Any decrease in our benefits is a de-facto increase in our taxes, it seems to me.

[grahamhgreen]

By 'our', I mean anyone who is not a millionaire.

All of this talk is really about how to further shift the tax burden to the middle class, not whether or not they will be increasing taxes.

In this case they are stealing our benefits money and funneling it to pay for the tax cuts for the wealthy and the killing fields in the middle east.

Any decrease in benefits is a de-facto increase in taxes.

[dkf]

1. Oh so now we hate taxes too?

Sounds like George W Bush won the argument.

[grahamhgreen]

3. Not at all, it's just time for the wealthy and the corporations to start paying again, not the poor.

[girl gone mad]

11. Shifting the tax burden onto the workers..

to pay off deficits which have almost entirely benefited the rich is not a progressive move. No progressive or liberal should support it.

[dkf]

13. You know the biggest transfer of the tax burden to the working class was Reagan's SS fix right?

This is nothing.

[girl gone mad]

14. Two wrongs do not make a right.

[dkf]

16. Most here don't recognize what was done.

The Dems got rolled on that one.

[thecrow]

2. Well, the way I saw this go down yesterday

was that they will make the middle class pay more for the benefits.
That way, the tax revenues will expand AND the cuts to benefits will be made.
Win/win?

Oh joy! Everyone comes out smelling like a rose!
And then they'll extend the debt ceiling to the middle of the Presidential election.
Kum bay ahhhhhhhhhhh
Yeah that's the ticket!
:sarcasm:


BTW: This is NOT how I want it.

[robcon]

4. Not equivalent. 97% of income taxes are paid by the top 50% of households.

A tax increase targets earners - the top 50% in income.

A benefit decrease targets those who get the benefits - much more concentrated in the lower 50% of households.

[kick-ass-bob]

5. "97% of income taxes are paid..." That's straight off of Rush's site.

Just so ya know.

And seeing as how 30% of that top 50% are much closer to the bottom 50%, that shouldn't make anyone happy.

Edit for image:

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[robcon]

15. You're looking at wealth. I was looking at income tax payments.

People earning the top 50% of adjusted gross income pay 97% of income taxes.

see: http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#table6

[damntexdem]

6. Whatever we call it, it's taking from the rest of us to give to the rich.

Reverse Robin Hood by any name is just as disgusting.

[mzmolly]

7. You're right. If we start calling everything a "tax" perhaps those

who are so concerned with that one syllable word will start to think.

[grahamhgreen]

12. That's what i'm thinking...! nt

[indepat]

8. Bingo, you've hit the nail squarely on its head. This travesty shows the venality, mendacity,

and corruption of a government eager to exact a much higher tax rate and burden on the middle class and poor than they are willing to exact on the uber-wealthy and large corporations. This travesty imo is clearly the essence of obscenity squared times the speed of light. A government so structured cannot long live and do well imo, because those who abhor such corrupt governance will surely reach critical mass. ;) :patriot:

[EC]

9. Well, yeah...

The repubs considered removing subsidies for jets etc. as tax increases, so the taking of other subsidies and benefits to us would be increases too. But have you heard Grover Norquist screaming about them?