An Open Letter to the Tea Party
Dear Tea Party Members and Sympathizers,
Happy (or do I wish you an Angry?) Tax Day to you. Since you seem to have appropriated today as your holiday, I thought it would be a good opportunity to try to reach out to you. Despite what some may think, I consider myself to be a fairly intelligent and open-minded person. In spite of this, there are some basic facts about your movement that I just don’t quite understand. I was hoping to take this opportunity to allow you, in your own words, to educate me and the readers of Delaware Liberal.
What I want to know is, “Why are you so angry and scared?” I understand that the Tea Party movement, whether or not it’s a part of the Republican Party, is certainly a conservative phenomenon. Therefore, it’s natural that you would disagree with some or most of the policy ideas of the current Democratic administration. But what is it exactly that’s gotten you into this ultra-agitated state? To the point where members of your movement are threatening secession, the formation of your own militias, and making speeches about “Taking back our country” and threatening real violence (“We came unarmed, this time.“) I, for one, really want to understand your concerns.
So this is what I propose: You give us as many specific complaints and concerns as you can, and I’ll do what I can to see that they are addressed with exactly as much seriousness as they deserve. I hope to prevent this from becoming a name-calling forum, and to keep it focused on ideas. I don’t want to get all “Festivus-y”, but this is the time for the Airing of Grievances. What I ask of you, in return for civility and seriousness, is specificity. Your movement is far too angry and vocal to be fear-mongering with vague, general assertions. If you want specific grievances addressed, you need to make specific points. No more “Obama is a Socialist.” Cite for me specific instances of Socialist behavior. No more “Stop the Government Take-over”. Tell me exactly what the government has taken over that it shouldn’t.
One thing I have gathered about Tea Partiers is that one major complaint seems to be that you feel your voice is being ignored. Well, here’s your chance to be heard. Tell me what you think is wrong, explain to me who you would fix it, and convince me to join the Tea Party. Thank you.
Scott P
Tags: Tea Parties
The Tea Parties (don’t call the teabaggers, it hurts their feelings and makes them sad) are to to thank Obama for lowering their taxes, right?
They are not “angry and scared.” They are fat and happy, with nice homes, health care, and pensions. Most of their wealth and benefits were accumulated during past times of higher taxes.
But what is it exactly that’s gotten you into this ultra-agitated state?
Ah, that is a different question:
1. FOX News
2. FOX wannabees on local radio
Most of them literally do not possess enough facts to come to the conclusions they do. It is the rare teabagger who can give an accurate analysis of the economics behind anything.
Ultimately, they are agitated because they are told to be.
Teabaggery is outside of reason. It arise from unhappy chilhoods and disapointment with adult life like all fanaticism. You are on a fool’s errand Scott P.
Here here Scott! “Wah, I don’t want to pay taxes, but why hasn’t the pothole in my road been filled yet?” Quit complaining and offer some reasonable solutions. Seen the size of the deficit-that didn’t just happen over the last year people! As Charlie Brown says, Good Grief!
That may be, Jason (and I suspect it is), but I thought it only fair, as well as balanced, to try. From what I can see, TP members are constantly saying that they are being mischaracterized, so I wanted to give them a chance to set us straight. We on the Left make much about the fact that political discussions these days seem to be more and more divorced from facts, so I wanted to at least attempt to engage on actual facts.
I’m surprised no one mentioned the New York Times survey out yesterday on the TP movement.
“Tea Party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public, and are no more or less afraid of falling into a lower socioeconomic class, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.”
http://nyti.ms/cxhg9q
In other words, like the myth about poor kids making up the bulk of Islamic radicalism, this is a bunch of well-off people who have time enough on their hands to nurse their grudges.
It also explains why so few of them are Democrats.
My elderly father bitched about his prescription drugs not being fully paid for. I told him “Dad, you have been voting Republican for fifty years, what did you expect would happen?” He still didn’t get it. He figured he was entitled. Cranky old man who wanted everything his way.
Scott,
I’ll try to answer some of your questions but first want to note a few things
I consider myself to be a fairly intelligent and open-minded person.
By saying this, you seem to imply that you don’t consider any one in the “Tea Bag Party” to be open minded and fairly intelligent.
This is consistent with the elitism and snobbery displayed by so many on the left (not all buy a considerable amount).
I also notice that you make no mention of trying to learn — by reading or discussing in person — what motivates people. That is a shame, there is much to be said for face to face discussions.
What I want to know is, “Why are you so angry and scared?” I
First, we aren’t scared. Nice try to paint us as hysterical or overreacting but it just isn’t so. While a small percentage of people may state “fear” is a reason, there is a difference between having fear and being scared.
I fear that the government intrusion into my life will not stop but I’m not scared of the government. There is a major difference.
Yet it doesn’t seem to fit the stereotype of what the liberals want to portray the TP to be, so people like you continue to try to conflate the two.
Next, I’m not so much angry as I am tired of not being listened to, of being ignored by those elected to serve us. And this includes both parties and all branches/levels of the government.
The difference between the beliefs of those elected from either party is smaller then the public they supposedly represent.
Both parties want to take away our rights and liberties — just at different rates and with different priorities.
The “anger”, if any, is over that fact. People are tired of this and are letting our representatives know it.
And before you ask, “Where were you when Bush….”, I’ll tell you.
I was getting motivated then, I was starting to get politically involved because I didn’t like the way our country was going even as far back as G.W.H. Bush!
Clinton just pushed people farther down that path, and G.W. Bush continued to get people active — even or especially those in the “Tea Party”.
The election of Obama and his disregard and disdain for the rights and liberty of the people just pushed people to take the next step. Note that people were already acting before Obama so it isn’t a race issue, it is a rights issue.
whether or not it’s a part of the Republican Party, is certainly a conservative phenomenon
I’ll argue semantics or quibble over wording – I think it is more of a libertarian phenomenon then it is a conservative one.
