Middle class needs to get angry
In the aftermath of the collapsed bridge over the Mississippi, perhaps it’s time we took some time to reflect just how our infrastructure got in the shape it’s in — and it’s not in good shape, as we all can see in our crumbling roads, public facilities, schools, parks, etc.
The bottom line is taxes.
We need to repeal the tax cuts begun by the Reaganistas, and recently cut even further by the Bush 43 elite administration.
The vanishing middle class is vanishing due in part to shifting the tax burden from the “haves and have mores” to what remains of the middle class.
Welfare for the rich has to cease and desist.
The sooner the better.
If our wealthy friends feel a need to whine about a return to sane fiscal policies, we may need to remind them that we could revisit the halcyon days of the ’50s and ’60s when corporate and some individual tax rates were 80 percent and 90 percent.
We in the middle have the numbers, and we need to get angry enough to change the status quo.
It’s up to us, or, I fear, there won’t be an “us.” Or in a larger sense, a U.S.
The rich need “us” more than they care to admit.
Tommy Holeman, Longmont
How about we just stop giving the store away to second, third generation and beyond welfare freeloaders, stop the illegal immigrant subsidies (anchor babies), and have government return to it's original responsibilities, which are defense and infrastructure.
The government is not Nanny, and should not pretend to be. All of this "Free" stuff has become the most expensive undertaking the Federal Government has ever attempted. The giveaways and "safety nets" have become trampolines for the irresponsible, and need to end. How can people complain about their "Free" trailers two years after Katrina?
Is the no personal responsibility any more? Are we no longer in control of our own lives? The middle class is vanishing because they are being taxed to death, and the Democrats demonize the "rich" (those making more than $100,000) as being greedy and self-centered. Let me ask, how much does Bill Clinton contribute above and beyond his rightful tax load?
Posted by on September 3, 2007 01:37 AMThe problem is all the money that congressmen waste on earmarks in both houses that should go to fixing that stuff but instead has to be spend on various specail interest earmarks. If you want to find out how our government miss uses are tax money rent Dick Morris book "Outrage " or buy it. The waste of tax payer money by both sides is sick and wrong.
Posted by corey on September 3, 2007 06:54 AMwow tommy you forgot to mention any dumocrate in your rant. did you forget good ole jimmy the peanut farmer who liked his sweaters on cold evenings? now those were 4 years of great wealth for the middle folks. what was inflation during those years? home loans were also at an all time low of the middle to upper teens.
so you might understand that once the interstate system was built by the federal government it then became the states job to keep it repaired.
if you want to point out to started the tax 'cuts' as you call them once again you left out a democrate, and the only one I think should be called one, and that was JFK.
so tommy you should go back into your little corner and try to read a bood on history with your public education and see if you can learn something other that listening to the dumocrat party play book that we need to tax the rich.
BTW what makes you think you deserve a free ride in life at someone else's expense?
grow some balls and become a man and stop wanting someone who works hard and has made a good life for himself and his family to pay for your family. the only thing holding you back from that is the will power to get out and work.
We pay enough in taxes to pay for all of the necessities. What our government doesn't do, is spend it wisely!
For anybody out there that wants to pay more in taxes you need to go to a tax therapy retreat.
Posted by Don Evans on September 3, 2007 07:15 AMtommy,You are another liberal making a fool of yourself.Of coarse you didn't do any research.The fact is Minn. had plenty of money to fix the bridge but the liberals as always didn't care about the taxpayers safety.Just like in New Orleans for 21 years the dems took federal money that was suppost to be for bring the levee's up to Level 5 protection but instead used the money for there own private interest.These dems. have con you again to have you believeing that if you pay more taxes it will be better for you.Hopefully you don't have childred because you are mentally uncapable to take care of them.
Posted by Keith on September 3, 2007 07:59 AMWarren Buffett said it all when he observed that he was being taxed at a lower rate than his secretary.
Posted by Romulus on September 3, 2007 08:19 AMTommy the critical quantity is revenue. How do you know raising taxes will create more revenue? Genenerally what increases revenue is increased economic activity and higher taxes don't encourage that.
GG
Posted by GG on September 3, 2007 08:23 AMRomulus; I am not sure I get your point, but if you have deduced that the Federal tax is based on wages not wealth you get an "A".
Put another way raising the income tax punished the people that are trying to get rich; not the rich.
