Dems Celebrate 'Republican' Budget !

[DarkFury]

Again....what's this what is the meaning of this....can somebody explain this to me why did Trump do this?

"Democrats think they have set the stage to block President Trump’s legislative priorities for years to come by winning major concessions in a spending bill to keep the government open."



Democrats confident they can block Trump’s agenda after spending-bill win

try again, its not the Dems doing the blocking. Trump doesnt have the votes from the conservatives.


same with the new Obamacare proposal...

Shit stain care is dying. You had a chance to modify and save it and like the utter fuckin fools you are you passed. Entire States can now opt out. How is what is now only a coastal party going to pay it as others drop out? They can't and it becomes only a state by state funded program like calical which is already going broke?

horseshit ...

the reason he wont get the votes is pre existing conditions are being left up to states ...

that aint dead, bozo.

You no longer have federal funding for it fuck face! The subsidies have been cut. 40 percent on the program don't even pay. Whose paying that shit now fuck face?

 

[Siete]

Again....what's this what is the meaning of this....can somebody explain this to me why did Trump do this?

"Democrats think they have set the stage to block President Trump’s legislative priorities for years to come by winning major concessions in a spending bill to keep the government open."



Democrats confident they can block Trump’s agenda after spending-bill win

try again, its not the Dems doing the blocking. Trump doesnt have the votes from the conservatives.


same with the new Obamacare proposal...

Shit stain care is dying. You had a chance to modify and save it and like the utter fuckin fools you are you passed. Entire States can now opt out. How is what is now only a coastal party going to pay it as others drop out? They can't and it becomes only a state by state funded program like calical which is already going broke?

horseshit ...

the reason he wont get the votes is pre existing conditions are being left up to states ...

that aint dead, bozo.

You no longer have federal funding for it fuck face! The subsidies have been cut. 40 percent on the program don't even pay. Whose paying that shit now fuck face?

bla bla bla ... defund it another 60 times dumbass. The only people stupid enough to take health insurance away from 20 million people are stupid fucks like you.

Obamacare is the LAW of the land.

repeat after me ...

TRUMP IS FUCKED AT EVERY TURN.

 

[DarkFury]

Again....what's this what is the meaning of this....can somebody explain this to me why did Trump do this?

"Democrats think they have set the stage to block President Trump’s legislative priorities for years to come by winning major concessions in a spending bill to keep the government open."



Democrats confident they can block Trump’s agenda after spending-bill win

try again, its not the Dems doing the blocking. Trump doesnt have the votes from the conservatives.


same with the new Obamacare proposal...

Shit stain care is dying. You had a chance to modify and save it and like the utter fuckin fools you are you passed. Entire States can now opt out. How is what is now only a coastal party going to pay it as others drop out? They can't and it becomes only a state by state funded program like calical which is already going broke?

horseshit ...

the reason he wont get the votes is pre existing conditions are being left up to states ...

that aint dead, bozo.

You no longer have federal funding for it fuck face! The subsidies have been cut. 40 percent on the program don't even pay. Whose paying that shit now fuck face?

bla bla bla ... defund it another 60 times dumbass. The only people stupid enough to take health insurance away from 20 million people are stupid fucks like you.

Obamacare is the LAW of the land.

repeat after me ...

TRUMP IS FUCKED AT EVERY TURN.

Oh fuck face you do recall how many executive orders shit stain had to write to save it right fuck face?
You know what happens to executive orders fuck face? They get over written because they are not law but executive directions!

You must be cum drunk this evening. Normally not even you are this stupid. Close but not quite.

 

[Siete]

try again, its not the Dems doing the blocking. Trump doesnt have the votes from the conservatives.


same with the new Obamacare proposal...

Shit stain care is dying. You had a chance to modify and save it and like the utter fuckin fools you are you passed. Entire States can now opt out. How is what is now only a coastal party going to pay it as others drop out? They can't and it becomes only a state by state funded program like calical which is already going broke?

horseshit ...

the reason he wont get the votes is pre existing conditions are being left up to states ...

that aint dead, bozo.

