Welfare queens scamming the system:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/04/47-of-tea-partiers-pay-no-federal-income-taxes/38924/

^These are people who are unable and unwilling to work and willing to ensure that nobody else will work. They refuse to pay into the tax system because they think the government owes them a living, and in order to subsidize their lazy, parasitical lifestyle they will claim that the only welfare that's good welfare is their welfare. Why should the government waste its time paying this bunch of lazy idle parasites? Like these:

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2008/01/01/some-states-get-fat-others-fleeced

The only logical answer is to resolve social parasites and class enemies the good old-fashioned way: summon the power of the State and remove those who greedily want the government to subsidize their own idle, lazy, good-for-nothing indolent lifestyle and leave the government in the hands of those able to pay their own way. Then Manna shall fall from Heaven, the skies shall burst out in song, and the great Utopia will begin. For there is no God but the Free Market and Rand is His Prophet.

Comments

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

Headline: "47% of Tea Partiers Pay No Federal Income Taxes!"

Article: "Despite this author's lack of direct access to the tax returns of the Tea Party movement, it seems safe to assume that if about half the country avoids federal income taxes, a similar percentage of the Tea Party movement gets away with the same"


And there is nothing stated about welfare.

Try reading the whole thing next time:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Taxed Enough Already? Or not taxed at all?

One of the striking ironies of Fox News running with the statistic that 47% of Americans might not owe federal income taxes is that Fox News also moonlights as the unofficial station of the Tea Party movement, which clamors for lower taxes. You might ask: half of the country pays no income tax, how much lower do you want? Here's a more troubling point: if the Tea Party movement has a similar share of Americans making under $50,000 as the broader population (as a recent Gallup poll suggests), then why is this movement rallying under the banner "Taxed Enough Already!" when half of them aren't taxed at all?

Forty-five percent of self-identified "Tea Partiers" make less than $50,000 per year, according to a USA Today/Gallup poll. Similarly, 50% of the total population makes less than $50,000 in the same poll. Despite this author's lack of direct access to the tax returns of the Tea Party movement, it seems safe to assume that if about half the country avoids federal income taxes, a similar percentage of the Tea Party movement gets away with the same even as they march and scream about their tax burden.

Re: Try reading the whole thing next time:

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

I read that, and there's absolutely nothing there about welfare, or being unemployed.

Re: Try reading the whole thing next time:

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

What garrison said. It's a lot of statistical assumption, but that's it.,

Put this in contrast with the 99%ers, who are largely and/or more likely to be made up of the 47% with no income tax burden railing against the group who are paying more taxes so they don't have to.

[lai-choi-san.livejournal.com]

If there were a tax on stupidity, the Tea partiers' complaints would be perfectly justified.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Takes money to make money. Only those who afford it are able to cheat the system.

Words from St. Ronald

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Re: Words from St. Ronald

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

I can agree with the policy of having the stated rate be the rate paid, but less so the idea of raising rates in addition. And those two messages are being mixed, and it is unclear as to how much of the proposed changes are one or the other.

Re: Words from St. Ronald

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

It's normalization of tax policy, which Reagan did, making capital gains and income tax similar in taxation. This was undone by Bush II.

Re: Words from St. Ronald

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Capital gains are a more holy form of income, likely earned by job creators. You wouldn't want them to create less jobs, would you?

Re: Words from St. Ronald

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Have you read the entire bill? Is normalization and closing loopholes the limit of the changes the bill proposes?

I ask because I have not read it and wouldn't mind hearing (with reference) from someone who has.

Re: Words from St. Ronald

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

They were closed. The rich are paying more in taxes than a bus driver.

So what's your beef?

Re: Words from St. Ronald

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

The tax code is far too complicated as it still is right now in order to say with assurance that loopholes have been taken care of.

Surety lay in simplicity.

Re: Words from St. Ronald

[nevermind6794.livejournal.com]

In income taxes, sometimes. Usually not overall when you account for capital gains or payroll taxes.

Re: Words from St. Ronald

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Reagan, the other white meat.

Re: Words from St. Ronald

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

That of course isn't the least bit offensive to people who have a loved one with Alzheimers.

Re: Words from St. Ronald

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Reagan's condition did not become public until he left office. The quip about which is a vegetable was a snide snipe over the qualification of ketchup as a vegetable in school lunches before the condition was known. There is always a minority of people who will leverage a family member to rationalize their offense, no matter what.

Re: Words from St. Ronald

[msmichelle.livejournal.com]

Very lame. Do you find this funny?

[404.livejournal.com]

Why does your satire always degrade into cheap sophistry?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Cheap sophistry? I engage in very expensive sophistry. ;P

[404.livejournal.com]

If this is what you picture as expensive sophistry, LJ should ask for a refund on hosting and bandwidth costs incurred hosting this tripe.

The article says...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

A sub-headline points out that New Jersey is the biggest loser. I knew that before reading the article, but for other reasons:

[msmichelle.livejournal.com]

Back in the 90s. Tommy Thompson introduced an innovative program, "Welfare to Work." What a concept? Earn a buck and get off of the dependency and the related self esteem, et al ramifications. Too bad this country never really took hold of said program.