People are tired of the government growing and growing at the expense of fewer and fewer people.
People are tired of the government expanding its power at the expense of our liberty and rights.
And we are differently tired of the expansion of government power that is not authorized by the Constitution. That Document is supposed to be the Highest law of the land and our elected officials seem to completely disregard that fact.
And once again, it is the officials in both parties that are trampling on it. It just happens that the Dems are trampling on ones that people hold a little dearer then the ones the Reps are trampling on.
It is my opinion that is the highest motivating factor in many people’s public advocacy. We are simply tired of the government ignoring the law and the restrictions placed on it.
To the point where members of your movement are threatening secession, the formation of your own militias, and making speeches about “Taking back our country” and threatening real violence (“We came unarmed, this time.“)
This is one of the points that many liberals use to generate fear and take many of the quotes out of context.
Most of those statements are in the nature of “If the government CONTINUES to ignore us, CONTINUES to trample our rights, then we will do X”
Can you honestly say that the elected officials are listening to the people?
Tell me exactly what the government has taken over that it shouldn’t.
Let’s start with the so called “Health Care Reform” and the individual mandate.
Requiring people to purchase a commercial product or service?? Where is the authorization for that in the Constitution?
How about federal control over education? Again, show me authorization for that.
Taxes? Let’s see, how about the fact that 47% of the people will not pay more in federal income taxes then they receive and a percentage of them will actually get money from their fellow citizens.
If I want to support the someone else, I should get to choose who and how much. The Federal Government is engaging in wealth redistribution and it isn’t solving the problems.
How about an increase in the number of felony crimes that will deprive a person of their rights?
Does it make sense to classify importing lobsters in the wrong bag as a felony?
Enough or want more? Those are just a few example.
Perhaps if you took the time to do some research, you would learn these things.
“Requiring people to purchase a commercial product or service?? Where is the authorization for that in the Constitution?”
Again, you people don’t seem to understand that, contrary to what Fox News tells you, the Constitution itself is not the last word on what is Constitutional. More than 200 years of jurisprudence also enters the equation.
“Taxes? Let’s see, how about the fact that 47% of the people will not pay more in federal income taxes then they receive and a percentage of them will actually get money from their fellow citizens.”
Waah. How about the fact that payroll taxes generate just as much revenue as income taxes — and those taxes are regressive?
“The Federal Government is engaging in wealth redistribution and it isn’t solving the problems.”
The disparity in wealth between the top o.1% and the bottom 90% is now higher than it was in 1928. Who’s “engaging in wealth redistribution” again? And why are you resentful of the folks at the bottom instead of those at the top? I mean, if you have to be resentful of anyone?
“Does it make sense to classify importing lobsters in the wrong bag as a felony?”
It does if you’re trying to dissuade smugglers from using the excuse, “I just put it in the wrong bag!” Waah again.
“Perhaps if you took the time to do some research, you would learn these things.”
I have. That’s how I know how limited your “knowledge” of these subjects is.
That 47% number is not correct by the way. Only 10% of taxpayers receive more taxes than they pay (just Federal tax, that is). Not coincidentally, almost all the “red states” receive more in tax dollars than they pay. If you’re worried about tax welfare queens, you should look at Exxon Mobil and GE who pay absolutely no federal taxes, yet take federal subsidies.
Geezer,
Yes, jurisprudence enters the equation but that has to be consistent with the Powers authorized by the Constitution.
The 10th Amendment clearly defines that the Federal government is limited in scope and power
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
If the government wants to mandate the purchase of a product or service, it needs to amend the Constitution. Yet the current legislation does not do that.
Also, regarding Jurisprudence — care to point to case law where the Federal Government has the power to mandate the purchase of goods or services?
Waah. How about the fact that payroll taxes generate just as much revenue as income taxes — and those taxes are regressive?
So, change the payroll tax structure to make it fairer. Don’t just use it as a justification to take money from those who are making more then you believe to be “fair”.
Question for all those that believe in Progressive Taxation — are you living at the Poverty Level Income?
If you believe that it is only fair that people give up their money until everyone has the same amount….are you living your values before you force money out of our pocket?
I highly doubt it.
It is about choices or the lack of it. I’m not trying to tell you how to spend or not, the money you’ve earned but it seems that you are trying to make me support your beliefs through taxation.
There are legitimate reasons for taxes and people don’t have a problem with that…but redistributing to those others feel are “deserving” using the armed might of the federal government isn’t one of them.
Again, while the Constitution authorizes an income tax, where does it say that because Person X is making more then Person Y it is okay to make X give up money to Y?
I notice that you didn’t list a single Section or Clause in the Constitution nor did you list case law to support your argument. Wonder why that is?
Who’s “engaging in wealth redistribution” again?
UH, NO ONE? The people who are making more earned that money. What is the problem with that?
And why are you resentful of the folks at the bottom instead of those at the top?
Again I’m not resentful of the people at the bottom. I’m resentful of the changes in law that continue to chip away at my freedoms and liberties.
What is hard to understand about that?
It does if you’re trying to dissuade smugglers from using the excuse, “I just put it in the wrong bag!
What a crock. This isn’t about smuggling, it is about the government intruding into business practices. Smuggling is already illegal, we don’t need another law to cover that.
Please explain to me how specifying which bag to import lobsters in is going to dissuade smugglers and why it should be a felony.
First of all Bob S., thank you for taking the time to reply. I really do mean that sincerely. Secondly, I’m sorry, but you failed on almost every point. This might take me the better part of the day to get to most of it, but I’ll give it a shot.
Starting with, Wow, defensive much? The line about being “fairly intelligent and open-minded” was, I thought, pretty clear that it was about me — not anyone else. I’m actually a bit shocked. In no way did I mean that to apply to anyone but me. Far from showing “elitism” or “snobbery”, what you’ve shown is the Right’s love of playing the victim. And for the record, no where in the post does the phrase “Tea Bag Party” appear. I choose not to use that term anymore. Just my own personal opinion.
