Leftists admit: "We're stumped - can't do it." (no case for redistribution)

[Rudy Canoza]

Leftists admit they can't make an ethical case for redistribution. A
few made a couple of absurdly lame attempts, fabricating tales of
"children starving in the streets" or mistaking adult malnutrition - a
medical problem, not an economic problem - for starvation, but not a
single ardent left-wing proponent of redistribution attempted to make a
general case for the proposition.

When the Occutards were doing their campouts and wienie roasts a couple
of years ago, they weren't doing it to address any alleged starvation of
children or elderly adults - they were doing it to clamor for
redistribution of wealth and income to the Occutards themselves.

Leftists admit they can't make a case for redistribution. It was
inevitable.

[jim]

Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> Leftists admit they can't make an ethical case for redistribution.

Leftist are every bit as dumb and ignorant as you are.

In the last few years income taxpayers have been paying for
less than 30% of federal spending. That means individual
taxpayers don't even pay for their share of federal spending,
much less anybody else's share.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[Rudy Canoza]

[followups vandalism by unethical racist shitbag looter repaired]

On 1/10/2014 7:41 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation
collective, lied:

> Leftist are every bit as dumb and ignorant

You're a leftist. Thanks for your candid admission you're dumb and
ignorant. It wasn't really necessary, of course - we already knew you
to be.

You want to pretend you're some kind of "anarcho-syndicalist" or some
such bullshit, but no. You're a garden variety boilerplate-spewing
leftist. Proved beyond dispute.

[Rudy Canoza]

[followups vandalism by unethical racist shitbag looter repaired]

On 1/10/2014 7:41 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation
collective, lied:

> [silly bullshit left-wing lies snipped]

The front boy admits that he can't make the case. I guarantee that the
mackerel cunt, Sheila Bryant, will admit it.

Same with Scheisskopf, jeffy m, little ricky travesty, Immoder@te Li@r,
Bugster (the unethical computer virus vendor), chinabluecrotch,
DooDooOnFence - the whole fucking lot of them. Every last one of them
will admit that she can't make an ethical case for the general
redistribution of wealth that they advocate. I wonder how many of these
fuckstains were camping out and roasting wienies with the Occutards a
couple of years ago? Ha ha ha ha ha!

[I would have included Yaeowerghoofuz, aka Roselles, in the list, but I
heard he's dead.]

[Rudy Canoza]

[followups vandalism by unethical racist shitbag looter repaired]

On 1/10/2014 8:31 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation

collective, lied:

> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> [followups vandalism by unethical racist shitbag looter repaired]
>>
>> On 1/10/2014 7:41 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation
>> collective, lied:
>>
>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>> Leftists admit they can't make an ethical case for redistribution. A
>>>> few made a couple of absurdly lame attempts, fabricating tales of
>>>> "children starving in the streets" or mistaking adult malnutrition - a
>>>> medical problem, not an economic problem - for starvation, but not a
>>>> single ardent left-wing proponent of redistribution attempted to make a
>>>> general case for the proposition.
>>>>
>>>> When the Occutards were doing their campouts and wienie roasts a couple
>>>> of years ago, they weren't doing it to address any alleged starvation of
>>>> children or elderly adults - they were doing it to clamor for
>>>> redistribution of wealth and income to the Occutards themselves.
>>>>
>>>> Leftists admit they can't make a case for redistribution. It was
>>>> inevitable.
>>>
>>> Leftist are every bit as dumb and ignorant
>>
>> You're a leftist. Thanks for your candid admission you're dumb and
>> ignorant. It wasn't really necessary, of course - we already knew you
>> to be.
>

> Thanks for

It was my pleasure to force you to admit publicly that you're dumb and
ignorant. (It wasn't much work to get you to admit it; I knew it
wouldn't be.)

[jim]

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Every last one of them will admit that she
> can't make an ethical case for the general
> redistribution of wealth

The individual taxpayers don't even pay for their own
share of govt. That means the redistribution story is a fairy tale.

[Rudy Canoza]

[followups vandalism by unethical racist shitbag looter repaired]

On 1/10/2014 8:31 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation

collective, lied:

>
> Rudy Canoza wrote:

>>>> Leftists admit they can't make a case for redistribution. It was
>>>> inevitable.
>>>
>>> Leftist are every bit as dumb and ignorant

The front boy is a leftist, of course. He admits to being dumb and
ignorant.

>>
>> Yes
>
> Thanks for

[Rudy Canoza]

[followups vandalism by unethical racist shitbag looter repaired]

On 1/10/2014 8:41 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation
collective, lied:

> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> [followups vandalism by unethical racist shitbag looter repaired]
>>
>> On 1/10/2014 7:41 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation
>> collective, lied:
>>
>>> [silly bullshit left-wing lies snipped]
>>
>> The front boy admits that he can't make the case. I guarantee that the
>> mackerel cunt, Sheila Bryant, will admit it.
>>
>> Same with Scheisskopf, jeffy m, little ricky travesty, Immoder@te Li@r,
>> Bugster (the unethical computer virus vendor), chinabluecrotch,

>> DooDooOnFence - the whole fucking lot of them. Every last one of them

>> will admit that she can't make an ethical case for the general

>> redistribution of wealth that they advocate. I wonder how many of these
>> fuckstains were camping out and roasting wienies with the Occutards a
>> couple of years ago? Ha ha ha ha ha!
>>
>> [I would have included Yaeowerghoofuz, aka Roselles, in the list, but I
>> heard he's dead.]
>

> The individual taxpayers

You tried that lie before, and it failed.

You admit: you can't make any ethical case for redistribution of wealth
and income. Your concession of defeat is noted.

[jim]

Rudy Canoza wrote:

> >
> > The individual taxpayers
>
> You tried that lie before, and it failed.

Let's see you disprove the data:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

2009 federal spending was 3.52 trillion.
Individual income tax was 915 billion
26% of the spending was paid for by those taxpayers.

2010 federal spending was 3.46 trillion.
Individual income tax was 899 billion
26% of the spending was paid for by those taxpayers.

2011 federal spending was 3.6 trillion.
Individual income tax was 1.09 trillion
30% of the spending was covered by those taxpayers.

2012 federal spending was 3.54 trillion.
Individual income tax was 1.13 trillion
32% of the spending was paid for by those taxpayers.

That comes to about 29% of the federal spending
was paid for by individual income tax payers.

The individual income taxpayers do not even pay their own
share. There is no redistribution.

[Rudy Canoza]

[followups vandalism by unethical racist shitbag looter repaired]

On 1/10/2014 8:52 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation
collective, and a garden-variety stupid ignorant leftist, lied:

> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> [followups vandalism by unethical racist shitbag looter repaired]
>>
>> On 1/10/2014 8:41 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation
>> collective, lied:
>>
>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> [followups vandalism by unethical racist shitbag looter repaired]
>>>>
>>>> On 1/10/2014 7:41 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation
>>>> collective, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> [silly bullshit left-wing lies snipped]
>>>>
>>>> The front boy admits that he can't make the case. I guarantee that the
>>>> mackerel cunt, Sheila Bryant, will admit it.
>>>>
>>>> Same with Scheisskopf, jeffy m, little ricky travesty, Immoder@te Li@r,
>>>> Bugster (the unethical computer virus vendor), chinabluecrotch,
>>>> DooDooOnFence - the whole fucking lot of them. Every last one of them
>>>> will admit that she can't make an ethical case for the general
>>>> redistribution of wealth that they advocate. I wonder how many of these
>>>> fuckstains were camping out and roasting wienies with the Occutards a
>>>> couple of years ago? Ha ha ha ha ha!
>>>>
>>>> [I would have included Yaeowerghoofuz, aka Roselles, in the list, but I
>>>> heard he's dead.]
>>>

>>> The individual taxpayers
>>
>> You tried that lie before, and it failed.
>>

>> You admit: you can't make any ethical case for redistribution of wealth
>> and income. Your concession of defeat is noted.
>

> Let's see you

It's too late for these already-dismissed lies, front boy.

