Mitch McConnell: Poor have it too easy, have to pay their share of taxes

that piece of shit

from now until the election.

The Republicans want to raise taxes on the poor and the middle class while further cutting taxes on the wealthy.....

We need tv adds with republicans stating this playing day and night

Rmoney can't tell you what cuts he would make because the poor won't hate Obama more than him if he does. Now McConnell is telling you straight up, we're balancing the books on the backs of the poor. We're taking back those food stamps, those tax credits and all of the other perks you get for being poor. Some other numbnut today said he was tired of the media bombarding him with the plight of the poor. What will it take for folks to get over whatever it is they have against the president and look toward their own survival?

To paraphrase Stewart

The republican problem with poor people isn't that they don't have any skin in the game
the problem with poor people is they still have some skin

The reason that the upper 50% are paying all the income tax is because they make a sufficient amount to be taxed. Congress could pass laws to guarantee a living wage in order to broaden the tax base, but somehow I don't think the rich would care for that solution. Even though wealthier people are paying the bulk of the income taxes, they're still making out like bandits because they're paying their workers shit wages.

But then, I'm one of those nuts that thinks NOBODY should be taxed for their labor.

I believe we need to eliminate the fiction that buying and selling stocks is exempt from a sales tax because they aren't REALLY being bought and sold, they're being "traded".

And I mean that with the utmost sincerity.

Is that the upper income "earners" have more tax exempt income then those that don't pay any income taxes.

(You know, the social security trust fund you have been stealing from giving tax cuts while starting two wars and Big Government programs like Homeland Security and the TSA- asshole!)

what percentage of income do they earn? My guess is more than 70%

excluding FICA and other payroll taxes, sales taxes, and other regressive revenue streams, isn't it?

trust Republican spin.

When Mitt has a 13 percent tax rate, that's inequality.


Beyond the 1 percent



http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2011/10/25/beyond-the-1-percent/


A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3629

That the top 10% pay roughly 70% of the income tax revenue. For singles, the 28% bracket lower end cutoff puts them in the top 10%, and for couples filing jointly, both the 25% bracket lower end puts them in the top 10%.

More than the 1%, absolutely yes.

"Excellent graph and excellent info, but it doesn't contradict the fact...That the top 10% pay roughly 70% of the income tax revenue."

What chart are you seeing?

This is Republican slight of hand to distract from the fact that their proposals benefit the top one percent. From the Reuters piece:


The threshold for the top 10 percent is just above $100,000. Do you think anyone confuses a person earning $100,000 with someone earning $1 million?

Those below the top 2 percent will not benefit from the GOP's proposals.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002828317

I'm just saying that none of what you're saying contradicts the fact that the top 10% of wage earners, which includes some of the middle class, pays about 70% of the federal income tax revenue. Parts of the 25% and 28% bracket are also part of that top 10%. To acknowledge that as fact isn't to say that someone making $100,000 is just the same as someone making $1 million.

Of course people making $75,000 pay more, collectively, than those making $1 million or more.There are a hell of lot more of the former than of the latter.

It's not a talking point, it's a fact based on numbers from the IRS. There is nothing wrong with using facts to our advantage, as the chart does - we SHOULD do so. But we shouldn't be surprised or outraged when Republicans try to use the facts to their advantage as well.

...you do understand that while there a lot more people earning less than $75,000, they account for less of the income than the top 20 percent, right? In fact, the top one percent has a larger share of the income pie than the next 9 percent combined.

I think outrage should follow any Republican attempt to distort the facts in favor of their attempts to cut taxes for the top one percent while raising taxes on the bottom 20 percent.

According to the IRS, the top 1% of wage earners account for 20% of AGI. The top 10% account for about 46% of AGI. So, no I don't agree that the top 1% hold a larger piece of the income pie than the next 9% combined, since it appears that the next 9% hold 26% of the pie.

I'm curious as to why you switched your argument from those that make $75,000 to those that make less than $75,000. People making less than $75,000 do indeed have a smaller piece of the income pie, but they also contribute a proportionally lower portion of revenue. The bottom 25% (below ~$67,000) of wage earners earn about 33% of the income, and pay about 14% of the income taxes.

That's not a bad thing - we need a progressive tax system. I just don't think that we should twist the numbers and try to turn them into something they're not. There is nothing wrong with stating the fact that people earning 47% of the income pay 67% of the taxes, and there is nothing wrong with the fact itself. Why not just answer the Republicans by saying "hell yeah they pay more, because they can afford to pay more - that's a progressive tax system at work, and we need more of it, not less" instead of trying to say they are twisting the truth, when in fact, they are just stating the truth?

... slight of hand.

My argument wasn't "switched." In response to a point you made, I cited the information that you said was "excellent." That was:



Yes, "we need a progressive tax system," and one doesn't have to "twist the numbers" to show that a person earning $1 million isn't paying his/her fair share.







http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/chart-of-the-day-the-47-percent-pay-their-fair-share.php

The numbers are what they are.

What do you claim is slight of hand?

I generally don't like to wish ill on others, but in this case, I hope he and his ilk get be recipients of the very things they want for the rest of us.

We are hard pressed to push it to our advantage, just isn't bipartisan enough.

The TeaPubliKlans have many tons of these sort of anchors but we seldom throw them around their necks and never just hammer the theme.

is that in being poor, they actually have very little money.

Personally, I think we should not be taxing anyone we are also subsidizing, because it is stupid policy. What I mean is that if a person qualifies for food stamps, TANF, low income housing, earned income tax credit, and such, we should just not tax them. Simply because it is taking the money only to give it back by way of a government program. This is less efficient than just letting them keep the money.

And if that's not enough to pay Mitch McConnell's salary, they can always sell a lung or kidney.

in Hell for all of these evil doers.

These corporations, who rely on minimum wage labor, should pay a living wage that keeps people off government programs. Problem solved.

from the poor to give to the rich attitude that they don't even try to hide it.

Fuck you Mitch!!!