Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Here are some estimates. I'm going to use 2005 data for estimates broken down by income group because those are the latest I can find while using 2009 data for other estimates. 2005 estimates are converted to 2009 dollars. Estimates are rounded to the nearest $100. For some perspective on how much things may have change between 2005 and 2009, note that the average household paid $17,400 in 2005. According to the inflation calculator at http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, that's $19,100 in 2009 dollars.

According to some math based on the 1040EZ tax instructions booklet at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040ez.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and data available at http://www.census.gov/population/www/so ... s2009.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, Federal spending broke down to an average of $30,000 per household and $11,700 per person in 2009. The average for all Federal taxes taxes paid per household was $18,000 and the average for all Federal taxes paid per person was $7,000.

I think any reasonable person can see there is a problem there. But the problem is seen to be worse when we just look at the bottom 60% of the income distribution using data available at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/98xx/doc9884 ... Letter.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (2005 estimates). The bottom 20 percent paid an average of $800 per year in all Federal taxes in 2009 dollars. The next 20 percent paid an average $4,100 per year. The next 20 percent paid an average of $9,100.

Meanwhile the top 10 percent paid an average of $102,000 per household in all Federal taxes in 2009 dollars. Hopefully we can all agree that the general picture in terms of relative share of the tax burden did not change that much between 2005 and 2009 and is pretty much the same right now as well.

So, to me, any reasonable person can see what's happening. It's very easy to support massive government with massive spending when one is not coming anywhere close to bearing their share of the cost of doing that. And a substantial majority of the population is composed of individuals and households who aren't coming anywhere close to bearing their share of the cost. As the cliche goes: They have no skin...or at least not much skin...in the game. Especially the bottom 20 percent.

Three words....

National. Sales. Tax.

Create a tiered sales tax system that charges lower rates for the essentials and higher rates for the luxury stuff. The higher percentage of your income is spent on things like food, gas, and utilities, the lower percentage of your income goes to the government. And the high earners have the opportunity to pay the same amount in taxes as Blue-Collar Joe SixPack by saving more and spending less. Fair for both ends of the socioeconomic ladder.

JohnStOnge wrote:Here are some estimates. I'm going to use 2005 data for estimates broken down by income group because those are the latest I can find while using 2009 data for other estimates. 2005 estimates are converted to 2009 dollars. Estimates are rounded to the nearest $100. For some perspective on how much things may have change between 2005 and 2009, note that the average household paid $17,400 in 2005. According to the inflation calculator at http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, that's $19,100 in 2009 dollars.

According to some math based on the 1040EZ tax instructions booklet at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040ez.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and data available at http://www.census.gov/population/www/so ... s2009.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, Federal spending broke down to an average of $30,000 per household and $11,700 per person in 2009. The average for all Federal taxes taxes paid per household was $18,000 and the average for all Federal taxes paid per person was $7,000.

I think any reasonable person can see there is a problem there. But the problem is seen to be worse when we just look at the bottom 60% of the income distribution using data available at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/98xx/doc9884 ... Letter.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (2005 estimates). The bottom 20 percent paid an average of $800 per year in all Federal taxes in 2009 dollars. The next 20 percent paid an average $4,100 per year. The next 20 percent paid an average of $9,100.

Meanwhile the top 10 percent paid an average of $102,000 per household in all Federal taxes in 2009 dollars. Hopefully we can all agree that the general picture in terms of relative share of the tax burden did not change that much between 2005 and 2009 and is pretty much the same right now as well.

So, to me, any reasonable person can see what's happening. It's very easy to support massive government with massive spending when one is not coming anywhere close to bearing their share of the cost of doing that. And a substantial majority of the population is composed of individuals and households who aren't coming anywhere close to bearing their share of the cost. As the cliche goes: They have no skin...or at least not much skin...in the game. Especially the bottom 20 percent.

This is simply lifestyle envy. Those poor fuckers working to make ends meet simply don't deserve to be poor in the U.S. Our working poor should be able to make enough money to own 42" flat screen and pay their fare share of the tax burden.

The wealthy in America are getting screwed. If were not careful we may lose them to outsourcing.