You have conceded: you can't make the case for the redistribution you
preach.

[Jeff M]

On 1/10/2014 10:52 AM, jim wrote:
>
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>>> The individual taxpayers
>>
>> You tried that lie before, and it failed.

You must realize by now that Plimpton is insane and irrational, probably
due to alcoholic dementia, along with his host of other psychological,
emotional and character disorders. So he's just gonna keep on repeating
the same lies and other bullshit, mixed with spewage from his constant
state of rage, altering your posts and other such juvenile antics. But
he ain't ever gonna explain his lies, answer your questions, or do any
of the things normal people would do in the same sort of dialogue. Just
sayin'. But if he amuses you, have a good time.

> Let's see you disprove the data:
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
>
> 2009 federal spending was 3.52 trillion.
> Individual income tax was 915 billion
> 26% of the spending was paid for by those taxpayers.

[snip]

IIRC, individual payroll taxes generate more federal revenue than
individual income taxes do, so the percentage of spending paid for by
individual taxpayers would be at least double those figures.

--
�The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in
moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification
for selfishness.� - John Kenneth Galbraith

[Rudy Canoza]

[followups vandalism by unethical racist shitbag looter repaired]

On 1/10/2014 9:21 AM, Jeff M wrote:
> On 1/10/2014 10:52 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective, and a garden-variety stupid ignorant leftist, lied:

>>
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>>>> The individual taxpayers
>>>
>>> You tried that lie before, and it failed.
>
> You must realize by now tha

You can't make an ethical case for redistribution any better than any of
the other stupid left-wing knuckledraggers, can you, jeffy?

>> Let's see you disprove the data:
>> http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
>>
>> 2009 federal spending was 3.52 trillion.
>> Individual income tax was 915 billion
>> 26% of the spending was paid for by those taxpayers.
> [snip]
>
> IIRC, individual payroll taxes generate more federal revenue than
> individual income taxes do,

No, they don't, but it's beside the point. Redistribution - long-term,
general purpose wealth and income redistribution - occurs and more of it
is advocated by asshole leftists, even though they can't make an ethical
case for it.

You admit your failure.

[prime cut]

On 1/10/2014 8:41 AM, jim wrote:
> Leftist are every bit as dumb and ignorant

http://www.businessinsider.com/three-ways-the-cra-pushed-countrywide-to-lower-lending-standards-2009-6

When we discuss the role of the Community Reinvestment Act and other
fair lending rules in contributing to lax lending standards, people bent
on exonerating the CRA often point out that many of the questionable
loans were made by non-depository mortgage companies not covered by the CRA.

Barry Ritholtz has been a prominent critic of the theory that the CRA
has some culpability for lax lending. He has pointed out that 50% of
subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject
comprehensive federal supervision. �How was this caused by either CRA or
GSEs?� Barry asked.

As much as I respect Barry�s formidable analytical powers, I�m afraid
he�s taken too narrow of the view of the matter. His question is far
easier to answer than he suspects. Regulations often touch those who are
not directly regulated. Indeed, the regulation of one group in a
marketplace will almost always wind up affecting other groups.

More concretely, there are three very specific ways in which the CRA
nudged Countrywide and other mortgage companies to adopt lax lending
standards.

1. The Creation Of Artificial Demand For Low-Income Mortgages. Banks
that were regulated by the CRA often found it difficult to meet their
obligations under the CRA directly. Long standing lending practices by
local loan officers were a big problem. But as banks expanded their
deposit bases and other businesses, they often found that they were at
risk of regulators discovering they had fallen behind in making CRA loans.

One way of addressing this problem was buying the loans in the secondary
market. Mortgage companies like Countrywide began to serve this entirely
artificial demand for CRA loans. Countrywide marketed its loans directly
to banks as a way for them to meet CRA obligations. "The result of these
efforts is an enormous pipeline of mortgages to low- and moderate-income
buyers. With this pipeline, Countrywide Securities Corporation (CSC) can
potentially help you meet your Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) goals by
offering both whole loan and mortgage-backed securities that are
eligible for CRA credit,� a Countrywide advertisement on its website read.

2. The Threat Of Regulation Is Often As Good As Regulation. It is
highly misleading to claim that just because mortgage companies were not
technically under the CRA that they were not required by regulators to
meet similar tests. In fact, regulators threatened that if the mortgage
companies didn�t step up to the plate by relaxing lending standards they
would be brought under the CRA umbrella and required to do so.

Here�s how City Journal explains the dynamic:

To meet their goals, the two mortgage giants enlisted large
lenders�including nonbanks, which weren�t covered by the CRA�into the
effort. Freddie Mac began an �alternative qualifying� program with the
Sears Mortgage Corporation that let a borrower qualify for a loan with a
monthly payment as high as 50 percent of his income, at a time when most
private mortgage companies wouldn�t exceed 33 percent. The program also
allowed borrowers with bad credit to get mortgages if they took
credit-counseling classes administered by Acorn and other nonprofits.
Subsequent research would show that such classes have little impact on
default rates.

Pressuring nonbank lenders to make more loans to poor minorities didn�t
stop with Sears. If it didn�t happen, Clinton officials warned, they�d
seek to extend CRA regulations to all mortgage makers. In Congress,
Representative Maxine Waters called financial firms not covered by the
CRA �among the most egregious redliners.� To rebuff the criticism, the
Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) shocked the financial world by
signing a 1994 agreement with the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), pledging to increase lending to minorities and join
in new efforts to rewrite lending standards. The first MBA member to
sign up: Countrywide Financial, the mortgage firm that would be at the
core of the subprime meltdown.

3. The CRA Distorted the Mortgage Market. With banks offering
mortgages with high loan to value, delayed payment schedules and other
enticing features, the mortgage companies would have quickly found
themselves unable to compete if they didn�t offer similar loans. The
requirement to offer risky loans from banks created a situation where
other lenders found they had to offer similar products if they wanted to
expand their business.

Of course, Angelo Mozillo didn't need very much prompting on this score.
He believed exactly what the CRA regulators believed: that these lax
lending practices were the wave of the future, democratizing the glories
of home ownership.

[prime cut]

On 1/10/2014 9:52 AM, jim wrote:
> Let's see you disprove the data:

[jim]

Jeff M wrote:

> IIRC, individual payroll taxes generate more federal revenue than
> individual income taxes do, so the percentage of spending paid for by
> individual taxpayers would be at least double those figures.

If you exclude the off-budget items (SS and Medicare) that
payroll tax pays for you still have individual income taxpayers
paying for around 40% of what is left of federal spending.
That doesn't even cover their share of the spending.
Redistribution is a myth.

