Free Markets, Free People

A pox on both their houses

A couple of charts to keep in mind as the political season gets into second gear:


The top one, of course, shows who does and who doesn’t pay the bulk of the taxes.  The “who does” is the top 1%.  So we have Ms. 1% promising to go after the “rich” as one of the promises of her campaign.  That after saying the Clinton Foundation plans to continue to take donations from foreign countries and that her campaign will indeed continue to accept corporate donations.  I mean, she’s gotten away with the email scam so why not this too?  Accountability – ha! They’re Clintons and accountability is for the “little people”.

The second shows the basic problem we suffer – our government spends more than it takes in.  Seems to me that should be a pretty easy problem to solve.  But obviously it’s not.

Alternate solution?  Well Jeb Bush thinks its a great idea to raise the Social Security retirement age, because, you know, they haven’t screwed retirees enough when it comes to Social Security, so lets see if we can out wait them.  He’s not alone.  Chris Christie thinks 69 is about right.

Talk of real reform and cutting spending, all redundant programs, the size of the bureaucracy and unneeded departments?  Yeah, these are big government guys no matter what lie they tell you.  Much easier to kick the SS can down the road by raising the retirement age and having a good portion of those who paid into it for 40 to 50 years die before they receive a penny.  Voila – savings!  Thank you “suckers”.


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

11 Responses to A pox on both their houses

  • Hey, candidate ScamWOW SWORE he would tackle the crisis of entitlement spending back during his first run for president. Because EVERYBODY knows it IS a crisis.

    So, six years later, it HAS to be all fixed. Right…???


    • Played for a Sucker
      Published: November 16, 2007

      Lately, Barack Obama has been saying that major action is needed to avert what he keeps calling a “crisis” in Social Security — most recently in an interview with The National Journal. Progressives who fought hard and successfully against the Bush administration’s attempt to panic America into privatizing the New Deal’s crown jewel are outraged, and rightly so.

      But Mr. Obama’s Social Security mistake was, in fact, exactly what you’d expect from a candidate who promises to transcend partisanship in an age when that’s neither possible nor desirable.

      To understand the nature of Mr. Obama’s mistake, you need to know something about the special role of Social Security in American political discourse.

    • Hmmpf. It may not be old age but it sure as hell feels like old age. I may refuse to grow old but my joints are, and not gracefully.

  • I always wondered about the ‘who pays federal taxes’ numbers, if they include SS & Medicare Contributions? If they aren’t and were included since they are used and abused interchangeably with tax revenue, there wouldn’t be notable shift in the direction of the middle class. Add in employer match which comes out of what a company is willing to pay for an employee, even more of a shift. Payroll Tax which mostly includes the aforementioned employee and employer taxes is about 75% of Federal Tax Revenue.

      • I came up with the same article. 34% payroll tax and 46% personal Income tax

        Almost half of all federal revenue (46 percent) comes from individual income taxes. The income tax is generally progressive: higher-income households pay a larger share of their income in income taxes than lower-income households do.

        Another 34 percent of revenue comes from payroll taxes, which are assessed on the wage or salary paychecks of almost all workers and used to fund Social Security, Medicare Hospital Insurance, and unemployment insurance. By law, employers and employees split the cost of payroll taxes, but research has shown that employers pass their portion of the cost on to workers in the form of lower wages.

        So a block of tax almost as big as all personal income tax come from the Middle and Lower classes. Changes the breakdown quite a bit in favor of the Middle Class carrying the brunt.

        • Payroll taxes as a whole are regressive: they collect a higher percentage of total earnings from lower-income workers than higher-income ones. However, if one looks at the overall impact of Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance — the benefits they provide as well as the taxes they collect — these programs are progressive.

          Well, the middle class does NOT carry the brunt in the net. They DO pay more in payroll taxes than do high-earners, relatively. They ALSO benefit far more.

          If you want to talk “regressive”, you need to look at the “corporate tax”, which is nothing of the kind. Corporations merely act as tax collectors, with their consumers paying the actual spiff.

          To me, though, this is all argument around the margins. The whole tax structure in this country is an abomination.

  • “because, you know, they haven’t screwed retirees enough when it comes to Social Security, so lets see if we can out wait them”

    Previous generations have spent most of their political lives voting to be screwed. Give’em what they voted for.

    • I would assume the generation most responsible for this have grandfathered themselves. And it people under 50 that most likely will have retirement bumped to 69.

  • At this point you’d think the btards would just admit they have not intention of spending the money the way it was even remotely intended to be spent.
    They may as well just admit they will pay it when we die, upon which it will be taxed at 100% as a death tax.