Old Mother Hubbard (Democrates)-- Went to the cupboard (U.S. Taxpayer)
To get her poor dog a bone,
(Benefits available for hand-out to control the population)
Hand-up not a Hand-out is needed)
When she got there, The cupboard was bare (The United States is bankrupt)
So the poor dog had none (Social Security and Medicare is gone)
(Democrates are close to killing the Golden Goose. When this happens, no one will be able to get anything again!
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States. (Not for all the Free Stuff now being handed out)
1.Cut - Substantial cuts in spending that will reduce the deficit next year and thereafter.
2.Cap - Enforceable spending caps that will put federal spending on a path to a balanced budget.
3.Balance - Congressional passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- but only if it includes both a spending limitation and a super-majority for raising taxes, in addition to balancing revenues and expenses.
Congress's past failure to produce balanced budgets is a major cause of today's fiscal crisis. It is time that Congress accepts a limit on its runaway spending, and joins the 49 states which govern with a balanced budget requirement. A balanced budget amendment that fundamentally reforms the way Washington budgets and spends must include protections against federal tax increases and a cap on federal spending to GDP.
The consequence of turning the tax code into a tool for social policy is that we now have a record 52 million filers off the income tax rolls. This means 36 percent of all so-called taxpayers actually pay zero in income taxes after taking their credits and deductions. But these figures don't include some 15 million people who work but don't earn enough to file a tax return. When these people are added to the non-payers, estimates the Tax Policy Center, the percentage of households who don't pay income taxes rises to 47 percent.
WASHINGTON — Tax Day is a dreaded deadline for millions, but for nearly half of U.S. households it's simply somebody else's problem.
About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization.
Most people still are required to file returns by the April 15 deadline. The penalty for skipping it is limited to the amount of taxes owed, but it's still almost always better to file: That's the only way to get a refund of all the income taxes withheld by employers.
In recent years, credits for low- and middle-income families have grown so much that a family of four making as much as $50,000 will owe no federal income tax for 2009, as long as there are two children younger than 17, according to a separate analysis by the consulting firm Deloitte Tax.
Tax cuts enacted in the past decade have been generous to wealthy taxpayers, too, making them a target for President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress. Less noticed were tax cuts for low- and middle-income families, which were expanded when Obama signed the massive economic recovery package last year.
The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education. It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners – households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 – paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.
The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment.
"We have 50 percent of people who are getting something for nothing," said Curtis Dubay, senior tax policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.
Moody's cut Greece's credit rating further into junk territory on Monday and said it was almost certain to slap a default tag on its debt as a result of a new EU rescue package.
Gingrich was close on the numbers of Americans receiving SNAP benefits. In addition, the number of beneficiaries is at a record level, and it has risen every month of the Obama presidency. On the other hand, Gingrich oversimplifies when he suggests that Obama should be considered "the most successful food stamp president in American history," because much -- though probably not all -- of the reason for the increase was a combination of the economic problems Obama inherited and a longstanding upward trend from policy changes.
Subsidy -- Subsidizing a good is one way of redistributing income to the poor. It is money that is paid usually by a government to keep the price of a product or service low or to help a business or organization to continue to function. In a budget constraint between ‘all other goods’ and a ‘subsidized good’, the maximum amount of ‘all other goods will remain the same but the budget constraint will shift outward for the ‘subsidized good’ because the cost of the ‘subsidized good’ is reduced for the consumer and so they have the ability to consume more of said good. Some people do not want to use subsidies because they want the poor to consume the subsidized good or service in a specific way or because subsidizing goods (such as health care) can lead to an over consumption of the good.
Voucher - - A voucher is like a subsidy that can only be consumed in a specific way like a school voucher or section 8 housing. For instance, families who receive school vouchers may only use them to send their children to schools to help pay tuition costs. Schools then exchange the voucher for cash. Similarly, in section 8 housing, families with this voucher can only use the voucher to pay a portion of their living costs in specified units or in a private sector. In a budget constraint between ‘all other goods’ and a ‘voucher good’ our budget constraint will shift out parallel to an amount equal to the amount of the voucher but the money we have to spend on ‘all other goods’ remains capped at the same amount we had to spend before the voucher. Voucher programs can make us worse off because of the cap on our ability to spend on ‘all other goods’ our indifference curves could limit us.
Direct Cash This is straight cash with no restrictions on how it can be consumed. Direct cash causes a bigger budget constraint because the can spend that cash subsidy on all ‘other goods’ or on a ‘subsidized good’. Direct cash increases the entire budget constraint and shifts our indifference curves outward allowing us to maximize our utility.
The Census income distribution figures are the foundation of most class-warfare rhetoric. On the surface, these figures show a high level of inequality: The top fifth of households have $14.30 of income for every $1.00 at the bottom.
However, these figures are flawed by the exclusion of taxes and social safety net spending and by the fact that the "fifths" do not contain equal numbers of people. Adjustment for these factors radically alters the picture of income distribution: The top fifth of the population has $4.21 of income for every $1.00 at the bottom.
The remaining inequality in society is heavily influenced by the lack of work at the bottom. If working-age adults in the lower quintiles worked as much as their higher-income counterparts, the income disparity of the top to the bottom quintiles would fall to $2.91 to $1.00.
Still, the top fifth of U.S. households (with incomes above $84,000) remain perennial targets of class-warfare enmity. These families, however, perform a third of all labor in the economy. They contain the best educated and most productive workers, and they provide a disproportionate share of the investment needed to create jobs and spur economic growth. Nearly all are married-couple families, many with two or more earners. Far from shirking the tax burden, these families pay 82.5 percent of total federal income taxes and two-thirds of federal taxes overall. By contrast, the bottom quintile pays 1.1 percent of total federal taxes.12
In one sense, John Edwards is correct: There is one America that works a lot and pays a lot in taxes, and there is another America that works less and pays little. However, the reality is the opposite of what Edwards suggests. It is the higher-income families who work a lot and pay nearly all the taxes. Raising taxes even higher on hard-working families would be unfair and, by reducing future investments, would reduce economic growth, harming all Americans in the long run.