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:Here are some estimates. I'm going to use 2005 data for estimates broken down by income group because those are the latest I can find while using 2009 data for other estimates. 2005 estimates are converted to 2009 dollars. Estimates are rounded to the nearest $100. For some perspective on how much things may have change between 2005 and 2009, note that the average household paid $17,400 in 2005. According to the inflation calculator at http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, that's $19,100 in 2009 dollars.

According to some math based on the 1040EZ tax instructions booklet at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040ez.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and data available at http://www.census.gov/population/www/so ... s2009.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, Federal spending broke down to an average of $30,000 per household and $11,700 per person in 2009. The average for all Federal taxes taxes paid per household was $18,000 and the average for all Federal taxes paid per person was $7,000.

I think any reasonable person can see there is a problem there. But the problem is seen to be worse when we just look at the bottom 60% of the income distribution using data available at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/98xx/doc9884 ... Letter.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (2005 estimates). The bottom 20 percent paid an average of $800 per year in all Federal taxes in 2009 dollars. The next 20 percent paid an average $4,100 per year. The next 20 percent paid an average of $9,100.

Meanwhile the top 10 percent paid an average of $102,000 per household in all Federal taxes in 2009 dollars. Hopefully we can all agree that the general picture in terms of relative share of the tax burden did not change that much between 2005 and 2009 and is pretty much the same right now as well.

So, to me, any reasonable person can see what's happening. It's very easy to support massive government with massive spending when one is not coming anywhere close to bearing their share of the cost of doing that. And a substantial majority of the population is composed of individuals and households who aren't coming anywhere close to bearing their share of the cost. As the cliche goes: They have no skin...or at least not much skin...in the game. Especially the bottom 20 percent.

This is simply lifestyle envy. Those poor fuckers working to make ends meet simply don't deserve to be poor in the U.S. Our working poor should be able to make enough money to own 42" flat screen and pay their fare share of the tax burden.

The wealthy in America are getting screwed. If were not careful we may lose them to outsourcing.

I'm sure the wealthy sleep better at night knowing that JSO is looking out for them. Our system my be in need of overhaul, but the idea that we should make the people with less money pay more of the taxes reminds me of Prince John in just about every Robin Hood movie ever made.

Pwns wrote:Three words....

National. Sales. Tax.

Create a tiered sales tax system that charges lower rates for the essentials and higher rates for the luxury stuff. The higher percentage of your income is spent on things like food, gas, and utilities, the lower percentage of your income goes to the government. And the high earners have the opportunity to pay the same amount in taxes as Blue-Collar Joe SixPack by saving more and spending less. Fair for both ends of the socioeconomic ladder.

How about no tax on the essentials for everyone up to the poverty line?

http://www.fairtax.org

No pay tax, no vote. Sounds fair to me.

BlueHen86 wrote:

kalm wrote:
This is simply lifestyle envy. Those poor fuckers working to make ends meet simply don't deserve to be poor in the U.S. Our working poor should be able to make enough money to own 42" flat screen and pay their fare share of the tax burden.

The wealthy in America are getting screwed. If were not careful we may lose them to outsourcing.

I'm sure the wealthy sleep better at night knowing that JSO is looking out for them. Our system my be in need of overhaul, but the idea that we should make the people with less money pay more of the taxes reminds me of Prince John in just about every Robin Hood movie ever made.

More? How about ANY?

Ivytalk wrote:No pay tax, no vote. Sounds fair to me.

I dunno, lot of low-ranking enlisted troops protecting the investment of the class that doesn't serve in that category....

houndawg wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:No pay tax, no vote. Sounds fair to me.

I dunno, lot of low-ranking enlisted troops protecting the investment of the class that doesn't serve in that category....

Oh, piss off , poundpup. You know damn well what I mean, you scurvy-ridden, bloodsucking, union-fellating, welfare-queen-diddling piece of crap!

Ivytalk wrote:

houndawg wrote:

I dunno, lot of low-ranking enlisted troops protecting the investment of the class that doesn't serve in that category....

Oh, piss off , poundpup. You know damn well what I mean, you scurvy-ridden, bloodsucking, union-fellating, welfare-queen-diddling piece of crap!

No seriously, what do you mean? I hung out for a couple of hours today with a dude that has been deployed 4 times and will more than likely go over a 5th before his retirement in a couple of years. Rock solid individual with two kids. But I'm guessing financially he fits your bill. Probably shouldn't be able to vote in your estimation your majesty?

