Tea Party less popular than atheists and Muslims

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Instead of attacking me, why don't you support your statement with facts? I see 43.4%.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1410.html

http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/taxes/who_pays_taxes/index.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/15/politics/otherpeoplesmoney/main4945874.shtml

http://money.msn.com/tax-tips/post.aspx?post=292d620a-6459-4381-a22b-f3b59dc64ff8

And I do not listen to Rush nor watch TV.

Seems you need to learn how to read. Your statement is not supported by any of these links.

Try again.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

51% here: http://blog.pappastax.com/index.php/2011/05/05/51-of-american-households-pay-zero-tax-share-of-government-funding-by-the-rich-increases/

Again, learn to read. Try to comprehend.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The wealthier Americans may have businesses that will shut if you raise their taxes. it's not all going into offshore accounts. Much is reinvested.

Then, after 30 years of tax breaks and 10 years of doubling down on the strategy, I have to ask: WHERE ARE THE JOBS THAT THESE TAX BREAKS SUPPOSEDLY CREATE?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Most Christians are hypocrites. You had a name for it, "an official term", what was it again?

I did? I may be having a senior moment coz I don't remember that.

[웃 910]

I did? I may be having a senior moment coz I don't remember that.

It must have been about a year ago. I wondered what it was so I looked it up....Basically means Christians that are hypocrites

Edited August 19, 2011 by Lord Infamous

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

It must have been about a year ago. I wondered what it was so I looked it up....Basically means Christians that are hypocrites

My choices would be False Materialistic Messianists or .... Romans.

[웃 910]

It must have been about a year ago. I wondered what it was so I looked it up....Basically means Christians that are hypocrites

I think it was pseudo-christians...

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I think it was pseudo-christians...

We were debating the possible existence of Christian terrorist groups. I think I remember saying something like that . . .

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

I think it was pseudo-christians...

If they were overweight, would it be foodo-christians?

[Robert&Karen 264]

Again, learn to read. Try to comprehend.

Your ad hominem attacks are tiresome. You have yet to back up your statement or your voiding of my statements except through personal attacks which avoid the real question, which you are apparently not willing to discuss.

[scandal 951]

Instead of attacking me, why don't you support your statement with facts? I see 43.4%.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1410.html

http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/taxes/who_pays_taxes/index.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/15/politics/otherpeoplesmoney/main4945874.shtml

http://money.msn.com/tax-tips/post.aspx?post=292d620a-6459-4381-a22b-f3b59dc64ff8

And I do not listen to Rush nor watch TV.

From the last of your posted links:

But before you head off ranting about the huge number of folks freeloading while you're handing over your hard-earned dollars, take a breath.

We're talking only income tax.

Most of the no-tax households paid other taxes, such as state and local income taxes, along with property and sales taxes.

At the federal level, they also forked over FICA payroll taxes to pay for Social Security and Medicare.

In other words, your statistic is misleading on several counts.

Firstly, because you are confusing "pay no federal income tax" with "pay no tax". Americans do indeed pay taxes. Anyone on a payroll is paying FICA from their very first dollar of income - that includes the poorest of the poor. Anyone in a state with a sales tax is paying that tax, again including the poorest. Anyone filling their gas tank or buying cigarettes is paying federal excise taxes. And on and on.

Secondly, because while many Americans pay no federal income tax, it turns out that the relative tax burden falls most heavily on those with the smallest incomes. That is - the poor and middle class shoulder a grater proportional tax burden as a percentage of their income (mostly because of payroll FICA and sales taxes) than do the wealthy. Is that fair? I don't think so.

Thirdly and finally, while it's true that roughly half of Americans pay no federal income tax, and while it's true that most of those are low income people who fall under the income thresholds and take enough deductions not to have a tax burden, it's also true that many wealthy Americans, even vastly wealthy Americans, are able to scoot through and pay little or no taxes either. They use capital gains exemptions and contrived income allocation rules that their lobbyists and tax attorneys have carved out for them. In short, your position that the poor are the ones getting away with something is not the case. It's poor and rich that get away -- us poor saps in the middle class pay the pooch.

Look, I'm in favor of having everyone pay something in federal income tax. Everyone. Even if a token amount, just so we don't have this odious "half of Americans pay no taxes" lie/statistic still floating around.

But that's not the real reform we need. It's a part, but it's not really the part worth harping on.

[scandal 951]

I'm on record as saying that I think I ought to pay more taxes. So should all of us. We have a deficit problem, or hadn't you noticed.

and yet, anyone who has a different opinion is maligned.

Oh, boo hoo hoo Charles.

Have I hurt your feelings?

Here's a bandaid. Hope you feel better on your ow-ie.

The wealthier Americans may have businesses that will shut if you raise their taxes. it's not all going into offshore accounts. Much is reinvested.

HA! Now who's being naive.

[scandal 951]

NO, I DO MY JOB BECAUSE I DO NOT WANT TO BE FIRED. NO ONE IS FIRING THESE DOLTS.

You have a vote. Use it. No need to yell.

Oh, and there are people focused on the problem. We've had Simpson-Bowles. We've had Rivlin-Domenici. We've had the Gang of Six. We're about to get the Super Committee, god bless 'em. Outside of government, there's no shortage of focus on it. I can tell you the bond market focuses on it pretty intently.

ALL THEY ARE FOCUSED ON IS BUYING VOTED BY MAKING UNFULFILLABLE PROMISES.

