By Hanlon, on April 15th, 2010 at 07:08 PM
 That number is correct, by the way. One point eight million dollars in federal taxes. I’m not sure it’s possible for most people to understand just what that’s like, since the majority of us get steamed over a few grand (and rightly so, I suppose). But you don’t see Obama trying to fly planes into the IRS building, do you?
The bulk of the president’s income comes from the continuing sales of his books, Dreams From My Father and The Audacity of Hope, according to the White House statement.
The Obamas also reported paying $163,303 in Illinois state income taxes for 2009.
Last year, the Obamas paid $855,323 in federal income tax, as well as $77,883 in state income taxes. They reported an adjusted gross income of $2,656,902 for the year 2008, again mostly through book sales.
Meanwhile, we’ve got asshole Teabaggers whining and crying, despite the fact that every single one of them who earns less than $250,000 per year will see their taxes go down this year.
The reality that every Tea Partyer who earns less than $250,000 annually is receiving a tax cut of two percent seems to be obscured in the minds of many protesters. (Among the Tea Partyers, only 2 percent realize that during the administration taxes have decreased for most Americans — 44 percent believe taxes have gone up, according to a recent CBS News/New York Times poll.) Fortunately, a new coalition is determined to counter the confusion with the truth about “The Other 95%” of us who are happy we got a tax cut from Obama this year.
This is the idiocy I’m talking about.
Now there is a fair point to be made, which is that sure it’s great that Obama is dropping taxes on the lower chunks of our class spectrum, but he’s raising it on the higher; doesn’t that mean that Obama is punishing hard work and success? For that, to be honest, I just defer to that quote from Spider Man: With great power comes great responsibility. Any Americans who earn oodles of cash have done so thanks to the opportunities and structures of the United States, so it’s only fair to chip in and say thanks.
Enjoy your April 15th, folks.
By Hanlon, on February 24th, 2010 at 06:14 PM
Does a higher income tax lower the GDP? Hell no!
Was John McCain misled by Bernanke and Bush? Hell no!
Asked about McCain’s claim by MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, Frank said it was a “pathetically, obviously untrue statement.”
“Those of us who were there know it,” the Massachusetts Democrat said of the meeting Paulson and Bernanke had with lawmakers to request the funds. “I`ve gone beyond being disappointed for John McCain to feeling sorry for him.”
Was the right happy that Scott Brown mentioned his vote for the jobs bill on Facebook? Hell no!
But that didn’t stop former fans from piling on. “I just love Taxachusetts in the spring when the naked Senators are out frollicking [sic] and all the tea is being bagged. A little slice of heaven here on earth,” one commenter snarked. “WWTKD?” another asked, in one of the more polite references to Teddy Kennedy.
Note: Brown has since taken that post down. And for what it’s worth, big time props to the guy for bucking the party. That had to be difficult after the saga that was the election.
Thanks for that first link, Dormi!
By Hanlon, on September 6th, 2009 at 01:57 PM
I honestly don’t think she even looks shit up before she says it.
Moving to taxes, Bachmann said that for some Americans, the ratio of tax payments to earned income can reach 50 percent — compared to 5 percent in 1950.
“This is slavery, it’s nothing more than slavery,” she said. “The Constitution provides freedom.”
As the ScienceBlog guy says, the top marginal rate was over 90% back in 1950. There are some caveats to the whole “top marginal rate” instance, but the point remains that Bachmann’s claim doesn’t even come close to reality.
By Hanlon, on July 17th, 2009 at 09:56 PM
Again, I yearn for a conservative movement that is willing to acknowledge that both sides have ideals which are intended to benefit the United States. Instead, we get assholes like this.
“The tax increase will put the tax code to pre-Reagan days,” says Chris Dolan, a professor of political science at Lebanon Valley College in Pennsylvania.
“On the whole, what the bill is trying to do is move the tax code back some 33 years when it was higher,” says Dolan. “It’s tax increases under the guise of healthcare reform to help the economy.”
Under the guise of health care reform? It’s like he thinks Democrats want to raise taxes for no goddamn reason other than really loving higher taxes. Like in the abstract, the thought of higher taxes gives us huge libgasms.
By Hanlon, on July 15th, 2009 at 08:09 PM
By Hanlon, on July 13th, 2009 at 01:52 PM
 I was listening to some Thom Hartmann a little bit ago, and he had on as a guest one Mr Bill Keller. For those unfamiliar (as I certainly wasn’t), Keller is a damn-near cliche Christian conservative nutball, founder of the website LivePrayer, who claims Obama is “God’s enemy”, told Republicans voting for Mitt Romney meant voting for Satan, and a whole host of other nonsense.