Most of what you wrote:
This is all generic nonsense. Can anyone tell me what rights and liberties the government has taken away from you in the past two years, or give me good evidence that some will soon be taken?
You did make a few specific points, and I’ll get to those shortly.
Unstable Isotope,
The 47% figure is correct — that is the percentage of people who effectively pay no federal income tax.
The 47 percent number is not wrong. The stimulus programs of the last two years — the first one signed by President George W. Bush, the second and larger one by President Obama — have increased the number of households that receive enough of a tax credit to wipe out their federal income tax liability.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html
The 10% figure is the number of people who get more money back then they paid in.
Effectively 10% of the people are being given money out of your wallet and mine.
If you choose to do that, great but I would like a choice in who I give money do. Wouldn’t you?
🙄 We’ve got another Constitutional scholar here.
Here’s the rules, if you’re going to assert the unConstitutionality of something we need to see your Constitutional law credentials or link to someone with them.
The tenthers have lost many times in history – the Civil War, the Civil Rights movement.
You get your choice at the ballot box. We don’t have line item individualized taxes. I’d certainly like to take taxpayer funding away from factory farms, the war in Iraq and abstinence-only education, to name a few.
Here’s my problem with the Tea Party, and perhaps I’m over-simplifying here, but when you look at the top twenty states that get more than they give to the federal government, sixteen out of twenty voted for McCain. And yet, these are the same people who are screaming about redistribution of wealth and fairness and paying too much in taxes. It simply boggles my mind.
Here’s the list of Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid by State for 2005 and how they voted in 2008 (Tax figures from http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html)
1 New Mexico got $2.03 and voted for Obama in 2008
2 Mississippi got $2.02 and voted for McCain in 2008
3 Alaska got $1.84 and voted for McCain in 2008
4 Louisiana got $1.78 and voted for McCain in 2008
5 West Virginia got $1.76 and voted for McCain in 2008
6 North Dakota got $1.68 and voted for McCain in 2008
7 Alabama got $1.66 and voted for McCain in 2008
8 South Dakota got $1.53 and voted for McCain in 2008
9 Kentucky got $1.51 and voted for McCain in 2008
10 Virginia got $1.51 and voted for McCain in 2008
11 Montana got $1.47 and voted for McCain in 2008
12 Hawaii got $1.44 and voted for Obama in 2008
13 Maine got $1.41 and voted for Obama in 2008
14 Arkansas got $1.41 and voted for McCain in 2008
15 Oklahoma got $1.36 and voted for McCain in 2008
16 South Carolina got $1.35 and voted for McCain in 2008
17 Missouri got $1.32 and voted for McCain in 2008
18 Maryland got $1.30 and voted for Obama in 2008
19 Tennessee got $1.27 and voted for McCain in 2008
20 Idaho got $1.21 and voted for McCain in 2008
There are a whole host of reasons why these states get more than they contribute, but the hypocrisy of taking the “dole” and then whining and whinging about redistribution of wealth really smacks of self-delusion, dishonesty, or both. As somebody mentioned, cranky old men. And, looking at this list, I’d venture a fair number of wealthy farmers on the take from you and me.
We already zeroed out abstinence-only education (because it failed), and we did it with the ballot box not the ammo box.
Yes, I wonder who the 10% are who get more than they pay. Are they corporations? Factory farmers?
I’m sick of the argument that some people deserve it and others don’t. We’re in this together and we won’t be a strong nation if we’re a tiny bunch of haves an a whole lot of have nots – which is what Republican policies have been turning us into. America became the greatest country in the world because we developed programs to help poor and middle class people – like Social Security, Medicare, the GI Bill, Civil Rights legislation, etc. You’re not a strong country if you deny and suppress the talents of a significant portion of the population.
Ok, the idea of whether or not the tax code should be progressive or not is a legitimate point of disagreement between the Left and the Right. You think poor people should pay more, and we think the people who have the money should pay more. However, this is the first time I’ve ever heard anyone try to claim that a progressive tax structure is not only wrong, but unconstitutional. I hope you didn’t hurt yourself stretching that far. Just so you know, though, your on the wrong side of public opinion, AND past experience on this one. Most people think taxing the rich more is a good idea, and history has shown them to be correct.
Blanche Lincoln and 1 other Democrat (I forget who) got abstinence-only funding added back into the HCR bill with the help of all the Republicans. It’s a fairly small amount, though.
Unstable Isotope,
My credentials are very simple — I’m a citizen of this country.
Why do leftist like trot out that “if you aren’t a elitist, academic, you can’t discuss the issue” argument when it goes against them.
Should you be barred from discussing Federal Income taxes because you aren’t a CPA or Tax lawyer?
Little bit of a double standard isn’t it?
Why don’t you point out the flaws in my argument instead of trying to dismiss it?
Scott,
The debate isn’t whether it is a “good idea” or not, the debate is whether or not the federal government has the authority to do so and whether or not that taxation scheme represents an infringement on our rights.
You think poor people should pay more
Not sure how you get that I think the poor should pay more but how about they pay at all?
Do they not use the roads, Do they not use the same infrastructure that those other 53%?
Why shouldn’t they pay a portion of their income like everyone else?
I could support a flat tax 10% 15%, etc everyone pays. How is that not fairer?>
Sorry, anon@1:29: Pg. 618 of HIR Bill: Abstinence-only funding, $250 million
Another broken promise by Obomba.
HCR 2010 = WMD 2002. Obomba lied while HCR died
I think every American that earns money should pay Federal Income Taxes under a progressive tax code (not a flat tax).
The Democrats did zero out abstinence-only. Lincoln and the Republicans on the SFC Committee added it back in.
Umm, Bob S. – I noted at least 5 signs at the Lewes-Home Depot gathering that read “I’m not racist, just scared.” Scott’s question is legitimate. And that line of thought, being scared of the government, is pushed almost daily by the 3 Stooges on WGMD. So, what are all of you so scared of?
