Taxing the poor has become a badge of honor among conservatives

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66717.html

GOP backs tax hike -- for the poor

By ROBERT L. BOROSAGE | 10/24/11 9:35 PM EDT

Texas Gov. Rick Perry this week will try to revive his flagging presidential campaign by embracing an old conservative fancy — the flat tax, while calling for “scrapping the 3 million words of the current Tax Code.” Embracing the flat tax trumps the “9-9-9” tax proposal that levitated Herman Cain’s candidacy. And it puts Perry at the head of what has become a bizarre GOP fixation — the need to tax the poor.

Taxing the poor has become a badge of honor among conservatives. When Occupy Wall Street protesters launched their cry of “We are the 99 percent,” the right-wing blogosphere responded, “We are the 53 percent,” meaning the 53 percent of American households that they say pay federal income taxes.

Conservatives have become fixated on the notion that largely because of the Earned Income Tax Credit — passed under Ronald Reagan and expanded under Bill Clinton — almost half of all Americans pay no income taxes.

Perry launched his presidential campaign expressing dismay at the “injustice that nearly half of all Americans don’t even pay any income tax.” And he was not alone. Every major candidate — Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Mitt Romney and Cain — has suggested that too many of the working poor aren’t paying income taxes, a position The Wall Street Journal describes as “GOP doctrine.”

[MADem]

1. Who farted in the chapel? Why, that Republican over there, that's who!! nt

[Ilsa]

2. The GOP will always try to "get blood out of a turnip."

And of course they don't want to count the myriad of other taxes and fees the poor pay, including property taxes, sales taxes, and FICA.

So much for Conservatives' Christianity.

[Ezlivin]

3. Here in Texas we use the poor to lift and carry our sedan chairs

You need to harness that poverty. Praise Jesus!

[Bandit]

4. I'm fairly certain Republican is just another word for Asshole

At least every time I hear the word Republican, that is the very first thing that enters my mind...

[WinkyDink]

5. Wait; aren't corporations people? How about THEIR fair share of tax-payments?

[hfojvt]

6. the earned income credit was not "passed under Ronald Reagan"

"Enacted in 1975, the initially modest EIC has been expanded by tax legislation on a number of occasions, including the widely-publicized Reagan Tax Reform Act of 1986, and was further expanded in 1990, 1993, and 2001, regardless of whether the act in general raised taxes (1990, 1993), lowered taxes (2001), or eliminated other deductions and credits (1986)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit

(and another link for those who like to denigrate wiki)
http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=96406,00.html

the child tax ctedit is responsible for many people not paying income tax

myself, I avoid income tax these days with an IRA deduction and the "retirement contributions credit"

and here's my essay about the 47%

What about the 47%?

Some in the media are trying to make a big deal out of the fact that 47% of Americans do not pay Federal Income Taxes. This is not new. In November of 2002, the Wall Street Journal wrote about the "Lucky Duckies" who were too poor to pay income taxes.

The fact is, that most years, I have been one of them, but I would love to pay income taxes instead of not pay them. Why? Because that would mean I was making more money. The tax rate is not 100%. If I paid $500 in income taxes that would mean I had an extra $5,000 in income that I do not have now. Even after FICA taxes that would leave me over $4,000 ahead.

Let's look at the larger picture though. In 1996, there were 13.2 million taxpayers with income over $10,000 and less than $15,000 and there were another 11.6 million with income less than $20,000 and another 28.5 million with income less than $10,000. Discounting the last group, which is probably mostly teenagers, those making under $20,000 paid $16.9 billion in taxes. Let's assume that the Bush tax cuts eliminated taxes for that group (which they didn't, but for the sake of argument). Those 24.8 million people (or families) would thus save an average of just $681.

Now, look at what actually happened with another group. What Bush called his base - "the haves and the have mores". In 1996, the top 1% paid an average tax rate of 28.9%. By 2006, they only paid an average of 22.79%. In 2006, their total income was $1.79 Trillion! Thus, they saved $109 billion thanks to the Bush tax cuts, an average savings of $80,313.

So, to compare, that's $16.9 billion saved by the poorer people and $109 billion saved by the richer people, and there are 24.8 million of the poor families compared to 1.36 million of the richer families.

Should we be upset because poorer families got $16.9 billion in tax cuts? Or should we be more concerned about the $109 billion going to people with incomes over $388,000? Who is luckier, somebody making $15,000 who got a tax cut of $681 or somebody making $38,000,000 who got a tax cut of over $2,300,000? Hey, doesn't Rush Limbaugh make $38 million a year?

[NNN0LHI]

8. Fucking Politico. I knew I shouldn't have trusted them to fact check

Thanks for doing their work for them.

Don

[SpiralHawk]

7. Somewhere Jeebus is blowing chunks at the so-called 'christian' Republicons

...and their eevil War on America's Poor.

[saras]

9. I thought the headline read "tasing the poor" then I realized it doesn't make any difference