. So I will ask you again, Where do YOU see in the Constitution that the States have ceded that power to the U.S. government?
“As a society, we ‘promote the general welfare’ by making and enforcing laws that protect people from exploitation.”
Which is a right and proper function of government. If, however, you are simply too short-sighted to save for retirement, then there are two questions that need to be answered. First, is it the government’s job to protect you from the consequences of your stupidity? Second, which level of government has the power to do that?
My contention is NO, it is not the government’s job to protect you from your own stupidity. However, if your answer is YES to that question, then you have to answer the question, Where in the Constitution do the States cede that power to the U.S. government?
“[If] a hurricane devastates your town, the government will help you.”
So will the Salvation Army and the Red Cross. Where FEMA distributes resources to the States for such, it is fine, falling properly under the general welfare of the States. Where it gives aid directly to individuals, circumventing the States 9which do have the power to provide individual assistance), it is not.
“[If] a depression devastates your incomeā¦ neither predation nor anything your actions could have preventedā¦ the government will help you.”
Which prolonged the Great Depression (which the government itself caused).
“Back in the day, people collectively built a fort….”
And they didn’t need the government to do it for them.
when they built the fort they WERE the government. now that we have enemies bigger than a tribe of indians and some of them own banks we need a bigger government.
i guess the states ceded power to the feds when they asked to rejoin the union after the civil war.
salvation army and red cross don’t have the power or resources to do much good.
but we are back in stupidland.
i would add to joels reply to you, that even IF people are stupid, it is in my interest to protect them from their stupidity. i need their help which does not depend upon their being clever with the tax code.
again, we are back to the core idea of government:
if i am smart, i still need the help of people less smart if i am going to survive. i need to use my smarts to see that those people do not hurt themselves because they are less smart.
your idea is that if i am smart i need to use my smarts to get the better of people who are less smart… so i can use them while they are useful and watch them die when i (temporarily) don’t need their help.
not only is that stupid… of you… it is what someone more old fashioned than you might have called damned evil.
I suspect they are including transfer payments. If they are including Social Security and Medicare in those transfer payments, then I hope (but do not presume) that they are including FICA taxes, too.
The IRS gives different numbers, but does not consider transfer payments. For 2015, those between… $1 and $10k AGI had an effective tax rate of 2.65%, and those between $10k to $25k, 3.59%.
How do they get that 50% number? I don't really know. I assume many people (retired and unemployed) do not have to file. There are 69.1M joint returns and 53.9M individual returns, with 96.3M dependent exemptions. That accounts for 288.4M people out of a population of 320M, leaving 31.6M not accounted for. That's not going to get us to 50%, but only to 35%.
My only guess is that they throw in people who are getting transfer payments in excess of their income and payroll taxes.
“There are 69.1M joint returns and 53.9M individual returns, with 96.3M dependent exemptions.”
I guess there are some that would be on individual returns AND a dependent exemption on their parents’ returns, but I cannot expect that to be a big number at all.
Warren,
Your questions about “where in the constitution…” is meaningless and just wastes space and time. Such questions have been or will be answered by the Supreme Court. They are the arbitrator, not you.
On some blogs you would be considered a troll and thread highjacker.
Topical post and it would have happened. He has been trashed before. It still applies here at Angry Bear as well as with CoRev and others. I do read in the comments section. Then to, you could just ignore him. It does work.
Some of your answers are kind of dumb and you are being a _ _ _ _. For example, why does the US Government have to replace the PPACA? For one thing, no healthcare coverage is more costly to an economy than healthcare coverage of any type. Be a good commenter and knock it off. Take my comment for what it is worth. You always play near the edge . . .
Happy New Year, everyone!!
Looks like 2017 is going to be an odd one! š
The following is a brief exchange between me and run. I’ve posted it here because I think that the topic it focuses on deserves wider and deeper discussion and analysis.
