Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, July 10, 2017

Jonathan Swan, Axios: Conservatives are curiously zen about the debt ceiling hike, which points to a tectonic shift in the politics of debt now that we've entered the Trump Era. Not a single major conservative outside group is demanding the White House slash spending in exchange for their cooperation raising the debt ceiling (which will have to happen in October). Privately, most top Trump administration officials are delighted conservatives aren't pressuring them.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"Not a single major conservative outside group is demanding the White House slash spending"

Not even the JeffJ Foundation For Falling Skies and Unsustainable Entitlement Trajectories?

Their CEO must have been out of town for a whole week or he surely would have issued a scathing rebuke by now!

#1 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-10 06:55 PM | Reply

What??? Ted Cruz hasn't drawn a line in the sand? What on earth has changed???

(As if we don't all know)

#2 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-10 07:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Of course not there's a white republican in the White House. It's AOKAY to spend away.

#3 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-07-10 07:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What??? Ted Cruz hasn't drawn a line in the sand? What on earth has changed???


Say! I like deficits and ham! I do! I like them, because Ted - I- am!

And I would eat them in a boat. And I would eat them with a goat...and I will eat them in the
rain. And in the dark. And on a train. And in a car. And in a tree.

They are so good, so good, you see!

So I will eat them in a box. And I will eat them with a fox. And I will eat them in a
house. And I will eat them with a mouse. And I will eat them here and there.

Say! I will eat them ANYWHERE!

I do so like deficits and ham! Thank you! Thank you,

Ted - I - am!

#4 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-07-10 08:19 PM | Reply

....and silence as expected by the Teajadist crowd....
< crickets >

#5 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2017-07-10 09:36 PM | Reply

Wait, hold on a sec', are you..., no you can't be saying. Are you really saying conservatives are hypocrites? No ---- way!

#6 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-07-10 09:37 PM | Reply

Yeah, that ship has sailed. Republicans are hypocrites because libruls are evil so they are doing God's work to eliminate evil at all cost. Especially those librul Muslims who believe that they are doing God's work to eliminate evil at all costs.

There is no consistency, only Zod.

#7 | Posted by bocaink at 2017-07-10 11:36 PM | Reply

Errrr. Zuul

#8 | Posted by bocaink at 2017-07-10 11:37 PM | Reply

Well let's be honest, it is because the POTUS is white now.

#9 | Posted by 726 at 2017-07-11 07:42 AM | Reply

It would be awkward trying to get a 700 billion dollar tax cut while complaining about deficits.

#10 | Posted by danni at 2017-07-11 09:16 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

"There is no consistency, only Zod...

Errrr. Zuul"




This is thesingle most brilliant mistake in positing ever.

#11 | Posted by RevDarko at 2017-07-11 09:33 AM | Reply

Ugh.

Put this is a larger context please. The two biggest draws on federal spending are Social Security and Medicair. They are a part of what is called the "non-discreationary" federal budget. That is 2/3s of the problem. Budget cutting on those two is very difficult to do because of the "non" discretionary aspect.

Second. Read the article. These guys are admitting the every time they played "chicken" on this with Obama they lost. Obviously losing to Trump would be even worse. Look what's happened to the Democrat Party the more they opposed Trump. Obviously, again, the GOP has no desire to see that happen to them. One needs to remember that Trump is NOT the darling of the establishment GOP, and he doesn't like them any more then they like him. So backing off is just smart, tactically. Disappointing yes, but smart. Fighting Trump is just a quick path to political martyrdom. Fighting Obama, even with a fake fight, brought in votes.

Yet there is a budget battle taking place. And, that IS the larger context. The biggest budget battle America has ever seen is being fought. That would be the repeal of Obamacare. That alone was tied to almost the entirety of the "discretionary" side of the Federal Budget, albeit that side is only 1/3 of the budget. Repealing Obamacare alone might make history in the sense that for the first time in U.S. History, if O'care is repealed, we might see a year when the federal government actually spent a little less than in the year before. Maybe, possible, hopefully, but probably not.