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:

Oh, piss off , poundpup. You know damn well what I mean, you scurvy-ridden, bloodsucking, union-fellating, welfare-queen-diddling piece of crap!

No seriously, what do you mean? I hung out for a couple of hours today with a dude that has been deployed 4 times and will more than likely go over a 5th before his retirement in a couple of years. Rock solid individual with two kids. But I'm guessing financially he fits your bill. Probably shouldn't be able to vote in your estimation your majesty?

I spent 22 years in the military and there was NEVER a year where I got back everything I paid in. This ain't your grampa's military (or in your case dawg, YOUR military) pay scale....

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
No seriously, what do you mean? I hung out for a couple of hours today with a dude that has been deployed 4 times and will more than likely go over a 5th before his retirement in a couple of years. Rock solid individual with two kids. But I'm guessing financially he fits your bill. Probably shouldn't be able to vote in your estimation your majesty?

I spent 22 years in the military and there was NEVER a year where I got back everything I paid in. This ain't your grampa's military (or in your case dawg, YOUR military) pay scale....

I'll be sure and go tell him to hurry up and make more money so he can justify his vote.

Ivytalk wrote:

houndawg wrote:

I dunno, lot of low-ranking enlisted troops protecting the investment of the class that doesn't serve in that category....

Oh, piss off , poundpup. You know damn well what I mean, you scurvy-ridden, bloodsucking, union-fellating, welfare-queen-diddling piece of crap!

Says the prep elitist whose portfolio is protected by troops that qualify for food stamps.

SMFH at Ivy League ingrates and their sense of entitlement.

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
I spent 22 years in the military and there was NEVER a year where I got back everything I paid in. This ain't your grampa's military (or in your case dawg, YOUR military) pay scale....

I'll be sure and go tell him to hurry up and make more money so he can justify his vote.

i'm going to go out on a limb and guess that he does NOT qualify to get every dime he paid in back, and THEN some like some of these freeloaders do.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
I'll be sure and go tell him to hurry up and make more money so he can justify his vote.

i'm going to go out on a limb and guess that he does NOT qualify to get every dime he paid in back, and THEN some like some of these freeloaders do.

Fine, so he makes enough to not be in the 47%?

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:

Oh, piss off , poundpup. You know damn well what I mean, you scurvy-ridden, bloodsucking, union-fellating, welfare-queen-diddling piece of crap!

No seriously, what do you mean? I hung out for a couple of hours today with a dude that has been deployed 4 times and will more than likely go over a 5th before his retirement in a couple of years. Rock solid individual with two kids. But I'm guessing financially he fits your bill. Probably shouldn't be able to vote in your estimation your majesty?

Could make an exception for those in the military (which is probably a minority) that have zero income tax liability.

I think a better idea would be make EVERYONE have some skin in the game. That would mean getting rid of EITC welfare payment, and for those 47% with currently no skin in the game, all of them above the poverty level should have to pay a small amount, even just 1% would at least mean they would have some skin in the game.

The US will never get out from under the mountain of debt we are in as long as close to half the population can continue to vote themselves more largesse with no consequences.

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
i'm going to go out on a limb and guess that he does NOT qualify to get every dime he paid in back, and THEN some like some of these freeloaders do.

Fine, so he makes enough to not be in the 47%?

That would be my guess.

BDKJMU wrote:

kalm wrote:
No seriously, what do you mean? I hung out for a couple of hours today with a dude that has been deployed 4 times and will more than likely go over a 5th before his retirement in a couple of years. Rock solid individual with two kids. But I'm guessing financially he fits your bill. Probably shouldn't be able to vote in your estimation your majesty?

Could make an exception for those in the military (which is probably a minority) that have zero income tax liability.

I think a better idea would be make EVERYONE have some skin in the game. That would mean getting rid of EITC welfare payment, and for those 47% with currently no skin in the game, all of them above the poverty level should have to pay a small amount, even just 1% would at least mean they would have some skin in the game.

The US will never get out from under the mountain of debt we are in as long as close to half the population can continue to vote themselves more largesse with no consequences.