Jack said…
My latest dream regarding my financial future is to one day have enough income to actually benefit from a Republican tax cut. Does anyone know what percentage of income earners did so under the Bush II tax cuts? Is there any prognostication regarding either Ryan’s or Trump’s proposals? Just how much income does one have to have to actually vote one’s own personal gain when voting Republican? This kind of information should be part of the general knowledge and discussed routinely between friends at the barber shop and local gin mill.
December 20, 2016 at 11:57 PM
Bill H aka run75441 said…
Jack:
The 1% of the taxpayers making greater than $500,000 annually.
December 28, 2016 at 10:33 PM
Jack said…
Yikes, I don’t even come close. Thank goodness I’ve been voting Democrat all these years, but I’m not sure I’ve seen, or experienced, any benefit from that habit. The wife and I retired two years ago and that made it all the more apparent that I’m paying taxes on the FICA taxes that are finally being paid back to me as benefits. Some how that seems very regressive; I pay taxes on the return of formerly paid taxes. It’s not as though I’m getting back a windfall on my FICA invested funds.
January 2, 2017 at 2:44 PM
Jack:
The 1% making > $500,000 accrued 30+% of the 2001 tax break. There are < 1 million taxpayers in this group. The higher the income the more accrued to them with the 1 tenth of 1% gaining the most .
The lowest tax bracket went from 15% to 10% with the 2001 tax cut, so everyone who paid federal income taxes was affected by that.
If you were maximizing your 401(k) or IRA contributions (and since you are a wise, economical type, I’m sure you were), those caps were increased.
“So everyone who paid federal income taxes was affected by that.”
Which means a huge amount of Americans got no tax break, while a small amount of Americans got huge tax breaks.
Why would you expect people who pay no federal income tax to get a break on their federal income tax?
jack
it seems regressive. but no more unfair that “double taxing” dividends.
no taxing is entirely “fair.” but there is always a rationale. in the case of the tax on your Social Security check, you are probably getting back more than three times what you put in. Of course much of this is inflation, but if i put money in the bank and earn interest at even less than the rate of inflation, i pay tax on that interest.
i think what it comes down to, at least to my small brain, is that you tax what’s easy to tax (count) and rely on “the market” to adjust for fairness.
for example, when you buy a bond, you pay taxes on the income. knowing that you factor it in when considering the interest on the bond and whether it’s “worth it.” it usually is.
the same is true about paying high tax rates for high income earners…. if you don’t think what’s left after taxes is worth the work you did to “earn” the money, just turn down the job.
easier than stewing about oh, the injustice of it all.
btw
i think half of your SS, is tax exempt in any case (maybe only 15% is exempt if you are a very high earner). so you are getting a break on your tax on SS, and the idea, again, is that SS is insurance, so if you “don’t need” the insurance, then you pay taxes on the income. this works out a little different than just not paying the benefit to high earners.
in the latter case that would indeed be a cut in your income if you had nothing else coming in. but if your income is in the 50k range, a tax that includes tax on half or more of your SS, still leaves you with a “comfortable” income.
not justifying it, just sort of putting it in perspective.
congratulations on being in a higher tax bracket.
In 2015 the top 1% was an income greater than $250,000.
This is a big number, but if you live in a city and have kids this is not “rich”.
2 million people made it to the 1%.
202 people made more than $50 million.
https://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/netcomp.cgi?year=2015
BK:
Not to argue with you; but, in 2015 the numbers at 1% were ~1.1 million average $ = $2.1 million. The 1 tenth of 1% were ~115,000 average ~ $9.4 million. Pretax dollars. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/model-estimates/distribution-individual-income-tax-expenditures-2015-model-version-0515/tax-28
Krasting,
“202 people made more than $50 million.”
Hmmm, so how much of an income haircut are the rest of us takinng to allow for a transfer of astronomical income to two hundred people.
“In 2015 the top 1% was an income greater than $250,000.
This is a big number,….”