UI, how many repubs voted for the bill? 0. How many Dems voted for it? 58 plus a socialist and an independent. Who signed it? A democrat.
Was it taken out in the reconciliation bill? No.
Case closed.
My credentials are very simple — I’m a citizen of this country.
Sorry, that’s not enough to take an argument over Constitutionality seriously. If you’re not an expert and don’t reference the work of an expert, all your offering is an opinion.
I haven’t represented myself as an expert on taxes, and I shouldn’t because I am not. I think of myself as an aggregator of information. I read it, find it, and bring it to people here at the blog. I share my opinions on it. That’s what we do on the blog.
As far as law Constitutionality goes, that is a very complicated subject which people spend lifetimes studying. Being an American does not make you a Constitutional expert, which is what you just said that you are.
MJ,
See my earlier comments. I can’t answer for others, I can only answer for myself.
Let me ask everyone here.
What is a fair amount of money that a person should be “allowed” to keep?
Since most of the comments support a progressive tax scheme, could you let me know what the number should be?
Is it $15,000 a year, $50K, $75K?
At what level do you say that person should pay anything over and above into someone else’s pocket?
And Bob, you’re doing the “swap ‘income taxes’ and ‘taxes'” thing again. Everyone pays federal taxes. If you’ve ever bought a gallon of gas, you’ve paid federal taxes that help the roads. Makes no difference what your income is.
And I’m still amused that you agree Congress has the right to impose taxes, but not the right to specify how they’re distributed. You get credit for originality in my book.
And again, what rights and liberties have you lost lately (non-Patriot Act related)?
Damn, 15% flat tax, I’d be protesting too.
I’m sick of conservatives pretending that tax cuts for rich people is some kind of populist thing. The latest data showed that on average people pay <5% of their income on federal taxes. A 15% flat tax would be a huge tax increase.
That’s right Scott. Everyone one pays taxes, except Exxon.
Scott,
The list of rights and liberties is extensive.
How about the right to privacy? Do you think that the PATRIOT act was a good thing?
How about the right to choose what medical care I receive or not, what insurance package I purchase contains?
How about the restrictions on how a person can use their property?
Or in regards to the Kelo Decision — whether or not a person can keep their property?
How does it make any sense regarding liberty and freedom to say that the government can take your land away if there is someone else willing to pay more in taxes for the use of that land?
How about the freedom to choose whether or not to wear a seat belt?
How about the right to be an organ donor by not wearing a motorcycle helmet?
How about the freedom to operate a business without paying an occupancy tax, a business license tax, having to obtain a professional license, etc?
How about the right to privacy while flying?
How about the right to know whether or not I’m on some “No Fly list”
All those things you list were the same under Bush. Name something new.
Unstable Isotope,
Are you not reading?
It doesn’t matter to me whether the president has a D or an R after their name.
As far as something new, can you say “Health Care reform”?
Care to cite some source on that 5% figure?
Bob – how about we start by flattening the wage taxes for Social Security. Currently the tax doesn’t apply to investment income, or any income over $125K. So if we remove those caps we’d be funding Social Security with a flat tax. It is a regressive tax, so if we can’t make it progressive let’s at least agree it should be flat.
And remember – Pete du Pont and Warren Buffet are paying a 15% flat tax on most of their income already.
The problem with most flat tax schemes is they only tax wages and not investment income. And they conveniently forget to fund Social Security/Medicare with the flat tax, leaving the old wage taxes in place, so the little people end paying more, and taxes aren’t so flat after all.
That is why flat taxes are supported by people like Pete du Pont and Steve Forbes – they will end up paying nothing.
If you applied the flat tox to investment income as well, and eliminated Social Security/Medicaid taxes and funded entitlements from the flat tax, the flat tax rate would be a lot higher than anything suggested so far. In fact it would be well higher than the 15% Forbes and du Pont are currently paying, so they would oppose it.
In numerous states, one is required to show proof of insurance before being issued a driver’s license. Is that government over-reach, requiring to have insurance. Anyone with a mortgage, especially a VA or FHA mortgage, is required to have homeowners insurance. Is that government over-reach?
Here’s a thought – let’s do away with the Social Security Maximum Wage Base (the cap on when you no longer have to pay FICA taxes on your income) – that is one way to solve the shortfall in the Social Security Trust Fund. That way, everyone will pay the same 6.2% of FICA taxes. Sounds fair to me.
Sorry, anon@1:29: Pg. 618 of HIR Bill: Abstinence-only funding, $250 million
F**k.
Anon, FICA taxes are not taken out on any income once you reach $106,800 for 2010. Here’s a link – http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pubs/10003.html
OK, close enough for my argument though.
I still don’t hear any flat taxers proposing to flatten wage taxes.
MJ,
Sorry but not accurate. I can post a bond or surety without having to purchase insurance to drive.
I can also choose to drive on my own property with no insurance needed.
The mortgage insurance requirement is between the mortgage company and the individual, not the government. The .gov only backs the mortgage, promising to pay it back if the owner fails.
I’ll support removing the caps if we also reform the bottom end of the tax scheme…otherwise you just shift more money to those making less.
Again, I’ll ask – what is an acceptable level of income?
If wealth redistribution is acceptable and fair — what is the level we should work to?
$45,000? $75,000? Come on folks answer up.
Also, care to answer, any of you, if you are voluntarily giving away your money to bring you down to the poverty level?
If wealth redistribution is a good thing, then a person should be living their values before they require someone else to support it, right?
Bob,
Sorry you have to do your own research. I don’t have time to deal with you right now.
Bob, you’re making a ridiculous straw-man argument. No one has, or is, calling for a cap on income. If you think that’s what a progressive tax system is, you’re not nearly the scholar you think you are.
How about the right to privacy? Do you think that the PATRIOT act was a good thing?
