Here's some basic facts the teabaggers don't want you to see

[MajorChode]

The average federal taxation rate for post WWII US is 17.9%.

So what is the current taxation rate?

It's actually less than 17.9%.

So the current taxation rate is actually less than the average for the past 64 years.

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetchartbook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-r1-current-federal-tax-receipts-near.html

[Suich]

1. Sh-h-h-h-h-h!

You're not supposed to tell anybody that!

:hi:

[Cynth The Poet]

2. What They Don't Know...

...won't hurt us. ;)

[Suich]

5. Hey!

Welcome to DU, Cynth The Poet!!!

:party: :bounce: :party: :bounce: :party:

[NoSheep]

3. Yes. We know. A better place to post this would be where the "tea-baggers" can see it.

We get it. They don't. And there was a time on DU when we took a little pride in our grammar...if for no other reason than it is one thing we constantly make fun of here where the Freepers are concerned. They can't read, write or talk and they seem to take some pride in that. We try to set ourselves apart a bit. We don't want the pot calling the kettle black, y'know. For example: "Here ARE" some basic facts...not "here's" (here is). Call me an asshole. No, really, right here in front of "everybody". Go ahead. But when you're alone, could you stop and think for a minute before you preach to the choir here and use bad grammar?

Thanks

[MajorChode]

4. You'd think the teabaggers could check heritage.org out, since it's a wingnut site

Assuming they are functionally literate.

[demwing]

14. The return of the Grammar Nazi

We get it. They don't.

Who are the "we," what do we "get," and who are the "they" that don't?

And there was a time on DU when we took a little pride in our grammar...if for no other reason than it is one thing we constantly make fun of here where the Freepers are concerned.

Your use of the ellipses here is confusing. A comma would have been more appropriate for the short pause required for correct sentence structure.

They can't read, write or talk and they seem to take some pride in that.

Your use of the comma here is erratic. Can some of the Freepers write, but not talk? Are all the Freepers who cannot talk also incapable of writing? A comma would have cleared that up ("They can't read, write, or talk"). Furthermore, you have two independent clauses, joined by a conjunction, which you fail to separate with a comma. If your intent was to leave out the comma for stylistic effect, you may have been better served by dividing the clauses into two separate sentences ("They can't read, write, or talk and they seem to take some pride in that" becomes "They can't read, write, or talk. They seem to take some pride in that").

We try to set ourselves apart a bit. We don't want the pot calling the kettle black, y'know.

Yes, agreed. God forbid we come off like the Freepers, and appear rigid or hyper-critical. Also, thank you for speaking for all of us on DU. I, for one, appreciate your use of the royal "We."

For example: "Here ARE" some basic facts...not "here's" (here is).

It seems to me that this error may, or may not have been grammatical in its origin. The error could have begun as a simple typing or editing mistake. The original sentence may have had a singular subject, and called for a "Here is" rather than a "Here are." A change to the plurality of the subject, without going back to correct the introductory statement, would have created the same error. Since no one but the OP can tell us the answer to that question, the polite path to follow would dictate your asking the OP their intent. Instead, you assumed the OP did not know the difference between dealing with plural and singular subjects, and you chose to chastise. Normally, I would not care, but when someone takes it upon themselves to act as a Grammar Nazi, they really ought to ensure that their own command of the language is impeccable, "y'know" ?

Call me an asshole. No, really, right here in front of "everybody". Go ahead.

There is no more need to call you an asshole than there was for you to public ally call out the OP. And, by the way, your second sentence is a fragment.

But when you're alone, could you stop and think for a minute before you preach to the choir here and use bad grammar?

And I might convey a similar message to you, with a slight variation. When you're alone, would you stop for a moment, and reflect (not could you, as I am sure of your ability to "stop and think for a minute," but would you, because I am unsure only of your willingness to follow my request) before you preach FOR the choir? I mean, really! Who voted you Editor in Chief of Content? As long as the poster follows DU rules, and does not spam the forum with redundancies, I believe we should welcome the opportunity for discussion and reflection. If you already know about a bit of information, skip the thread. Don't require the OP to pre-determine what you may have already learned and what you may have not. Also, don't assume that everyone on this forum has the same base level of knowledge that you posses. DU is a big tent, and welcomes seasoned professionals and newbies alike.

And finally, should you see a poster using bad grammar, could you please consider just leaving them the fuck alone? This is an informal forum, and unless that poster was presumptuous enough to have put on the grammar nazi hat themselves, they haven't actually hurt or offended anyone.

/rant

[NoSheep]

25. Subject/verb agreement is all I think is necessary, really. And as far as preaching to the choir,

it is another pet peeve of mine. From your reply, I can tell you've never been peeved about anything! LOL. But you are absolutely correct in that there are many levels of knowledge here and I should have just skipped the thread. Point well taken.

That said, I guess I feel this place looks more and more like Free Republic every day. I just don't see how DU members can continue to make fun of Freeper signs and Freeper hypocrisy and not have some sense of responsibility toward the site and an awareness that DU represents Democrats, our ideas and those things we value. That does offend me.

I can tell what I wrote upset you a lot more than I was upset at the OP, so for that, I am truly sorry and will take your words to heart.

:)

[Common Sense Party]

6. Quibble: That's talking about tax RECEIPTS, as a % of GDP

Not tax RATES.

[MajorChode]

11. It's the tax rate of the country as a whole, not individual tax rates

[Common Sense Party]

15. Well, sort of. It goes up and down with fluctuations in the GDP.

Individual tax rates change based on changes in personal income, decuctions, exemptions, etc, but not necessarily with economic shifts. The tax receipts change depending on tax rates, productivity, economic swings, etc.