I’ll say, and admit to have reached that number, though as two people income, a few times late in our careers. And we could live comfortably and be good to our children. So who the devil needs $50 million? And how many generations are benefiting from that one income. We’re living in a third world economy with everyone chipping in to the benefit of the few at the top of he pyramid. Are there really that many dumb ass voters who can’t see the truth of Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and their ilk? And its actually getting worse.
The words of the Immortal come back to me:
“When, then, will the people be educated? When they have enough bread to eat, and when the rich and the government cease bribing treacherous pens and tongues to deceive them; when their interests are identified with those of the people.
When will this be? Never.”
jack
if i understand your question
if those 202 people each gave all of their 50 million dollars away to us.
each of the 200 million of us workers would get 50 dollars.
To answer the original question ( Does anyone know what percentage of income earners did so under the Bush II tax cuts?), since approximately 50% of taxpayers pay no federal income tax, then approximately 50% of taxpayers did benefit from the tax cuts. Of course, some people benefited much more than others, but that is always the case.
Warren,
I understand that people that pay no income tax get no benefit. It is the idea that saying lower income people got tax cuts(without doing the math) that is offensive to me.
Cob,
This double taxation thing is pure bs. There are benefits that accrue to corporate investments. When you buy one, you accept those benefits that accrue.
Calling it double taxation is inane.
‘[The] idea that saying lower income people got tax cuts (without doing the math) that is offensive to me.”
There is little math required. The lowest rate went from 15% to 10%, so anyone who was paying federal income taxes got a cut there. The standard deduction also went up. The Child Tax Credit went up from $500 to $1000 per child AND became refundable, so low-income people with children could actually have a NEGATIVE tax rate.
EM
i agree about the “double taxation” complaint being somewhat dishonest … a kind of perverse misunderstanding of what “taxes” are.
nobody likes taxes. but the general idea in america is to tax those who can afford it. and the general idea among tax payers is to “tax the other guy” or lower taxes so the poor starve in the street until they are willing to work for nothing whenever the economy recovers.
had to laugh at paul ryan today. the “wonkish young gun” was explaining that “obamacare has failed. we have to understand that. obamacare is failing EVEN AS WE SPEAK!” yep, sound policy, sound argument, deep, wonkish analysis.
would any sane person vote for someone who thinks of himself as a “young gun”?
Republicans have had nearly 8 years to figure out a replacement for Obamacare. What makes anyone think they can do it now? They are Obstructionists, not Constructionists.
Jerry, why should the U.S. government provide any such replacement? Where in the Constitution did the States cede that power to the U.S. government?
“Where in the Constitution did the States cede that power to the U.S. government?”
The Constitution means what the SCOTUS says it means, neither more nor less. The SCOTUS ruled explicitly that the ACA is Constitutional. Read the decision and all of the legal references cited. Simply bleating questions without bothering to read the answers doesn’t contribute to the discourse here.
Ah, yes, the folks who said, “It is NOT a tax, so we can vote on it; it IS a tax, so it’s constitutional.”
Is that really the best you’ve got? Do you just blindly accept all Supreme Court rulings without thinking for yourself?
Warren: you can think for yourself but Supreme Court rulings are the law regardless of what you think.
Why should the government provide a replacement for Obamacare? So that angry voters, deprived of their insurance coverage don’t throw the Republicans out on their asses. Wait. . . maybe the government shouldn’t provide a replacement.
Maybe you missed it, but after the Democrats passed Obamacare, the voters threw THEM out on their asses.
I didn’t miss it. It was also after they reelected President Obama to his second term. It was also after the Civil War, the Bears’ 1985 Super Bowl, the Cubs’ World Series win, the Republicans’ promise to replace Obamacare with something truly, bigly, tremendous, and a lot of things.
“Do you just blindly accept all Supreme Court rulings without thinking for yourself?”
I accept SCOTUS rulings, unlike your trite bleats here on AB, are the law. Blindness is pretending otherwise.
“I didnāt miss it. It was also after they reelected President Obama to his second term.”
Actually, it was his first midterm.
