Middle class?

[grouch]

I keep hearing about one tea party idiot who is calling for all the tax exemptions that expire to be extended and maybe made permanent. The lead moron is saying that middle class people who make $250,000 or more will be left out. (I think his name is Berner)

Can someone tell me when making a quarter of a million dollars a year put someone nito the middle class? Isn't this sort of losing sight of what the facts say?

[Eric]

I keep hearing about one tea party idiot who is calling for all the tax exemptions that expire to be extended and maybe made permanent. The lead moron is saying that middle class people who make $250,000 or more will be left out. (I think his name is Berner)

Can someone tell me when making a quarter of a million dollars a year put someone nito the middle class? Isn't this sort of losing sight of what the facts say?

Most "tea party people" believe that individual taxes are grossly excessive across the board. I agree. No individual (regardless of his income) should have to pay more than 20 percent (that's already nearly one-fourth of everything a person earns) of his income on taxes. Many are paying more than 30 percent and when you add "contributions" to Social Security, state taxes, property taxes, sales taxes and so on, many people - middle class people - are paying close to half their annual income in taxes.

That is outrageous.

Many "tea party people," me included, believe that taxes should only be extracted to pay for the maintenance of law and order and an adequate defense against external threats. Extracting money from Smith to provide a material benefit to Jones is theft, no different than if Smith had threatened Jones with a gun - only in the first case, Jones gets the government to do his thuggery for him. I does not change the essence of the thing, however.

If taxes were only used for legitimate purposes, an income tax (and most other taxes on individuals) would not be necessary. As the men who founded the country intended, necessary government functions could be provided for via tariffs and similar taxes on commodity transactions.

That's the way it was supposed to be.

What we have now isn't.

* Defund the empire ("fightin' fer freedom" - that is, corporations/banks - around the world);

* Halve the current "defense" budget;

* End all foreign aid;

* End all corporate welfare;

Do that - just that - and no American would need to pay more than the aforesaid 20 percent in total taxes.

Who would be opposed? Mind, I haven't even mentioned a single federal entitlement. Just doing the above - and leaving the current entitlements intact - would end the country's financial problems and massively relieve the burden on every single taxpayer, even while still allowing welfare queens their EBTs.

No sane person could be opposed to the above. So why hasn't it happened? Because the corporatocracy (the "defense" industry, banksters, large corporations) doesn't want to release its fat lips from the teats... our teats.

That's what we ought to be talkin' 'bout, Willis!

[swamprat]

Most "tea party people" believe that individual taxes are grossly excessive across the board. I agree. No individual (regardless of his income) should have to pay more than 20 percent (that's already nearly one-fourth of everything a person earns) of his income on taxes. Many are paying more than 30 percent and when you add "contributions" to Social Security, state taxes, property taxes, sales taxes and so on, many people - middle class people - are paying close to half their annual income in taxes.

That is outrageous.

Many "tea party people," me included, believe that taxes should only be extracted to pay for the maintenance of law and order and an adequate defense against external threats. Extracting money from Smith to provide a material benefit to Jones is theft, no different than if Smith had threatened Jones with a gun - only in the first case, Jones gets the government to do his thuggery for him. I does not change the essence of the thing, however.

If taxes were only used for legitimate purposes, an income tax (and most other taxes on individuals) would not be necessary. As the men who founded the country intended, necessary government functions could be provided for via tariffs and similar taxes on commodity transactions.

That's the way it was supposed to be.

What we have now isn't.

* Defund the empire ("fightin' fer freedom" - that is, corporations/banks - around the world);

* Halve the current "defense" budget;

* End all foreign aid;

* End all corporate welfare;

Do that - just that - and no American would need to pay more than the aforesaid 20 percent in total taxes.

Who would be opposed? Mind, I haven't even mentioned a single federal entitlement. Just doing the above - and leaving the current entitlements intact - would end the country's financial problems and massively relieve the burden on every single taxpayer, even while still allowing welfare queens their EBTs.

No sane person could be opposed to the above. So why hasn't it happened? Because the corporatocracy (the "defense" industry, banksters, large corporations) doesn't want to release its fat lips from the teats... our teats.

That's what we ought to be talkin' 'bout, Willis!

You got that right. In addition, if we had tariffs as the funding mechanism, we would be swimming in jobs right now. The need for unemployment, a lot of SSI/Welfare payments and foods stamps would diminish.

Of course, we know that alll Democrats and Republicans want to do is argue about whether or not a pool should be built on the Titanic.

[Eric]

You got that right. In addition, if we had tariffs as the funding mechanism, we would be swimming in jobs right now. The need for unemployment, a lot of SSI/Welfare payments and foods stamps would diminish.

Of course, we know that alll Democrats and Republicans want to do is argue about whether or not a pool should be built on the Titanic.

What we've been talking is truly revolutionary; it goes well beyond "cutting taxes" and gets at the nature of our current problem.

If - if only - the Tea Party movement would wake up to this and denounce the warfare state as much as it decries the welfare state - we'd have a real shot at changing the country.

But the neo-cons have very successfully played to the rah-rah, flag-humping militaristic fetish that afflicts so many "conservatives."

That's why the Tea Party is a lost cause, as far as freedom (and lower taxes and jobs too) is concerned.