CNN: 1 in 10 Americans are tea partiers

I respect Nader as well. I don't agree with much of what he has to say, but he does have some very interesting viewpoints on some things. If you see an interview with him, it's always an interesting read. He's not afraid to tell you "These people right here, (naming names,) are ripping us all off." And I remember when he was just the "consumer advocate" doode on TV in L.A.

Oh, and AC, if you see something that doesn't seem to follow my "follow the Benjamins" rule, you probably aren't looking at it properly. Besides a few VERY EVIL people, and even in most of their cases, the rule works wonders for understanding. No model is perfect, but a good model has good predictive value. That rule is a good model. Excellent application: Look at every bill Congress takes up. Which way would rob the wealth of the American people the most? That's how the bill will go. You can't look at what they say the bill says or will do, you have to go to the next level of understanding. Like LBJ's "great society" destroyed the Black family unit and the wealth of Black America, reducing Black America to what we see in Detroit. That's not what they said the bill(s) would do.

In reply to Dr. Hess:

"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it......"

http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=1576

aircooled wrote: It seems like a pretty reasonable assumption to me. The poll did say that 47% of Tea Partians (?) made less then $50,000. The taxes for someone making under $50,000 are likely to be fairly simple, it doesn't take a lot to go to zero federal taxes at that point. I believe having three kids alone will zero out your taxes up to around $48,000 or so (not even including the other big deductions of mortgage interest and 401k / IRA). Its probably not quite as high as he is guessing (since many of the non-payers are retired, of course those old types do like to protest) but it should not be to far off.

uhh, you sure? i make less than 50k a year, and even bought a house last year, and i still paid taxes. i did get a refund, but i didn't get nearly everything i paid in back.

One of the biggest gripes by the Tea Party is the national debt and the money in circulation. They know that these two things alone will eventually bring the country to it's knees. Go research the amount of money this administration has put into circulation in the past year. The dollar is eventually going to be worthless if it continues. You can't keep printing money to pay for your programs and not expect a collapse. Even the Chinese are slowing their investments in the US and are calling for a different world currency than the dollar.

Even if the wealthiest can and do pay their taxes, they know the eventual outcome of this type of policy. Coupled with the health care bill, poor military policies, business take overs, tax codes, and proposed bills such as cap and trade, there is zero hope that this economy can recover if it is allowed to continue for so long. None of this is brain surgery. You can dupe the uniformed for quite a while, and bribe them with handouts, but eventually everyone will pay the price.

oldsaw wrote: In reply to Dr. Hess: "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it......" http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=1576

I heard that quote and wanted to reach through my radio and smack Nancy Pelosi. If any politician wants to know why the American people don't trust them, just refer to that quote.

The names in charge may have changed but the business in Washington hasn't. Regardless of who you voted for it seems that once they get to Washington it all goes out the window. I liked the idea that politicians who run for office on a string of promises should sign an employment contract stating that they will do what they promised to get elected, or they will be removed from office. Their replacement will be whoever ran against them with the next highest vote count, and so on.

racerdave600 wrote: One of the biggest gripes by the Tea Party is the national debt and the money in circulation. They know that these two things alone will eventually bring the country to it's knees. Go research the amount of money this administration has put into circulation in the past year. The dollar is eventually going to be worthless if it continues. You can't keep printing money to pay for your programs and not expect a collapse. Even the Chinese are slowing their investments in the US and are calling for a different world currency than the dollar.

But remember Warren Buffet says debt is OK.

racerdave600 wrote: Even if the wealthiest can and do pay their taxes, they know the eventual outcome of this type of policy. Coupled with the health care bill, poor military policies, business take overs, tax codes, and proposed bills such as cap and trade, there is zero hope that this economy can recover if it is allowed to continue for so long. None of this is brain surgery. You can dupe the uniformed for quite a while, and bribe them with handouts, but eventually everyone will pay the price.

Lincoln said it best: 'you can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time'. Them chickens will come home to roost, the piper will expect to be paid, pick your favorite proverb. But the tea partiers is big ol' dumb stupidheads.

One of my customers is none other than [name dropping] Mallory Factor. [/name dropping] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mallory_Factor The man is sharp as a tack, knows his stuff. Maybe he's not as loaded as Buffet or Soros but he's getting there. He's a tea partier.

"The Rich" will never pay "their share" of taxes. Never have, never will. Why? Because somehow or other, us peons always get "The Rich" to write the tax codes. Now, you do the math on that one.