You no longer have federal funding for it fuck face! The subsidies have been cut. 40 percent on the program don't even pay. Whose paying that shit now fuck face?

bla bla bla ... defund it another 60 times dumbass. The only people stupid enough to take health insurance away from 20 million people are stupid fucks like you.

Obamacare is the LAW of the land.

repeat after me ...

TRUMP IS FUCKED AT EVERY TURN.

Oh fuck face you do recall how many executive orders shit stain had to write to save it right fuck face?
You know what happens to executive orders fuck face? They get over written because they are not law but executive directions!

You must be cum drunk this evening. Normally not even you are this stupid. Close but not quite.

Trump is fucked, his drones are fucked, his promises are nothing but smoke up your ass.

and you cant do a damn thing about it.

 

[DarkFury]

Shit stain care is dying. You had a chance to modify and save it and like the utter fuckin fools you are you passed. Entire States can now opt out. How is what is now only a coastal party going to pay it as others drop out? They can't and it becomes only a state by state funded program like calical which is already going broke?

horseshit ...

the reason he wont get the votes is pre existing conditions are being left up to states ...

that aint dead, bozo.

You no longer have federal funding for it fuck face! The subsidies have been cut. 40 percent on the program don't even pay. Whose paying that shit now fuck face?

bla bla bla ... defund it another 60 times dumbass. The only people stupid enough to take health insurance away from 20 million people are stupid fucks like you.

Obamacare is the LAW of the land.

repeat after me ...

TRUMP IS FUCKED AT EVERY TURN.

Oh fuck face you do recall how many executive orders shit stain had to write to save it right fuck face?
You know what happens to executive orders fuck face? They get over written because they are not law but executive directions!

You must be cum drunk this evening. Normally not even you are this stupid. Close but not quite.

Trump is fucked, his drones are fucked, his promises are nothing but smoke up your ass.

and you cant do a damn thing about it.

Oh fuck face you mean like the Obama Clinton gun restrictions that were executive orders and now rest in the trash? Moron.

 

[hadit]

Demrats should be crying not celebrating

what's going on here.

Democrats never act like they lost. No matter what, they always think they're in charge and should be taken seriously.

 

[francoHFW]

But just watch state and local taxes (which kill the nonrich) go up to more than make up for the small cuts, AGAIN.

let's assume you are correct

how does this help socialists pick up congressional seats in 2018???

Some dupes will figure it out....indies can be dupes too...

 

[francoHFW]

horseshit ...

the reason he wont get the votes is pre existing conditions are being left up to states ...

that aint dead, bozo.

You no longer have federal funding for it fuck face! The subsidies have been cut. 40 percent on the program don't even pay. Whose paying that shit now fuck face?

bla bla bla ... defund it another 60 times dumbass. The only people stupid enough to take health insurance away from 20 million people are stupid fucks like you.

Obamacare is the LAW of the land.

repeat after me ...

TRUMP IS FUCKED AT EVERY TURN.

Oh fuck face you do recall how many executive orders shit stain had to write to save it right fuck face?
You know what happens to executive orders fuck face? They get over written because they are not law but executive directions!

You must be cum drunk this evening. Normally not even you are this stupid. Close but not quite.

Trump is fucked, his drones are fucked, his promises are nothing but smoke up your ass.

and you cant do a damn thing about it.

Oh fuck face you mean like the Obama Clinton gun restrictions that were executive orders and now rest in the trash? Moron.

Such as? Trivia I submit. The NRA money won.

 

[francoHFW]

Demrats should be crying not celebrating

what's going on here.

Democrats never act like they lost. No matter what, they always think they're in charge and should be taken seriously.

They finally figured out they should never have a honeymoon, as the GOP never has. Unfortunately, Reaganism rolls on, slowly ruining the nonrich and the country...

 

[francoHFW]

If we buy an auto from a dealer we pay 9.8 sales tax. If we buy from a private party there is no tax.
Tags for my 96 explorer are 30 for two years!
Driving permit is 14 dollars and it's good for ten years!

SC? Sounds like you're cheating on private sale sales tax. NYS is cheap on those 2 too.

