'EVERY ADULT needs to pay something! Even if only a nominal and symbolic amount of $200/yr or something. Get some skin in the game, people.'
No--an impoverished person's 'skin in the game' is struggling to stay alive on meager wages.
A symbolic 200$ that may be the difference between getting medical care or food and starving/dying makes zero difference in the grand scheme of anything, except to make sadistic assholes like you feel better about paying your fair share.
Dear Gov.Nikkie Hale . my name is Daniel Hayes SR. Around 2010 I lost my driver licence for tags My son didn't turn in but the cars were in my name I gave them the cars but the but when the insurance laps on the cars they were surpose to to them in but they so I lost my license all I'm asking if you can help me get them back I need a job when I lost my my got sick I had to stay home and take care of her you know I feel like I'm in prison I need them back if you can reduce it maybe half I owe $552.00 help me if you can Nikkie I need to work that's why I turn to you I voted for you but I thought I wouldn't need you but help I promise god will bless you when you are used to driving and getting out of the house I stay home miss work my was with home Heath care I love working with people I love helping people.don't work to hard god bless.thanks Daniel Hayes SR.
Considering that the top 1% own 35% of the nation’s wealth, with the top 20% bringing in 90% of the total wealth (Washington Post), then the > 50% number sounds about right. But factoring in the breaks for capital gains and investment income, and the various shelters only available to top tier earners, then those at the labor end of the scale are still paying a higher actual effective rate.
It’s not about the volume – it’s about the percentage.
"So, how much is enough? "
Since you asked, in my opinion the tax rates were just right before the Bush tax cuts.
"But you do realize that the top 5% of income earners pay >50% of total US federal income taxes, right?"
By focusing on just US federal income taxes, you ignore the more regressive aspects of the federal tax system, such as payroll and excise taxes. And by including only the federal tax system, you ignore the more regressive state and local taxes. An honest assessment of "fairness" requires us to consider the bigger picture. Everyone has skin in the game.
But you do realize that the top 5% of income earners pay >50% of total US federal income taxes, right? And the bottom 50% pays
So, how much is enough? Should the top 5% pay 75%? 95%? Should the bottom 50% just go ahead and pay 0, thus making income taxes a total hypothetical and someone else's problem to millions of voters?
EVERY ADULT needs to pay something! Even if only a nominal and symbolic amount of $200/yr or something. Get some skin in the game, people.
'To quote Margaret Thatcher, socialism works great until you run out of other people's money." You can't lift some up by tearing others down.'
You're painfully obtuse, but i'll explain it as simply as I can.
The rates for the top tax bracket are the lowest they've been since pre-WWII and the plutocrats STILL BITCH ABOUT TAXES. Meanwhile, they've snowed you (and all the other conservative dipshits in this country) into thinking that they are being taxed into poverty.
Bernie wants them to pay their fair-fucking-share, and stop sheltering their money offshore. If we taxed the top earners at the pre-Reagan rates (>70%), maybe we wouldn't have such a revenue shortfall in this country. Hell, top brackets were more than 50% for 7 of Deregulation Reagan's 8 years.
But whatever, keep blaming the poorest among us for having the audacity to use social services, and not the rich that have bribed their way into the most powerfully favorable economic policies in the history of mankind.
"To quote Margaret Thatcher"
^ Always a point in Life where I stop reading or listening.
"Except Sanders has actual political chops and is actually interested in helping better the lives of the American people."
There are only some lives he wants to better, most of the others he wants to make worse by taking what they have earned to give to people who do not earn. To quote Margaret Thatcher, socialism works great until you run out of other people's money." You can't lift some up by tearing others down.
Except Sanders has actual political chops and is actually interested in helping better the lives of the American people.
Trump and Sanders are results of the disgust with the Republicrat machines (which are really more alike than different) which have dominated US politics for decades.
The Simpsons nailed it with Kang and Kodos in 1996.
The "establishment" are the rich people. These are the greedy Chamber of Commerce people who only care about money. They like illegal immigration because it dilutes the labor pool and allows their companies to keeps the cost of labor low. They are also big proponents of free trade, which allows them further reduce labor costs by moving their factories overseas. The only color these people see is green and they are often social moderates.