The reason he was on the show was to bitch about hate crime legislation, taking up the wholly inaccurate talking point that it somehow criminalizes speech and thus infringes upon first amendment rights in multiple angles. That’s another debate for another time, though.
What roused my ire was near the end of the interview when Hartmann asked if Keller had ever actually found himself “hauled away” for saying anything he had. Keller responded with a completely unrelated anecdote about how the IRS was threatening to take away his tax-exempt status (I guess his organization is at least nominally a church). Hartmann’s response was entirely fair that it’s absurd to expect tax-exempt status if you’re telling your followers who they shouldn’t vote for. The exchange went something like this, and I’m going from memory here:
KELLER: So I shouldn’t be allowed to speak on spiritual matters just because they’re political?
HARTMANN: Of course you can. You can say whatever you want. But don’t expect me to pay your taxes, then.
KELLER: You don’t pay my taxes.
HARTMANN: Yes I do. The American taxpayer does. You’re tax exempt, so you get all the benefits of-
KELLER: You don’t pay my taxes!
And then the call ended. I was absolutely floored by the fact that this guy had no idea what “tax exempt” means. News flash: if you don’t pay taxes, but you still think you should be allowed to use the mail and get police protection, then the American people are paying your taxes.
Read More ->
I was listening to some Thom Hartmann a little bit ago, and he had on as a guest one Mr Bill Keller. For those unfamiliar (as I certainly wasn’t), Keller is a damn-near cliche Christian conservative nutball, founder of the website LivePrayer, who claims Obama is “God’s enemy”, told Republicans voting for Mitt Romney meant voting for Satan, and a whole host of other nonsense.
The reason he was on the show was to bitch about hate crime legislation, taking up the wholly inaccurate talking point that it somehow criminalizes speech and thus infringes upon first amendment rights in multiple angles. That’s another debate for another time, though.
What roused my ire was near the end of the interview when Hartmann asked if Keller had ever actually found himself “hauled away” for saying anything he had. Keller responded with a completely unrelated anecdote about how the IRS was threatening to take away his tax-exempt status (I guess his organization is at least nominally a church). Hartmann’s response was entirely fair that it’s absurd to expect tax-exempt status if you’re telling your followers who they shouldn’t vote for. The exchange went something like this, and I’m going from memory here:
KELLER: So I shouldn’t be allowed to speak on spiritual matters just because they’re political?
HARTMANN: Of course you can. You can say whatever you want. But don’t expect me to pay your taxes, then.
KELLER: You don’t pay my taxes.
HARTMANN: Yes I do. The American taxpayer does. You’re tax exempt, so you get all the benefits of-
KELLER: You don’t pay my taxes!
And then the call ended. I was absolutely floored by the fact that this guy had no idea what “tax exempt” means. News flash: if you don’t pay taxes, but you still think you should be allowed to use the mail and get police protection, then the American people are paying your taxes.
Read More ->
By Hanlon, on July 11th, 2009 at 11:31 PM
 I feel like the old Mini-Wheats commercial. The liberal side of me is totally stoked because this is exactly how things should work, but the Democrat side of me is concerned that Republicans will use this in campaign ads to call Dems socialist.
The new tax would apply to individuals who make more than $280,000 a year and married couples who make more than $350,000, the sources said.
Individuals making up to $400,000 and couples making up to $500,000 would be assessed a 1 percent tax on their adjusted gross income, they said. A higher rate would apply to individuals making up to $800,000 and for couples making up to $1 million per year, and an even higher rate would apply to individuals and couples with higher incomes.
This has “redistribution” and “tax and spend” written all over it. If the Republicans don’t launch attacks screeching that the Democrats want to raise taxes to socialize medicine, I’m actually going to be disappointed.
Here’s the thing, though. This is exactly what should be happening. According to estimates this plus the nature of the re-structuring would off-set the costs the bill is expected to entail. And considering this is a tax increase on only the mega-wealthy (combined with our profound understanding of tax brackets) and you can see that, really, the people this affects will only notice it as a slightly different number as opposed to having any real effect on their lives. Then when we factor in the fact that this minor annoyance in bookkeeping for the ultra-rich will help far more people who can’t currently afford any health care.
But yet, it’s just about the most perfect bludgeon to use against Democrats. I hope they have the balls to see this one to the end.