#12 | Posted by AWinter at 2017-07-11 09:40 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Put this is a larger context please. The two biggest draws on federal spending are Social Security and Medicair. They are a part of what is called the "non-discreationary" federal budget. That is 2/3s of the problem. Budget cutting on those two is very difficult to do because of the "non" discretionary aspect."

They are both self-funding though I'll admit Medicare is a little behind but SS is funded completely.

" Fighting Trump is just a quick path to political martyrdom. Fighting Obama, even with a fake fight, brought in votes."

Racism is alive and well in the United States.

"we might see a year when the federal government actually spent a little less than in the year before. Maybe, possible, hopefully, but probably not."

And hey, it would only bring about the deaths of approx. 43,000 people a year. Yay!

#13 | Posted by danni at 2017-07-11 09:45 AM | Reply

Nice to see them keep going with debt. Once we have bad credit as a country, there won't be a choice but to fix it. Lets speed that up and get it over with.

#14 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-07-11 10:13 AM | Reply

Nice to see them keep going with debt. Once we have bad credit as a country, there won't be a choice but to fix it. Lets speed that up and get it over with.

#14 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

Yep. Taxes should be raised to balance the budget. Taxes should be raised even more to make a bit of a dent (without spending cuts Medicare+Medicaid+Social Security will bankrupt this country no matter how high taxes are raised) in our unfunded liabilities. Make ALL Americans fully aware just how much big government actually costs. Make them feel it in their pocketbooks and then let them know that in spite of the government ripping more than twice as much out of their income than they had in the past we are still on a trajectory toward bankruptcy via unfunded liabilities. Only when that happens will we see the possibility of righting the ship.

Note: I am talking about raising taxes across the board - no amount of "taxing the rich" is going to accomplish any of this as there is not enough money in the upper brackets to fully fund our government, much less make a dent in our unfunded liabilities.

One of the primary reasons people like big government is they aren't forced to pay for it.

#15 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-07-11 10:27 AM | Reply

"Nice to see them keep going with debt. Once we have bad credit as a country, there won't be a choice but to fix it. Lets speed that up and get it over with."

Last time Moody's tried to downgrade our credit rating it made them look like idiots.

"Yep. Taxes should be raised to balance the budget. Taxes should be raised even more to make a bit of a dent (without spending cuts Medicare+Medicaid+Social Security will bankrupt this country no matter how high taxes are raised) in our unfunded liabilities. Make ALL Americans fully aware just how much big government actually costs."

SS is paid for entirely for the net 20 years at least. Raise the amount of income subject to SS taxes, as REagan did, it will be solvent forever. Quit repeating that lie Jeff. We haven't raised the amount of income subject to SS taxes since Reagan was President, simple solutions are readily available while conservative try to repeat talking points so many times that people will stupidly start believing them.

#16 | Posted by danni at 2017-07-11 10:47 AM | Reply

"One of the primary reasons people like big government is they aren't forced to pay for it."

I've paid income taxes, SS taxes, Medicare taxes for my entire working life. Blow it out your conservative right wing ass! Liar.

#17 | Posted by danni at 2017-07-11 10:48 AM | Reply

"Note: I am talking about raising taxes across the board - no amount of "taxing the rich" is going to accomplish any of this as there is not enough money in the upper brackets to fully fund our government, much less make a dent in our unfunded liabilities."

"The richest 10% hold 76% of the wealth"

money.cnn.com

#18 | Posted by danni at 2017-07-11 10:50 AM | Reply

SS is paid for entirely for the net 20 years at least. Raise the amount of income subject to SS taxes, as REagan did, it will be solvent forever. Quit repeating that lie Jeff. We haven't raised the amount of income subject to SS taxes since Reagan was President, simple solutions are readily available while conservative try to repeat talking points so many times that people will stupidly start believing them.

#16 | POSTED BY DANNI

Reading is fundamental. I'll reproduce what is relevant:

Taxes should be raised even more to make a bit of a dent (without spending cuts Medicare+Medicaid+Social Security will bankrupt this country no matter how high taxes are raised) in our unfunded liabilities.