 

[dcbl]

But just watch state and local taxes (which kill the nonrich) go up to more than make up for the small cuts, AGAIN.

let's assume you are correct

how does this help socialists pick up congressional seats in 2018???

Some dupes will figure it out....indies can be dupes too...

so you don't know?


the correct answer is that local tax policy rarely, if ever, has an impact on federal elections

but seriously baw, it's cool if you just wanna admit that you don't know...

 

[francoHFW]

For the rich and giant corps, you bet.

Oh but you Democrats plan on blocking middle income tax breaks? You even try that crap and 2018 will look like slaughter with the middle income as the Indians and Democrats looking like Custer!

Dems WANT those duh. But just watch state and local taxes (which kill the nonrich) go up to more than make up for the small cuts, AGAIN.

I don't have a state tax. Most states with state taxes were made that way by Democrats years ago.

You have property and sales tax etc and fees. Income tax is NOT all there is, dupe.

No I don't have property tax. Rules allow us Mobile folks to not pay any!

Rent the land?

 

[francoHFW]

Again....what's this what is the meaning of this....can somebody explain this to me why did Trump do this?

"Democrats think they have set the stage to block President Trump’s legislative priorities for years to come by winning major concessions in a spending bill to keep the government open."



Democrats confident they can block Trump’s agenda after spending-bill win

try again, its not the Dems doing the blocking. Trump doesnt have the votes from the conservatives.


same with the new Obamacare proposal...

Shit stain care is dying. You had a chance to modify and save it and like the utter fuckin fools you are you passed. Entire States can now opt out. How is what is now only a coastal party going to pay it as others drop out? They can't and it becomes only a state by state funded program like calical which is already going broke?

horseshit ...

the reason he wont get the votes is pre existing conditions are being left up to states ...

that aint dead, bozo.

You no longer have federal funding for it fuck face! The subsidies have been cut. 40 percent on the program don't even pay. Whose paying that shit now fuck face?

They haven't passed a gd thing, dupe.

 

[Siete]

Again....what's this what is the meaning of this....can somebody explain this to me why did Trump do this?

"Democrats think they have set the stage to block President Trump’s legislative priorities for years to come by winning major concessions in a spending bill to keep the government open."



Democrats confident they can block Trump’s agenda after spending-bill win

try again, its not the Dems doing the blocking. Trump doesnt have the votes from the conservatives.


same with the new Obamacare proposal...

Shit stain care is dying. You had a chance to modify and save it and like the utter fuckin fools you are you passed. Entire States can now opt out. How is what is now only a coastal party going to pay it as others drop out? They can't and it becomes only a state by state funded program like calical which is already going broke?

horseshit ...

the reason he wont get the votes is pre existing conditions are being left up to states ...

that aint dead, bozo.

You no longer have federal funding for it fuck face! The subsidies have been cut. 40 percent on the program don't even pay. Whose paying that shit now fuck face?

WHAT'S TRUE


The United States Senate voted 51-48 to approve a budget that would allow the repeal of the Affordable Care Act.



WHAT'S FALSE


The senate did not vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act on 12 January 2017.



ORIGIN
On 12 January 2017, the United States Senate voted 51 to 48 to approve a budget resolution for the upcoming year. At the time of its passage, many news outlets reported that the Senate was “one step closer” to repealing the Affordable Care Act:


next contestant.

 

[francoHFW]

But just watch state and local taxes (which kill the nonrich) go up to more than make up for the small cuts, AGAIN.

let's assume you are correct

how does this help socialists pick up congressional seats in 2018???

Some dupes will figure it out....indies can be dupes too...

so you don't know?


the correct answer is that local tax policy rarely, if ever, has an impact on federal elections

but seriously baw, it's cool if you just wanna admit that you don't know...

And there's the Reaganist/GOP scam, dupe. You people only think about Fed income tax.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjii-K279HTAhUHwVQKHRt9AIwQFgg2MAU&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/19/heres-why-the-47-percent-argument-is-an-abuse-of-tax-data/&usg=AFQjCNE_8LZl_VB-o4FAbNsJrxLxLCPy8g&sig2=ed-V0CCi1Wmkgm0G7XFGYw

By Ezra Klein September 19, 2012
At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.