How about the right to choose what medical care I receive or not, what insurance package I purchase contains?
I agree with you on the first part about the Patriot Act, and I’m glad that you were out protesting it back then.
As for the second, Wrong. Care to show me where anyone is taking away your right to medical care? ACA is doing the opposite. It’s giving you the right to care. And for the insurance, it’s called “regulation”. If we had more of it and better enforcement under Republican administrations, we could have avoided our current economic crisis.
reform the bottom end of the tax scheme
Those folks are already in libertarian nirvana, what’s to reform? You won.
Again, I’ll ask – what is an acceptable level of income?
The amount left over after the nation pays what it owes.
So Bob wants to apply a “values” test to taxpayers to see who’s deserving and who’s not. How’s that small government?
Bob S: Wealth distribution has been happening in this country for decades. Wealth continues to be taken from the middle class and redistributed to the upper class by government tax, borrowing, and spending policies. The recent HCR bill is just one more example of this. The rich are getting richer and the poor and middle class are getting squeezed. All the economic data prove this.
You haven’t a clue about which way the redistribution is actually occurring – it ain’t from the rich to the poor.
The amount and manner of taxation is decided by a political process governed by the Constitution.
What we spend the money on is also decided by a political process, also governed by the Constitution.
Bob’s problem is he doesn’t like the outcome of the political process. He wants things decided some other way.
The top 400 taxpayers:
• The top 400 U.S. individual taxpayers got 1.59% of the nation’s household income in 2007 — 3X the p% they got in the 1990s.
• The top 400 paid 2.05% of all individual income taxes in 2007.
• Only 220 of the top 400 were in the top marginal tax bracket.
• Average tax rate of the 400 = 16.6% — the lowest since the IRS began tracking the 400 in 1992.
• Minimum annual income to make the top 400 = $138.8 million.
• Top 400 reported $137.9 billion in income; they paid $22.9 billion in federal income taxes.
• 81.3% of income was from capital gains, dividends or interest. Salaries and wages? Just 6.5%.
• The top 400 list changes from year to year: 1992-2007, it contained 3,472 different taxpayers (out of a maximum 6400).
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/04/top-400-taxpayers/
Statements implying that the Constitution still has any teeth crack me up.
Statements implying that the Constitution still has any teeth crack me up.
Well, yeah, but not for the reasons the Tenthers think. The taxation and spending part of the Constitution seems to be working fine.
“The taxation and spending part of the Constitution seems to be working fine.”
I’ll give you “working” but not “fine.” 🙂
Progressives in the Democrat party are fiscal crack heads and taxes are their crack.
Their only solution to every issue is more taxes. They actually believe their absurd notion that the solution to our debt crises is more spending.
Repubs actually believe their absurd notion that the solution to our debt crises is cutting taxes and more borrowing. Which is more absurd?
Bob, may I ask you another question? Are you a Republican, as well as a Tea Party member? If not, why not? If so, why do you feel that being a Republican is not enough? It seems to me that almost everything you’ve touched on are core tenets of the Republican Party. In what areas do your views diverge from theirs? I’m asking this with genuine interest, by the way. I really do want to believe that there is more to the Tea Party phenomenon than I currently think there is. So far, though, you’ve pretty much just confirmed what I already thought.
Scott,
I’ll change the focus then.
What is the minimum level of acceptable income then?
If wealth redistribution is a good thing, then what level of income should everyone have as a minimum?
Again, 30K, 45K?
Care to show me where anyone is taking away your right to medical care
How about the “Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research” or “Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute”? Don’t you think those agencies will determine what treatments are effective and what the insurance company should or shouldn’t offer?
How about the fact that I also have the right not to get medical treatment or pay for it? With the Health Care reform, I have to pay whether or not I use it.
Anon,
What we spend the money on is also decided by a political process, also governed by the Constitution.
My money isn’t subject to the political process, yet now the “political process” has determine that not only do I have to pay for insurance but I’ll paying more for it since we will all be in the same risk pool.
Why Republicans Are Winning on the Tax Issue
wsj.com ^ | April 15, 2010 | Karl Rove
Today’s last-minute trip to the post office to mail in your return is a reminder of one of life’s unpleasant realities: paying taxes. Always important in politics, the tax issue is likely to play a larger role this year than in any midterm election since 1994.
A recent Rasmussen survey reported that 66% of Americans believe the nation is over-taxed. There’s a reason. Under President Barack Obama taxes are going up—a lot.
House Ways and Means Committee Republicans have issued a summary of the 25 tax increases signed into law by Mr. Obama so far. They total $670 billion over the next 10 years, including 14 tax hikes (including an annual tax on every insurance policy and an annual tax on brand-name drugs) that break Mr. Obama’s solemn 2008 campaign pledge never to raise taxes on families making less than $250,000 a year.
Many of these taxes are part of the ObamaCare monstrosity. New levies on investment, drugs, medical devices and insurance policies eventually will hit ordinary Americans, and the public knows it. A late March Fox News poll asked, “If major health care reform legislation is passed, do you think your taxes will increase, decrease or stay about the same?” Seventy-five percent think their taxes will increase.
Tax concerns will hurt congressional Democrats. In rural areas, their opposition to repeal of the death tax antagonizes farmers and ranchers. Then there are America’s 32 million small-business owners, who feel put upon by the administration’s tax everyone-and-everything philosophy.
Families, especially in the suburbs, are pressed by rising property, sales and state income taxes in addition to the federal tax increases. And don’t forget the 53 million investors whose battered accounts are only now recovering.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com …
Repubs actually believe their absurd notion that the solution to our debt crises is cutting taxes and more borrowing.
Yes, that is what they do once elected. But their theory is that we can finance tax cuts for the rich by cutting back spending to 19th century pre-superpower levels. Yes, they really think that.
