Bill Maher: GOP Happy to Give Gov’t Handouts — to ‘F*ckface’ Rich Kids

[Rod Farva]

i shall defer to coolie. he's more well-rounded at dealing with racism than i am.

I see what ya did there.....

 

[Troglodyte]

More liberal thought. So "fair" is a matter of opinion but you think the government should be the arbiters of "fairness". The truth is that taxes are punishment for things you don't like or people you don't like. It has nothing to do with fairness. Don't like cigs? Tax the **** out of it. Don't like alcohol? Tax the **** out of it. Don't like "certain" rich people? Tax the **** out of them while letting your buddies skate (GE anyone?). Yea, that's exactly what the U.S. should be about right?

So they reduce the FICA rate after a certain point because there's something they like about people they otherwise don't like, I guess?

Cigarette use among the poor is very high, what a dilemma it must have been to tax that!

Just because you want to believe something is true, doesn't make it true.

 

[ark steel]

So they reduce the FICA rate after a certain point because there's something they like about people they otherwise don't like, I guess?

A simpler explanation is that this is due to the fact that the benefits are limited to a certain level. I'd imagine that this was some compromise from early on. This limit on comp for SS Wages should stay, IMO. This removes a lot of the "welfare" and "income redistribution" from SS benefits. There is still some aspect of both, but not as much as it could be if liberals get their way.

For what it is worth only the SS part is stopped at a certain level. The medicare part is taxed at total income. The income taxed for this purpose does have some deductions, like Section 125 and 401k contributions). So, while gross pay might be 120k, the SS/Medicare taxable part might be quite lower if ER sponsored health insurance is paid with pre-tax money. Of course, if your pay is lower for this purpose, so are the eventual benefits.

ACA might have imposed an additional Medicare tax on income over $200k or so. Something less than 1%. So, you get to **** the "rich" there.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

So they reduce the FICA rate after a certain point because there's something they like about people they otherwise don't like, I guess?

The philosophy is that there is a limit on how much you can collect annually therefore there is a limit on how much you pay in annually.

Cigarette use among the poor is very high, what a dilemma it must have been to tax that!

Democrats hate the poor except on election day. Of course they wouldn't be as poor if they weren't buying cigarettes.

Just because you want to believe something is true, doesn't make it true.

Back at ya.

 

[hamster]

i shall defer to coolie. he's more well-rounded at dealing with racism than i am.

Are you calling him fat?

 

[Troglodyte]

A simpler explanation is that this is due to the fact that the benefits are limited to a certain level. I'd imagine that this was some compromise from early on. This limit on comp for SS Wages should stay, IMO. This removes a lot of the "welfare" and "income redistribution" from SS benefits. There is still some aspect of both, but not as much as it could be if liberals get their way.

For what it is worth only the SS part is stopped at a certain level. The medicare part is taxed at total income. The income taxed for this purpose does have some deductions, like Section 125 and 401k contributions). So, while gross pay might be 120k, the SS/Medicare taxable part might be quite lower if ER sponsored health insurance is paid with pre-tax money. Of course, if your pay is lower for this purpose, so are the eventual benefits.

ACA might have imposed an additional Medicare tax on income over $200k or so. Something less than 1%. So, you get to **** the "rich" there.

I'm well aware of the different rates, there is a new .9% (I think) tax over $200k. My point was taxes aren't based on punishment as a result of dislike of certain people.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

My point was taxes aren't based on punishment as a result of dislike of certain people.

Hey ark, you want me to leave that one for you to hit out of the park?

 

[Troglodyte]

Back at ya.

No, I'd like to believe there's also tax relief coming for people who aren't going to inherit $5+ million. But I don't.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

No, I'd like to believe there's also tax relief coming for people who aren't going to inherit $5+ million. But I don't.

I think that taxes on gay people are too high.

 

[CoolieMan]

Are you calling him fat?

he is a poopie head....I'm glad he is going extinct

 

[Steeltime]

Just because you want to believe something is true, doesn't make it true.

 

[ark steel]

My point was taxes aren't based on punishment as a result of dislike of certain people.

That just isn't true. Just because you'd like to believe that doesn't make it some. How many campaign speeches did The Big O give about not taxing people who make less than $250k (which was a lie, btw). And got standing ovations.

When Bush gave everyone a tax break (well, those that pay taxes), what did you hear? "Tax cuts for the rich."

When some of those tax cuts were extended, they were only extended to those under a certain income, because "the rich" shouldn't get them.

Need more? Listen to, practically any speech by The Big O, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, et. al.

Overall, our tax code is NOT designed to generate revenu, it is designed to punish some groups and reward others. That is why some people can actually get a "refund" when they don't pay taxes. The tax code is rife with that ****. Generating revenue is a by-product.