"The richest 10% hold 76% of the wealth"

"Wealth" isn't taxed. Income is taxed.

#19 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-07-11 11:06 AM | Reply

"One of the primary reasons people like big government is they aren't forced to pay for it."
I've paid income taxes, SS taxes, Medicare taxes for my entire working life. Blow it out your conservative right wing ass! Liar.

#17 | POSTED BY DANNI

It's always all about you and your personal anecdotes. I've paid income taxes and FICA taxes for my entire working life too. Yet, our country has managed to rack up $20 trillion in debt and we have over $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. You and I clearly haven't been paying nearly enough taxes.

#20 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-07-11 11:08 AM | Reply

$20 trillion in debt and we have over $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. You and I clearly haven't been paying nearly enough taxes.

Posted by JeffJ at 2017-07-11 11:08 AM | Reply

There you go again with your baseless 100 trillion dollar unfunded liability scare tactic used by right wingers use to justify killing a program they say they hate. It's a bogus number.

#21 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-07-11 11:13 AM | Reply

There you go again with your baseless 100 trillion dollar unfunded liability scare tactic used by right wingers use to justify killing a program they say they hate. It's a bogus number.
#21 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

OK - then what is the number? Or do we not have any unfunded liabilities? Please showcase for us your actuarial skills, Laura.

#22 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-07-11 11:19 AM | Reply

Lemme guess: We don't have any debt either.

It's funny that you accuse right wingers of wanting to kill these programs when doing nothing will.....kill these programs.

#23 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-07-11 11:19 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

OK - then what is the number? Or do we not have any unfunded liabilities? Please showcase for us your actuarial skills, Laura.

#22 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-07-11 11:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

www.theatlantic.com

(1) That's not our debt. Our $16 trillion in debt and our $87 trillion in "unfunded liabilities" represent two very different ideas: real past promises and projected future promises. Real past promises are, well, very real. We have to pay back our debt. Failing to do it would be an illegal and disastrous default. Unfunded liabilities are future promises, and, since they're not as real, we can change them whenever we want without destroying ourselves. For example, raising the taxable income ceiling and slowing the growth of benefits could reduce the Social Security gap to zero tomorrow.

And that's if there is a Social Security "gap" to begin with. Technically, it's not legal for Social Security to have "unfunded liabilities" since it can only pay as many benefits as it receives in earmarked taxes. Both it and Medicare hospital insurance are prohibited from spending money they haven't collected from specific revenue dedicated to their programs (i.e.: payroll taxes). It is impossible for either to technically be "unfunded", since they cannot legally outspend their funding.

(2) 75-year projections are scarier than they are informative. Seventy-five-year projections always sound gargantuan because, well, they're calculated over three-quarters of a century, which is an awfully long time to count anything. But here's the flip side: In 75 years, our economy will be massive. Growing slowly at a 2% annual average, our GDP would be $66 trillion in today's dollars in 2087. That's an incomprehensibly big number, too. Once you run out any number over 75 years, the mind starts to boggle. That's good for scaring people with mind-boggling numbers, but it's not so good for informing. When Republicans say unfunded liabilities come out to $520,000 per U.S. household, they're taking a figure from 2087 and dividing it over a 2012 population to exaggerate. Scary, to be sure, but not very informative.

#24 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-07-11 11:32 AM | Reply

The left doesn't want to do nothing, they want all income taxed the same which will reduce the deficit.
Unfunded liabilities are okay as long as there are equal uncollected taxes. Tax reform will solve the problem combined with infrastructure spending.

#25 | Posted by bored at 2017-07-11 11:46 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

75-year projections are scarier than they are informative. Seventy-five-year projections always sound gargantuan because, well, they're calculated over three-quarters of a century, which is an awfully long time to count anything. But here's the flip side: In 75 years, our economy will be massive. Growing slowly at a 2% annual average, our GDP would be $66 trillion in today's dollars in 2087. That's an incomprehensibly big number, too

What is left out is the concept of unfunded liabilities. Even with that huge number and all of the taxes that will be collected, if nothing happens we STILL have over $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

#26 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-07-11 12:02 PM | Reply

What is left out is the concept of unfunded liabilities. Even with that huge number and all of the taxes that will be collected, if nothing happens we STILL have over $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

Posted by JeffJ at 2017-07-11 12:02 PM | Reply

No we don't. Quit using speculation as fact. It's not.

