Nobody, I mean nobody, calculates "the majority of taxpayers" that way. It's completely ridiculous and transparently dishonest. The top 10% is a small minority of taxpayers by definition!
What is dishonest, the fact that they pay more into the overall tax revenue or that I was not clear and concise with my words? However, the top 10% of tax payers account for 70% of all revenue gained... I mean, all you have to do is take out the word "payer" and replace it with "revenue".
So lets call them the group that pays the majority of the taxes and move on. Red is your argument so weak you hae to resort to semantics?
and the part you did not highlight was "on those who do not have health insurance..." Do you have health insurance? Then you will not be taxed, or penalized, or whatever you want to call it. You are griping about a tax that will never exist for the vast majority of the American people and for those who have been freeloading and still refuse to get health insurance, yes, they will and should be taxed or penalized. you are so caught up in the word "tax" that you cannot see the fact that this law keeps people from free loading off of the responsible people, like you and I, who have and will continue to carry insurance. We obviously do not agree politically but I am willing to bet that you are a responsible member of society who works their ass off to provide for your family. That being said, why would you automatically dislike something that will stop free loaders from mooching off of people like us just because of the word "tax"? I will bet you $10 that five years from now you will have a different opinion about this act. Further, the President has even indicated that he is willing to improve the act by making modifications to it as needed. This isn't the end of the world or the end of freedom as we know it as some commentators would have you believe.
then why are you so against rescinding the Bush tax cuts? the other 90% were paying their fair share of taxes until GWB, Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, John Boehner & Mitch McConnell all voted to give the 90% a bundle of tax cuts in 2001 and again in 2003. Now you want to blame the 90% for accepting the tax cuts? so which is it? are the Bush tax cuts vital to the economy and job creation when it comes to the 10% and not the other 90%? should we just vote to raise taxes on 90% of the people so the "job creators" can keep their money? you cannot have it both ways. for the record I am in favor of raising taxes on everyone by going back to the Clinton era tax code when we had these magic little things called budgets and budget surpluses and were paying down our debt. (yes, I said budgets. I don't like the fact that we have not had a budget for the past three years any more than you guys.)
You are clueless. You have absolutely ZERO reading comprehension. You change the argument so many times you can't even keep up. Not once in this thread have I argued about those not having insurance. My entire argument was based on Obama saying: A) Obama said the mandate is not a tax -- Supreme court rules it is B) Obama said taxes would not be raised -- They raised taxes on 200K + earners In five years I still wont be jealous of those who have more than me. In five years I pray that the governments role in deciding how I should live is severely limited and given back to the states. Health care is needed on the state level, not the federal.
I have said time and time again... we are all taxed too heavily. The reason I would not want to go back to the Clinton era tax cuts is because the rates were too fricking high. I know this to be true because the government was stealing even more money than what they needed to operate. Insane!!! Lets do this, cut spending across the board by some small amount, maybe 1%. Reform all the entitlement programs, and cut defense spending. Once we have done that then evaluate and determine, if tax increases need to be part of the equation. Don't sit there and tell me that the Clinton rates were better just because. There is no basis to even argue that. We have had two idiot presidents between Clinton and today who have started huige trillion dollar unfunded liabilities that no one really benefits from. And returning to the Clinton rates would absolutely destroy the middle class. Personally my taxes would increase by 400%. Is that the policy you want to advocate? Do you want to increase the taxes of America's fragile middle class by 400%?
because Barry is the guy advocating a tax increase in an effort to get our budget back into something resembling fiscal discipline. your side thinks that by slashing taxes even more, after you've bitched about 90% not paying taxes, is the answer to solving our problems. That and slash social programs to hell and back while increasing defense spending. It's the same recipe that the Republicans have been using since 1980 and not once has it ever worked....not once. At least we know that we have a recipe for fixing the problem by following the model used during the Clinton years with some modifications to fit our time. You have no proof whatsoever that your way works.
Um, why would we raise taxes when: A) Obama even acknowledges the tax system is flawed and needs work B) We have yet to cut spending C) There is no budget D) There is no budget E) There is no budget F) There is no budget G) There is no budget ??????