All these "tax people making over 250K/yr" BS lines, has anyone ever heard anything about tagging that number to inflation? Because in about 10 years, we'll all be making 250K/yr. A loaf of bread might cost us $12, and gas may be $10, but we'll be making 250K/yr and we'll all be subject to the "new" taxes on "The Rich."

Oh, BTW, a couple weeks ago Soros said that Greece had too much debt, but the US didn't have enough yet.

And the next regularly scheduled attack on the Tea Party movement is under way now. It is to equate the Tea Party with "right wing extremists who blow up buildings like Timothy McVey." It's showing up everywhere in the main stream media. If you look carefully at what Uncle Bill said recently, he really said to be careful because they (the Tea Party people) might inspire nut cases. Uncle Bill knows what he's talking about because Uncle BIll inspired a whole lotta anti-government feelings and genuine nut cases with his gun bans (now gone, although George the First's are still with us) and his murdering US Citizens who's only crime was to be different and want to be left alone. Uncle Bill is really warning to back off the gas pedal on the commie (totalitarian) push the D's are doing right now.

Dr. Hess wrote: "The Rich" will never pay "their share" of taxes. Never have, never will. Why? Because somehow or other, us peons always get "The Rich" to write the tax codes. Now, you do the math on that one.

It's funnay when things like facts don't agree with perceptions..

So here's my facts. post some that support your assumption. I don't think you will. I think you'll do something about well they own businesses and loopholes and we don't have the data..

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=901335

btw.. here's a good article on using a VAT (flat tax or fair tax, same thing) vs.. our regular tax.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=412062

In reply to ignorant:

Ig, a VAT is most certainly NOT the same as a flat tax nor the Fair Tax. The VAT is a consumption surcharge added to existing taxes.

EDIT: The VAT (as applied in the TPC article) has nothing to do with the VAT now being floated as a trial-balloon by the current administration.

A flat tax replaces the progressive tax code with a simpler, across-the-board tax rate.

The Fair Tax is a consumption tax (based on an approximate 23% rate IIRC) that is predicated on the ELIMINATION of all other federal taxes. The Fair Tax is applied only to new goods and services and is an embedded tax - you pay the going retail price and the tax is inclusive (in that price). Oh, and your gross income is also your net income.

Yup, it is funnay when things like facts don't agree with perceptions.

oldsaw wrote: In reply to ignorant: Ig, a VAT is most certainly NOT the same as a flat tax nor the Fair Tax. The VAT is a consumption surcharge added to existing taxes.

so they are effectivey the same thing.. I would call the fair tax effectively a permutation or cousin a very similar thing to a VAT. So a Flat tax is effectively a VAT without income taxes.. so whats the difference... Nothing. It's a VAT still.

Provide facts and data..

Here's something interesting.. VAT's change all around the globe.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_added_tax

Some places have little to no other taxes aside from a VAT..

So.. Your perception of what a VAT is may not be valid all around the world.

Sorry Data trumps you AGAIN!

Datsun, you ain't rich. When I say "The Rich," I mean The Rich, not the Well Off. You want me to name names? Kennedy, Rockefeller, Soros, Rothschild, etc. Last I saw, a few years ago one of the Kennedy kids quit whatever political scam he was on and went back to living on his trust. That is, he "made" 50K/yr, and paid taxes on that, while the tax exempt charitable trust (or foundation) supplied him with a million dollar house, cars, speed boats, bridges, ho's, blow whatever else he needed that all the cool kids had. The fifty large was his spending money.

Or this guy: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36597290/ns/business-us_business/ Paulson, who pulled in a cool billion. How much taxes do you think he paid on that bil? His scam: Buy up a whole bunch of really bad mortgages. You know, "no nesissito por la paper," "nothing down, we'll pay you to leave the table" mortgages. Then he packaged them up into a collateralized debt obligation and got GS to sell it in pieces to "investors." Like the Royal Bank of Scotland, who got taken for about 800 mil. or various other GS "clients." Meanwhile, Paulson buys a whole lotta insurance on these things, "credit default swaps," effectively shorting them because he knows they are gonna implode. He knows this because he put them together. His buddy at GS "sells" them as "hey, these here are good investments. They pay a return and they are backed up by the faith of the United States as property that eventually has Federal default insurance plus a couple other default insurances along the way and the housing market will go up forever and people are going to pay their mortgages, right?" Wink wink. Then, poof, the whole thing falls apart, Paulson walks away with a billion, the economy is crashed and we all sit around saying "Yeah, tax those suckers making 250K/yr. Tax Datsun to the stone age. That will teach him to try to be successful."