Except that

a) everyone has skin in the game regardless of whether they pay federal income tax

and

b) the economy needs the demand those 47% create.

kalm wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:
Could make an exception for those in the military (which is probably a minority) that have zero income tax liability.

I think a better idea would be make EVERYONE have some skin in the game. That would mean getting rid of EITC welfare payment, and for those 47% with currently no skin in the game, all of them above the poverty level should have to pay a small amount, even just 1% would at least mean they would have some skin in the game.

The US will never get out from under the mountain of debt we are in as long as close to half the population can continue to vote themselves more largesse with no consequences.

Except that

a) everyone has skin in the game regardless of whether they pay federal income tax

What skin are you referring to...

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:

Oh, piss off , poundpup. You know damn well what I mean, you scurvy-ridden, bloodsucking, union-fellating, welfare-queen-diddling piece of crap!

No seriously, what do you mean? I hung out for a couple of hours today with a dude that has been deployed 4 times and will more than likely go over a 5th before his retirement in a couple of years. Rock solid individual with two kids. But I'm guessing financially he fits your bill. Probably shouldn't be able to vote in your estimation your majesty?

I'm sure the libs would prefer it that way:
U.S. Military Personnel, Veterans Give Obama Lower Marks
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147839/Milit ... Marks.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And this comes after getting OBL....

BDKJMU wrote:

kalm wrote:
No seriously, what do you mean? I hung out for a couple of hours today with a dude that has been deployed 4 times and will more than likely go over a 5th before his retirement in a couple of years. Rock solid individual with two kids. But I'm guessing financially he fits your bill. Probably shouldn't be able to vote in your estimation your majesty?

I'm sure the libs would prefer it that way:
U.S. Military Personnel, Veterans Give Obama Lower Marks
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147839/Milit ... Marks.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And this comes after getting OBL....

The troops know that when speaking aloud you give the party line and not what you really think. That goes back as long as there have been armies.

Public opinion in the military isn't much different from that in the civilian world, in spite of the attempts of those who wouldn't know that to present military opinion as monolithic.

As for this poll, perhaps you should have read it first: "Female veterans or those in the military between 30 and 49, for example, are actually slightly more likely to approve of Obama than are nonveteran women in this age group."

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Except that

a) everyone has skin in the game regardless of whether they pay federal income tax

What skin are you referring to...

"Even if the discussion is restricted to federal taxes (for which the statistics are better), a vast majority of households end up paying federal taxes. Congressional Budget Office data suggests that, at most, about 10 percent of all households pay no net federal taxes. The number 10 is obviously a lot smaller than 47.

The reason is that poor families generally pay more in payroll taxes than they receive through benefits like the Earned Income Tax Credit. It’s not just poor families for whom the payroll tax is a big deal, either. About three-quarters of all American households pay more in payroll taxes, which go toward Medicare and Social Security, than in income taxes."


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/busin ... hardt.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BDKJMU wrote:

kalm wrote:
No seriously, what do you mean? I hung out for a couple of hours today with a dude that has been deployed 4 times and will more than likely go over a 5th before his retirement in a couple of years. Rock solid individual with two kids. But I'm guessing financially he fits your bill. Probably shouldn't be able to vote in your estimation your majesty?

Could make an exception for those in the military (which is probably a minority) that have zero income tax liability.

I think a better idea would be make EVERYONE have some skin in the game. That would mean getting rid of EITC welfare payment, and for those 47% with currently no skin in the game, all of them above the poverty level should have to pay a small amount, even just 1% would at least mean they would have some skin in the game.

The US will never get out from under the mountain of debt we are in as long as close to half the population can continue to vote themselves more largesse with no consequences.

Maybe the folks behind the whole "only those who own property can vote" were on to something.

CID1990 wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:
Could make an exception for those in the military (which is probably a minority) that have zero income tax liability.

I think a better idea would be make EVERYONE have some skin in the game. That would mean getting rid of EITC welfare payment, and for those 47% with currently no skin in the game, all of them above the poverty level should have to pay a small amount, even just 1% would at least mean they would have some skin in the game.

The US will never get out from under the mountain of debt we are in as long as close to half the population can continue to vote themselves more largesse with no consequences.

Maybe the folks behind the whole "only those who own property can vote" were on to something.

Let's get the niqqers out of it while we're at it, too.