The "base" are the white people without a 4 year college degree. These people are competing directly with minorities and immigrants for jobs and educational opportunities and they resent any shift toward pluralism that comes at their expense. Their place in society is no longer as secure as it was for their ancestors and they are fearful and angry about change. These people are big believers of the status quo and have been screaming for economic relief from illegal immigrants for decades to no avail.
As the farm communities of the mid-west collapsed in the 1980's and the manufacturing sector innovated or moved offshore due to free trade agreements in the 1990's, the base voted with the establishment, and against their economic interests, in the belief that the establishment would, at least, pursue their social agenda of ending illegal immigration, stopping abortion, and preventing gay marriage. But they still hoped they would become rich and join the establishment themselves, one day.
What we're seeing now is the populist anger that inevitably results when the base realizes that the establishment is completely full of shit. They have not passed a single item on the Republican social agenda, while also offering no opportunities for economic advancement. Haley fits this mold perfectly. She looked good while giving a vapid speech. That's what they wanted. Nobody in the establishment cares that her record as governor remains unblemished with legislative accomplishment. Truthfully, she would make an awful Vice President and I'll believe she's "transformed" when she expands medicaid coverage in South Carolina.
Trump, on the other hand, is an absolutely brilliant politician. He's offered a simple solution that everyone in the country can understand. He's going to build the wall. The base immediately sees a politician who is willing to do something tangible and concrete for them for the first time in 35 years. And while he might be mean and crass, they know Trump is telling them the truth and, call them crazy, they would rather have the truth than to continue to get pissed on by the establishment and told that it's raining.
Personally, I'm hoping for a Bernie-Trump matchup that gives the American people a true choice about the direction of the country.
He's the front runner of the fringe — big difference. And he has proven that he doesn't care about the team, only himself. He has no track record as a politician or even, gasp, a Republican. Under other circumstances, Trump would have run as a Democrat.
Didn't she attack her own party's front runner? How is that supporting the team, unless the "team" is a group that doesn't represent the will of the voters.
I will say I'm going to have to agree with Nofaith a bit: while it is unsurprising that she'd get some backlash for not rah-rah-rahing whatever nonsense everyone with an (R) after their name has ever said, the level of hate and discontent thrown at her is even higher than I imagined. So much anger, pouting, and passionate defense of Donald Trump. Teeth gnash, tears and spittle fly, angry emojis all over the place. Who cares that she bashed the President, inveighed against illegal immigrants, made it clear that Syrian refugees aren't welcomed, and that trickle-down economics is still the way to go? RINOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
It is pretty hilarious.
'Liberals were going to hate it no matter what because they had already been told to believe the speech and her are evil.'
Liberals hate her because she has no problem giving hundreds of millions to corporations, but refuses TAXES WE HAVE ALREADY PAID in the form of medicaid expansion in some hamfisted principled stand that harms the poor.
Fuck her. Fuck everything about her. She is awful.
I think that one of the problems here may be in defining the Republican base as a subset of Republicans who actually hate all other Republicans. A base technically should be made of those who always support the "team." It would be wise if more Republicans began to view their base as their supporters, not the members of the fifth column within their own party whose only allegiance is to perpetual outrage. We've also erred in viewing grassroots support in the party as that fickle faction that supports whoever hates the federal government the most, and doesn't turn out on election day, instead of those people who work ceaselessly in the trenches.
I'm no Republican, but it seems like Nikki Haley falls in that no-man's land between Tea Party activism and Establishment Republicanism. Maybe at one time that seemed to be a wise bet, and maybe in the future it will be again, but for now, the Republican base seems to have only one word for politicians like Haley: Sellout.
Thank you, Chris Haire. You got this exactly right.
I think it is hilarious that she managed to tick off both sides by having what was a relatively conciliatory, not overly combative speech that talked about coming together on things that we know we can all agree on and spread the blame around for the current mess in DC. Liberals were going to hate it no matter what because they had already been told to believe the speech and her are evil. But the negative reaction from the conservative side was not expected to the degree that I have seen.
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2016,
Charleston City Paper