[prime cut]

On 1/10/2014 11:51 AM, jim wrote:
> you still have individual income taxpayers
> paying for around 40% of what is left of federal spending.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/

Put down your pitchforks. The wealthiest 10% pay a big majority of
federal income taxes. Pick up your pitchforks. The story is more
complicated than that.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney)
Many people think that the rich are able to weasel their way out of
taxes, but they actually pay an overwhelming majority of the taxes in
the United States.
What's more, their share of the tax burden is increasing.

The top 10 percent of taxpayers paid over 70% of the total amount
collected in federal income taxes in 2010, the latest year figures are
available, according to the Tax Foundation, a think tank that advocates
for lower taxes. That's up from 55% in 1986.
The remaining 90% bore just under 30% of the tax burden. And 47% of all
Americans pay hardly anything at all -- a fact that got Republican
presidential candidate Mitt Romney into political hot water last year.

[Jeff M]

On 1/10/2014 12:51 PM, jim wrote:
>
> Jeff M wrote:
>
>> IIRC, individual payroll taxes generate more federal revenue than
>> individual income taxes do, so the percentage of spending paid for by
>> individual taxpayers would be at least double those figures.
>
> If you exclude the off-budget items (SS and Medicare) that
> payroll tax pays for you still have individual income taxpayers
> paying for around 40% of what is left of federal spending.
> That doesn't even cover their share of the spending.

Would you please explain how your conclusion, below, logically follows
from the claim above?

> Redistribution is a myth.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/10/2014 11:04 AM, Jeff M wrote:
> On 1/10/2014 12:51 PM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective, lied:

>>
>> Jeff M wrote:
>>
>>> IIRC, individual payroll taxes generate more federal revenue than
>>> individual income taxes do, so the percentage of spending paid for by
>>> individual taxpayers would be at least double those figures.
>>
>> If you exclude the off-budget items (SS and Medicare) that
>> payroll tax pays for you still have individual income taxpayers
>> paying for around 40% of what is left of federal spending.
>> That doesn't even cover their share of the spending.
>
> Would you please explain how your conclusion, below, logically follows
> from the claim above?

It doesn't.


>
>> Redistribution is a myth.
>
>

[jim]

prime cut wrote:
>
> On 1/10/2014 11:51 AM, jim wrote:
> > you still have individual income taxpayers
> > paying for around 40% of what is left of federal spending.
>
> http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/
>
> Put down your pitchforks. The wealthiest 10% pay a big majority of
> federal income taxes.

So what? income tax pays for less than 30%. That
means the 1% share of the tax covers 13% of federal spending.
Take away 87% of federal spending and almost all
of the 1% will be bankrupt in less than a year.

There is no redistribution. That story is a myth.
The 1% don't even cover their share of the spending.

[jim]

Jeff M wrote:
>
> On 1/10/2014 12:51 PM, jim wrote:
> >
> > Jeff M wrote:
> >
> >> IIRC, individual payroll taxes generate more federal revenue than
> >> individual income taxes do, so the percentage of spending paid for by
> >> individual taxpayers would be at least double those figures.
> >
> > If you exclude the off-budget items (SS and Medicare) that
> > payroll tax pays for you still have individual income taxpayers
> > paying for around 40% of what is left of federal spending.
> > That doesn't even cover their share of the spending.
>
> Would you please explain how your conclusion, below, logically follows
> from the claim above?
>
> > Redistribution is a myth.
>

The explanation followed but you snipped it off..

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/10/2014 11:05 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation
collective, lied:

>
>
> prime cut wrote:
>>
>> On 1/10/2014 11:51 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective, lied:

>>> you still have individual income taxpayers
>>> paying for around 40% of what is left of federal spending.
>>
>> http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/
>>
>> Put down your pitchforks. The wealthiest 10% pay a big majority of
>> federal income taxes.
>
> So what? income tax pays for less than

Redistribution is occurring, and unethical leftists are calling for more
of it. They can't make any ethical case for it.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/10/2014 11:08 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation
collective, lied:
>
>
> Jeff M wrote:
>>
>> On 1/10/2014 12:51 PM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective, lied:

>>>
>>> Jeff M wrote:
>>>
>>>> IIRC, individual payroll taxes generate more federal revenue than
>>>> individual income taxes do, so the percentage of spending paid for by
>>>> individual taxpayers would be at least double those figures.
>>>
>>> If you exclude the off-budget items (SS and Medicare) that
>>> payroll tax pays for you still have individual income taxpayers
>>> paying for around 40% of what is left of federal spending.
>>> That doesn't even cover their share of the spending.
>>
>> Would you please explain how your conclusion, below, logically follows
>> from the claim above?
>>
>>> Redistribution is a myth.
>>
>
> The explanation followed

No, there was none.

[Jeff M]

On 1/10/2014 1:08 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> Jeff M wrote:
>>
>> On 1/10/2014 12:51 PM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>> Jeff M wrote:
>>>
>>>> IIRC, individual payroll taxes generate more federal revenue than
>>>> individual income taxes do, so the percentage of spending paid for by
>>>> individual taxpayers would be at least double those figures.
>>>
>>> If you exclude the off-budget items (SS and Medicare) that
>>> payroll tax pays for you still have individual income taxpayers
>>> paying for around 40% of what is left of federal spending.
>>> That doesn't even cover their share of the spending.
>>
>> Would you please explain how your conclusion, below, logically follows
>> from the claim above?
>>
>>> Redistribution is a myth.
>>
>
> The explanation followed but you snipped it off..

Sorry, I must have missed it then. But the only thing I snipped off
your post that I replied to was your sig line. Anyway, please indulge
me and answer my question: Would you please explain how your conclusion,
below ["Redistribution is a myth"], logically follows from the claim above?

> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
> http://www.avast.com
>

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/10/2014 11:29 AM, Jeff M wrote:
> On 1/10/2014 1:08 PM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective, lied:
>>
>>
>> Jeff M wrote:
>>>
>>> On 1/10/2014 12:51 PM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective, lied:

>>>>
>>>> Jeff M wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> IIRC, individual payroll taxes generate more federal revenue than
>>>>> individual income taxes do, so the percentage of spending paid for by
>>>>> individual taxpayers would be at least double those figures.
>>>>
>>>> If you exclude the off-budget items (SS and Medicare) that
>>>> payroll tax pays for you still have individual income taxpayers
>>>> paying for around 40% of what is left of federal spending.
>>>> That doesn't even cover their share of the spending.
>>>
>>> Would you please explain how your conclusion, below, logically follows
>>> from the claim above?
>>>
>>>> Redistribution is a myth.
>>>
>>
>> The explanation followed but you snipped it off..
>
> Sorry, I must have missed it then. But the only thing I snipped off
> your post that I replied to was your sig line. Anyway, please indulge
> me and answer my question: Would you please explain how your conclusion,
> below ["Redistribution is a myth"], logically follows from the claim above?
>

I already answered that for you: it doesn't.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/10/2014 11:05 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation
collective, lied:
>
>
> prime cut wrote:
>>
>> On 1/10/2014 11:51 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective, lied:

>>> you still have individual income taxpayers
>>> paying for around 40% of what is left of federal spending.
>>
>> http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/
>>
>> Put down your pitchforks. The wealthiest 10% pay a big majority of
>> federal income taxes.
>
> So what? income tax pays for less than 30%.

