Redistributing Our Earnings To Freeloaders

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
58
In the shadows
Redistributing Our Earnings To Freeloaders

By Phyllis Schlafly



Income tax day, April 15, now divides Americans into two almost equal classes: those who pay for the services provided by government and the freeloaders. The percentage of Americans who will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009 has risen to 47%. That isn't the worst of it. The bottom 40% not only pay no income tax, but also the government sends them cash or benefits financed by the taxes dutifully paid by those who do pay income tax.
The outright cash handouts include the earned income tax credit (EITC), which can amount to $5,657 a year to low-income families. Other financial benefits can include child tax credits, welfare, food stamps, WIC (women, infants, children), housing subsidies, unemployment benefits, Medicaid, S-CHIP and other programs.
<!-- GA_googleFillSlot("RC_300_by_250_top"); //--></SCRIPT>
This is a massive transfer of wealth and a soak-the-rich racket. The top 10% pay 73% of the income taxes collected by the federal government.
Rep. Paul Ryan, Wisconsin Republican, has become the congressional leader in explaining details of the recently passed Health Control Law. He says that, based on the Congressional Budget Office's figures, taxes to pay for ObamaCare will have to skyrocket to an 88% income tax rate within 30 years.
Although all wage earners help fund their Social Security and Medicare benefits, only federal income taxpayers make the federal government run, pay off our $12.8 trillion national debt and bail out Social Security, Medicare, and Fannie and Freddie when they collapse.
Even the recently passed Health Control Law contains financial subsidies to unmarried couples that are denied to married couples. This rewards the unmarried women who were the second largest demographic constituency that voted for Barack Obama for president in 2008.
When Obama told Joe the Plumber he wanted to "spread the wealth around," Obama wasn't kidding. That's exactly what he's doing: taking money from taxpayers and spreading it around to nontaxpayers.
Nor was Obama kidding when, on the eve of his election, he threatened, "We are going to fundamentally transform the United States of America." Converting the earnings of American workers into handouts for those who voted for Obama in 2008 is certainly a fundamental transformation.
Obama's promise not to raise taxes on middle Americans is already down the drain. Obama brought former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volcker out of obscurity to serve as chairman of an Economic Recovery Advisory Board and announce that we need to raise taxes.
Volcker was blunt in predicting that the new tax increase will be a value added tax (VAT). That's the tax European socialists love because its rates can be hidden and frequently raised while producing rivers of revenues for the bureaucrats.
Volcker claimed that a VAT is "not a toxic idea." It really is - Charles Krauthammer called it "the ultimate cash cow" because it transfers so much money from individuals to the government.
Having already co-opted the executive and legislative branches of government for his fundamental transformation, Obama wants to use the judiciary, too. The retirement of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens gives him this opportunity.
On Jan. 18, 2001, on Public Radio WBEZ-FM, Chicago, Obama complained that the Earl Warren Court "wasn't that radical" because "it didn't break free from the essential constraints placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution. ... The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and serve more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society."
Calling for the Supreme Court to participate in the "redistribution of wealth" is shockingly revolutionary. Any judicial nominee who agrees with Obama's theory should be rejected.
Obama's game plan to "fundamentally transform" America is based on both Saul Alinsky's modus operandi for community organizing and on the Cloward-Piven spending strategy. Alinsky was a famous Chicago radical, and Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven were less well-known Columbia University sociologists.
The goal of all three of these agitators was the overthrow of the private enterprise system. The Alinsky strategy is to use community organizing and mass demonstrations by those he labeled the have-nots. The Cloward-Piven strategy is to overload the bureaucracy with enormous demands for entitlements, thereby causing a financial crisis.
Obama used Alinsky methods by taxpayer financing of Acorn and subprime mortgages. Obama used Cloward-Piven methods by massive deficit spending for entitlements for more and more millions of people.
Fortunately, hardworking, taxpaying Americans are beginning to understand how they are being ripped off and rushed into bankruptcy. The one way to save ourselves and our country is to elect a Congress in November pledged to stop the spending.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Well I confess im able to hire a tax accountant to pay as little as big guys do. Like W Buffet said even before Obama was around. It's a shame whern a tax system is riged for the top rich guys. Like he said when his secratary has to pay more then he does.
And now shame on over 28 million old grandads and grandmas. Of course there on S S and don pay. I say to god dam bad. Good for them. The tea gang didn't even even know who they were talking about.
 

hedgehog

Registered
Forum Member
Oct 30, 2003
32,937
738
113
50
TX
I want a flat tax 10% and thats it, no more federal taxes at all, I dont care if you make 200 mil or 200 pay your 10% and your done, no deductions, seems fair to me:shrug:
 

bleedingpurple

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 23, 2008
22,494
304
83
52
Where it is real F ing COLD
I want a flat tax 10% and thats it, no more federal taxes at all, I dont care if you make 200 mil or 200 pay your 10% and your done, no deductions, seems fair to me:shrug:

That would be great and it would be fair but the country could not survive that way. I wish it could but it can't and you can't blame dems for that either.. It is all political.. We just spend far more than a flat 10% across the board no matter who is in office..
 

hedgehog

Registered
Forum Member
Oct 30, 2003
32,937
738
113
50
TX
That would be great and it would be fair but the country could not survive that way. I wish it could but it can't and you can't blame dems for that either.. It is all political.. We just spend far more than a flat 10% across the board no matter who is in office..

fair enough, they need to cut spending and we need a balanced budget, whatever the percentage if it goes up it affects everyone. Most people get more back now than they put in, everyone needs to pay something, thats it. I like simplicity in my life, oh yeah no capital gains tax either, its already been taxed. this country would be running and gunning if that was the scenario. Right now the enemy is within our borders, our President, our Congress and Senate come to mind. Lets simplify things for everyone, thats all I want. :shrug:
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Anyone have a link to the claim the upper 10% pay 73% of the taxes? That's a new number to me. And, while you're at it, a link to the proportion of the income the top 10% make would be an appropriate thing to look at. I'm not saying it's not true, just wondering what year that is referring to, what timeframe, what the basis is. I know they pay a majority of the taxes. I also know they have the ability to avoid many taxable situations, too, that lower earners can not take advantage of.

Rarely are simple numbers like that all that simple.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
For instance this, from the Tax Foundation's web site, which for the first time in 2007 numbers looked at the top 10% of the top 1% of wage earners/taxpayers:

For the first time this year, we are also presenting data on the top 0.1% of tax returns (the top 10 percent of the top 1 percent). This 10 percent of the returns in the top 1 percent amounts to only 141,000 tax returns but accounts for nearly 12 percent of the adjusted gross income earned and approximately 20 percent of the nation's federal individual income taxes. The average income for a tax return in this top 0.1 percent is $7.4 million, while the average amount of income tax paid is $1.6 million, indicating an average effective individual income tax rate of 21.5 percent. This very top income group actually has a lower average effective tax rate than the rest of the top 1 percent of returns because these extremely high-income returns are more likely to have income from capital gains and dividends, which are typically taxed at lower rates.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Chadman that is correct. There was a pie chart showen here back a while ago. The real top gets buy better then most in the 200 to 500 thousand do. And even in some case better then 60 to 100 grand do.
Some say they want a flat tax. Offers of 10% and drop old system. Can't be done for that need at least 20%. Some guy way smarter then me was explaning why that much is needed a week back on cnbc. Theres one thing forsure the system as it is now needs a overhaul.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top