Oh, and now The O wants to not take apart "too big to fail" banks. Can't be having that, now can we?

Dr. Hess wrote: Paulson walks away with a billion, the economy is crashed and we all sit around saying "Yeah, tax those suckers making 250K/yr. Tax Datsun to the stone age. That will teach him to try to be successful."

Tax system definetly ain't right..

The TPC data shows ( and the data that was presented in the NPR stuff that I was dedpanned for) shows that those making over $100k a year do the lionshare of the heavy lifting for paying taxes. The data is something like the top 5% of earners already pay 50% or so of the gross tax revenue in this country.

I think the rich already pay their fair share. I know thats a wacky thing for a liberal to say. I don't think we should have them pay any more. I think if we need more tax rev, we'll have to tax everyone higher and get those who aren't paying to pay. That's about it...

ignorant wrote:

oldsaw wrote: In reply to ignorant: Ig, a VAT is most certainly NOT the same as a flat tax nor the Fair Tax. The VAT is a consumption surcharge added to existing taxes.

so they are effectivey the same thing.. I would call the fair tax effectively a permutation or cousin a very similar thing to a VAT. So a Flat tax is effectively a VAT without income taxes.. so whats the difference... Nothing. It's a VAT still. Provide facts and data.. Here's something interesting.. VAT's change all around the globe.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_added_tax Some places have little to no other taxes aside from a VAT.. So.. Your perception of what a VAT is may not be valid all around the world. Sorry Data trumps you AGAIN!

You're skewing the data to prove your point - so be it.

The VAT as proposed by the Tax Policy Center is their incarnation of how a VAT may be impelemented. It is not the same as what is being considered by Volcker and his devotees; his version follows the European model and that is a consumtion tax added to existing taxation.

When the Tax Policy Center is the defacto source for pending tax reform, your point will gain validity, but at this point it is a think tank and little more.

Any attempt to skew a VAT or flat tax as resembling the Fair Tax is misguided and, well, ignorant. The Fair Tax is in no way linked to income; it is based soley on the purchase on new goods and services. There are NO OTHER federal income-related taxes because under its' provisions those other taxes no longer exist, nor does the IRS. How much tax one pays is contingent only on how much one consumes in Fair Tax(able) items or services - nothing else.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

We’re transitioning from a republic to a democracy (republic = republican , democracy = democrat). Both ideologies hold that the objective of the government is to act in the best interest of its citizens. The difference between the two ideologies is whether you consider the citizens as individuals or as a whole.

Our 435 House of Representative members are proportional to state populations. They’re called representatives for that reason, they’re a representation of how many folks are in each state…this is a democratic instrument.

Our 100 senators are evenly distributed two per state regardless of its population so small states get just as much weighting as large states…this is a Republican instrument.

I realize everyone is aware of this but its worth stating as some people don’t seem to have a good grasp on what fundamental effect shifting power from state level to federal level is having.

You’re having the rewards of your effort, deferred enjoyment, & risk taking redistributed to others as a result of a democratic “majority rules” ideology. The process is strikingly simple and predictable…ask the voting populace if they think the top 45% should give the bottom 55% their money….the majority of voters come out ahead so we get “change we can believe in”.

Individual is to citizen as state is to nation…as the federal government increases its power by monetizing the national debt, taking over failed companies, healthcare reform, cap & trade, etc., we sure to see more acts of democratic “majority rules” thinking.

Remember:

Voting has its limitations; just ask two wolves and a sheep what’s for lunch.

Fair Tax FTW!

oldsaw wrote: You're skewing the data to prove your point - so be it. The VAT as proposed by the Tax Policy Center is their incarnation of how a VAT may be impelemented. It is not the same as what is being considered by Volcker and his devotees; his version follows the European model and that is a consumtion tax added to existing taxation. When the Tax Policy Center is the defacto source for pending tax reform, your point will gain validity, but at this point it is a think tank and little more. Any attempt to skew a VAT or flat tax as resembling the Fair Tax is misguided and, well, ignorant. The Fair Tax is in no way linked to income; it is based soley on the purchase on new goods and services. There are NO OTHER federal income-related taxes because under its' provisions those other taxes no longer exist, nor does the IRS. How much tax one pays is contingent only on how much one consumes in Fair Tax(able) items or services - nothing else. http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

forget about the tpc... you seem to be all hung up on it.

read the merriam websters definition.. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/value-added%20tax

Main Entry: value–added tax Function: noun Date: 1935 : an incremental excise that is levied on the value added at each stage of the processing of a raw material or the production and distribution of a commodity and that typically has the impact of a sales tax on the ultimate consumer

how is a vat linked to income? It can be, but in many countries is not. As used in some countries its a super sales tax.. which is effectively what the fair tax is.. duh..

wether there are other taxes is inconsequential. You're still charging me a big assed tax when I buy stuff.

