Comments on: The Income Tax System is Broken

43 Percent Of Americans Pay No Federal Income Tax, A Sign That Something's Wrong, Writes Declan McCullagh

[gil600221]

They talk about free handouts for the American people? What about the free handouts that we give in foreign aid to other countries? Those other countries never give the United States anything back except headaches and are always bad mouthing America. We need to stop the foreign aid program and start taking care of our own people here in America first. No one else is going to do it!

Gil

[johndevinejr]

Is it even legal to show these repubs tebagging one another?

[johndevinejr]

Those people who don't pay taxes are so poor they can't even pay for FOOD.

Another result of republican economics

[skyk-2009]

And to think that Reagan's hike on SSA might have made it solvent through 2100 had not the Republican Congress raided it... Gore's Lock Box wouldn't have been such a bad idea.
Posted by nancy_naive at 3:05 AM : Apr 15, 2009

You know the Ditto Heads made fun of that Idea when he came up with it but now? Now they never mention it. Wonder why?

[skyk-2009]

43% of People do not pay Taxes because they do NOT earn enough!! That's how far our Standard of Living has dropped under Trickle Down and the Republican's. When you see the top 10% of the citizens of any nation controlling the VAST majority of the Wealth of that Country, that is a shift in wealth and that shift had to come from the bottom.

[ioweign]

Yes it's broken. If you're a member of socialist dictator Obama's cabinet, you don't have to pay taxes. If you're a welfare recipient (Democrat), you not only don't pay taxes but you live off of social programs. If you work, pay taxes, and are a productive American, you're _______ under Obama. Don't worry though, there are tax revolt parties all over America now so the Democrats (communists) will pay for this in the future.
Posted by enjoylife63 at 1:05 AM : Apr 15, 2009

Can you say "Corporate Welfare"...

Corporate welfare is a term describing a government's bestowal of money grants, tax breaks, or other special favorable treatment on corporations or select corporations. The term was coined by Ralph Nader in 1966, and compares corporate subsidies and welfare payments to the poor, and implies that corporations are much less needy of such treatment than the poor. The Canadian New Democratic Party picked up the term as a major theme in its 1972 federal election campaign. Corporations in an attempt to maximize profits continually try to privatize profits while making risks public.

Corporate welfare as corrupt subsidies

Subsidies considered excessive, unwarranted, wasteful, unfair, inefficient, or bought by lobbying are often called corporate welfare. The label of corporate welfare is often used to decry projects advertised as benefiting the general welfare that spend a disproportionate amount of funds on large corporations. For instance, in the United States, agricultural subsidies are usually portrayed as helping honest, hardworking independent farmers stay afloat. However, the majority of income gained from commodity support programs actually goes to large agribusiness corporations such as Archer Daniels Midland, as they own a considerably larger percentage of production.

According to the Cato Institute, the U.S. federal government spent $92 billion on corporate welfare during fiscal year 2006. Recipients included Boeing, Xerox, IBM, Motorola, Dow Chemical, and General Electric.

Alan Peters and Peter Fisher have estimated that state and local governments provide $40-50 billion annually in economic development incentives, which many critics characterize as corporate welfare.

[patriot2381]

to demongirl60. You have bought the governments line, hook and sinker, by ignoring the Treasury department investing your SS contributions. At banking insterest rates, a worker who pay in the maximum rate for 50 years will have $2M principal and intrerest. It's long been my opinion the worker would be better off with forced private savings. SS is a winner for the Treasury.

[demongirl60]

NO KIDDING WALDO!

[tmittelstaed]

Actually, it's way worse when you consider Social Security.

My recent SS statement shows that I and my employers have paid in about $100K to the SS system over my working career so far. By the time I reach 70 years of age we'll have paid in another $100K. Then I'll start drawing out my benefit of around $2500 a month, or $30K a year. By age 76 I will have blown through everything I put into SS and at that time the government (correction, the other taxpayers) will begin paying for me 100%. With average life expectency into the 80's, there's a good chance I might live another decade - which would rack up a bill of $300K. And that's just me - start considering the same thing with all the other members of my generation.

You know, the State of Oregon has had written into it's state constitution a prohibition against state government being able to borrow money for anything other than capital construction projects that are bonded. And the state has been around for well over a century. It's possible for government to do it, folks. We just need a balanced budget amendment, as has been proposed many times in the past.