#27 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-07-11 12:05 PM | Reply

Last time Moody's tried to downgrade our credit rating it made them look like idiots.

#16 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2017-07-11 10:47 AM | FLAG:

S&P downgraded US credit in 2011.

In 2012 Egan-Jones downgraded the US 2 ranks.

In 2013 Dagong Global downgraded the US.

The US government has retaliated through investigations, but that hasn't fixed our credit rating. Only Fitch Ratings has upgraded it's outlook on the US, and that was prior to the presidential election cycle.

Our government sucks at managing money, continual downgrades are inevitable due to partisan gridlock. It's not a bad thing, the government needs to get burnt to learn its lesson.

#28 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-07-11 12:12 PM | Reply

www.washingtonpost.com

The Pinocchio Test

Coburn's general point about potential unfunded liabilities is worth noting, but just because a number is large does not mean it is worth quoting.

In general, we would hope for a little more rigor from lawmakers than simply citing a Web site with fuzzy sourcing. Throwing out figures such as $128 trillion without context (percentage of GDP) or explanation (this is over an infinite horizon) does a disservice to listeners. In any case, there are little data available that give much credence to this particular figure.

Update: In a statement to the Powerline blog, a Coburn spokesman gave this column "Three Pinocchios," citing in part a letter by economists that pegged the gap at $222 trillion.
Three Pinocchios

#29 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-07-11 12:12 PM | Reply

"Wealth" isn't taxed. Income is taxed.

#19 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Which is exactly why "wealth" needs to be put back into circulation, to raise revenue. An economy, and even a government, runs on the circulation of money. Not on the accumulation of wealth.

There may not be enough existing wealth to pay the debt. But through the circulation of said wealth, over and over, enough revenue might be raised to service said debt.

#30 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2017-07-11 12:34 PM | Reply

No we don't. Quit using speculation as fact. It's not.

#27 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

Do you know what actuaries do?

Which is exactly why "wealth" needs to be put back into circulation, to raise revenue. An economy, and even a government, runs on the circulation of money. Not on the accumulation of wealth.

How do we put wealth back into circulation?

#31 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-07-11 12:37 PM | Reply

How do we put wealth back into circulation?

Tax them.

#32 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-07-11 12:38 PM | Reply

#31

Makes a better case for more stringent estate and capital gains taxes, instead of their elimination.

#33 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2017-07-11 12:42 PM | Reply

Tax them.

#32 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

Taxing wealth is the confiscation of property.

Makes a better case for more stringent estate and capital gains taxes, instead of their elimination.

#33 | POSTED BY WHATSLEFT

I think inheritance should be taxed as income, maybe spread out over a period of years. Capital gains is a bit murkier. The rates are low to encourage investments, you know, circulate money. :-)

#34 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-07-11 12:45 PM | Reply

Capital gains is a bit murkier. The rates are low to encourage investments, you know, circulate money. :-)

#34 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

It's obviously not working.

#35 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2017-07-11 06:18 PM | Reply

I think inheritance should be taxed as income,

I agree.

#36 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2017-07-11 06:19 PM | Reply

There is no valid justification for taxing employee income higher than other income. In fact lower income folks tend to spend all their money so they circulate all of it, while the wealthy hoard it. That is a justification for progressive tax rates, not the regressive ones we have now. Plus business get fantastic deductions that employees can only dream about.

#37 | Posted by bored at 2017-07-11 06:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I think capital gains should have an inflation deduction. If you had a farm for 50 years and then give it to your kids, the gain is likely all inflation, so no tax due.

#38 | Posted by bored at 2017-07-11 06:53 PM | Reply

"Raise the amount of income subject to SS taxes, as REagan did, it will be solvent forever."