So by the definintion of VAT the fair tax is effectivly a VAT with a different name.

and I am ignorant, thats my name... I'm also right.

If one on ten vote, and one in ten are tea partyers, then all voters are tea partyers... cool

In reply to ignorant:

Would you rather pay a stand-alone big assed sales tax, or pay a big assed sales tax in addition to income taxes? Would you rather navigate thousands of pages of indecipherable tax codes, or just ante-up when you buy something new and shiny?

I never tied a VAT to income tax, but your link to the TPC clearly showed how a VAT can by used to reduce income taxes. However, the VAT (as proposed by administration advisor Volcker) is a supplementary consumption tax applied with no intent to reduce income tax burdens. Volcker sees a VAT as means to raise revenue with no adjustment to existing income tax code. That's a big assed tax on top of the income tax.

IF a VAT was the single method to collect tax revenue, it would along the lines of the Fair Tax. IF there are other taxes tied to income, a VAT has no semblance to the Fair Tax. BTW, that's with the F and the T of Fair Tax capitalized, not your "fair tax" interpretation.

It appears your idea of a "fair tax" is counter-intuitive to the concept of the Fair Tax.

RX Reven' wrote: We’re transitioning from a republic to a democracy (republic = republican , democracy = democrat).

You're not even close. Even a short jaunt thru Wikipedia will show you the error of your statement. We are not a democracy and were not even set up as a democracy. We have been a republic.

And to make matters even worse the present day Democrats used to be called Republicans. Lincoln was a Republican, but his party is now the Democrats.

carguy123 wrote:

RX Reven' wrote: We’re transitioning from a republic to a democracy (republic = republican , democracy = democrat).

You're not even close. Even a short jaunt thru Wikipedia will show you the error of your statement. We are not a democracy and were not even set up as a democracy. We have been a republic. And to make matters even worse the present day Democrats used to be called Republicans. Lincoln was a Republican, but his party is now the Democrats.

Even more ironic is that the title "Democrat" was used a an insult a couple hundred years ago. Those who couldn't engage the differences between the "rule of law" vs. "the rule of men" and sided with majority mob-rule were saddled with the label.

They deserved the slur then, and deserve it now...........

oldsaw wrote: It appears your idea of a "fair tax" is counter-intuitive to the concept of the Fair Tax.

remind me where I said one was better than the other.. I was merely winning the argument using the definition of the word.... Besides.. I never read the Vat vs fair tax article.. If you recall.. I posted it and said it was interesting..

I merely wanted to prove that the "fair tax" is actually a VAT. It may have some other ancillary that distinguish it.. but... at its root it's the same.

It's awesome that you assume what i believe..

awesome.

To be honest I don't think our current tax code is right, but I haven't invested into any time

Even more ironic is that the title "Democrat" was used a an insult a couple hundred years ago.

It's not still used as an insult?

ignorant wrote: I merely wanted to prove that the "fair tax" is actually a VAT. It may have some other ancillary that distinguish it.. but... at its root it's the same. It's awesome that you assume what i believe.. awesome. To be honest I don't think our current tax code is right, but I haven't invested into any time

Don't remember contending the Fair Tax wasn't VAT-related, only that implementation was debatable in how it's proposed from Volcker.

But if you're compelled to "win" on minor issues - awesome! Please, enjoy the spoils of your pyrrhic victory.

racerdave600 wrote: You can dupe the uniformed for quite a while...

AHEM

oldsaw wrote:

ignorant wrote: I merely wanted to prove that the "fair tax" is actually a VAT. It may have some other ancillary that distinguish it.. but... at its root it's the same. It's awesome that you assume what i believe.. awesome. To be honest I don't think our current tax code is right, but I haven't invested into any time

Don't remember contending the Fair Tax wasn't VAT-related, only that implementation was debatable in how it's proposed from Volcker. But if you're compelled to "win" on minor issues - awesome! Please, enjoy the spoils of your pyrrhic victory.

whoops.. I didn't finish my last sentence..

I haven't invested any time into looking at what would be a better tax system. A bunch of my friends are on to the fair tax thing, but we're all cheapskates so I think we'd just buy used like normal and not pay the tax..

I don't know. I just don't have the time to invest into looking. However, I need to sometime. I've just catapulted myself into the top 7% of all earners in the US.