Um, no. None of these people (Simpson, Bowles, Rivlin, Domenici) is a sitting representative. All are retired, and have come forth to aid their country. None of them can be accued of "buying votes". They are Democrats and Republicans who are putting America first, not their party first. You say you want answers? And yet you're not willing to give a hearing to the very sorts of people who are providing those answers.

And look - no balanced budget amendment needed. Just take Simpson-Bowles out of the drawer, dust it off, and get cracking.

WOW YOU ARE A TEA PARTY MEMBER AFTER ALL.

:rofl: Hardly. I support a mix of new taxes and spending cuts, and want significant new revenues from those tax hikes (i.e. not revenue neutral, to use the current GOP/tea phrasing). And I do not support a budget amendment, I think it's a ridiculous idea. Tea Party, moi? Get outta town.

[scandal 951]

Ok, but what experiences is your perception based on?

It's not a trick question, I'd really like to know.

Fair enough, gecko.

I believe the original question was:

It's my perception that this statement applies to many, if not a majority, of the Tea Party members.

And you know this how?

Here's my take on the Tea Party.

1. What I read/hear/see in the media accounts. I don't watch cable news (unless you count occasional viewings of Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert). I watch the Lehrer Newshour, the Sunday shows (Meet the Press, This Week, Face the Nation). I read the Chicago Tribune in print and NY Times online. I listen to NPR. From these sources over the past 2 years I have a sense that the Tea Party is really angry. Angry about Washington, Politics, Obama, Democrats, taxes, spending, budgets, the economy. I understand that. I think most Americans are angry about many of these things. The sense I have of the Tea Party is that they've got only one rigid approach to answers. An approach that doesn't pass the smell test of the real economy. We saw that in spades with the recent Debt Ceiling fiasco. They were literally ready to take the country over a cliff to prove some point of ideological principle.

2. The acknowledged "leaders" and darlings of the Tea Party movement. Michelle Bachmann. Sarah Palin. Rick Santorum. None of them inspire the slightest confidence in me. They seem like rabble rousing ideologues full of fire and brimstone and "we're not gonna take it", but precious little else. The leaders in Congress - folks like Jim DeMint, Jon Kyl, Rand Paul in the Senate and the 70 odd new House members have me feeling much the same.

3. The economic/political current in the Tea Party, referred to above, has intersected with another ugly current: the smearing, nasty, hateful mission to focus attention not on issues, but on chaff. The Birther movement which attempted to delegitimize Obama's right to be President. The "gotcha" attacks on ACORN, NPR and other supposedly "liberal" causes. You can argue that these are not affiliated with the Tea Party. In my perception, and that's what we're talking about here, they very clearly are.

In summary, the sense I have is of angry vengeful pitchfork-hoisting mob who wants their way and will stop at nothing to get it. They're not interested in political compromise or solving problems. They're interested in stymieing any agenda the President and his party put forward, to smearing him and his allies, in an effort to unseat him electorally. Game, match, set.

[Robert&Karen 264]

Firstly, because you are confusing "pay no federal income tax" with "pay no tax". Americans do indeed pay taxes.

Splitting hairs. I had meant federal income taxes. Yes we pay taxes everywhere we go but gas taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes and dog license taxes do not go to the General Fund.

Secondly, because while many Americans pay no federal income tax, it turns out that the relative tax burden falls most heavily on those with the smallest incomes. That is - the poor and middle class shoulder a grater proportional tax burden as a percentage of their income (mostly because of payroll FICA and sales taxes) than do the wealthy. Is that fair? I don't think so.

Can you back up the claim that those with the smallest incomes have a heavier tax burden? I am in the 33% tax bracket. Tell me how someone who is in the 15% tax bracket pays more than I do? I pay more in both percentage and total amount. I am subject to the same sales taxes as the poor are so that evens out as a truly fair tax. The top 1% of the population pays 37% of the federal taxes, see here. You can google "Who pays the most taxes?" and see more details along the same line. Now maybe it "hurts" them to pay 15% and they skip a meal to make ends meet, and that is only a personal burden, not a federal tax burden.

...it's also true that many wealthy Americans, even vastly wealthy Americans, are able to scoot through and pay little or no taxes either. They use capital gains exemptions and contrived income allocation rules that their lobbyists and tax attorneys have carved out for them. In short, your position that the poor are the ones getting away with something is not the case. It's poor and rich that get away -- us poor saps in the middle class pay the pooch.

Capital Gains does not come into play until there is a profit/loss. If I go one year without buying or selling then there are no CG entries. Now if I buy a house for $70,000 and sell it for $700,000, then quickly reinvest the $630,000 profit, then yes I have avoided CG taxes on my profit temporarily. A middle class candidate simply does not have the ability to invest such large amounts on a whim for profit or pleasure, so they do not get to play the game.

Look, I'm in favor of having everyone pay something in federal income tax. Everyone. Even if a token amount, just so we don't have this odious "half of Americans pay no taxes" lie/statistic still floating around.

Agreed.

You have a vote. Use it. No need to yell.

Didn't mean to, I'll use boldface now instead of caps. I do vote, I write to my representatives, and I exercise my rights.

You say you want answers? And yet you're not willing to give a hearing to the very sorts of people who are providing those answers.

I'm still not convinced they have a valid plan. Not that anyone else does.

And I do not support a budget amendment, I think it's a ridiculous idea.

I wish there was a way to convince them to do their job and stop maxxing out the credit card.