GG
Posted by GG on September 3, 2007 08:33 AMMillions of tax dollars which were intended for roads are diverted to feel good projects. In Madison Wisconsin they spent hi-way dollars to built a bike path to the airport. Who in their right minds rides a bike to the airport? In Colorado 10% of hi-way money has to go to art work. How many pot holes and improvements project could be done with that 10%. Senate Bird such millions of dollars into project in West Virgina because he is on the Senate Approperation Committee and he can decide were the money goes, whether or not it is really needed in W. Virgina or not. Spend the money we already have in wise manner. Not new taxes.
Posted by Thomas Keegan on September 3, 2007 08:37 AM"Genenerally what increases revenue is increased economic activity and higher taxes don't encourage that."
...but transferring a greater share of the burden onto the super-wealthy and off of the "middle class" does. When middle and lower income families get tax cuts, they put it out into the economy immediately.
The super-wealthy need to pay a lot more taxes.
Otherwise, the super-wealthy can count on having their mansions burnt to the ground when their game is finally up.
Posted by on September 3, 2007 08:37 AMSomeone too embarrassed to write a name said:
"How about we just stop giving the store away to second, third generation and beyond welfare freeloaders"
I see no difference between these people and second, third, fourth and fifth generation and beyond trust-fund freeloaders.
Posted by on September 3, 2007 08:41 AM8:37,
You're threatening to burn down the homes of the wealthy if they don't pay even more in taxes? Why do the super-wealthy need to pay more when they already pay more than their fair share? I don't understand your logic.
Posted by John II on September 3, 2007 08:46 AMAnd why you all are arguing about tax money and the lack of it to fix what needs fixing are you also taking into consideration that your elected representative Legislature's and Governor's efforts that have reduced tax revenue from bars and taverns which will also be added to by a $30,000,000 + projected tax revenue loss when casinos go under the smoking ban January 1st.
It would seem to me that in a state where tax revenue has not been sufficent to handle the needs of the general public, actions that further the loss of tax revenue could and maybe should be regarded as official maleficence in office and, if not that, at the least a violation of ethical standards resulting in harm to the welfare of the public.
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 3, 2007 09:13 AM 5% of people in USA have about 90% of the money. Where is tax money to come from if not from the people who have the money?
Alos, during Ike's administrations, over 75% of tax revenues came from business. Now, it is more like 15%. Business owns the US government and are now the "people" that are of most concern to the feds.
9:15,
You're driving yourself nuts staring at all those statistics without thinking about the big picture.
It's not the rich folks who are to blame for a neglected infrastructure. The government is raking in plenty of money. Focus your anger on how it's being spent.
Posted by John II on September 3, 2007 09:24 AMWe see the usual wingnut whine about welfare recipents but as usual not a single complaint about all the tax money being shoveled to corporations on one pretext or another.Talk about multi-generational freeloading.Keith I hadn't realized Pawlenty the republican governor of minnesota who vetoed the necessary spending for transport infrastructure was a "liberal"
Posted by patrick on September 3, 2007 09:40 AMpatrick,you are wrong.The Minn Gov.made the money available Fact.Liberals on the local level didn't act on it.
Posted by Keith on September 3, 2007 10:02 AMI've never understood the mindset that soaking the "rich" on April 15 somehow makes everything better.
How does making Bill Gates pay more taxes help you and me? If we repeal the tax cuts, that means we all pay more -- you, me and Gates.
Yup, that solves everything....
Posted by prima facie on September 3, 2007 10:42 AMThe Reaganistas! Do you even know what a Sandanista is mr. Letter writer? Before comparing the likes of Reagan with that type of organization you may want to know what it is you're saying. Idiot.
And yes, let's burn down the rich peoples homes, lets milk them for as much money as we can get out of them and when they eventually go broke or out of business or both then that tax base will be eliminated permanently and guess who will have to pick up the tab - the little guys. Those of you in favor of taxing the hell out of the rich are economic midgets that do not understand what keeps the government running in this country. Go read an economic journal or take an accounting class or just look to past history when we had higher taxes on those people to see what the tax revenues were vs. what they are with lower taxation rates.
Tommy, first, in your lust for blame you conveniently left out 8 years of Clinton years. If it was so great under the Clinton administration, then why wasn’t it fixed back then? You think it was only “crumbling” under Reagan and Bush?
