Interesting tidbit in that Romney is being taken to task by the media for comments about "freeloaders".

So, the difference is being framed between a government centric economy where the government provides for the welfare of the people vs an economy where the people are responsible for providing for their own welfare.

Well, as we have more than 50% of the population paying no tax, we already have an economy where the government provides for the welfare of the people.

So, the question is really about whether those that are currently supporting the non-tax payers can afford to pay more to increase the non-tax paying portion of the population.

I my view, the freeloaders are in the majority (or close to it) and really want to stay there.

So, let's look at the "fair share" argument.

As I see it, if I have to pay more in taxes (my fair share), those receiving the benefit of those taxes need to pay their "fair share" by receiving a corresponding DECREACE in what they receive from the government.

Seems fair to me and the deficient will benefit....

How little does a working person have to make to pay no federal income tax?

You are obscuring the issue by trying to pin down a hard number for INCOME TAX.

That is not what I said.



And, I did not limit it to FEDERAL taxes.

The point of discussion is the debt. To solve the increase in debt, stop spending.

Reducing the payroll tax (Social Security contribution from the individual) is not helping matters. That just ensure the Social Security system exhausts its fund faster. Then what?

Oh yeah, tax the rich more....

Just who are the rich and how much more can you tax them??? I have seen conflicting reports that indicate that if EVERY dollar of wealth accumulated by the nebulous "1%" were applied to the federal government spending, it would keep cover about 6 weeks of Federal spending.

Wow, at that rate, increasing the tax rate is bound to provide maybe a day or 2 of spending coverage.

The government (local, state and federal) have a spending problem. Giving them more money is not solving the spending problem.

Chicago teachers receive an average of $74,000 per year. And, they want a 34% pay increase??? Oh, they did settle for a 16% increase.

Who is paying that increase??? Most of the cost will be absorbed by local taxpayers. The rest will be absorbed by state. And, given the funding mechanism for schools, that impact will be felt nationwide.

The "me, me, I want my share" is going to continue until the fiscal cliff arrives and there is no more largess for the politicians to dole out.

Then what????

I am confused then. If you are not talking about the income tax what tax is that people are not paying?

I agree cutting SS tax is not a good idea.

If talking about Medicare I think that part D needs revamped.

As said I can not make too much comment or argument.

Step above the media hype which is confusing the issue.

Taxes are paid by individuals and companies. Sticking with the TAXES focus, the general accepted is that 53% pay while 47% don't.

Now, for the rest of the story.

It is not about taxes paid or not paid. It is about government spending. While the media bias is showing with their claim of out of touch, no one wants to address the pure and simple issue of government spending.

What about the farm subsidies? Talk about corporate welfare... Oh yeah, it was the Dems that pushed through the last farm subsidies program.

Now, how about other aid (including unemployment)? How about the mortgage assistance?

Keep in mind, these payments from the government do not generate tax income into the general treasury.

So, times are tough. Why keep increasing payouts? Why keep adding programs with no funding provisions? Why keep stifling company expansion with increasing regulations?

It is not about taxes. It is about excess government spending.

Look at the number of cities and counties around the country that have filed our in the process of filing for bankruptcy. Excess government spending.

Which taxes are you talking about? SS , Medicare , or fed income?

As I said cutting SS tax I agree is a bad Idea but SS has not added to the Debt yet but may if they continue cutting it.
Medicare is a burden at this time due to part D and would be solvent without adding anymore to the debt even if the taxes stayed where they are if not for D. Blame the party of your choice for this.

Since earlier you said that it is not about income tax then what is it that makes up the 47% that dont pay. Because I dont know 1 person that does not pay taxes in some way even if it is fuel tax or sales tax we all pay. Even a child that does not earn the money but has mom and dad hand it to them pays taxes on candy at the counter.



Some income the gov did have was the post office. But in 06 congress put a stop to that for political purpose. That purpose was not to look out for the retirees either. Again Blame the party of your choice for this as well.

You think mortgage assistance is not in the best interest of the "over taxed and over regulated" Banks that lobby politicians?