This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from "how much in taxes do you pay" to "how much in federal income taxes do you pay?" This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It's bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.

There's a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we've done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.

But most people don't know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, they're outraged -- even if they're among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they're paying taxes, and there's no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren't classified as "federal income taxes."

Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.

Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he's not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.

That's the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it's a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.

But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He's paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who's not getting a fair shake?

Which is why, if you want to understand who's paying what in taxes, you don't want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes -- you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:

As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.

 

[dcbl]

But just watch state and local taxes (which kill the nonrich) go up to more than make up for the small cuts, AGAIN.

let's assume you are correct

how does this help socialists pick up congressional seats in 2018???

Some dupes will figure it out....indies can be dupes too...

so you don't know?


the correct answer is that local tax policy rarely, if ever, has an impact on federal elections

but seriously baw, it's cool if you just wanna admit that you don't know...

And there's the Reaganist/GOP scam, dupe. You people only think about Fed income tax.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjii-K279HTAhUHwVQKHRt9AIwQFgg2MAU&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/19/heres-why-the-47-percent-argument-is-an-abuse-of-tax-data/&usg=AFQjCNE_8LZl_VB-o4FAbNsJrxLxLCPy8g&sig2=ed-V0CCi1Wmkgm0G7XFGYw

By Ezra Klein September 19, 2012
At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.

This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from "how much in taxes do you pay" to "how much in federal income taxes do you pay?" This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It's bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.

There's a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we've done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.

But most people don't know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, they're outraged -- even if they're among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they're paying taxes, and there's no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren't classified as "federal income taxes."

Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.

Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he's not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.

That's the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it's a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.

But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He's paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who's not getting a fair shake?

Which is why, if you want to understand who's paying what in taxes, you don't want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes -- you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:

As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.

TL/DR

seriously baw, you are trying too hard

ITT we are discussing the pathetic budget working its way through the republican controlled congress

you should be fapping, not arguing

I may well be willing to discuss local tax policy at some time, but local and state tax policy have zero to do with federal elections, UNLESS one of the candidates running has a a bad record on that subject & then it could play a part

 

[francoHFW]

But just watch state and local taxes (which kill the nonrich) go up to more than make up for the small cuts, AGAIN.

let's assume you are correct

how does this help socialists pick up congressional seats in 2018???

Some dupes will figure it out....indies can be dupes too...

so you don't know?


the correct answer is that local tax policy rarely, if ever, has an impact on federal elections

but seriously baw, it's cool if you just wanna admit that you don't know...

And there's the Reaganist/GOP scam, dupe. You people only think about Fed income tax.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjii-K279HTAhUHwVQKHRt9AIwQFgg2MAU&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/19/heres-why-the-47-percent-argument-is-an-abuse-of-tax-data/&usg=AFQjCNE_8LZl_VB-o4FAbNsJrxLxLCPy8g&sig2=ed-V0CCi1Wmkgm0G7XFGYw

By Ezra Klein September 19, 2012
At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.

This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from "how much in taxes do you pay" to "how much in federal income taxes do you pay?" This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It's bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.

There's a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we've done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.

But most people don't know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, they're outraged -- even if they're among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they're paying taxes, and there's no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren't classified as "federal income taxes."

Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.

Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he's not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.

That's the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it's a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.

But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He's paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who's not getting a fair shake?

Which is why, if you want to understand who's paying what in taxes, you don't want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes -- you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:

As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.

TL/DR

seriously baw, you are trying too hard

ITT we are discussing the pathetic budget working its way through the republican controlled congress

you should be fapping, not arguing

I may well be willing to discuss local tax policy at some time, but local and state tax policy have zero to do with federal elections, UNLESS one of the candidates running has a a bad record on that subject & then it could play a part

That's why you're an ignorant dupe. That may be the most important domestic fact, certainly the most unknown with our crap media...

 

[dcbl]

let's assume you are correct

how does this help socialists pick up congressional seats in 2018???

Some dupes will figure it out....indies can be dupes too...

so you don't know?


the correct answer is that local tax policy rarely, if ever, has an impact on federal elections

but seriously baw, it's cool if you just wanna admit that you don't know...