1. That's a lie

2. It's irrelevant. It does not show - *cannot* show - that there is
no redistribution. It's disinformation.

[prime cut]

On 1/10/2014 12:05 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> prime cut wrote:
>>
>> On 1/10/2014 11:51 AM, jim wrote:
>>> you still have individual income taxpayers
>>> paying for around 40% of what is left of federal spending.
>>
>> http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/
>>
>> Put down your pitchforks. The wealthiest 10% pay a big majority of
>> federal income taxes.
>
> So what?

Drop dead.


http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/17186-cbo-report-the-rich-pay-most-of-the-taxes-the-poor-get-checks

Jane Wells, a business news reporter for CNBC, after reviewing the
latest report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) on who pays
income taxes in America, claimed that the rich pay them all. The CBO,
wrote Wells, showed that the top 20 percent pay nearly 93 percent of all
income taxes, while the top 40 percent pay 106 percent of them.

How is that possible? The bottom fifth of wage earners get more from the
government than they pay in taxes. Hence, the anomaly of the so-called
rich paying more than 100 percent of all income taxes received by the
government.

The CBO�s math is straightforward: For the year 2010, the bottom fifth
earned �market income� � wages, business income, capital gains,
retirement income, and so on � of $8,100 per person. But they also
received �government transfers� � cash payments and in-kind benefits
such as SNAP � of $22,700, leaving them with a per-person after-tax
income of $30,800. Each person�s income tax liability in that group?
Exactly zero.

For the second lowest quintile, the numbers for 2010 were similar:
income of $30,700 per person, government transfers of $15,200 with
income taxes paid of $2,500 per person, leaving them with an after-tax
income of $43,400.

This government largess must be paid for in some way, and it�s the
remaining three-fifths of Americans who do the paying, especially the
top fifth. Says the CBO, the average wage earner in the top 20 percent
of all wage earners had an income in 2010 of $234,000, received
government benefits of $6,500 and paid taxes of $58,900, leaving each
with an after-tax income of $181,900.

Concluded Wells:

People who make more should pay more, generally speaking. In America,
they are.�

When it comes to individual income taxes, they�re also covering the
entire bill. And leaving a tip....

Fair or not, I will let you be the judge.

Josh Barro, the politics editor at Business Insider, picked a nit with
her but not about whether such taxation is �fair� but over her � and the
CBO�s � analysis and conclusion: There are many other taxes aside from
income taxes that every sentient soul in the country pays, whether they
know it or not. There are payroll taxes, state income taxes, sales
taxes, property taxes, and excise taxes. There are taxes buried in the
cost of gasoline, and in manufactured goods reflecting corporate income
taxes. There are employer-paid payroll taxes that properly should be
ascribed to the individual wage earner. And so on.

Said Barro, �The federal personal income tax only made up 28% of all
U.S. government tax collections in 2012. Federal, state and local
government collected $4 trillion in taxes last year, just $1.1 trillion
of that [coming from] federal personal income taxes.� He concluded:

Rich people do pay a lot more taxes than poor people, both in absolute
terms and as a percentage of [their] income. But the rich are not paying
all the taxes.

Barro neatly avoids any discussion, however, of just how �fair� these
taxes are, or should be.

There are many ways to argue for or against the amount people pay in
taxes. One way is to assume that government should take everything it
can get � to be put to good use by the government � as long as the taxes
by the government aren't so high that they discourage people from
earning money or paying taxes. If one were determined to extract the
maximum government revenue from an economic system, he could employ the
Laffer Curve, which shows that the maximum revenue to be extracted
approaches some 70 percent of income. If it were higher than that, the
incentive to produce more would diminish and revenues would go down. If
it were lower, the government would be leaving revenues on the table for
its original owners to spend as they wished.

Then there is the �sovereign citizen� argument that says that any
extraction above zero represents �involuntary servitude� as explained by
libertarian philosopher and economist Murray Rothbard:

In a sense, the entire system of taxation is a form of involuntary
servitude. Take, in particular, the income tax. The high levels of
income tax mean that all of us work a large part of the year � several
months � for nothing for Uncle Sam before being allowed to enjoy our
incomes on the market.

Part of the essence of slavery, after all, is forced work for someone at
little or no pay. But the income tax means that we sweat and earn
income, only to see the government extract a large chunk of it by
coercion for its own purposes. What is this but forced labor at no pay?

There is the moral argument that the income tax system violates at least
two of the 10 Commandments � thou shalt to steal and thou shall not
covet � and three of the Seven Deadly Sins � Greed, Sloth, and Envy.

There is another response to the unanswered question, however, drawn
from Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution � the enumerated
powers given to the national government. Prior to the ratification of
the 16th Amendment, the national government ran itself on tariffs and
excise taxes, at a vastly lower cost. One thing is certain, according to
Ron Paul:

The Founding Fathers never intended a nation where citizens would pay
nearly half of everything they earn to the government.

Nor did the Founders contemplate such a system of taxation. As Dr.
Adrian Rogers, pastor emeritus of Bellevue Baptist Church, wrote,

What one person receives without working for[,] another person must work
for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything
that the government does not first take from somebody else.

When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work
because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other
half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is
going to get what they work for, that, my dear friend, is the beginning
of the end of any nation.

A graduate of Cornell University and a former investment advisor, Bob is
a regular contributor to The New American magazine and blogs frequently
at www.LightFromTheRight.com, primarily on economics and politics. He
can be reached at bade...@thenewamerican.com.

[prime cut]

On 1/10/2014 12:08 PM, jim wrote:
> The explanation followed

[Jeff M]

On 1/10/2014 1:29 PM, Jeff M wrote:
> On 1/10/2014 1:08 PM, jim wrote:

[snip]

>>>> If you exclude the off-budget items (SS and Medicare) that
>>>> payroll tax pays for you still have individual income taxpayers
>>>> paying for around 40% of what is left of federal spending.
>>>> That doesn't even cover their share of the spending.
>>>
>>> Would you please explain how your conclusion, below, logically follows
>>> from the claim above?
>>>
>>>> Redistribution is a myth.

Well, there's no doubt that the overall tax burden, at least, has been
redistributed.

The attached graph shows how the distribution of federal revenue has
changed over the decades, with the percentage from income taxes
remaining fairly constant, the percentage from corporate taxes and from
estate, excise and other taxes declining steadily, and the share from
payroll taxes increasing drastically.

http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/PolicyBasics_WhereDoFederalTaxRevsComeFrom_08-20-12-f2.jpg

What this shows is how changes in federal tax policy have shifted the
overall tax burden, especially from corporations, steadily and
increasingly onto the backs of wage earners.

[jim]

prime cut wrote:

>
> How is that possible? The bottom fifth of wage earners get more from the
> government than they pay in taxes. Hence, the anomaly of the so-called
> rich paying more than 100 percent of all income taxes received by the
> government.
>

Income tax pays for less than 30% of spending.
Take away 70% of federal spending and your
rich folks will be in a sorry mess.

[prime cut]

On 1/10/2014 1:13 PM, jim wrote:
> Income tax pays for

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/17186-cbo-report-the-rich-pay-most-of-the-taxes-the-poor-get-checks

Jane Wells, a business news reporter for CNBC, after reviewing the
latest report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) on who pays
income taxes in America, claimed that the rich pay them all. The CBO,
wrote Wells, showed that the top 20 percent pay nearly 93 percent of all
income taxes, while the top 40 percent pay 106 percent of them.