“If our wealthy friends feel a need to whine about a return to sane fiscal policies, we may need to remind them that we could revisit the halcyon days of the ’50s and ’60s when corporate and some individual tax rates were 80 percent and 90 percent.” – good, go ahead. Start with the Kennedys, John Edwards, John Kerry, Ted Turner, all the liberal Hollywood stars and movie producers, George Soros, Michael Moore and the rest. They all appear to support your idea on this, but for some reason never pay up (big surprise there). Don’t just talk about it, spring to action and start collecting from these people, hurry up! We loosing money!
Why not just admit we are turning into a nation of social parasites. I don't want Bill Gates or Warren Buffet to pay my medical bills and I do not want to pay for someone else's. We should all be taxed on the services we use and little else. If you can't afford to pay for something do without.
Posted by Jerry on September 3, 2007 04:08 PMWhy not just admit we are turning into a nation of social parasites. I don't want Bill Gates or Warren Buffet to pay my medical bills and I do not want to pay for someone else's. We should all be taxed on the services we use and little else. If you can't afford to pay for something do without.
Posted by Jerry on September 3, 2007 04:08 PMWhy not just admit we are turning into a nation of social parasites. I don't want Bill Gates or Warren Buffet to pay my medical bills and I do not want to pay for someone else's. We should all be taxed on the services we use and little else. If you can't afford to pay for something do without.
Posted by Jerry on September 3, 2007 04:08 PMWhy not just admit we are turning into a nation of social parasites. I don't want Bill Gates or Warren Buffet to pay my medical bills and I do not want to pay for someone else's. We should all be taxed on the services we use and little else. If you can't afford to pay for something do without.
Posted by Jerry on September 3, 2007 04:08 PMWhy not just admit we are turning into a nation of social parasites. I don't want Bill Gates or Warren Buffet to pay my medical bills and I do not want to pay for someone else's. We should all be taxed on the services we use and little else. If you can't afford to pay for something do without.
Posted by Jerry on September 3, 2007 04:08 PM The point of the letter was that the super-rich trustafarians have been sucking at the teat of the government and avoiding "personal responsibility" for too many years.
Also, the Sandinistas were the terrorists that Reagan/Bush supported in the Iran-Contra scandal, which in anyones book was treason, as it went directly against the orders of the Congress of these United States of America.
The penalty for which is death.
But, as usual ,the bastards avoided "personal responsibility", and were NEVER held accountable.
Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it, Keith, (or is it Reef?)
The letter writer, Tommy,. is right
Posted by cw on September 3, 2007 09:02 PMcw-
that was keith...or perhaps, keef...
cw said:
"The point of the letter was that the super-rich trustafarians have been sucking at the teat of the government and avoiding "personal responsibility" for too many years."
What on Earth are you talking about? The rich pay a higher rate tax rate than everyone else. Have you seen how much they contribute to the federal government's coffers? Without the rich, our tax revenues would drop by 50%.
Your comments stem from pure class envy.
Posted by John II on September 3, 2007 10:42 PM"The rich pay a higher rate tax rate than everyone else."
Not high enough..
Posted by Charles B on September 4, 2007 06:51 AMA flat 10% tax on everyone would gain more money in tax revenue than the present system does. The only problem is that it would erase all the writeoffs that big money has now and that the rests of us were deprived of under the Reagan administration. Look it up, the party and their most elevated hero, that claims to be pro business, actually eradicated the large majority of writeoffs for small business while at the same time, augmenting the writeoffs for big business. Research does wonders in uncovering the truth.
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 4, 2007 08:04 AMCorporations are the big winners when it comes to dodging taxes. The major share of tax revenue comes from middle and upper income families.
Posted by on September 4, 2007 08:40 AMThanks Everybody
A tip here, when you get an error message after clicking the post button, that means the message is posted. I've done this too, we all have. So please just take that error message as confirmation of a posted reply.
Posted by on September 4, 2007 09:14 AMMiddle class need's to get angry.The dems. are at it again,they want to give the middle class the biggest tax increase ever and give weathy families free healthcare for there children.Paid for by the middle class.
Posted by Keith on September 4, 2007 09:27 AMDirect your ire to those who spend it. If you want to stop waste, vote for Dr. Ron Paul for President in 2008. He has never voted for unconstititution spending in Congress.
www.ronpaul2008.org
Plus, he won't be staining the dresses of interns in the Oval office, or sending our troops out 'nation-building' in a totally
UN-Constitutional way.
It's your last chance to save the Republic.
Just think jay,Bush didn't send out our troops in a un-constitutional way.Only a true un-educated idiot would believe that.
