Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wait just a fucking minute rabbit. I thought you all claimed that poor people paid no taxes.
WTF are you saying now? That they do pay income taxes? Well duh stupid rabbit.
Then I like the part about the EIC. Who gave the poor that write off? Was it the "poor person" lobbyist?
Or did the Dems extract it (the EIC) as a payback for the Rethugs giving more tax breaks to the ultra wealthy?
Go ahead rabbit, give it your best deflection. Or non sense bull shit. Which ever comes first to your pea brain.
rabbit, what is "stump broke?"
Oh look, it's Zeke, toothless stumpbroke of USMB demonstrating his reading skills again.
Hey, Zeke, when you pay money in and get more back than you paid you really haven't paid taxes, have you? Of course since you've never filed a 1040 in your life you wouldn't know about it.
Silly fucking rabbit. If a low wage earner has Federal Income taxes with held from their paycheck, they are paying taxes. Each and every pay period.
If at the time they are required to file their income tax form and they get a refund, they still paid taxes, they just got them back at tax filing time.
Don't you ever file a tax return? Are you so fucking stupid that IF you file a return, that you don't take advantage of the write offs and deductions?
No rabbit, I got a feeling that your income is so little that you take the standard deduction and hope for a refund. You might even qualify for the EIC.
That about sum it up rabbit?
What is stump broke? You keep saying it but don't seem able to define what it is.
Typical of a rabbit.
Wait just a fucking minute rabbit. I thought you all claimed that poor people paid no taxes.
WTF are you saying now? That they do pay income taxes? Well duh stupid rabbit.
Then I like the part about the EIC. Who gave the poor that write off? Was it the "poor person" lobbyist?
Or did the Dems extract it (the EIC) as a payback for the Rethugs giving more tax breaks to the ultra wealthy?
Go ahead rabbit, give it your best deflection. Or non sense bull shit. Which ever comes first to your pea brain.
rabbit, what is "stump broke?"
Oh look, it's Zeke, toothless stumpbroke of USMB demonstrating his reading skills again.
Hey, Zeke, when you pay money in and get more back than you paid you really haven't paid taxes, have you? Of course since you've never filed a 1040 in your life you wouldn't know about it.
Silly fucking rabbit. If a low wage earner has Federal Income taxes with held from their paycheck, they are paying taxes. Each and every pay period.
If at the time they are required to file their income tax form and they get a refund, they still paid taxes, they just got them back at tax filing time.
Don't you ever file a tax return? Are you so fucking stupid that IF you file a return, that you don't take advantage of the write offs and deductions?
No rabbit, I got a feeling that your income is so little that you take the standard deduction and hope for a refund. You might even qualify for the EIC.
That about sum it up rabbit?
What is stump broke? You keep saying it but don't seem able to define what it is.
Typical of a rabbit.
The Washington Post published an editorial this weekend attacking liberals for using a Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) paper to justify that enough has already been done to reduce US debt.
CBPP is a liberal think tank based in Washington, DC.Mr. [Martin] Wolf [of the Financial Times] and others cite a Jan. 9 paper by the left-leaning Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) that notes that Congress has enacted spending cuts and tax increases worth $2.3 trillion over 10 years since the end of 2010 when the Simpson-Bowles commissions ill-fated 10-year, $5.5 trillion plan came out. Also, the problem shrank: The Congressional Budget Office has revised its 10-year deficit forecasts down by $1.5 trillion since Simpson-Bowles.
Ergo, just $1.4 trillion more in savings would bring 10-year debt-reduction to $3.7 trillion and stabilize public debt at 73 percent of gross domestic product from 2018 through 2022. And were about to get most or all of that additional saving in the coming weeks from the scheduled sequester of defense and discretionary programs or, preferably, equivalent alternative policies. Problem solved!
If only. A debt-to-GDP ratio stabilized at 73 percent would be a paltry achievement a level of indebtedness 32 percentage points larger than the post-1950 average. A five-year plateau at that ratio would depart markedly from historical patterns, according to which U.S. debt surges during wars and/or recessions, then recedes in equal or near-equal measure amid renewed growth and fiscal consolidation.
The CBPP analysis assumes steady economic growth and no war. If thats even slightly off, debt-to-GDP could keep rising and stick dangerously near the 90 percent mark that economists regard as a threat to sustainable economic growth. Those who argue against a further focus on prospective deficits based on rosy scenarios counsel irresponsibly, President Obamas former Treasury secretary, Lawrence H. Summers, wrote in The Post on Inauguration Day and we agree.