“I accept SCOTUS rulings, unlike your trite bleats here on AB, are the law.”
I did not say otherwise. I simply asked Jerry where in the Constitution the States ceded that power to the U.S. government.
Even Sec. Clinton acknowledges that the Supremes rulings are the law, but she believes that DC v. Heller was wrongly decided. Is SHE just “bleating” when she makes such statements?
Warren: Odd that they reelected Obama, isn’t it? I guess those voters just aren’t rational.
Why do they have to replace Obamacare? You’re right that the constitution doesn’t require it although I didn’t notice anyone contending otherwise. It’s good old fashioned politics. Take something away from people, they blame you. How unreasonable of them but there you are.
” Is SHE just ābleatingā when she makes such statements?”
If her argument is “because unconstitutional,” yes. Please post a link to HRC’s statements concerning the constitutionality of DC v. Heller. Take all the time you need.
“The Supreme Court is WRONG on the Second Amendment”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/10/hillary-clinton-supreme-court-is-wrong-on-the-second-amendment/
“Odd that they reelected Obama, isnāt it? I guess those voters just arenāt rational.”
Isn’t that the whole point of the Democrat Platform — that people aren’t rational enough to take care of themselves, so the government has to do it?
somewhere up there i thought i heard that half the people don’t pay federal income tax.
Statistical Abstracts say they do. my experience also.
effective tax rates for incomes
less than 13k is 3%
to 20k is 4% to 5%
to 40k is 6%
and that’s half of all returns.
above that you have effective rate
40 to 100k 9%
to 200 k is 13%
to 500 k is 20%
to 1 m is 24%
over 1 m is 25%
the last year i have data for is 2006. if you think things have changed please cite your source.
if the supreme court is wrong about the 2nd Amendment
it was wrong about Bush v Gore
can we have a do-over?
Warren said
“Isnāt that the whole point of the Democrat Platform ā that people arenāt rational enough to take care of themselves, so the government has to do it?”
no actually. the democratic platform is that if the states are going to allow lynching of black people, the federal government is going to stop them.
but if you want to go back a few years, the platform was that if the holy pfree enterprise system is going to starve half the people, the people can, through their elected government, make some arrangements so the people don’t starve… making them available to fight wars to defend capitalism, and of course to provide workers to make the rich richer when they find the courage to start investing again.
if it was just a matter of the people being too stupid to take care of themselves, the government would have to put Warren in a home. he is so stupid he doesn’t know the government is taking care of him… as we speak… and took care of his dad, and his mom when he beat her… and his daddies before them even when they took up arms against the government.
@Warren,
The link you posted doesn’t quote HRC as stating that DC v. Heller is unconstitutional. It simply quotes her as saying the SCOTUS application of the 2nd Amendment in the case was wrongly applied. Can you spot the difference?
And anyone who quotes Breitbart as their source is unserious.
Coberly – I was put off buy these words:
“the democratic platform is that
if the states are going to allow
lynching of black people, the
federal government is going to
stop them.”
But these words are just over the top. Where do you get this stuff? Do you fantasize things like this often?
“Warren – he is so stupid he doesnāt know
the government is taking care of himā¦
as we speakā¦ and took care of his dad,
and his mom when he beat herā¦ and his
daddies before them even when they
took up arms against the government.”
and did i mention Krasting is mentally ill. it doesn’t take a ph.d. to see that?
these are not fantasies, krasting. in your case it is serious diagnosis. in warren’s case it is part an accurate assessment of the state of his knowledge ot history, law, and the general conditions of life in america. with a little speculation about how he got that way.
now, a serious reader would have spotted the flaw in my citation of Statistical Abstracts..
I’ll leave it to any serious reader to discover it. no fun for me to give it away… especially as the actual facts might turn out not to be exactly what the “half of all taxpayers don’t pay any income tax” faction wants to imply.
oh, the bit about lynching blacks is just history. you might be too young to remember it, and it sure as hell isn’t likely you ever read any history besides the comic book version they gave you in Alabama.