Behave "properly" and you get to keep more of your money. Heck, you may even get some of someone else's! Behave improperly, well, welcome to the **** machine. Bend over, don't worry about lube, you won't need it.

 

[Confluence]

That just isn't true. Just because you'd like to believe that doesn't make it some. How many campaign speeches did The Big O give about not taxing people who make less than $250k (which was a lie, btw). And got standing ovations.

When Bush gave everyone a tax break (well, those that pay taxes), what did you hear? "Tax cuts for the rich."

When some of those tax cuts were extended, they were only extended to those under a certain income, because "the rich" shouldn't get them.

Need more? Listen to, practically any speech by The Big O, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, et. al.

Overall, our tax code is NOT designed to generate revenu, it is designed to punish some groups and reward others. That is why some people can actually get a "refund" when they don't pay taxes. The tax code is rife with that ****. Generating revenue is a by-product.

Behave "properly" and you get to keep more of your money. Heck, you may even get some of someone else's! Behave improperly, well, welcome to the **** machine. Bend over, don't worry about lube, you won't need it.

You right wing ******** don't even understand the tax scheme!

Each citizen, I mean taxpayer, er tax filer, yeah that's it, well each one is entitled to tax credits upon filing. Those tax credits are available to all who file. FAIR!! The great thing is that they actually allow for a directed benefit towards the underemployed (a chronic problem) because they get eaten up by almost any employment income! Fortunately, government payouts don't count as employment income, so its like the double bonus in basketball! The great thing is that making cash money doesn't screw this up, so one person could have three sources of income, and two come from the government.

This is why Amerika is Great!

 

[Troglodyte]

That just isn't true. Just because you'd like to believe that doesn't make it some. How many campaign speeches did The Big O give about not taxing people who make less than $250k (which was a lie, btw). And got standing ovations.

When Bush gave everyone a tax break (well, those that pay taxes), what did you hear? "Tax cuts for the rich."

When some of those tax cuts were extended, they were only extended to those under a certain income, because "the rich" shouldn't get them.

Need more? Listen to, practically any speech by The Big O, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, et. al.

Overall, our tax code is NOT designed to generate revenu, it is designed to punish some groups and reward others. That is why some people can actually get a "refund" when they don't pay taxes. The tax code is rife with that ****. Generating revenue is a by-product.

Behave "properly" and you get to keep more of your money. Heck, you may even get some of someone else's! Behave improperly, well, welcome to the **** machine. Bend over, don't worry about lube, you won't need it.

You sound as though Obama implement the first progressive tax in US history.

"In the United States, the first progressive income tax was established by the Revenue Act of 1862. This was signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln and repealed the flat tax, which had had been brought in under the Revenue Act of 1861. By the mid-20th century, most countries had implemented some form of progressive income tax."

 

[ark steel]

You sound as though Obama implement the first progressive tax in US history.

"In the United States, the first progressive income tax was established by the Revenue Act of 1862. This was signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln and repealed the flat tax, which had had been brought in under the Revenue Act of 1861. By the mid-20th century, most countries had implemented some form of progressive income tax."

Didn't say that, at all. You opine that the tax code is not designed as punishment. You only have to read it and listen to the speeches to see that ain't true.

There are all kinds of proof of you look for it, at all levels of government. Someone mentioned cigarette. Too easy of an example, though...

Probably, the best proof that revenue is secondary is that neither party seems inclined to be bound by spending only the revenue received.

 

[Troglodyte]

Didn't say that, at all. You opine that the tax code is not designed as punishment. You only have to read it and listen to the speeches to see that ain't true.

There are all kinds of proof of you look for it, at all levels of government. Someone mentioned cigarette. Too easy of an example, though...

Probably, the best proof that revenue is secondary is that neither party seems inclined to be bound by spending only the revenue received.

I believe the tax code is indeed designed to generate revenue by taxing those with the highest income the highest rate. I think we can all understand the simple math involved in that.

I do not believe the tax code is something personal, or punishment, against the rich. Nor do I believe that is why a republican implemented it over 150 years ago and why it has endured many conservative administrations ever since.

When a child or old lady asks me to get something off the shelf or lift something heavy, I don't see that as being punished for being tall and strong.

The progressive tax was around long before Gore, Obama and Pelosi launched class warfare.

I don't see what spending has to do with tax code, progressive, regressive, flat or otherwise.

 

[Rod Farva]

The earliest taxation of US citizens was directly related to funding a war. So while not originally intended to be a weapon, it didn't take pols long to recognize its inherent potential as one. And since then its tentacles have become innumerable and situational, many times with the sole intent of punishing any number of differently "classified" citizens.

Time to scrap the entire thing and begin again, Finnegan.