Anyway, its not like Congress and the White House are close to agreeing on an alternative to the sequester. Many deficit doves would also decry the sequesters cuts to domestic programs; few, however, have said exactly what tax hikes and spending cuts they would prefer. A memo circulated by the Senate Budget Committees Democratic majority alludes to closing tax loopholes but specifies nothing bigger or politically riskier than breaks for corporate jets and oil companies.
The big money is in entitlements, the source of our structural debt problem, which Democrats seem increasingly to treat as untouchable. The CBPP paper concedes that stabilizing debt at 73 percent of GDP by 2018 would not be enough to address the longer-term budget problem. Never mind, deficit doves coo, the problem is health spending generally not a sustainable redesign of Medicare and Medicaid. And health spending is already easing, albeit for unknown reasons.
Given the economys fragility, we should not slam on the fiscal brakes, but even the short-term goal should be a downward trajectory for debt-to-GDP not a high plateau. Regarding structural debt, our leaders can hardly be accused of rushing into things. They should be more ambitious, not less. The longer they wait, the more painful the process will be.
Wait just a fucking minute rabbit. I thought you all claimed that poor people paid no taxes.
WTF are you saying now? That they do pay income taxes? Well duh stupid rabbit.
Then I like the part about the EIC. Who gave the poor that write off? Was it the "poor person" lobbyist?
Or did the Dems extract it (the EIC) as a payback for the Rethugs giving more tax breaks to the ultra wealthy?
Go ahead rabbit, give it your best deflection. Or non sense bull shit. Which ever comes first to your pea brain.
rabbit, what is "stump broke?"
Oh look, it's Zeke, toothless stumpbroke of USMB demonstrating his reading skills again.
Hey, Zeke, when you pay money in and get more back than you paid you really haven't paid taxes, have you? Of course since you've never filed a 1040 in your life you wouldn't know about it.
Silly fucking rabbit. If a low wage earner has Federal Income taxes with held from their paycheck, they are paying taxes. Each and every pay period.
If at the time they are required to file their income tax form and they get a refund, they still paid taxes, they just got them back at tax filing time.
Don't you ever file a tax return? Are you so fucking stupid that IF you file a return, that you don't take advantage of the write offs and deductions?
No rabbit, I got a feeling that your income is so little that you take the standard deduction and hope for a refund. You might even qualify for the EIC.
That about sum it up rabbit?
What is stump broke? You keep saying it but don't seem able to define what it is.
Typical of a rabbit.
Congressional Budget Office data show that the poorest fifth of households paid an average of 4.0 percent of their incomes in federal taxes in 2007, the latest year for which these data are available not an insignificant amount given how modest these households incomes are; the poorest fifth of households had average income of $18,400 in 2007.[6]
The next-to-the bottom fifth those with incomes between $20,500 and $34,300 in 2007 paid an average of 10.6 percent of their incomes in federal taxes.
Masters in History, fluent in 3 languages, 145 IQ, 1440 sats, hater dupe. What about your party's ridiculous propaganda...you know, the POINT...
Masters in History, fluent in 3 languages, 145 IQ, 1440 sats, hater dupe. What about your party's ridiculous propaganda...you know, the POINT...
Bwhaaahahahah
Hey edgey, Kiss my mother fucking ass. OK?
Don't you EVER write anything worth reading? You and the rabbit are the two most stupid fucking posters on the board. All fucking bull shit all the fucking time.
Hey rabbit, if I paid you 10 dollars for 10 months then robbed you for a hundred dollars on the 11th month, did I pay you ten dollars for 10 months or not? Are you smart enough to even answer?
I know edgy is not. Stupid fuck that he is.
So a couple who make 20k per year pay $3200 in taxes.......to whom????
No one. Once their deductions kick in they pay almost nothing. The ACA fines take care of the rest.
Pay nothing? No, they get money back from tax credits. Lower income earners get back more in income tax refunds than they pay in.
Yes, there and everywhere.It is very often that the educrats turn out in greatly higher numbers in those local off-year elections.I live in a state that is run by Republicans, for the most part, and my local community is very conservative. Despite being quite conservative, only one school levy has failed here, and it only lost by a very small margin as voters didn't turn out in big numbers. When they put it on the ballot again come the following election, it passed easily. So in this case it's Republicans and Conservatives raising taxes. Reminds me a of Reagan.
It's now to the point that they are trying to give themselves paid days off from teaching class on voting days.
But you already knew that, didn't you?
Not here. Sorry, you lose again.
Masters in History, fluent in 3 languages, 145 IQ, 1440 sats, hater dupe. What about your party's ridiculous propaganda...you know, the POINT...
Bwhaaahahahah
It's possible. However, very unlikely.
