Talk Radio and my friends who listen to it
keep talking about the unfairness of lower income people paying little or no
income tax. But the issue is more complicated than the talk radio pundits
present it. The New York Times wrote an interesting column on the issue.
"That’s the portion of American households that owe no income
tax for 2009. The number is up from 38 percent in 2007, and it has become a
popular talking
point on cable television and talk radio. With Tax Day coming
on Thursday, 47 percent has become shorthand for the notion that the wealthy
face a much higher tax burden than they once did while growing numbers of
Americans are effectively on the dole."
"Neither one of those ideas is true. They rely on a cleverly
selective reading of the facts. So does the 47 percent number."
________________________________________________________________________
From my Conservative friend Fudgeman
Thanks for the insights into the tactics of the left to both obfuscate issues and gain readers.
For those of us not afflicted with ADD (or those responding well to medication), these tactics are all too transparent.
First you announce a good article on the topic of 46% / 47% who pay no federal income tax. You provide a link.
The link is to your webpage, where you take pots shots at talk radio and cable TV audiences, before providing yet another link to the actual NY Times story. (What, no advertising on your page?)
The NY Times piece begins by acknowledging 47% paid no (federal) income tax in 2009.
By the third paragraph, it says the figure is not true.
By the ninth paragraph, it says the figure is not wrong. (I saw this gag once in an Eddie Izard comedy routine: "Englebert Humperdink is dead.... No he isn't..... Yes he is, really....No he isn't.")
Of course between paragraphs three and nine is a lot of liberal rubbish filler about the need for more taxes through higher rates on the affluent.
In paragraph 10, we read that if you add the words "federal income" before the word tax, then yes indeed, 47% don't pay it. Excuse me! That's what we were talking about to begin with!
Paragraph 10 goes on to say those 47% who pay no federal income taxes are actually likely to be paying other taxes (just like the rest of us also pay), so they are not getting off entirely tax-free. No shit! What a surprise! Would the Times like also like to pin good citizenship medals on them?
Paragraph 11 drops a little bomb saying that 10% of households pay no net federal taxes....of any kind....not even federal payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. (They had to bury that one in the middle of the piece, after most of their readers stopped paying close attention.)
By the time we get to paragraph 14, we've learned that the middle 20% of households...that's solidly middle class territory by definition...is paying, after factoring in credits, a whopping 3 percent income tax rate. (Another bomb, buried past the point of the ADD-afflicted to comprehend.)
Enough already. Let's just say that the case for piling more taxes on the wealthy job creators has NOT been made. (But, at least you drove some traffic to yours and the Times websites.) When you have about half of the country already picking up the tab for their own share of federal services plus those of the other half, you have to conclude that liberals are taking you for one cynical wild bullshit ride with a line like "paying your fair share."
By the way, the WSJ today nicely recounts the new taxes already set to be piled on to the wealthy (despite the extension of Bush-era income tax rates), thanks to ObamaCare.
___________________________________________________________________
My response to the Fudgeman
Fudgeman wrote:
"Thanks for the insights into the tactics of the left to both obfuscate issues and gain readers."
Craig. You are welcome. Always glad to help.
Fudgeman "For those of us not afflicted with ADD (or those responding well to medication), these tactics are all too transparent."
Craig - Well, you got me there. I never thought you would see through me. I was wrong.
Fudge "First you announce a good article on the topic of 46%/47% who pay no federal income tax. You provide a link."
"The link is to your webpage, where you take pots shots at talk radio and cable TV audiences, before providing yet another link to the actual NY Times story. (What, no advertising on your page?)"
CH - Good idea, but I need some readership first. My mother doesn't even read it.
Fudge "Paragraph 11 drops a little bomb saying that 10% of households pay no net federal taxes....of any kind....not even federal payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. (They had to bury that one in the middle of the piece, after most of their readers stopped paying close attention.)"
CH - Can you believe those deadbeats are not paying Federal tax? Shocking. They are leading the life of Riley, living on the streets and in public housing and not contributing as they should. The SCOUNDRELS!
Fudge "Enough already. Let's just say that the case for piling more taxes on the wealthy job creators has NOT been made. (But, at least you drove some traffic to yours and the Times websites.) When you have about half of the country already picking up the tab for their own share of federal services plus those of the other half, you have to conclude that liberals are taking you for one cynical wild bullshit ride with a line like "paying your fair share."