Based on statistics from the IRS, 70% of the income received by the federal treasury is paid by 10% of the population.

And, the income of those 10% paying into the Feds is estimated at $250,000 per year or more.

so, draw your own conclusions. The basic argument of taxes and who pays what is bogus. The problem is spending and a government that is spending pasts it's means.

Do you remember the infamous "Social Security lock box" touted as by Gore?? Do you realize that the Social Security Trust Fund is a bunch of IOUs??

The federal government is funded by the daily intake plus money borrowed.

And yet, who is proposing more government hand outs? Sure isn't the Romney-Ryan ticket.

Let's go back to the 10% paying 70% of the taxes...

90% of the population are responsible for only 30% of the income received by the government.

What is a "fair share"????

The 53-47 number is not fully supportable in terms of "taxes". The 47% is close to the percent that receives a subsistence payment from the federal government. That includes Social Security, Medicare, housing assistance and related subsistence programs. Keep in mind, subsistence payment are not subject to income tax.

Within that group are a number of people that do pay income tax even while they receive a subsistence payment. So, with Social Security being means tested, if you earn more than $19,800 (I believe that is the number, I haven't checked for a couple years), the Social Security payment is reduced. as you pay no income tax on Social Security, your taxable income is relatively low and close to the amount the standard deductions will eliminate a tax liability.

Overall, everyone that buys anything does pay a tax of some sort - sales, excise, fuel, and the list goes on. Some are federal, some are state, and some are local.

At the end of the year, you may or may not have a federal (or state) income tax liability to pay. That is income and deduction dependent.

Like I said, focusing on taxes paid or not paid is a bogus argument. It is about government spending beyond its means. And, raising taxes without reducing spending does not address the core issue of over-spending.

The mortgage assistance as quantified by legislation signed by Clinton lead to many people getting into homes beyond their means. Additionally, it made it easier for homeowners to refinance existing homes while values were artificially inflating.

The housing bust was 10 years in the making.

Enter Obamma and his plan to help those underwater with mortgages refinance. Those are ones that bought or refinanced beyond their means and now they are being given special assistance?

Is that fair to those struggling with a house payment because they lost a job?

And, how many we're actually helped by that program?

Banking de-regulation -- wasn't that the infamous Frank-Dodd bill? A couple of Democrats...

Banks and financial houses need to have a certain amount of regulation. Lack of regulation lead to the great stock market crash about 80 years ago. Frank-Dodd set the stage for the last financial crisis four years ago.

John, you post many valid arguments. Unfortunately one can not argue with the those who have been inundated with years and years of successful attempts to revise history, and erase what the founding fathers intended for this country. Since it is no longer taught in our institutes of "higher learning", what was "intended" is now replaced by "what they meant" in the circle of education. Sadly, the damage seems almost irreversible.

I can only quote history for where this country is headed. Those in power have done a great job in incorporating non republic related manners in our system of government that are not only appalling, but frightening as well:

Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. (Hello imminent domain)

A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. (Happening right now)

Abolition of all rights of inheritance. (Death tax)

Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. (Hello imminent domain, again)

Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.( Don't even need to comment on this one. Happening everywhere)

Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. (Government take-over of private industry, (GM) and mass media high school crush on present regime.)

Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. ( GM bail-out anyone?)

Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. (Unions)

Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.(Farm subsidlies)

Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. (941 billion spent on education where 50% of the population doesn't graduate high school)

All this taken from the Communist Manifesto (circa 1848). Are we crazy? I don't think so. This is exactly what is happening now. This isn't a "party" problem, but a government problem, but largely promoted from the left instead of the right.

I thank you however for all you do in the OHV and political community to help us all, to save what little we have left. I would not have known about Jeff Flake if it wasn't for your post about him. I should be more informed about my local candidates, and broaden my focus beyond the presidential race.

There are areas of my state and this country that used to be crossed by horse and wagon. Yet if we dare glance upon the paths of our predecessors, we are somehow enemies of the planet. Truly a tragedy for those of us who enjoy the the world "Because it was grassy and wanted wear."