Sorry, Scott – and I do appreciate what you’re trying to do – but… if the Tea Party wanted their concerns to be taken seriously not only would they have been demonstrating during the Bush Administration but they would have been protesting the months before Obama won.
Does anyone really believe Tea Parties would exist if McCain/Palin had won? The debt and deficit would still exist, the economy would have still crashed, etc.
Timing is everything.
Are you kidding me, Schwartzie? You cut and paste a propaganda piece by KARL ROVE, and you want to be taken seriously?
“19th century pre-superpower”… that would make Obama happy to appologizes constantly for our super power status.
Scott,
I notice once again the phenomenon of attacking the messenger instead of the argument.
Wonder why you feel necessary to do that?
Are people not beset by rising taxes?
Pandora,
As far as people protesting during the Bush Administration– guess people complaining and protesting about the TARP didn’t count.
People grew tired of governmental intrusion in their lives under the Bush Administration — that provided the nucleus for the movement. The election of Obama and his clearly statist agenda only accelerated the process.
What is the minimum level of acceptable income then?
If wealth redistribution is a good thing, then what level of income should everyone have as a minimum?
See, this illustrates a fundamental difference between the conservative and progressive mindsets. There is no “best” minimum or maximum. Conservatives see small government as an end to itself. “No matter what you have to do, or who you have hurt, just shrink government.” They see making government smaller as the end goal, therefore they think progressives see increasing government as an end goal as well. We don’t. We just believe that there are some things that the government is uniquely positioned to do. The exact “correct” amount of taxation is exactly enough to cover what needs to be done.
The progressive goal is not to cap some people’s income and give free money to lazy (wink, wink) people. It’s to have people whose lives are more secure at the moment provide a safety net to those whose lives are not. I for one, if you told me I could make $500,000 but would have to pay more taxes — I’d take it in a heartbeat.
Um, Bob, where did I attack you? I’m trying to engage you on issues.
And as far as being “beset by rising taxes”, you do know that the vast majority of people have gotten a tax decrease under Obama, right? But long-term, the only possible way to deal with the debt crisis will be with increased revenue. Despite what conservatives have been trying to peddle for 30-some years, tax cuts do not increase revenue — tax increases do. Cutting spending here and there will help, but there is no possible way to tame the debt by spending cuts alone — unless you want to get rid of the military and all entitlements.
“beset by rising taxes”
LOL
Seriously people, the MAIN reason for all this tea party nonsense is that there’s a
niggerblack person in the white house.simple. as. that.
freedom works and other conservative elite pulled the great bait-and-switch on a bunch of latent racists. just scream “socialism” and we’ll know what you mean! 😉
another clue is that these folks who identify themselves as tea pariers are supposed to be educated. so they should know the difference between the tax rate they paid over the past few years.
they SHOULD know that a vast majority of them are paying less taxes than in previous years.
they SHOULD know TARP was created under Bu$hCo, same for the auto bailouts.
they SHOULD know that most of the deficit was created under Bu$hCo and prior to 2001 we had a massive surplus.
they SHOULD know that secret derivative trading, credit default swaps, etc, contributed immensely to the our economic collapse, and regulations which would have stopped it were effectively stripped out or rendered useless by pro-bigsluttybusiness repubs and democrats during the rethug congress and Bu$hCo.
they SHOULD know, too, that other countries successfully got themselves out of recessions by spending, not just crazy spending, but intelligent, targeting spending. If these TPers are so smart, then give me an example where a country got out of recession by starving the beast (read: solely tax cuts/credits)?
they SHOULD know that even after the Obama admin did all this spending that the overall ecomony is doing better and the deficit is trending downward.
so if these TPers are so smart, then why do they not recognize all of these things?
and if you’re gonna ignore all this TP bullshit and hatred and say that TP values are basically Libertarian values, well fuck you and your utopian libertarian fantasy bullshit. go move to fucking Somalia; i hear it’s a libertarian paradise!
sorry for the regression in your post, scott p, but you cannot, and never will be able to, try to understand and rationalize the irrational.
Scott,
Never said you attacked me
You cut and paste a propaganda piece by KARL ROVE,
You derided P.Schwartz for posting the Rove piece.
You didn’t refute the message or the ideas in the piece, just who wrote it.
And you are being disingenuous on the wealth redistribution.
If a progressive tax structure is a “good thing” then there is a level of income that everyone should have, right?
That only follows from the idea of Take Money from those making much and give to those making little.
So, what is the minimum level of income that people should have?
Right now it is around 52,000 (for a family of 4), isn’t it? Isn’t that where people start paying more into the federal income tax system then they get back?
So, should we continue taxing the “wealthy” those making over 52K until everyone is at that level?
“No matter what you have to do, or who you have hurt, just shrink government.”
What a crock of bovine excrement!!
Is isn’t shrink the government at all cost any more then the liberal answer is to grow the government at all cost.
It is a fundamental difference in the nature of governmental role. Many liberals see the governments job as making the outcome fair — If you don’t make enough, the government will tax those that do to provide you with sufficient resources”.
I see the roles of the government as making sure the opportunity is fair. Not everyone is a great baseball player, but everyone should have a chance to play the game, right?
That is the limited role — defined by the Constitution — of the government.
The government has far exceeded anything close to it’s Constitutional role.
Can you honestly argue that “No Child Left Behind” or bans on transfat are legitimate government functions?
The tax burden is increasing but much of it is being hidden by changing the terminology — fees and usage rates and permit costs.
Von Cracker
Psychological projection, eh?
Call it what you want, but I have just as much of a problem with statism regardless of who is leading the charge. Be it Obama, Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid or anyone else.
no, douchenugget. though i’m pleasantly surprised you didn’t give me “i’m rubber; you’re glue!” but projection? in context, your, ahem, retort makes no sense whatsoever.
you rally against things that do not exist, so what’s the real purpose? and if those things you rally against existed in years past, then why get all loud and proud now?
Von Cracker,
Really, “douchenugget”? Is that the best you can come up with? Guess the insults in high school have really gone done lately.