How is that possible? The bottom fifth of wage earners get more from the
government than they pay in taxes. Hence, the anomaly of the so-called
rich paying more than 100 percent of all income taxes received by the
government.

[jim]

Jeff M wrote:
>
> On 1/10/2014 1:08 PM, jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > Jeff M wrote:
> >>
> >> On 1/10/2014 12:51 PM, jim wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Jeff M wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> IIRC, individual payroll taxes generate more federal revenue than
> >>>> individual income taxes do, so the percentage of spending paid for by
> >>>> individual taxpayers would be at least double those figures.
> >>>
> >>> If you exclude the off-budget items (SS and Medicare) that
> >>> payroll tax pays for you still have individual income taxpayers
> >>> paying for around 40% of what is left of federal spending.
> >>> That doesn't even cover their share of the spending.
> >>
> >> Would you please explain how your conclusion, below, logically follows
> >> from the claim above?
> >>
> >>> Redistribution is a myth.
> >>
> >
> > The explanation followed but you snipped it off..
>
> Sorry, I must have missed it then. But the only thing I snipped off
> your post that I replied to was your sig line. Anyway, please indulge
> me and answer my question: Would you please explain how your conclusion,
> below ["Redistribution is a myth"], logically follows from the claim above?
>

Here is what I wrote:

There is no redistribution. That story is a myth.

The 1% don't even cover their share of the spending.

---

[jim]

prime cut and paste:

nothing worth reading as usual.

[prime cut]

On 1/10/2014 1:15 PM, jim wrote:
> There is no redistribution. That story is a myth.

BULLSHIT LIE!

[prime cut]

On 1/10/2014 1:17 PM, jim wrote:
> nothing worth

[Jeff M]

On 1/10/2014 2:15 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> Jeff M wrote:
>>
>> On 1/10/2014 1:08 PM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Jeff M wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 1/10/2014 12:51 PM, jim wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeff M wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> IIRC, individual payroll taxes generate more federal revenue than
>>>>>> individual income taxes do, so the percentage of spending paid for by
>>>>>> individual taxpayers would be at least double those figures.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you exclude the off-budget items (SS and Medicare) that
>>>>> payroll tax pays for you still have individual income taxpayers
>>>>> paying for around 40% of what is left of federal spending.
>>>>> That doesn't even cover their share of the spending.
>>>>
>>>> Would you please explain how your conclusion, below, logically follows
>>>> from the claim above?
>>>>
>>>>> Redistribution is a myth.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The explanation followed but you snipped it off..
>>
>> Sorry, I must have missed it then. But the only thing I snipped off
>> your post that I replied to was your sig line. Anyway, please indulge
>> me and answer my question: Would you please explain how your conclusion,
>> below ["Redistribution is a myth"], logically follows from the claim above?
>>
>
> Here is what I wrote:
>
> There is no redistribution. That story is a myth.
> The 1% don't even cover their share of the spending.

Thank you. But I don't see the logical nexus between those two
statements. Please describe what causal or other connection you see
between the two.

For clarity's sake, to make sure we're discussing the same thing, by
"redistribution" I'm referring to government policies that result in net
income increases or decreases to different income strata. Two commonly
cited examples of this are direct redistribution such as SNAP, TANF,
Social Security Disability payments, etc., and indirect redistribution
such a decreasing existing tax rates paid on capital gains, increasing
payroll taxes, etc.

> ---
> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
> http://www.avast.com
>

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/10/2014 12:13 PM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation
collective, lied:
>
>

> prime cut wrote:
>
>>
>> How is that possible? The bottom fifth of wage earners get more from the
>> government than they pay in taxes. Hence, the anomaly of the so-called
>> rich paying more than 100 percent of all income taxes received by the
>> government.
>>
>
> Income tax pays for less than 30% of spending.

Disinformation - does not refute what he said.

[First-Post]

On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 13:05:37 -0600, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
wrote:

>
>
>prime cut wrote:
>>
>> On 1/10/2014 11:51 AM, jim wrote:
>> > you still have individual income taxpayers
>> > paying for around 40% of what is left of federal spending.
>>
>> http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/
>>
>> Put down your pitchforks. The wealthiest 10% pay a big majority of
>> federal income taxes.
>
>So what? income tax pays for less than 30%. That
>means the 1% share of the tax covers 13% of federal spending.
>Take away 87% of federal spending and almost all
>of the 1% will be bankrupt in less than a year.
>
>There is no redistribution. That story is a myth.
>The 1% don't even cover their share of the spending.
>

You're a liar and a pathetic one to boot.
The IRS facts prove you to be a liar.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2012

[prime cut]

Nice.

He's a shill for the state, we just don't know who put him on payroll.

[jim]

If the rich receive more benefit from federal spending
than they pay in there is nothing left over
to redistribute.

>
> For clarity's sake, to make sure we're discussing the same thing, by
> "redistribution" I'm referring to government policies that result in net
> income increases or decreases to different income strata.

All of govt spending is a income for
someone in the private sector. The proposition that
the rich are currently paying in more than they
benefit from govt spending is false. It is based
on biased accounting. What is taken in taxes is
no where near the sum that is spent by the federal govt..
The assumption that it is not possible for someone to get
more than they are taxed without someone else getting
less is false on that basis alone.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/10/2014 12:15 PM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation
collective, lied:
>
>
> Jeff M wrote:
>>
>> On 1/10/2014 1:08 PM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective, lied:
>>>
>>>
>>> Jeff M wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 1/10/2014 12:51 PM, jjim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective, lied:

>>>>>
>>>>> Jeff M wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> IIRC, individual payroll taxes generate more federal revenue than
>>>>>> individual income taxes do, so the percentage of spending paid for by
>>>>>> individual taxpayers would be at least double those figures.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you exclude the off-budget items (SS and Medicare) that
>>>>> payroll tax pays for you still have individual income taxpayers
>>>>> paying for around 40% of what is left of federal spending.
>>>>> That doesn't even cover their share of the spending.
>>>>
>>>> Would you please explain how your conclusion, below, logically follows
>>>> from the claim above?
>>>>
>>>>> Redistribution is a myth.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The explanation followed but you snipped it off..
>>
>> Sorry, I must have missed it then. But the only thing I snipped off
>> your post that I replied to was your sig line. Anyway, please indulge
>> me and answer my question: Would you please explain how your conclusion,
>> below ["Redistribution is a myth"], logically follows from the claim above?
>>
>
> Here is what I wrote:
>
> There is no redistribution. That story is a myth.
> The 1% don't even cover their share of the spending.

That's not what you wrote, front boy.

[Rudy Canoza]

[followups vandalism by unethical racist shitbag looter repaired]

Bugster, lying racist shitbag *looter*, lied:

> Klaus Schadenfreude <KlausScha...@gmx.com> wrote in
> news:9gl0d9l8rukgt37ie...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 20:03:19 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
>> <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
>>> news:76d56$52d046d7$414e828e$11...@EVERESTKC.NET:

>>>>
>>>> Redistribution is occurring, and unethical leftists are calling for
>>>> more of it. They can't make any ethical case for it.
>>>>
>>>>

>>> http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/3288/btjq.jpg
>>
>> And Baxter confirms this.
>>
>> STEP ONE: Demonize the class you want to steal from
>> STEP TWO: Steal from them
>> BONUS STEP: Kill them
>>
>> It worked in the 1930's. It will work now.
>>
>>
>
> The fact is,

The fact is, you cannot even get *started* trying to give an ethical
rationale for the massive redistribution - that is, theft - that you favor.