Posted by Keith on September 4, 2007 10:38 AMKeith, I don't think you understand what I'm saying. If we weren't spending over a billion a week to secure the multi-national corporations their oil, in a futile nation building exercise, in a war that was based upon lies, the middle class wouldn't be facing their own elimination in this nation. I am not a Democrat, and am no longer a Republican. Both parties are in it for the benefit of the New World Order, and if they could, would simply eliminate all the unneeded American middle class right now. They would keep only those neccessary to labor to keep the Powers that be, fat and sassy. In my mind, this war is UN-constitutional because even though the elected gave it the ok, it was based on deception and was never for the safety or benefit of the American people. It was soley for the profit of a few powerful corporations and those who own them. I could go on and on, but I think you get the drift, and I think we are on the same side of this discussion.
Regardless of the war though, the middle class needs to turn off the tube and take to the streets to protest thier own destruction at the hands of those who really run things: The Fed, the banks, the defense contractors, and the insurance companies. IMHO
"The rich pay a higher rate tax rate than everyone else."
Not high enough..
I see the socialist, communist Charles B chimed in…
May be we should just confiscate every ones property and turn it over to the government, right Charles? After all the government knows better what to do with our money, than we do. Heil Castro.
The IRS has collected over $20.5 Trillion over the last 12 years.
The highest collection years were 2006 and 2005.
Posted by Bob on September 4, 2007 02:07 PMUno failed to reign in his imagination:
"I see the socialist, communist Charles B chimed in…May be we should just confiscate every ones property and turn it over to the government, right Charles? After all the government knows better what to do with our money, than we do. Heil Castro."
Please put forward citations as to when I have said any of the things you attribute to me in the above diatribe.
Otherwise, quit making stuff up.
Posted by on September 4, 2007 02:43 PMCharles, at least you could sign your post 02:43. Click on yes under the “remember” stuff.
John II said “The rich pay a higher rate tax rate than everyone else.”
Then you shouted from the crowd “Not high enough.”
Just how one could misinterpret that?
Socialism: take most
Communism: take all
US: take some
So, you want to elevate it from take some to take most / take all. It’s pretty clear.
Uno,
"Higher" does not mean 100%.
That's what you call "exaggeration" and "embellishment". If you want to argue with me, I insist that you don't attribute positions to me which I have not taken.
Thanks for the tip re: Name. For some reason, every once in a while, the cookie gets deleted and I post several times without noticing.
Posted by Charles B on September 4, 2007 03:26 PMThat's ok CB. We could tell from the response it was you.
So how much higher should we tax the wealthy?
Posted by KW on September 4, 2007 03:38 PMCharles, I don’t know if you noticed, but it was “most” and “all”, not just “all”.
I’d recommend that you at least make an attempt to read and understand my whole posts (it was only a few lines), that way you’re less likely to make a fool out of your self with claims of "exaggeration".
You’re welcome on the tip.
Posted by Uno on September 4, 2007 03:52 PMjay,it was proven over 3 years ago that wasn't true.Why can't you idiots ever do some research and find out the facts instead of listening to some lying dem.
Posted by Keith on September 4, 2007 04:37 PMSo...it's agreed, we need to change our tax system.
Choose one....
1) Flat tax
2) 1950s tax rates
3) Debtors prisons.
Hmmm... I think I vote # 2.
Corporations make the most $ , so, they pay the most taxes.
And no Cayman Island - type loopholes.
The simple solutions are usually the best.
God Bless America!
Posted by dmz on September 4, 2007 05:39 PM"Not high enough.."
Posted by Charles B on September 4, 2007 06:51 AM
Sucking on th e envy and jealously teat, today, CharlieBoy?
========================
Choose one....
1) Flat tax
2) 1950s tax rates
3) Debtors prisons.
Hmmm... I think I vote # 2.
Posted by dmz on September 4, 2007 05:39 PM
Knock, knock mush brain. A flat tax eliminates all of the loopholes and produces a higher and more sustainable revenue flow. Are you looking to just soak the rich or establish an economically viable and beneficial tax system -- can't have your cake and eat it too.
Posted by on September 4, 2007 08:16 PMSomeone without the self-respect to give a name hypothesized:
"Sucking on th e envy and jealously teat, today, CharlieBoy?"
No, actually. I am arguing against my own material interests.
Posted by Charles B on September 4, 2007 09:19 PMKeith, Ive never been a Democrat.