Craig. Affluent Conservatives are convinced that taxes should not be increased, or if they are increased, make sure it is on the poor. Liberals are convinced that taxes should be raised to make sure all entitlements can be paid to their constituents.
What will Congress do? Pretty sure they will increase the debt limit. I don't think they are crazy enough not to, but who knows? There are some whackos up there and we keep electing more.
I think Congress will agree to some tax increase, probably letting the Bush tax cuts of 2% expire in 2012. And they will do some cuts in Medicare, social security, military, and Federal pensions.
And that is all they probably can or will do, and it is probably enough.
Fudgeman, I think you approach this as an aggrieved guy who is being screwed by the govmint and is not going to take it any longer. Hear lots of this on Rush's show and other talk radio.
But I think a more logical approach is to consider yourself an owner of a very important corporation, the US. Your corporation finds itself in trouble - not enough revenue and having made a lot of promises to folks about what they will pay.
And as an owner of this corporation you can advise and direct the Corporate Board and CEO on steps to correct the dilemma. They must either:
1. Increase Revenue
2. Decrease expense
3. Or Both
Politics is the art of compromise. I predict 3, which is what I think is right.
______________________________________
Furdgeman responds
Craig said,
"But I think a more logical approach is to consider yourself a owner of a very important corporation, the US. Your corporation finds itself in trouble - not enough revenue and having made a lot of promises to folks about what they will pay."
Fudgeman "Craig, I think what you tend to find in the private sector, is that when revenues drop off from slack customer spending, is that you cut your costs. Cut prices if you can, find efficiencies, reduce labor costs, maybe eliminate underperforming product lines or stores. Or invent better, more compelling products. You adjust to the economics of the moment.
__________________________________________
Craig responds
Good point. But as a corporation you have made a lot of long term commitments - money that you owe. Hard to cut that.
Let us discuss costs one at a time so we don't get lost in the details - one that we are all closely involved with, and that is in some financial difficulty - Social Security.
Most of us have paid into Social Security for many years, and can anticipate getting money back for the rest of our lives. And we have been getting annual reports that show us how much we have "invested" over the years, and how much our Govmint says it will pay us over the rest of our lives.
The experts all tell us SS will be broke. So we have some tough choices. We could:
1. Renege on the amount we told retirees we would pay them - cut costs. Pay them (us) 80 or 90% of what they told us in writing they would pay.
2. Increase revenue - ie payroll tax. So you would likely like this tax since it falls on those lower income rascals who have been living off the fat of the land. But the younger folks think it is all a scam - they are paying pretty high payroll tax to pay for us - and they think there will be nothing for them.
3. Or reduce the COLA, or don't pay it to affluent folks, extend the age that you get full SS, etc.
All tough choices. Not popular, whatever you do. Politicians hate to make choices like this - so do we.
Now whose fault is all this? Social Security is a program that has been around for a long time and is quite popular. It keeps keep old folks from eating dog food and in the streets.
Is it Obama or Bush's fault? Or the Democratic or Republican Congress? Shared blame all around.
The fault is demographic - the pig in the python, us, the baby boomers who are now retiring.
Much of the problem resolves after we kick - since the pig is dead and won't be drawing social security. The system balances.
In the meantime our elected Reps have to make a tough decision. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Now where we can fault them is for not acting sooner. When they raised the full retirement age to 67 they should have probably raised it to 69 or 70. And we were affected by this change but were not outraged since it was far down the pipe.
Fudgeman wrote:
"Thanks for the insights into the tactics of the left to both obfuscate issues and gain readers."
Craig. You are welcome. Always glad to help.
Fudgeman "For those of us not afflicted with ADD (or those responding well to medication), these tactics are all too transparent."
Craig - Well, you got me there. I never thought you would see through me. I was wrong.
Fudge "First you announce a good article on the topic of 46%/47% who pay no federal income tax. You provide a link."
"The link is to your webpage, where you take pots shots at talk radio and cable TV audiences, before providing yet another link to the actual NY Times story. (What, no advertising on your page?)"
CH - Good idea, but I need some readership first. My mother doesn't even read it.