> --------------------------------------------------------
> Free Malware - Bugster Virusworks www.buggycode.com
> --------------------------------------------------------

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/10/2014 12:28 PM, Jeff M wrote:jim, front boy for a left-wing

disinformation collective, lied: jim wrote:
>>
>>
>> Jeff M wrote:
>>>

>>> On 1/10/2014 1:08 PM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective, lied:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jeff M wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/10/2014 12:51 PM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective, lied:

>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jeff M wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IIRC, individual payroll taxes generate more federal revenue than
>>>>>>> individual income taxes do, so the percentage of spending paid
>>>>>>> for by
>>>>>>> individual taxpayers would be at least double those figures.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you exclude the off-budget items (SS and Medicare) that
>>>>>> payroll tax pays for you still have individual income taxpayers
>>>>>> paying for around 40% of what is left of federal spending.
>>>>>> That doesn't even cover their share of the spending.
>>>>>
>>>>> Would you please explain how your conclusion, below, logically follows
>>>>> from the claim above?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Redistribution is a myth.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The explanation followed but you snipped it off..
>>>
>>> Sorry, I must have missed it then. But the only thing I snipped off
>>> your post that I replied to was your sig line. Anyway, please indulge
>>> me and answer my question: Would you please explain how your conclusion,
>>> below ["Redistribution is a myth"], logically follows from the claim
>>> above?
>>>
>>
>> Here is what I wrote:
>>
>> There is no redistribution. That story is a myth.
>> The 1% don't even cover their share of the spending.
>
> Thank you. But I don't see the logical nexus between those two
> statements.

There isn't any. I explained that to you already.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/10/2014 1:18 PM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation
collective, lied:
>
>
> Jeff M wrote:
>>
>> On 1/10/2014 2:15 PM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective, lied:
>>>
>>>
>>> Jeff M wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 1/10/2014 1:08 PM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective, lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeff M wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/10/2014 12:51 PM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective, lied:

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jeff M wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IIRC, individual payroll taxes generate more federal revenue than
>>>>>>>> individual income taxes do, so the percentage of spending paid for by
>>>>>>>> individual taxpayers would be at least double those figures.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you exclude the off-budget items (SS and Medicare) that
>>>>>>> payroll tax pays for you still have individual income taxpayers
>>>>>>> paying for around 40% of what is left of federal spending.
>>>>>>> That doesn't even cover their share of the spending.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Would you please explain how your conclusion, below, logically follows
>>>>>> from the claim above?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Redistribution is a myth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The explanation followed but you snipped it off..
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, I must have missed it then. But the only thing I snipped off
>>>> your post that I replied to was your sig line. Anyway, please indulge
>>>> me and answer my question: Would you please explain how your conclusion,
>>>> below ["Redistribution is a myth"], logically follows from the claim above?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Here is what I wrote:
>>>
>>> There is no redistribution. That story is a myth.
>>> The 1% don't even cover their share of the spending.
>>
>> Thank you. But I don't see the logical nexus between those two
>> statements. Please describe what causal or other connection you see
>> between the two.
>
> If the rich receive more benefit from federal spending
> than they pay in

They don't. This is settled.

[prime cut]

On 1/10/2014 2:18 PM, jim wrote:
> The proposition that
> the rich are currently paying in more than they
> benefit from govt spending is false.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/17186-cbo-report-the-rich-pay-most-of-the-taxes-the-poor-get-checks

Jane Wells, a business news reporter for CNBC, after reviewing the
latest report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) on who pays
income taxes in America, claimed that the rich pay them all. The CBO,
wrote Wells, showed that the top 20 percent pay nearly 93 percent of all
income taxes, while the top 40 percent pay 106 percent of them.

How is that possible? The bottom fifth of wage earners get more from the
government than they pay in taxes. Hence, the anomaly of the so-called
rich paying more than 100 percent of all income taxes received by the
government.

[Jeff M]

Okay. Thanks for the reply. It appears you're discussing the cost v.
benefit of taxation within a given income stratum. That is not,
however, redistribution between different strata, which is a widely
recognized effect of government policy, but altogether a different
topic, and I broadly agree with what you wrote about it in the above
paragraph.

[Max Boot]

On 1/10/2014 1:29 PM, Baxter wrote:
> First-Post <AIOE_posters_...@AIOE.org> wrote in
> news:g0o0d91a5rl813kg3...@4ax.com:

> -------
> The Tax Foundation is not a reliable source

It's an eminently reliable source.

[Rudy Canoza]

You've swallowed a huge steaming pile of bullshit. Again.

[prime cut]

On 1/10/2014 2:38 PM, Jeff M wrote:
> I broadly agree with what you wrote about it in the above paragraph.

That's because you are a simpering slackwit.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/17186-cbo-report-the-rich-pay-most-of-the-taxes-the-poor-get-checks

[First-Post]

On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 13:59:08 -0800, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
wrote:

To claim that their tables are not reliable is to claim that the IRS,
where those tables come from, is also not reliable.

Such is the stupidity of Baxter the troll.

><Excessive Crosspost by Baxter restored to original newsgroups>

[prime cut]

On 1/10/2014 3:11 PM, First-Post wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 13:59:08 -0800, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/10/2014 1:29 PM, Baxter wrote:
>>> First-Post <AIOE_posters_...@AIOE.org> wrote in
>>> news:g0o0d91a5rl813kg3...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 13:05:37 -0600, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no redistribution. That story is a myth.
>>>>> The 1% don't even cover their share of the spending.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're a liar and a pathetic one to boot.
>>>> The IRS facts prove you to be a liar.
>>>>
>>>> http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data
>>>> -2012
>>>>
>>> -------
>>> The Tax Foundation is not a reliable source
>>
>> It's an eminently reliable source.
>
> To claim that their tables are not reliable is to claim that the IRS,
> where those tables come from, is also not reliable.

Exactly.

>
> Such is the stupidity of Baxter the troll.
>
>> <Excessive Crosspost by Baxter restored to original newsgroups>
>
>

"The IRS data continues to reflect the fact that half of all taxpayers
pay nearly all income taxes. However, the improving economy resulted in
a spreading of the tax burden as the number of filers increased along
with incomes and taxes paid for all income groups except the top 0.1
percent. The higher incomes pushed taxpayers into higher brackets,
resulting in an increase in average income tax rates for all income
groups except the top 0.1 percent, whose effective rate remained about
the same as in 2010.

In 2011, the top 10 percent of taxpayers (with AGIs above $120,000)
accounted for 45.4 percent of all AGI and 68.3 percent of all income
taxes paid. Taxpayers in the top 5 percent accounted for 33.9 percent of
all AGI and 56.5 percent of all income taxes paid. The top 1 percent of
all taxpayers accounted for 18.7 percent of all AGI and 35.1 percent of
all income taxes paid."