I also notice that you are attacking the people and I, instead of the issues.
What is the proper role of government? Have you gotten to that chapter yet? (see if you are going to insult someone, try to do it with a little class and style)
How exactly is the idea that the government has overgrown its Constitutional limits racist?
Do you not think that if Joe Biden was president and proposing the same laws, the same intrusion that people wouldn’t be protesting?
Do you have any evidence to support your claims of racism?
issues?!? the list above are issues – issues that TPers are rallying against that do not exist.
sorry about your reading comp skilz!
and i’m not going to list my bona fides to you since libertarians are undeserving of a real argument, for they don’t live in reality.
what about this “projection” shit anyway? what exactly am i projecting? methinks you got nothing.
my apologies if you are not one of the many racist TPers, but hey, you are the company you keep.
examples? shit, you must be having a laugh! google it yourself, lazy.
“Citizens for Tax Justice, a self-described non-partisan organization, released a report on Tuesday that read: ‘The 2009 economic stimulus bill actually reduced federal income taxes for tax year 2009 for 98 percent of all working families and individuals.’ This total includes the 95 percent of working families that will or have received tax credits in the range of $400 to $800.”
what’s up with that? that doesn’t follow the narrative!
Von Cracker,
While the federal tax burden may have declined, can you point to a state that has lowered it’s state income tax?
Notice that your his total includes the 95 percent of working families that will or have received tax credits in the range of $400 to $800.” is a tax credit, do you realize that means the people just didn’t have pay $400 to $800?
Not that they got that amount….unles they were making below the accepted level of income….then those people did get that from those who earned more.
So, once again — what is the acceptable level of income a person should make?
When do we stop redistributing wealth to that person? When they make$20K, $30K?
Or the state sales tax?
How about decreased fees, licensing costs, permit costs, etc?
Just because it doesn’t say “tax” doesn’t mean it isn’t a tax.
Please explain to me how “limited government” doesn’t exist?
Please explain to me how the evasion of my privacy from the PATRIOT Act, from the busy bodies at the TSA, from the warrantless surveillance of cell phone location doesn’t exist?
Tell me how the federal government mandating an individual purchasing a product or service doesn’t exist?
I really appreciate this thread, with special thanks to Scott P and to Bob S for striving to maintain a civil exchange on this topic.
Bob S, you have frequently asked for what a minimum and maximum level of income should be, say for a family of four. How you might use the figures would affect my answer.
If you are asking what is a maximum level of income, above which I would want the marginal tax rate to be 100%, I would respond that there is no such maximum level. I do feel that above a certain level (say $250K), that a high (perhaps 40%) marginal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rate#Effective_marginal) tax level is reasonable.
I feel that if a person or couple is working to support their family, that there should be a minimum level of income that should be free of income taxes (covered currently by standard deduction and personal exemptions), so that minimum basic needs (food and shelter) are covered. This is NOT saying that those who earn less that this amount should be provided federal money to bring them up to that level. I do, however, fully support the Earned Income Tax Credit, that provides federal money to provide incentive to the WORKING POOR, in a way to help them pay for those basic necessities.
I don’t feel that our federal income tax system is great, however it could be a LOT worse.
Taxes are the cost of civilization. I am glad that when I dial 911 someone answers. I am glad that our nation’s children all are able to receive an education. I am glad that we have highways that connect our communities. I am glad that we have an air traffic control system so that when I fly across the country my plane doesn’t collide with a mountain or another plane. I am glad that my mother receives Social Security (based on her husband’s work record). I am glad that when a friend/relative is laid off, they receive several months of unemployment benefits while they are seeking another job, especially in very difficult economic times such as we have recently experienced. I am glad of these civilized aspects of life here in the USA, and fully accept my responsibility as a US citizen to pay my income taxes.
There are a lot of federal programs that I don’t approve, however I accept this as part of the deal–the rules have been set over years by elected officials.
Note that the US Constitution begins “We the People”. Somehow I expect that if the founding fathers had been libertarian, they would have selected a different start. There is also that troubling phrase ‘promote the General Welfare’, and then those annoying phrases ‘more perfect Union’ and ‘United States’ (all of this in the first sentence, BTW).
Get the sense that Ron Paul hasn’t taken the time to read it?
hey, there’s plenty of issues you and I agree on. privacy for one, but where you deride “socialism” in the sense that it’s redistribution of wealth to the poorer masses, my concern is that the real socialism that’s going on as we speak is Corporate Welfare. now do not confuse this with the bailout. taking wants and wishes out of the equation, i understand why the bailout occurred. i didn’t like it, but i dislike 20-25% unemployment worse.
the TPers rage about this so-called 47% don’t pay taxes (which is total bullshit btw), but you hear crickets from the same group about Exxon and other globocorps paying zero taxes to its home country.
now i live in DE, so i don’t pay sales tax on most stuff. but the trade-off is that (for the most part) our public school system is shit. so in lieu of paying 6% on a box of Magnums, i’ll pay 6k a year to have my child properly educated. now again, it’s not the same everywhere, some schools (especially the early-ed ones) are decent to ok, but with that said, their resources are much more limited than schools in the surrounding states. some of the other ‘amenities’, such as police, fire, infrastructure upkeep, goes without saying. but i guess the fundamental difference is that i don’t mind paying extra for those who are without. without due to circumstances out of their control. not to support, but to assist. but hey, that’s me – an atheist who actually practices judeo-christian values!
but moving the goal posts from the Fed to the States doesn’t mean much since I don’t see the TPers protesting state capitals, specifically.