Tax receipts are federal government income.

[MajorChode]

17. The point is, taxation as a whole is not fundamentally different than it has been for decades

If you discount the 1950 aberration of 14.4%, the overall rate hasn't changed much more than 2%.

The thing that HAS changed is where and from whom the government gets those funds. That particular trend has been downward towards the lower economic levels.

[ConsAreLiars]

7. What the liars at Heritage Foundation don't say

is that the share of those percentages paid by corporations has dropped to near zero, thus increasing the amounts and percentage rates of the taxes paid by humans over that same period.

(edit tiny typo)

[Echo In Light]

9. I wish rightist institutions like HF, Brookings, Cato etc weren't strategically relied upon so much

[MajorChode]

13. There's a lot of things that have changed with the tax code

You are correct in that corporate tax receipts are about 1/4th of what they were at the post WWII historic high. However many other changes have taken place as well. The maximum capital gains tax has been as high as 40% and now it's less than half that at 15% (which now includes dividends as well). The top marginal tax rate has been as high as 91% (although few actually paid that much due to very generous deductions which could be claimed) and now it's 35%.

So at no time in post WWII history have the rich paid as little as they do today. If the teabaggers want to get angry about something, they should get angry about that.

[MineralMan]

8. What I say to the morans when they bring up high taxes:

Yeah! Bring back the tax rates from the 50s!

That usually gets a "huzzah" from them. Of course, they have no idea what those tax rates were.

[Catshrink]

10. Is this all federal taxes, including FICA and other payroll taxes?

FICA is 6.2% of gross, no adjustments. Medicare is 1.45% of gross, no adjustments. Total of these two payroll taxes is 7.45%.

Other deductions from my paycheck include state & fed income tax, union dues, state retirement (9.45%), and my medical insurance contribution. The union dues and medical insurance contribution are technically voluntary but, in my mind, necessary.

The mandatory tax deductions from my paycheck -- state & local income taxes, FICA, and medicare taxes make up 16% of my gross pay. My fed tax is about 8.4% of gross -- I think I'm claiming 4 exemptions because of my mortgage interest. The state retirement is also mandatory but technically it isn't a tax so I didn't include it in the 16%.

I just calculated this from my last pay stub. Funny I'd never added it all up before -- not like I have any choice anyway.

So my federal tax rate is really low. As a state employee (teacher), I'm just another librul Democrat living off the government teat.

[MajorChode]

12. Yes

FICA is a tax, and the SS payments are simply an entitlement obligation. So the receipt totals include FICA.

[Puzzler]

16. The standard "teabag" reply...

... is to switch gears, and start ranting about other forms of taxation... notably state taxes. Oddly enough, though their main hate target still seems to be Obama.

(I'm being sarcastic, of course when I'm saying "oddly" enough)

[MajorChode]

18. State taxes are even more highly regressive

[Catshrink]

19. As are user fees

car registration fees/taxes, taxes on utilities, etc. The repukes want lower taxes but they don't think about how we're to pay for services. Of course they don't want to pay for them either. There's a breakdown in their logic that baffles me.

We need gas taxes/car reg. fees etc. to pay for roads. Yeah but they're too high. So you want to drive over pot holes? Uh, no. So you want to make all roads toll roads? No... So WTF do you want? You want good roads but you don't want to pay for them. Who will?

And that's just one example of where their "logic" fails.

[MajorChode]

22. The reality is they have no logic

By far the two biggest budget items are the military and SS. If you ask any one of them if they are willing to give up their SS benefits for the sake of "smaller government" they will tell you no. If you ask any one of them if they are willing to downsize the military for the same reason and they will tell you no. In fact, most want to increase it.

In fact the only ideas they really have for "smaller government" are reducing "welfare" spending (again so long as it doesn't affect them), and earmark elimination. Those are two things which wouldn't even make a drop in the bucket if you eliminated them entirely. I've had these conversations with them. Next they allege there is "massive" government waste, when the reality is government agencies are run far more efficiently than the private sector. Agency heads are pay capped at the congressional level and everyone else makes less. Corruption, although well publicized, is actually far less than the private sector.

So really all they have is the concept of "smaller government" but they don't want to compromise on anything of substance, they don't want to give anything up themselves, and they expect more personally and want to pay less for it. In short, they are completely bankrupt when it comes to any workable solutions. That's why their ideas have always failed when attempted.

[Puzzler]

29. They're either very selfish, woefully ignorant, or a combination of both.

.

[madamesilverspurs]

28. They do keep moving the goal posts

... on the golf course.

[nichomachus]

20. The notion that Americans are overtaxed is one of the big lies of the last 50 years.

[nichomachus]

21. "Teabaggers" and "facts" should never be used in the same sentence

Facts are something the teabaggers know nothing about.

[progressoid]

23. Ha ha ha! And look at this one!!

Government Spending Grew Faster Than Revenues
for Most Administrations
Spending growth typically increases faster than revenue growth, as seen in five of the last eight Administrations.

Change in Average Revenue and Spending, by Administration

[MajorChode]

24. No surprises there

As long as the Repugs want to hold on to their failed supply-side voodoo economics they will continue to drive the country into the ground.

[Sheepshank]

26. interesting chart...source available?

[progressoid]

27. The same conservative website from the OP.

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetchartbook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-C2-Government-Spending-Grew-Faster.html

Funny how the tax and spend liberals end up with a budget surplus and those fiscal conservatives run a budget deficit.

[mnhtnbb]

31. Ooops. I should read all the posts.

[Atman]

30. I don't think it's that they don't WANT you to know...

More likely, these clueless, racist idiots don't even realize it themselves.

.