And there's the Reaganist/GOP scam, dupe. You people only think about Fed income tax.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjii-K279HTAhUHwVQKHRt9AIwQFgg2MAU&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/19/heres-why-the-47-percent-argument-is-an-abuse-of-tax-data/&usg=AFQjCNE_8LZl_VB-o4FAbNsJrxLxLCPy8g&sig2=ed-V0CCi1Wmkgm0G7XFGYw

By Ezra Klein September 19, 2012
At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.

This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from "how much in taxes do you pay" to "how much in federal income taxes do you pay?" This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It's bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.

There's a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we've done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.

But most people don't know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, they're outraged -- even if they're among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they're paying taxes, and there's no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren't classified as "federal income taxes."

Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.

Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he's not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.

That's the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it's a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.

But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He's paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who's not getting a fair shake?

Which is why, if you want to understand who's paying what in taxes, you don't want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes -- you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:

As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.

TL/DR

seriously baw, you are trying too hard

ITT we are discussing the pathetic budget working its way through the republican controlled congress

you should be fapping, not arguing

I may well be willing to discuss local tax policy at some time, but local and state tax policy have zero to do with federal elections, UNLESS one of the candidates running has a a bad record on that subject & then it could play a part

That's why you're an ignorant dupe. That may be the most important domestic fact, certainly the most unknown with our crap media...

So, you trying to tell me that what a local city council does has a major impact on how many votes a Congressional candidate receives?

And calling me an "ignorant dupe" in the same breath?

Got it

 

[Tom Horn]

What is going on here??

Let not your heart be troubled.....the fat is about to hit the skillet....Trump will win, Trump always wins.

 

[francoHFW]

Some dupes will figure it out....indies can be dupes too...

so you don't know?


the correct answer is that local tax policy rarely, if ever, has an impact on federal elections

but seriously baw, it's cool if you just wanna admit that you don't know...

And there's the Reaganist/GOP scam, dupe. You people only think about Fed income tax.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjii-K279HTAhUHwVQKHRt9AIwQFgg2MAU&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/19/heres-why-the-47-percent-argument-is-an-abuse-of-tax-data/&usg=AFQjCNE_8LZl_VB-o4FAbNsJrxLxLCPy8g&sig2=ed-V0CCi1Wmkgm0G7XFGYw

By Ezra Klein September 19, 2012
At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.

This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from "how much in taxes do you pay" to "how much in federal income taxes do you pay?" This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It's bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.

There's a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we've done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.

But most people don't know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, they're outraged -- even if they're among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they're paying taxes, and there's no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren't classified as "federal income taxes."

Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.

Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he's not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.

That's the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it's a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.

But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He's paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who's not getting a fair shake?

Which is why, if you want to understand who's paying what in taxes, you don't want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes -- you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:

As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.

TL/DR

seriously baw, you are trying too hard

ITT we are discussing the pathetic budget working its way through the republican controlled congress

you should be fapping, not arguing

I may well be willing to discuss local tax policy at some time, but local and state tax policy have zero to do with federal elections, UNLESS one of the candidates running has a a bad record on that subject & then it could play a part

That's why you're an ignorant dupe. That may be the most important domestic fact, certainly the most unknown with our crap media...

So, you trying to tell me that what a local city council does has a major impact on how many votes a Congressional candidate receives?

And calling me an "ignorant dupe" in the same breath?

Got it

No, that average state and local taxes and fees continue to go up to make up for lost federal aid due to voodoo tax rates, and they kill the nonrich. And you're duped along with ALL GOPers:
By Ezra Klein September 19, 2012
At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.

This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from "how much in taxes do you pay" to "how much in federal income taxes do you pay?" This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It's bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.

There's a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we've done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.

But most people don't know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, they're outraged -- even if they're among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they're paying taxes, and there's no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren't classified as "federal income taxes."

Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.

Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he's not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.

That's the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it's a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.

But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He's paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who's not getting a fair shake?

Which is why, if you want to understand who's paying what in taxes, you don't want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes -- you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:

As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.