For SS, there are multiple routes:
1) Raise income subject to the taxes, to the level needed to make the program solvent. Without raising payouts, this is a tax only on the levels above the current threshold.
2) Add 1 point to each side (employer and employee), making the total 17.3 instead of 15.3.
3) Means test to the point where the program is solvent.
4) Push back the retirement ages to solvency.

Solvency = Perpetuity = 75 years.

#39 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-11 07:05 PM | Reply

"We haven't raised the amount of income subject to SS taxes since Reagan was President"

Nonsense. Income thresholds rise almost every year.
en.wikipedia.org

#40 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-11 07:08 PM | Reply

Taxing wealth is the confiscation of property.

Taxing wealth is redistribution.

#41 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-07-11 07:16 PM | Reply

"I think inheritance should be taxed as income, maybe spread out over a period of years. Capital gains is a bit murkier. The rates are low to encourage investments, you know, circulate money. :-)"

Take out the word investments and replace it with gambling. After the initial stock offering the money made from stocks flows to the stock holder not the company that is owned by that stock.
You want money to circulate, you tax it much higher on high income, including capital gains, and then offer generous deductions for real investments into job creating industries that offer good pay and benefits. You know, like the Germans are doing and like we used to do. We built the largest economy in the world that way and the richest nation in the world too. It isn't rocket science, it's all about rejecting the fairy tales that the right has been peddling since Reagan.

#42 | Posted by danni at 2017-07-11 07:44 PM | Reply

There is no valid justification for taxing employee income higher than other income. In fact lower income folks tend to spend all their money so they circulate all of it, while the wealthy hoard it.

#37 | POSTED BY BORED AT 2017-07-11 06:51 PM | REPLY

www.politifact.com

"John Cornyn says 51 percent of American households pay no income tax."

"So, is it true that a majority of Americans aren't paying any federal income tax? The answer is that Cornyn is correct. And the backstory is interesting."

#43 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-07-12 08:43 AM | Reply

"John Cornyn says 51 percent of American households pay no income tax."

The two main reasons--the EITC and the increase of the child tax credit--were both Republican ideas.

Leave it to The Party of Responsibility to (once again) refuse to take responsibility. They're like the kid who killed his parents, and now wants sympathy because he's an orphan.

#44 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-12 09:08 AM | Reply

"paid no income tax in 2009."

Ahhh, the year after the meltdown. Cherry-picking at its finest.

In addition, no mention of the primary tax paid by the vast majority of workers: payroll taxes.

#45 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-12 09:12 AM | Reply

Not a cherry pick, it's the same as of 2014 per bi-partisan reporting. The majority don't pay federal income taxes. State income taxes are a different matter, in Texas there isn't one, in Florida it's 6%. Payroll taxes are paid partly by the employer.

#46 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-07-12 09:41 AM | Reply

#43

Somebody always seems to feel the need to deflect from the real issue that progressive taxation is necessary by vilifying the people who usually have to spend their entire income to live.

#47 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2017-07-12 11:52 AM | Reply

"Not a cherry pick, it's the same as of 2014 per bi-partisan reporting. "

Link?

"The majority don't pay federal income taxes. "

That's NOT the wording. Wording is very important. And the claim is NOT "the majority don't pay federal income taxes".

"State income taxes are a different matter, in Texas there isn't one, in Florida it's 6%."

No, it's not. Florida has no state income tax.

"Payroll taxes are paid partly by the employer."

Incorrect. They're remitted by the employer on behalf of the employee. My proof? If your employer didn't make those payments, YOU, the employee, are legally responsible.

#48 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-12 11:57 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

2014 macroeconomic analysis by the JCT. The number is supposed to fall to 33% by .. I can't remember 2024 or 2040.

Yeah FL was a bad example, they're one of something like 7 states with no income tax and use sales tax instead. I prefer that system. The rest have state income taxes of various structures.

I am the employer. I'm liable for the 941 and taxes on what I pay myself. Want me to circulate money? Tax breaks for small business.

I haven't been in the tax software industry in over a decade, it sucks and I'm never going back. I wouldn't wish that ---- on anybody.