Read my posts. You seem to keep your head tucked tightly up your rectum . Did you even read what I said? Maybe you are too dumb to understand English. You probably believe every single lie about how 9/11 happened too. Oh well, have fun mr Chip.
Wow, the jealousy and stupidity runs rampant. Some of you REALLY need an econ course. Where do you think money comes from? The Money fairy? Where do jobs come from? Do you actually understand that incentives matter and what you tax, you get less of? Are you the same tired morons who say we should tax corporations more without realizing that corporations just pass the tax increase onto the consumer?
Seriously, take a few classes. This is embarrassing. take a good Macro class before you spout off about things you know not of.
Posted by Dravur on September 5, 2007 12:05 PMdmz,What popular political family keeps the majority of there money in a Cayman account?
Posted by Keith on September 5, 2007 09:52 PMDravur:
You're that guy in "Good Will Hunting" that Matt Damon asks "Do you like apples?"
You think having gone to a class is a guarantee that you've learned something?
Posted by Charles B on September 5, 2007 10:21 PMKeith,
KBR
Dravur,
Corporations couldn't exist without working class heros. They do no favors without expecting a return, so they are not altruistic.
They survived the 50s, and "The Free Market" will dictate who will.
Got a problem with that?
Do you hate freedom?
The rich have become fat and lazy.
jay,your argument was a repeat of liberal lies.So what do you expect me to think.You showed your lack of knowledge about the subject like all liberals.
Posted by Keith on September 6, 2007 07:04 PMdmz,I'm going to write very slowly so you and the rest of the li-ber-als c-a-n un-der-stand.The dems.want to over tax our American corporations,then put in unions.By doing this our corporations can't complete globally,which means they will have to do major layoffs,which means no productivity.This means massive unemployment,inflation and no money for the government to run.But down worry the corrupt anti-Americans you voter for will still be able to fleece this country.I can go on about how those f---in dems will f--- up this country but I'm sure this is past your bed time.
Posted by Keith on September 6, 2007 08:37 PMThis is the data for calendar year 2003 just released in October 2005 by the Internal Revenue Service. The share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% of wage earners rose to 34.27% from 33.71% in 2002. Their income share (not just wages) rose from 16.12% to 16.77%. However, their average tax rate actually dropped from 27.25% down to 24.31% . you are a complete idiot!!! I am in the middle class and the burden has not shifted away from me at all, I am still paying for welfare dependents to continue to have kids and illegals to receive free health care. Read the statistics, the top 10% of wage earners pay 66% of income taxes. The "have mores", as you put it, in all reality pay for your liberal( socialist) agenda of government control which keeps the poor in complete need of the government. Just to remind you, please read your history books, Socialism and communism has failed every time it has been attempted. Please, I beg you, get your head out of the sand and love this country for all the good and prosperity it brings, not only to you and me, but eveyone that has a chance to better themselves in this wonderful country. God bless the U.S., and God bless You my brother.
Posted by Jeremy on September 6, 2007 09:29 PMJeremy,The dems are trying to give the middle clas the biggest tax increase in history to pay for childrens healthcare for the weathy.
Posted by Keith on September 6, 2007 09:52 PMYeah, I know, income cutoff at $82,000 and age restrictions set at 25 years old...just one step closer to " Hillarycare", ain't life grand!!
Posted by Jeremy on September 6, 2007 09:59 PMHey Keith, it just goes to show that these 'typed words' will never be able to convey the true thoughts of an individual like face to face discussion will. If anybody who knows me heard someone call me a liberal, they would require oxygen from an E.M.T.
The corporations and the politicians they own have set the table to their benefit and to hell with the working citizens of this nation.
Open borders, unrestricted free trade, outsourcing to foreign nations so they can pay employees 10-20 percent what an American would need to survive, and on and on. Both parties want to destroy the middle class and end the Constitution. Bush has become the biggest spender in the history of the Presidency. Does that not qualify him as a liberal? Lies, Lies, and damned lies. That is all we ever get from those in power.
That is why I may never vote Republican again, and surely won't vote Democrat.
It's time for a change, and the only game in town headed that way is Ron Paul.
jay,ron paul is a liberal.I totally believe he has been paid millions to derail the party of trust.Just like jesse jackson and al sharpton are paid millions of dollars to give the dems.the un-educated black vote.
Posted by Keith on September 8, 2007 12:21 AM