Fudge "Paragraph 11 drops a little bomb saying that 10% of households pay no net federal taxes....of any kind....not even federal payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. (They had to bury that one in the middle of the piece, after most of their readers stopped paying close attention.)"
CH - Can you believe those deadbeats are not paying Federal tax? Shocking. They are leading the life of Riley, living on the streets and in public housing and not contributing as they should. The SCOUNDRELS!
Fudge "Enough already. Let's just say that the case for piling more taxes on the wealthy job creators has NOT been made. (But, at least you drove some traffic to yours and the Times websites.) When you have about half of the country already picking up the tab for their own share of federal services plus those of the other half, you have to conclude that liberals are taking you for one cynical wild bullshit ride with a line like "paying your fair share."
Craig. Affluent Conservatives are convinced that taxes should not be increased, or if they are increased, make sure it is on the poor. Liberals are convinced that taxes should be raised to make sure all entitlements can be paid to their constituents.
What will Congress do? Pretty sure they will increase the debt limit. I don't think they are crazy enough not to, but who knows? There are some whackos up there and we keep electing more.
I think Congress will agree to some tax increase, probably letting the Bush tax cuts of 2% expire in 2012. And they will do some cuts in Medicare, social security, military, and Federal pensions.
And that is all they probably can or will do, and it is probably enough.
Fudgeman, I think you approach this as an aggrieved guy who is being screwed by the govmint and is not going to take it any longer. Hear lots of this on Rush's show and other talk radio.
But I think a more logical approach is to consider yourself an owner of a very important corporation, the US. Your corporation finds itself in trouble - not enough revenue and having made a lot of promises to folks about what they will pay.
And as an owner of this corporation you can advise and direct the Corporate Board and CEO on steps to correct the dilemma. They must either:
1. Increase Revenue
2. Decrease expense
3. Or Both
Politics is the art of compromise. I predict 3, which is what I think is right.
______________________________________
Furdgeman responds
Craig said,
"But I think a more logical approach is to consider yourself a owner of a very important corporation, the US. Your corporation finds itself in trouble - not enough revenue and having made a lot of promises to folks about what they will pay."
Fudgeman "Craig, I think what you tend to find in the private sector, is that when revenues drop off from slack customer spending, is that you cut your costs. Cut prices if you can, find efficiencies, reduce labor costs, maybe eliminate underperforming product lines or stores. Or invent better, more compelling products. You adjust to the economics of the moment.
__________________________________________
Craig responds
Good point. But as a corporation you have made a lot of long term commitments - money that you owe. Hard to cut that.
Let us discuss costs one at a time so we don't get lost in the details - one that we are all closely involved with, and that is in some financial difficulty - Social Security.
Most of us have paid into Social Security for many years, and can anticipate getting money back for the rest of our lives. And we have been getting annual reports that show us how much we have "invested" over the years, and how much our Govmint says it will pay us over the rest of our lives.
The experts all tell us SS will be broke. So we have some tough choices. We could:
1. Renege on the amount we told retirees we would pay them - cut costs. Pay them (us) 80 or 90% of what they told us in writing they would pay.
2. Increase revenue - ie payroll tax. So you would likely like this tax since it falls on those lower income rascals who have been living off the fat of the land. But the younger folks think it is all a scam - they are paying pretty high payroll tax to pay for us - and they think there will be nothing for them.
3. Or reduce the COLA, or don't pay it to affluent folks, extend the age that you get full SS, etc.
All tough choices. Not popular, whatever you do. Politicians hate to make choices like this - so do we.
Now whose fault is all this? Social Security is a program that has been around for a long time and is quite popular. It keeps keep old folks from eating dog food and in the streets.
Is it Obama or Bush's fault? Or the Democratic or Republican Congress? Shared blame all around.
The fault is demographic - the pig in the python, us, the baby boomers who are now retiring.
Much of the problem resolves after we kick - since the pig is dead and won't be drawing social security. The system balances.
In the meantime our elected Reps have to make a tough decision. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Now where we can fault them is for not acting sooner. When they raised the full retirement age to 67 they should have probably raised it to 69 or 70. And we were affected by this change but were not outraged since it was far down the pipe.
No comments:
Post a Comment