“The link you posted doesnāt quote HRC as stating that DC v. Heller is unconstitutional. It simply quotes her as saying the SCOTUS application of the 2nd Amendment in the case was wrongly applied. Can you spot the difference?”
What is the difference between her says a decision is incorrect, and MY saying a decision is incorrect? Neither of us are saying that the ruling is not the current “law of the land,” only that the Supremes made the wrong decision.
Coberly, you are confusing the government’s proper role, protecting people from the predation of others, with an improper role, which is protecting people from the consequences of their own actions.
no, Warren
i am not confusing them. i am quite clear on the difference.
but it need not be either predation (as by bankers, which our government has strangely become indifferent to) or by “consequence of their own action.”
if a hurricane devastates your town, the government will help you. if a depression devastates your income… neither predation nor anything your actions could have prevented… the government will help you. unless the government is in the hands of those who think a depression “disciplines” the work force (to accept a less than living wage) and are themselves immune… for a while… from the effects of that depression.
thinking in cartoons does not help you understand what is going on, or what people will do to try to protect themselves.. even to the point of “conspiring” through something called government to protect themselves better by acting collectively than by trying to go it alone.
this is not the same as soviet communism, though people like you can’t tell the difference.
back in the day, people collectively built a fort to protect themselves from indians. worked better than standing out in the front yard like john wayne and picking them all off with your very own six shooter.
you could extrapolate from there.
meanwhile there are predators among us of great wealth and political influence. the government you are afraid of is in the hands of the people who keep yelling “private enterprise uber alles.”
so yes, we need to worry about government. but we need to be smart enough not to fall for the lies that would prevent us from acting together to protect ourselves from the top predators.
@Warren,
“What is the difference between her says [sic] a decision is incorrect, and MY saying a decision is incorrect? Neither of us are saying that the ruling is not the current ālaw of the land,ā only that the Supremes made the wrong decision.”
Now you’re moving the goalposts. You questioned the constitutionality of the ACA upthread. My response is that what is constitutional is determined by the SCOTUS. What you believe is “correct” or “incorrect” doesn’t interest me and has nothing whatsoever to do with the constitutionality of the ACA.
” protecting people from the consequences of their own actions.”
The problem is defining what “consequences of their own actions” means. To the libertarian right-wing, being poisoned by impure food or drugs or being injured or killed by faulty tires or cars are consequences of our own actions. It is an excuse to allow kids to grow up without educations and access to libraries (why should government be in the business of public schools or forced education?). It tolerates the Bernie Madoffs who steal by lies rather than by force. Blaming the victim.
Feh.
As a society, we “promote the general welfare” by making and enforcing laws that protect people from exploitation. If you believe that is socialism, you don’t understand the word. If you believe it is unconstitutional, tell it to the SCOTUS.
Joel, what YOU believe is correct or incorrect DOES interest me. So I will ask you again, Where do YOU see in the Constitution that the States have ceded that power to the U.S. government?
“As a society, we ‘promote the general welfare’ by making and enforcing laws that protect people from exploitation.”
Which is a right and proper function of government. If, however, you are simply too short-sighted to save for retirement, then there are two questions that need to be answered. First, is it the government’s job to protect you from the consequences of your stupidity? Second, which level of government has the power to do that?
My contention is NO, it is not the government’s job to protect you from your own stupidity. However, if your answer is YES to that question, then you have to answer the question, Where in the Constitution do the States cede that power to the U.S. government?
“[If] a hurricane devastates your town, the government will help you.”
So will the Salvation Army and the Red Cross. Where FEMA distributes resources to the States for such, it is fine, falling properly under the general welfare of the States. Where it gives aid directly to individuals, circumventing the States 9which do have the power to provide individual assistance), it is not.
“[If] a depression devastates your incomeā¦ neither predation nor anything your actions could have preventedā¦ the government will help you.”
Which prolonged the Great Depression (which the government itself caused).
“Back in the day, people collectively built a fort….”