 

[ark steel]

I'd also add that Progressivism didn't start with Obama, Pelosi, et. al. They have been working on this for a loooong time. And they are in both party. I don't know why you are hung up on a Republican originally instituting it (assuming it is true) and that it has endured.

Several candidates over many years have suggested their willingness to get rid of the progressive income tax code and replace it with either a Flat Tax or Federal Sales tax. They are excoriated by wanting to give benefits to the rich at the expense of taxing the poor.

Seriously, I can't believe this is the first time you have heard this. It has been going on for years.

 

[DBS1970]

The biggest reason the Pols will never change the tax code is it is the biggest tool they have to control the population. I think it was Bastiat that said "The power to tax is the power to destroy."

Maybe after the collapse we will remember that. We seem to have forgotten it after the last revolution.

 

[Superman]

I don't see what spending has to do with tax code..

........................

 

[ark steel]

I don't see what spending has to do with tax code, progressive, regressive, flat or otherwise.

My point about spending is that neither party seems to care about the amount of revenue generated by taxes I believe this is more proof that revenue is not the intention of the tax code. Keep in mind that what something was at its inception and what it is now after many years of manipulation are not the same.

You can see that just in SS. At one point was meant to be a safety net in conjunction with personal savings. For many, these days, it is the sole income.

 

[ark steel]

The biggest reason the Pols will never change the tax code is it is the biggest tool they have to control the population.

Zackly!!!!!

 

[Troglodyte]

I'd also add that Progressivism didn't start with Obama, Pelosi, et. al. They have been working on this for a loooong time. And they are in both party. I don't know why you are hung up on a Republican originally instituting it (assuming it is true) and that it has endured.

Several candidates over many years have suggested their willingness to get rid of the progressive income tax code and replace it with either a Flat Tax or Federal Sales tax. They are excoriated by wanting to give benefits to the rich at the expense of taxing the poor.

Seriously, I can't believe this is the first time you have heard this. It has been going on for years.

The GOP did the estate tax nix and are now accused if helping the rich. Several people are saying taxes are designed to punish. The best examples being progressive and estate taxes. That's why I'm pointing out that the GOP seems to be complicit with at least some of this "punishment".

I'm aware of alternative tax methodologies. I mentioned them. They never seem to gain traction. One economic thing to consider with a flat tax or sales tax is that lower income earners tend to spend whatever money they have. Increase taxes on them and you're essentially taking money out of the economy and giving it to the government.

 

[ark steel]

The GOP did the estate tax nix and are now accused if helping the rich. Several people are saying taxes are designed to punish. The best examples being progressive and estate taxes. That's why I'm pointing out that the GOP seems to be complicit with at least some of this "punishment".

I'm aware of alternative tax methodologies. I mentioned them. They never seem to gain traction. One economic thing to consider with a flat tax or sales tax is that lower income earners tend to spend whatever money they have. Increase taxes on them and you're essentially taking money out of the economy and giving it to the government.

I wasn't aware that anyone was saying the GOP isn't complicit in keeping the system as is. There are Progressives in both parties.. But when there are attempt to change it, it isn't GOP candidates dancing around whining about all the tax breaks to the "rich".

One economic thing to consider with a flat tax or sales tax is that lower income earners tend to spend whatever money they have. Increase taxes on them and you're essentially taking money out of the economy and giving it to the government.

It isn't as simple as that. Think of the millions saved by the government by not needing the IRS anymore. Think of the time, energy and money saved by not having to deal with reams of tax code to do taxes for corporations and people. Now that corporations are not paying taxes, price points should drop. People, overall, should have more spending money. The rich guy paying $30k in taxes now has $30k more money to buy goods and/or invest, both of which improve the overall economy. In addition, no corporate tax may entice companies here. More economic improvement. Economy improves, jobs show up, wages increase.

Supply and demand may not change, much, but companies can sell an item for less and still make the same profit. They may not, but all it takes is one company to drop it's prices and the others in the industry have to follow suit. Now, you have lower prices (may or may not be lower by the same amount as a sales tax). The net increase in the price of goods should be pretty minimal, overall.

Of course, I firmly believe that the federal government could screw this up just like they did for what should be something as simple as an income tax. If you can't imagine "OMG, we can't tax THAT, everyone needs that!!" for a shitload of items, you don't have much imagination.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

It isn't as simple as that. Think of the millions saved by the government by not needing the IRS anymore. Think of the time, energy and money saved by not having to deal with reams of tax code to do taxes for corporations and people. Now that corporations are not paying taxes, price points should drop. People, overall, should have more spending money. The rich guy paying $30k in taxes now has $30k more money to buy goods and/or invest, both of which improve the overall economy. In addition, no corporate tax may entice companies here. More economic improvement. Economy improves, jobs show up, wages increase.

Also you would need a lot less lobbying and money spent on lobbying and campaign contributions since a lot of that effort is directed at the tax code.