I do believe in limited government, where applicable – privacy, pro-choice, health-decision matters like right to die, drugs, basically anything to do with my personal self. but i also believe that some things are just to big not to allow to have the government in charge. basic health care is one of them – bigger the pool = less risk = lower prices. it is that simple, really. but the naysayers talk about all these what ifs. and the funny thing is most of the TPers think corporations have their best interests at heart when compared to the government. now that’s just delusional!
anyway, i get you. but what you may not have gotten yet is that you’re surrounded by assholes. that’s what a vast majority of those TPers are – bitter, old, racist assholes. they’re using dyed-in-wool libertarians, such as yourself, as cover for their nefarious goal, which are to de-legitimize the current administration with make-believe accusations.
now if you want to bash the Gov’t because of your “limited” government beliefs, hey i’m all for that. but you can see where your message is hurt, even muted, due to those TP morons with their “Go back to Kenya signs.
Um, there was a certain amount of namecalling there I just skimmed, so maybe I missed something, but I’d like to talk about healthcare, mandates, and education.
First, we wouldn’t be forced to buy private insurance with single-payer, so I hope the whole “private” business is temporary. However, there are whole bunches of things the government requires me to privately buy, so I’m kind of used to it. Clothes, for example. Because of the government, I have to wear clothes. I’m also required to live in a house the government certifies as safe. That annoys and inconveniences me, sometimes, but not so much that I’m willing to commute from a place so far from the bane of zoning that I could build a proper house that was ecologically sound.
I’m also okay with requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets while they’re riding on publicly funded roads, because I don’t think passing schoolbuses and EMT’s that respond to accidents should have to see their graymatter all over the pavement. So even though, on the one hand, I figure Darwin would cross by to the other side, I see it as a ‘second hand smoke” pollution type ordinance.
As far as education goes, I have serious doubts about the merits of government involvement in education, at all. But I don’t see much of a path for government OUT of education without also throwing out stuff like restrictions on child labor, and I am utterly WILD about that stuff, so, since the kids can’t be usefully cleaning chimneys and mining coal, I suppose we might as well corral them in school as anywhere else. 😉
I think a ban on transfats is completely a government function. I’d like to see a ban on hfc, too. Because I live in a society where you CAN’T sell yakpee as a Cancer Cure, and I think that’s AWESOME. You should not be able to label poison as “food” either. That’s what these laws aim to fix.
Bob S., one of the things that bugs me about the Tea Party is this business about sharing or redistributing wealth is bad for America. Sarah Palin has made spreading the wealth code for communism like it a bad thing.
Did you know Alaska is the most “socialist” State in the USA. Unlike other states, Alaska by Constitution claims Alaska’s most valuable asset oil to be property of the State. Producers pay royalties, the State has no income or sales tax and every resident gets a dividend check right into their pocket for doing nothing. In August of 2008 Governor Palin added a $1000 bonus to each dividend check. Governor Palin invoked a windfall profit tax then redistributed the money directly she said:
“And Alaska—we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs. … It’s to maximize benefits for Alaskans, not an individual company, not some multinational somewhere, but for Alaskans.”
Now this same person quits being governor joins the Tea Party Express making $12 million her first year out of office – and now she goes around telling people share the wealth and redistributing wealth is un American. Can you see how that makes people who know this stuff think the Tea Party is just full of phony baloney?
funny you mention Palin and her new found riches. now i don’t begrudge someone making serious cash, but just so the rubes know, it’s made off of their work.
she, like beck and fat rush before her, rabbles the rousers, gets them all in a tizzy of misinformation and preying on their illogical fears. then when the moment is right, she sticks her blood-thirsty money funnel into the pockets of her ‘followers’ for her own benefit. no one else’s , mind you, except her family’s maybe, but i’m sure she’d even slit their throats if need be.
she’s no better than Benny Hinn.
Whew! After all that reading of talking points, generalities, and propaganda I’ve learned little new.
Except, of course, Palin is no Benny Hinn, and I may argue that comparison.
Thanks for the laughs, the continued confusion, and lack of specifics initially requested by Scott.
wow, you’re so better than us! i’m impressed.
oh, and i forgot – i said palin’s no better than benny hinn, not that she’s no benny hinn.
are you sure you read the thread thoroughly?
petard-arrughhmmph!
We’ve ALWAYS paid, in some way or another, to make sure the poor are cared for. But BEFORE regulation is when things were most horrific.
A little history of medicine in the US, back to the 1800s:
http://dpsinfo.com/wb/medhistory.html
Medical facilities were informal. Most patients were treated in their homes. However, even the smallest towns had poorhouses, where destitute people could live and receive limited medical care:
“…the town expended $848.56 on the support of the poor plus $335.87 for the care of paupers ‘at Hospital.’…The unfortunate who needed town aid…(had)…his name printed in the town report for all to see…If a pauper died, his funeral expenses were borne by the town.”[4]
The condition of these poorhouses was often squalid, and it was difficult for towns to attract doctors to work there. Frequently, the poor, medically untrained residents would care for one another since there were no other options.
The few hospitals that opened in North America during the colonial period were opened in places like Quebec and New Orleans both cities dominated by the French. Finally, Benjamin Franklin and Dr. Thomas Bond raised money to open the Pennsylvania Hospital, the first hospital that was not also a poorhouse in America. This hospital did not permit people with infectious diseases in unless they were quarantined to special rooms and not housed in the wards.[5]
Public health was virtually unknown in North America at this time. Towns and cities did not have boards of health except during times of epidemics (or threatened epidemics). Most Americans got their water from pumps and used outhouses until well into the 19th century because most places did not have public water or sewer systems. There was no trash collection so the streets became a breeding ground for all types of disease.
There were a few attempts to influence public health, but most of these were only local efforts. For example, when smallpox vaccinations were developed in the 18th century, many small town doctors, particularly in New England, ran “smallpox resorts” where groups of people were variolated and had to stay quarantined for a few days to make sure they only developed a mild case of smallpox. However, since New Englanders were used to the concept of inoculations, when the improved smallpox vaccination was introduced in the last 1790s, it had widespread acceptance.[6]
The state and federal governments did not get involved in these attempts to improve public health; these were generally managed locally.