#49 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-07-12 02:01 PM | Reply

by vilifying

#47 | POSTED BY WHATSLEFT AT 2017-07-12 11:52 AM | FLAG:

Missed the point. Nobody was vilified by me.

#50 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-07-12 02:06 PM | Reply

"2014 macroeconomic analysis by the JCT. "

Again, their barometer is "households", meaning if one member gets more in EITC than another pays in income taxes, that's a zero household. That tax-paying taxpayer gets counted with the less-than-zero payer. And they're only counting income taxes, and not payroll taxes, which are the primary taxes paid by a vast majority--2/3rds--of workers.

"I am the employer. I'm liable for the 941 and taxes on what I pay myself. "

And if they can't get it from you, the employee is liable. Can you name any other taxes like that?

#51 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-12 03:47 PM | Reply

payroll taxes, which are the primary taxes paid by a vast majority--2/3rds--of workers.

Can you name any other taxes like that?

#51 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2017-07-12 03:47 PM | FLAG:

The barometer will always be "households". The only way to fix that to make everybody file individually. That's not going to happen so we can move on. Can you name a politician talking about that as a part of reform? I can't.

Employers are still liable to pay half of the FICA taxes. They withhold .. what is it, 6.2% for the employee? and also pay 6.2% for social security. I can't remember medicaire off the top of my head but I know it's under 2% (for each side). I haven't seen my own paycheck stub in a very long time tbh. In 2014 the amount when that ends was $117k, and the employee is liable for the full amount. In either income case you're right, if they don't pay then the employee is liable, and no I can't think of any other like that off the top of my head.

but is payroll tax reform realistic? I'm skeptical on that. They're deeply entwined with entitlements.

#52 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-07-12 04:21 PM | Reply

"The barometer will always be "households". "

Nonsense. Mitt was talking 47% individuals.

"Employers are still liable to pay half of the FICA taxes. "

ON THE WORKERS' BEHALF. Again, if the employer doesn't, THE EMPLOYEE IS LIABLE. In addition, any time someone is contracted, he/she is responsible for BOTH SIDES of the payroll taxes. No one ever claims "the employer" pays half in those cases.

"is payroll tax reform realistic? I'm skeptical on that. They're deeply entwined with entitlements."

Pffft. A federal tax is a federal tax is a federal tax. My proof? Dubya pointed to the SS overcollections as a reason to cut income taxes.

#53 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-12 05:03 PM | Reply

ON THE WORKERS' BEHALF.

#53 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2017-07-12 05:03 PM | FLAG:

No. The employer pays half, the employee has half withheld on their behalf, unless they're over the $117k threshold in which case the employee is liable for the full amount.

#54 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-07-12 05:33 PM | Reply

Pffft. A federal tax is a federal tax is a federal tax. My proof? Dubya pointed to the SS overcollections as a reason to cut income taxes.

#53 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2017-07-12 05:03 PM | FLAG:

Disagree that's valid proof. If a tax was a tax it would be a singular amount without different rules for different types, and Dubya was a moron.

#55 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-07-12 05:35 PM | Reply

Nonsense. Mitt was talking 47% individuals.

#53 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2017-07-12 05:03 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Mitt wasn't on the 2014 JTC. You can file single, married, or HOH. 2/3 of the barometer is "household" and filing single is no different than a single person household with no dependents. So yeah, "household" is a reasonable barometer.

#56 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-07-12 05:38 PM | Reply

would like to continue cant backs out maybe tomorrow
sitz down :(

#57 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-07-12 06:10 PM | Reply

"You can file single, married, or HOH."

Married includes MFS and MFJ, and there is also Qualified Widow(er).

But if you file single, and your sister with a baby gets EITC, your HOUSEHOLD pays no income taxes...even if YOU DO.

"So yeah, "household" is a reasonable barometer."

But it's not the same as individuals. In my example, 50% of filers pay income taxes. In your example, 0% of that household pays income taxes.

It makes a difference: I know, I was lumped into "households that get government assistance" when my MIL was living with us and getting Social Security.

#58 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-12 06:27 PM | Reply

Note:
"sister with a baby" in #58 lives under your roof.

#59 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-12 06:28 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort