During last week’s State of the Union speech, President Barack Obama continued his attack on the rich for not paying their fair share of taxes. Not one word was mentioned about the 47 percent of the population that pays zero federal income taxes.
The last time I checked, 15 percent of $20 million — $3 million — is considerably higher than 28 percent of $60,000 — $16,800.
True fairness would be for every citizen to have some skin in the game.
Rick Johnson
Kansas City
« Comfort Keepers’ thanks | Main | Supporting KC schools »
STY isn' it interesting how the right is accusing Obama of my way or the highway. John boehner has often said here's our bill,take it or leave it because "We are not going to compromise." you must be very,very proud of all the bills coming out of the house of representives,many with bi-partisan support,only to fall victim of world record number of McConnell led filibusters
Posted by: Fanoftravel | February 01, 2012 at 01:57 PM
So you view the LA Purchase, cornhusker kickback and Exec Order on abortion as "politics as usual" for this administration? No wonder you'll excuse the class warfare drumbeat of the committee to reelect Obama.
The problem, US, is that Obama abandoned his "transparent and accountable" campaign to push through Obamacare. Obama ignored the biggest needs of his constituency, securing existing entitlements, to push through Obamacare. The cornhusker kickback and the LA purchase were embarrassments...well beyond typical deal making.
Posted by: Smarter Than You | February 01, 2012 at 01:50 PM
What's interesting about your link, FOT, is the question asked: "who do you blame?" Since the meltdown started during the Bush administration it's natural that more would blame him. A more pertinent question today, since Bush isn't running, would be "do you blame Obama for not doing more to fix the economy?" That would explain Obama's approval rating in the 30's among the independent voters.
Sorry to harsh your buzz.
Posted by: Smarter Than You | February 01, 2012 at 01:42 PM
For everyone who whines on this site about blaming bush http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/the-economy-its-still-bushs-fault/2012/01/17/gIQAE7Dy6P_blog.html
and just to make another point,I know I posted it on another comment,but it must be shared
http://imgur.com/coetz
Posted by: fanoftravel | February 01, 2012 at 01:11 PM
STY, please re-read my posts. I have not stated that President Obama is not a politician. I see that he panders to his base and those who helped vote him into office in the first place.
My point is simple, to think he is somehow unique in this aspect and draw attention to it as some sort of personal negative, negates the political reality. All politicians do the same thing. ALL POLITICIANS do the same thing. To say President Obama, in doing so, is underhanded and he's simply buying votes (and at the same time ignore that the other politicians all do and have done the same exact thing) is disingenuous at best.
I think it is a perfect example of the subtle, passive-aggressive class warfare that many conservatives use.
Posted by: Uncommon sense | February 01, 2012 at 12:10 PM
Obama bought the votes within his own party for his legislative priority but he'd never do it again to win something as inconsequential as reelection?
Respectfully, you may want to rethink your position on this one, US.
Posted by: Smarter Than You | February 01, 2012 at 11:24 AM
STY, my contention is that a politician pushing for legislation to appease his or base or better his or her constituency is a politician being a politician. President Obama, in this respect, is no better or no worse than any other politician...Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, Green, Independent, etc. To me, pointing out that he is somehow special or some unique case is to take quite a narrow and selective view of political reality.
Posted by: Uncommon sense | February 01, 2012 at 11:03 AM
Is it your contention, US, that Obama would never engage in buying the votes he needed on someone else's dime? Think about the cornhusker kickback, LA purchase, exec order on abortion; that was for Obamacare. Now he wants to secure reelection.
His history in the White House, and his insistence on divisive class warfare, says you are wrong.
Posted by: Smarter Than You | February 01, 2012 at 09:40 AM
To me, the very idea that President Obama is somehow "buying votes" is a perfect example of the GOP class warfare machine at work. It sees no ill catering to the rich with and taxing the poor, but the second someone wants to flip that...oooohhhh, that's class warfare. Give me a break.
Posted by: Uncommon sense | February 01, 2012 at 06:54 AM
By the way BV, how does someone "buy votes" by wanting to increase taxes on the very people that can afford his fundraising dinners?
So, I guess Romney is trying to buy votes with his proposed tax plan? I guess Newt is trying to buy votes with his base on the moon? Sorry, I meant to say Newt's pie in the sky.
Posted by: Uncommon sense | February 01, 2012 at 06:50 AM
To BV and others who would like to think that President Obama's fundraisers have anything to do with his tax policies...one really has nothing to do with the other. So he wants to tax the very people who can afford such fundraisers...big deal. I bet not many who post here could afford that. If he were to really be a hypocrit, he would want to raise taxes on others while lowering it on himself. Oh wait, that's Romney.
Posted by: Uncommon sense | February 01, 2012 at 06:43 AM
JDog: I won't crucify you. I believe that, if we are going to solve the deficit (BTW I keep wondering where the "conservatives" were during the Reagan, Bush & Bush Presidency's about this issue), expenditures are going to have to go down and revenues are going to have to go up. I don't mind the "if we are going to spend money here we must reduce what we spend somewhere else. What I mind is the "if we are going to cut expenditures here we must have a corresponding revenue cut".
The budget will never be balanced if reductions in spending are matched with reductions in revenue. That's called math.
A flatter tax makes sense to me. Under our current structure, if you have so much money that you live off the money your money makes, you are taxed less than a person who goes out and actually creates value in the market place. That is insane.
As to "everybody should have skin in the game", IMO the poor already do. They hustle every penny they can get and cut every corner they can cut to feed their family. In what way are they benefited by taking more from them?
At the same time, how "hurt" will the extremely rich be if their taxes go up 1%? Will they miss a meal or not be able to buy a new TV? In what way will they be hurt?
Posted by: gringoloco | January 31, 2012 at 11:55 PM
I don't think that all of the people on welfare are disabled. I believe that workfare would help. Clinton wanted it and never got it. I am sure that the only reason that Obama wants no taxes is to buy votes. He tells the poor that he wants to tax the rich. He goes to 35,000 to 71,000 dinners with the rich. Hypocrit.
Posted by: Bigvarmit | January 31, 2012 at 11:23 PM
Seth, wouldn't they be just as likely to vote for politicians who promise greater benefits and lower taxes, like we have all been doing all our lives? How does taxing them change that equation?
Posted by: preservation hall | January 31, 2012 at 08:18 PM
“If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”
― Malcolm X
Looks like we weren't careful. :-( Pity.
Posted by: LawyerInTraining | January 31, 2012 at 06:52 PM
TRA asks: "Does anyone disagree that, if these poor people, these 47% that pay no taxes, were to start paying taxes, it would just come right back to them in the form of food stamps and other welfare benefits? JDog, Zeno, NavyVet, ANYONE?"
Navyvet responds:
"At least then those 47%'ers would have some kind of interest in tax policy and whether taxes go up or down."
I agree with Navyvet. Plus, they would be more interested in gov't spending policy and voting for folks who are more financially responsible. Humans respond to incentives, even when they don't make much money.
The one point I took from your followup posts that I thought was worth responding to was that their taxes would just come back to them as benefits.
But, they're already getting those benefits. Adding a cost to those benefits will still change their incentives.
Posted by: Seth | January 31, 2012 at 04:46 PM
"... I don't know about the 47%. Of population? Probably not. Households, maybe. How many are completely disabled and cannot work? ..."
It's 47% of the 140m people who file a tax return each year. 75 million filers are essentially paying for everything federal but 300 million of us pay taxes.
Except toddlers anyhow and Mitt probably has a plan to tax them ... somehow ... all designed to preserve his 15% way of life. Of course Noot wants to put toddlers to work so maybe Mitt taxing them is better.
Noot calls Obama "the foodstamp president" but George W Bush is actually ahead of Obama by 1/2 million enrollees so even that GOP claim is nonsense.
http://factcheck.org/2012/01/newts-faulty-food-stamp-claim/
Some of this is old "who are the 47%" but it's still close except that it's gotten worse ...
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1410.html
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/25962.html
The leading "no pay" states are the business friendly GOP havens of Mississippi, Arkansas and Alabama. The payers are the blue states of the NE. That's really all you need to know to understand the entire issue and what's behind it.
You'll also notice the "no pays" were historically around 15-25% and only left that range to explore new highs with ... Bush.
Posted by: whispering_to_kc | January 31, 2012 at 04:04 PM
"These people pay state taxes and sales taxes." -Fanoftravel
So, why is it a big deal if they were to pay Federal income tax?
Posted by: Seth | January 31, 2012 at 03:59 PM
JDog I agree with you on a number of your post,though it may not seem so, why is it seldomly mentioned the off-shore accounts of not just the Romney's but more important the corporate loop holes. By some estimates the US treasury loses 70 to 100 billion a year in lost tax revenues. This is not class warfare,it's just making big co's pay what they owe. What difference does the Corp. Tax rate mean ,25% or 35%,big businesses pay little or no taxes.
Posted by: Fanoftravel | January 31, 2012 at 03:13 PM
JD, I agree with you on most everything. I have said before and will say again, the loopholes and special interest deductions should go. However, I would still keep a mortgage interest deduction for a taxpayer's main residence. We should remove additional houses, but allow your primary residence as a deduction. I too only own one house. In a year or so, the interest I pay won't even be worth the deduction anyway. I just think offering the mortgage deduction helps the housing market.
Posted by: Uncommon sense | January 31, 2012 at 03:03 PM