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/10/2014 2:05 PM, Denny wrote:
> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>> Leftists admit they can't make an ethical case for redistribution. A
>> few made a couple of absurdly lame attempts, fabricating tales of
>> "children starving in the streets" or mistaking adult malnutrition - a
>> medical problem, not an economic problem - for starvation, but not a
>> single ardent left-wing proponent of redistribution attempted to make a
>> general case for the proposition.
>>
>> When the Occutards were doing their campouts and wienie roasts a couple
>> of years ago, they weren't doing it to address any alleged starvation of
>> children or elderly adults - they were doing it to clamor for
>> redistribution of wealth and income to the Occutards themselves.
>>
>> Leftists admit they can't make a case for redistribution. It was
>> inevitable.
>
> Are Dubya's tax cits, still in effect, considered "redistribution"?

No - they were aimed at reversing earlier redistribution policies.

[Rudy Canoza]

"reliable", to Bugster, means "supports left-wing dogma." That's all it
means.

[Scout]

"jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote in message
news:sY2dnUq_E6QAiU3P...@bright.net...

>
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>> Leftists admit they can't make an ethical case for redistribution.
>

> Leftist are every bit as dumb and ignorant as you are.
>
> In the last few years income taxpayers have been paying for
> less than 30% of federal spending. That means individual
> taxpayers don't even pay for their share of federal spending,
> much less anybody else's share.

And what percentage of federal spending do those who don't pay federal
income tax cover?

Yea, tell us how we should increase the rate on those who are paying federal
income tax to "cover their share" when we've got people that pay far less
than their share. Oh, and those people have a bigger share because they
receive far more in benefits from the federal government.

[Scout]

"jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote in message

news:tZWdnRkmH4k-v03P...@bright.net...
>
>
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> Every last one of them will admit that she
>> can't make an ethical case for the general
>> redistribution of wealth
>
> The individual taxpayers don't even pay for their own
> share of govt. That means the redistribution story is a fairy tale.

Well, they do pay for most of their share....and most of the share of those
not paying federal income taxes....

[Scout]

"jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote in message

news:h9SdnVYOwZLauE3P...@bright.net...
>
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>> >
>> > The individual taxpayers
>>
>> You tried that lie before, and it failed.
>
> Let's see you disprove the data:
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
>
> 2009 federal spending was 3.52 trillion.
> Individual income tax was 915 billion
> 26% of the spending was paid for by those taxpayers.

Ok, now how much of spending was paid for by those people who didn't owe
federal income tax?

How many people who didn't pay federal income tax ended up receiving money
from the federal government instead, thus not only failing to pay their
share, but requiring others to pay in just to make it neutral?

Seems to me if you're complaining that federal income tax doesn't cover
government spending, then we should eliminate both personal income tax, as
well as any personal social aid being provided by the government. Then let's
see you bitch about who's not paying their fair share.

Because guess what, some of that 26% goes to give people money in the form
of Medicare, Food Stamps, Welfare, Housing Assistance, etc, etc, etc.

[jim]

Scout wrote:
> Then let's
> see you bitch about who's not paying their fair share.
>

I'm not bitching about people not paying their share.
I'm bitching about people fabricating false stories
about paying more than their share. Nobody is paying
more than their share.

[jim]

Scout wrote:
>
> "jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote in message
> news:tZWdnRkmH4k-v03P...@bright.net...
> >
> >
> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >> Every last one of them will admit that she
> >> can't make an ethical case for the general
> >> redistribution of wealth
> >
> > The individual taxpayers don't even pay for their own
> > share of govt. That means the redistribution story is a fairy tale.
>
> Well, they do pay for most of their share....

Yes, but that means the claim that they
pay more than their share is fiction.

[jim]

Scout wrote:
>
> "jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote in message
> news:sY2dnUq_E6QAiU3P...@bright.net...
> >
> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>
> >> Leftists admit they can't make an ethical case for redistribution.
> >
> > Leftist are every bit as dumb and ignorant as you are.
> >
> > In the last few years income taxpayers have been paying for
> > less than 30% of federal spending. That means individual
> > taxpayers don't even pay for their share of federal spending,
> > much less anybody else's share.
>
> And what percentage of federal spending do those who don't pay federal
> income tax cover?

I'll complain about their story when they start
to make up tales that they are paying more
than their share.

[First-Post]

On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 18:09:48 -0600, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
wrote:

>
>

>Scout wrote:
>> Then let's
>> see you bitch about who's not paying their fair share.
>>
>
>I'm not bitching about people not paying their share.
>I'm bitching about people fabricating false stories
>about paying more than their share. Nobody is paying
>more than their share.

Based upon your opinion alone, which no one gives a damn about.

What percentage of your income is consumed by taxes hypocrite?

It has been proven that the wealthy pay in much more than they receive
regarding government services and entitlements.
You continue to claim that they do not but have never posted any proof
of your stupid assed statements.

[jim]

First-Post wrote:

>
> It has been proven that the wealthy pay in much more than they receive
> regarding government services and entitlements.
> You continue to claim that they do not but have never posted any proof
> of your stupid assed statements.

Individual income taxpayers have been paying for
less than 30% of federal spending. That doesn't

even cover their share of the spending.

You can find the data here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

2009 federal spending was 3.52 trillion.
Individual income tax was 915 billion
26% of the spending was paid for by those taxpayers.

2010 federal spending was 3.46 trillion.
Individual income tax was 899 billion

26% of the spending was paid for by those taxpayers.

2011 federal spending was 3.6 trillion.
Individual income tax was 1.09 trillion
30% of the spending was covered by those taxpayers.

2012 federal spending was 3.54 trillion.
Individual income tax was 1.13 trillion
32% of the spending was paid for by those taxpayers.

That comes to about 29% of the federal spending
was paid for by individual income tax payers.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/10/2014 4:09 PM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation
collective, lied:
>
>

> Scout wrote:
>> Then let's
>> see you bitch about who's not paying their fair share.
>>
>
> I'm not bitching about people not paying their share.

Yes, you are.

[Scout]

"First-Post" <AIOE_posters_...@AIOE.org> wrote in message
news:bk31d9dgs9hikt1k8...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 18:09:48 -0600, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Scout wrote:
>>> Then let's
>>> see you bitch about who's not paying their fair share.
>>>
>>
>>I'm not bitching about people not paying their share.
>>I'm bitching about people fabricating false stories
>>about paying more than their share. Nobody is paying
>>more than their share.
>
> Based upon your opinion alone, which no one gives a damn about.
>
> What percentage of your income is consumed by taxes hypocrite?
>
> It has been proven that the wealthy pay in much more than they receive
> regarding government services and entitlements.
> You continue to claim that they do not but have never posted any proof
> of your stupid assed statements.

I challenge anyone to show us the wealthy get more from the government in
relation to what they pay than does someone getting an earned income credit,
welfare, housing assistance, food stamps, and all the rest.

If/When someone can do that then we can talk about what is fair for
taxation.

[Max Boot]

On 1/10/2014 5:23 PM, Baxter wrote:
> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
> news:laq3vk$g2n$1...@dont-email.me:

>
>>
>> I challenge anyone to show us the wealthy get more from the government
>> in relation to what they pay than does someone getting an earned
>> income credit, welfare, housing assistance, food stamps, and all the
>> rest.