In High School and College, we all knew the kid who was book smart, got good grades and was the teacher's Pet. Held up as the standard, praised, coddled, told how smart and how wonderful he/she/it was....
Always ready with his/her assignment, always willing to help the Teacher, always getting good grades, excelling in school.....
And then there were the guys that had to work at it.... Like me, and maybe you.
Here's what happens to FAR too many of those guys... When they get out of school, they can't face the real world. Nobody cares about how 'smart' you are (they're really not, just good at comformative learning) -- But that's all they know how to do.... All they know how to do is to learn about what others have discovered... Not how to apply it, just how to learn it.
So the best they can do is get a job in Middle Management (if that) somewhere and watch as the world passes them by.
Or they get into Teaching. Which requires absolutely zero original thought or ingenuity.
Meanwhile, they're watching the guys they knew in High School and/or College succeed beyond their wildest dreams.
We all know the guy that was mediocre, at best, in School but started a business, got stinking rich, lives on the Beach and drives a Bentley..... And is married to the prettiest girl in School.
And we all know the guy who got Straight A's in School who can't get a job worth a shit, gave up and turned to drugs or alcohol.
Or...... He's working for me or the other guy that struggled to get B's College.
They resent that. That's a big part of the dimocrap scum movement.
They would like to see a society where they're more respected. Afterall, they got better grades, have higher IQ's (like I said, not really) and should have better jobs and better looking wives instead of the fat cows they have now that berate them every night for being perennial losers and treat sex like it's a reward for being a good boy.
That's the life most of them live. Under Achievers. Because all they know is what somebody else told them. Incapable of thinking for themselves, lacking original thought, devoid of inventiveness, completely missing the boat on innovative thinking.
What they would like is for our society to reward them. They feel left out. They want a society where they're in charge instead of that dummy (me or you) that is now.
Afterall, we're not as smart, right? They got straight A's through school and we struggled for B's.
They want to be the Nomenklatura of this Country. They believe that they should be telling US what to do and not vice-versa.
Not gonna happen. Because most them really are stupid. Just like frankie-goes-to-hollywood
Try talking about the OP and cut the bs, Pub dupe. lol. Too bad your fantasy greedy idiot heroes become racist Pubs/dupes and go to hell lol. Upward mobility has never been worse than under Reaganomics, btw. We're been turning into a banana republic. Till now...
There is no arguing with the stats in the OP- If you count ALL fed, state, and local taxes, the lowest fifth pay 16 per cent, everyone else 21 per cent...so the richest AT LEAST triple their wealth under Reaganist voodoo tax rates, while the rest and the country have been slowly ruined 1981-2008, and then QUICKLY ruined by the corruption and cronyism Pub meltdown. AND everything the hater dupes know about taxation is Pubcrappe- they're voting for the greedy idiot rich, and against themselves...
Voodoo wrecked and IS WRECKING the nonrich to the point where demand for products and services has dried up, along with their savings...before the corruption and cronyism housing and credit meltdown of 2008- while the rich have quadrupled their wealth...Memorize the facts, hater dupes:
1. WORKERS past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labors share of income (1992 = 100%):1950 = 101%1960 = 105%1970 = 105%1980 = 105% Reagan1990 = 100%2000 = 96%2007 = 92%A 13% drop since 1980A 13% drop since 1980
2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.Share of National Income going to Top 10%:1950 = 35%1960 = 34%1970 = 34%1980 = 34% Reagan1990 = 40%2000 = 47%2007 = 50% TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.Household Debt as percentage of GDP:1965 = 46%1970 = 45%1980 = 50% Reagan1990 = 61%2000 = 69%2007 = 95% An increase of 16% since Reagan.
3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.1950 = 6.0%1960 = 7.0%1970 = 8.5%1980 = 10.0% Reagan1982 = 11.2% Peak1990 = 7.0%2000 = 2.0%2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)
4. Household Debt as percentage of GDP:1965 = 46%1970 = 45%1980 = 50% Reagan1990 = 61%2000 = 69%2007 = 95%A 45% increase after 1980.
5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%and the bottom 80%:1980 = 10%2003 = 56%A 5.6 times increase.
6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.The Probabilityy of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:1945 = 12%1958 = 6%1990 = 3%2000 = 2%A 10% Decrease.Links:1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Researc...s/No7Nov04.pdf1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)2 Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez | The White House3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/imag...ving_thumb.gif3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/...&LastYear=20104 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php...or-debt-of-gdp4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--June 6, 20135/6 =
Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insiderhttp://factleft.com/2011/03/28/the-demise-of-the-american-middle-class-in-numbers/
French and history. Sorry about my secretarial skills. Try a little harder, Pub dupe lol. Way to miss the point every time, chump lol...