By Hanlon, on May 12th, 2009 at 07:59 PM
 It’s not the kind of thing that should need to be spelled out, but there’s a report on it anyway. Social security and Medicare, programs built upon tax revenue, are hurting because the recession has caused a drop in tax revenue. Simple stuff. Still, it’s a sobering statistic to deal with.
The Social Security trust fund will be exhausted by 2037, four years earlier than previously estimated, and the Medicare hospital trust fund will become insolvent by 2017, two years earlier than estimated, said a report by the trustees of the two popular programs.
Labor Secretary Hilda Solis said that “the dual effect of the economy and unemployment has produced a downward pressure on the financial security” of the Social Security program.
The latest report said Medicare’s financial problems are more severe than those facing Social Security because of rapidly rising health-care costs.
See, that’s a case where the combination of fiscal conservatism and privatizing health care combine to create a hellish little scenario. We end up with this nightmarish scenario where everyone gets hosed. The thing is, this would only get worse if the conservative idea to slash taxes were adopted. Pull even more tax revenues away from the government and these programs run out of funds even earlier.
Maybe that’s part of the plan, though. Force SS/Medicare into bankruptcy so people have no choice but to go for private plans. Which, of course, worked so well.
By Hanlon, on April 16th, 2009 at 01:07 PM
 I want you to look at my banner for a moment. Read the mantra. Read it again. Think it over. Okay, got it? Now understand that when I say John Feehery is an evil assbag, I say that having tried to figure out how he could have written this with anything but pure malice for everyone but the wealthy and powerful.
Feehery, a former GOP staffer, has compiled a list of reasons the budget is hurting. His basic premise is that it’s unfair to be taxing rich people because so many others aren’t paying their fair share and our government wastes money. His suggestions are as appalling as they are absurd. I’m paraphrasing his suggestions, but in no way misrepresenting them. They are:
- Raise the retirement age.
- Stop keeping old people alive.
- Tax people who are so poor they don’t pay taxes right now.
- Pay government employees less.
These represent “reasonable solutions” to a man who wields surprising influence in the Republican party.
I would love to think that this is somehow a case of ignorance or stupidity, but there’s no way to read it that way. This man would rather force the elderly to keep working an extra ten years than see his top tax rate pop up a few percentage points. He considers health care for the infirmed a waste of money, that it’s unfair for him to have to buy a slightly smaller HDTV rather than taxing the guy who can’t afford a TV at all.
What absolutely blows me away is that an article like this shows up on CNN. It is so patently black hearted, so god damn selfish, that it should in no way be given the kind of legitimacy that it’s getting. I’m having a tricky time explaining how disgusted I am by this article without coming across as overly mean spirited myself. So I’ll just pass a big fat fuck you to John Feehery.
By Hanlon, on April 7th, 2009 at 11:40 AM
 This is yet another case of “a-duhhhh”. The funny thing is that for the first time, we have an economic issue that the right can’t paint as a “middle class” problem (see: the estate tax aka the “death tax”). Ask most people if they think it’s fair to bump up taxes on rich people and the answer is unanimous.
Almost three-quarters of Americans think it is a good idea to raise taxes on people making more than $250,000 per year, according to the latest CBS News/New York Times poll.
In fact, two-thirds of Americans think the tax code should be changed so that middle-class Americans pay less than they do now, while “upper income” people pay more.
As for President Obama’s overall budget plan, a majority – 56 percent – say it sets the right priorities for the country. Thirty-two percent say it doesn’t, and twelve percent don’t know.
The poll also finds that Americans are more likely to say the spending proposals in the budget will help the economy (37 percent) rather than hurt the economy (23 percent). Twenty-nine percent aren’t yet sure.
On that second point, that’s kinda exactly what Obama’s tax plan proposes, it’s the same on that he was talking about on the stump back before the election. Drop the taxes on the people getting squeezed by the economic downturn, bump them up on people who have the money to help bring the economy back to life.
See that’s the thing, people talk about “trickle down” from the wrong side. The fact of the matter is that the people with the most money aren’t going to help the economy most by sitting on it. The assumption is that rich people, given huge tax breaks, will use all that extra money for good and then only keep a teeny bit to put some bread on the table and keep the family Geo Metro with regular gasoline. In reality, those with the expendable income have more to contribute and via taxed income, they can do just that.
Republicans are trying to call the president’s tax plan “socialist”. If that’s the case, it looks like the majority of us are socialists and had no idea. That’s the fun part about democracy, when the bulk of the nation disagrees with you, you can’t call it “unAmerican” any more. Democracy!
|
|
|