> ----------
> 4 Ways Government Policy Favors the Rich and Keeps the Rest of Us Poor

*NONE* of the below are examples of redistribution to the rich from the
poor.


>
> 1. Protectionism for high-income professionals, free trade for everyone else

You want just anyone to be able to hang up a medical doctor's shingle,
do you?


> 2. Rich and own a big house? Here�s some money!
> 3. A sales tax for bread but not for bonds (or stocks or futures)

Only 14 of the 50 states levy sales tax on groceries, and all 14 of
those apply a lower rate than the general sales tax.


> 4. Tired of payroll taxes? The wealthy aren�t because they don�t have to
> pay

Everyone pays Social Security tax on the first $113,700 of
salary/wages/tips income (increases to $117,000 this year), and everyone
pays Medicare tax on *ALL* such income (no limit).

[prime cut]

On 1/10/2014 5:31 PM, jim wrote:
> You can find the data here:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/17186-cbo-report-the-rich-pay-most-of-the-taxes-the-poor-get-checks

Jane Wells, a business news reporter for CNBC, after reviewing the

[prime cut]

On 1/10/2014 5:13 PM, jim wrote:
> I'll complain about their story when they start

[prime cut]

On 1/10/2014 5:09 PM, jim wrote:
> I'm not bitching about people not paying their share.

[jim]

prime cut wrote:

>
> This government largess must be paid for in some way, and it’s the

> remaining three-fifths of Americans who do the paying, especially the
> top fifth.

The income taxpayers fool themselves into believing
they pay for it by telling fairy tales.

Income tax pays for less than 1/3 of federal spending.
That doesn't even cover the income taxpayers share
of the spending.

2009 federal spending was 3.52 trillion.
Individual income tax was 915 billion
26% of the spending was paid for by those taxpayers.

2010 federal spending was 3.46 trillion.
Individual income tax was 899 billion
26% of the spending was paid for by those taxpayers.

2011 federal spending was 3.6 trillion.
Individual income tax was 1.09 trillion
30% of the spending was covered by those taxpayers.

2012 federal spending was 3.54 trillion.
Individual income tax was 1.13 trillion
32% of the spending was paid for by those taxpayers.

That comes to about 29% of the federal spending
was paid for by individual income tax payers.

[Moder@tor]

Not all of them:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/06/35-000-rich-people-arent-paying-any-income-tax-how-is-that-possible/258183/

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

First, a big caveat. Only a very, very small percentage of top earners
have zero federal income tax liability -- 0.88 percent in 2009, to be
exact.

Of those 0.88, check the graph.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 1/11/2014 10:20 AM, Denny wrote:

> The poor don't get a tax deduction for their private corporate jets, or the
> champagn included.
>

Sure they do, they are 100% exempted from any corporate jet tax.

That's the point of the tax code.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/11/2014 5:53 AM, Immoder@te Li@r lied:

Unrepresentative anecdote.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/11/2014 7:20 AM, Denny wrote:
> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

> The poor don't get a tax deduction for their private corporate jets,

The poor don't pay any tax at all. Even with deductions, the rich still
pay lots of taxes.

How many corporate jets are there? If it's legitimately used for the
business of the firm, why shouldn't it be treated as a business expense
just like the utility bills and rent on the factories and offices? It's
a legitimate expense until you prove it isn't.

[prime cut]

On 1/11/2014 6:53 AM, Moder@tor wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 17:47:02 -0500, "Scout"
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote in message
>> news:sY2dnUq_E6QAiU3P...@bright.net...
>>>
>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Leftists admit they can't make an ethical case for redistribution.
>>>
>>> Leftist are every bit as dumb and ignorant as you are.
>>>
>>> In the last few years income taxpayers have been paying for
>>> less than 30% of federal spending. That means individual
>>> taxpayers don't even pay for their share of federal spending,
>>> much less anybody else's share.
>>
>> And what percentage of federal spending do those who don't pay federal
>> income tax cover?
>>
>> Yea, tell us how we should increase the rate on those who are paying federal
>> income tax to "cover their share" when we've got people that pay far less
>> than their share. Oh, and those people have a bigger share because they
>> receive far more in benefits from the federal government.
>>
> Not all of them:

Bullshit.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/17186-cbo-report-the-rich-pay-most-of-the-taxes-the-poor-get-checks

Jane Wells, a business news reporter for CNBC, after reviewing the
latest report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) on who pays
income taxes in America, claimed that the rich pay them all. The CBO,
wrote Wells, showed that the top 20 percent pay nearly 93 percent of all
income taxes, while the top 40 percent pay 106 percent of them.

How is that possible? The bottom fifth of wage earners get more from the
government than they pay in taxes. Hence, the anomaly of the so-called
rich paying more than 100 percent of all income taxes received by the
government.

The CBO�s math is straightforward: For the year 2010, the bottom fifth
earned �market income� � wages, business income, capital gains,
retirement income, and so on � of $8,100 per person. But they also
received �government transfers� � cash payments and in-kind benefits
such as SNAP � of $22,700, leaving them with a per-person after-tax
income of $30,800. Each person�s income tax liability in that group?
Exactly zero.

For the second lowest quintile, the numbers for 2010 were similar:
income of $30,700 per person, government transfers of $15,200 with
income taxes paid of $2,500 per person, leaving them with an after-tax
income of $43,400.

This government largess must be paid for in some way, and it�s the

remaining three-fifths of Americans who do the paying, especially the

[prime cut]

On 1/11/2014 4:59 AM, jim wrote:
> The income taxpayers

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/17186-cbo-report-the-rich-pay-most-of-the-taxes-the-poor-get-checks

Jane Wells, a business news reporter for CNBC, after reviewing the
latest report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) on who pays
income taxes in America, claimed that the rich pay them all. The CBO,
wrote Wells, showed that the top 20 percent pay nearly 93 percent of all
income taxes, while the top 40 percent pay 106 percent of them.

How is that possible? The bottom fifth of wage earners get more from the
government than they pay in taxes. Hence, the anomaly of the so-called
rich paying more than 100 percent of all income taxes received by the
government.

The CBO�s math is straightforward: For the year 2010, the bottom fifth
earned �market income� � wages, business income, capital gains,
retirement income, and so on � of $8,100 per person. But they also
received �government transfers� � cash payments and in-kind benefits
such as SNAP � of $22,700, leaving them with a per-person after-tax
income of $30,800. Each person�s income tax liability in that group?
Exactly zero.

For the second lowest quintile, the numbers for 2010 were similar:
income of $30,700 per person, government transfers of $15,200 with
income taxes paid of $2,500 per person, leaving them with an after-tax
income of $43,400.

This government largess must be paid for in some way, and it�s the

remaining three-fifths of Americans who do the paying, especially the

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/11/2014 12:28 PM, Baxter wrote:
> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
> news:6112e$52d1700a$414e828e$17...@EVERESTKC.NET:

>
>> How many corporate jets are there? If it's legitimately used for the
>> business of the firm, why shouldn't it be treated as a business
>> expense just like the utility bills and rent on the factories and
>> offices? It's a legitimate expense until you prove it isn't.
>>

> The IRS doesn't necessarily see it that way.

They sure do.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/11/2014 3:33 PM, Denny wrote:

> There must be thousands.

"must be". In other words, you have no idea. You also have no idea if
they're legitimately used for the firm or not.