And they didn’t need the government to do it for them.
Warren
when they built the fort they WERE the government. now that we have enemies bigger than a tribe of indians and some of them own banks we need a bigger government.
i guess the states ceded power to the feds when they asked to rejoin the union after the civil war.
salvation army and red cross don’t have the power or resources to do much good.
but we are back in stupidland.
i would add to joels reply to you, that even IF people are stupid, it is in my interest to protect them from their stupidity. i need their help which does not depend upon their being clever with the tax code.
again, we are back to the core idea of government:
if i am smart, i still need the help of people less smart if i am going to survive. i need to use my smarts to see that those people do not hurt themselves because they are less smart.
your idea is that if i am smart i need to use my smarts to get the better of people who are less smart… so i can use them while they are useful and watch them die when i (temporarily) don’t need their help.
not only is that stupid… of you… it is what someone more old fashioned than you might have called damned evil.
I’m sorry I missed your previous comment on effective tax rates, Coberly. Do you have a source?
TaxFoundation.org has rather lower numbers: -14% for <$15k, -5% for $15k to $30k.
http://taxfoundation.org/blog/chart-day-effective-tax-rates-income-categoryhttp://taxfoundation.org/blog/chart-day-effective-tax-rates-income-category
I suspect they are including transfer payments. If they are including Social Security and Medicare in those transfer payments, then I hope (but do not presume) that they are including FICA taxes, too.
The IRS gives different numbers, but does not consider transfer payments. For 2015, those between… $1 and $10k AGI had an effective tax rate of 2.65%, and those between $10k to $25k, 3.59%.
However, just under 75% of the 147,766,770 returns had a tax liability.
https://www.irs.gov/uac/soi-tax-stats-historic-table-2
How do they get that 50% number? I don't really know. I assume many people (retired and unemployed) do not have to file. There are 69.1M joint returns and 53.9M individual returns, with 96.3M dependent exemptions. That accounts for 288.4M people out of a population of 320M, leaving 31.6M not accounted for. That's not going to get us to 50%, but only to 35%.
My only guess is that they throw in people who are getting transfer payments in excess of their income and payroll taxes.
“[I] guess the [States] ceded power to the feds when they asked to rejoin the [Union] after the [War of Northern Aggression].”
Show me that in the Constitution. When did the Union States cede that power?
“[The Salvation Army] and [The Red Cross] donāt have the power or resources to do much good.”
Why not?
“[Even] IF people are stupid, it is in my interest to protect them from their stupidity.”
Then I suggest you contribute more to the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, and other charities.
“[I] need their help which does not depend upon their being clever with the tax code.”
Wait — the TAX CODE is what makes them poor?
“[Your] idea is that if [I] am smart [I] need to use my smarts to get the better of people who are less smart….”
Saving for your own retirement is “[getting] the better of people who are less smart”?
“There are 69.1M joint returns and 53.9M individual returns, with 96.3M dependent exemptions.”
I guess there are some that would be on individual returns AND a dependent exemption on their parents’ returns, but I cannot expect that to be a big number at all.
Warren,
Your questions about “where in the constitution…” is meaningless and just wastes space and time. Such questions have been or will be answered by the Supreme Court. They are the arbitrator, not you.
On some blogs you would be considered a troll and thread highjacker.
Jerry:
Topical post and it would have happened. He has been trashed before. It still applies here at Angry Bear as well as with CoRev and others. I do read in the comments section. Then to, you could just ignore him. It does work.
Jerry, are you really incapable of reading the Constitution and forming your own opinions?
Warren:
Some of your answers are kind of dumb and you are being a _ _ _ _. For example, why does the US Government have to replace the PPACA? For one thing, no healthcare coverage is more costly to an economy than healthcare coverage of any type. Be a good commenter and knock it off. Take my comment for what it is worth. You always play near the edge . . .
People had health insurance before the ACA. Why would they not be able to do so after it is gone?
Do not be silly . . . you already know why