Do liberals want a parasite tax? It would seem consistent:

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Communist countries felt every able bodied person should be out working hard to build the communist paradise or to at least contribute to society. To discourage parasites they often had a so called "parasite tax". If someone got a job in a certain time frame the tax would often be refunded as an incentive.
In our society the top 1% for example pay 44% of all income tax and often supply millions of jobs and great innovative products while the bottom 1% pay no taxes and create no jobs or products. It seems that liberals might want a parasite tax on these people to encourage them to pay their fair share??

 

[Timmy]

Communist countries felt every able bodied person should be out working hard to build the communist paradise or to at least contribute to society. To discourage parasites they often had a so called "parasite tax". If someone got a job in a certain time frame the tax would often be refunded as an incentive.
In our society the top 1% for example pay 44% of all income tax and often supply millions of jobs and great innovative products while the bottom 1% pay no taxes and create no jobs or products. It seems that liberals might want a parasite tax on these people to encourage them to pay their fair share??

Top 1% earn 90% of the income . Shouldn't they pay 90% of income tax? They are getting away with measly 44%! Thieves !

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Top 1% earn 90% of the income . Shouldn't they pay 90% of income tax? They are getting away with measly 44%! Thieves !

they don't pay more in a supermarket so why should they pay more for govt????

top1% earn 20% of income not 90%. Feel stupid and liberal???

 

[francoHFW]

Communist countries felt every able bodied person should be out working hard to build the communist paradise or to at least contribute to society. To discourage parasites they often had a so called "parasite tax". If someone got a job in a certain time frame the tax would often be refunded as an incentive.
In our society the top 1% for example pay 44% of all income tax and often supply millions of jobs and great innovative products while the bottom 1% pay no taxes and create no jobs or products. It seems that liberals mthey've been hurt by GOP pander to the rich for 35 years. Opportunities have been slashed to cut taxes on the rich, dupe.

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.

But here is really the only tax graph you need: It's total tax burden by income group. And as you'll see, every income group is paying something, and the rich aren't paying much more, as a percentage of their incomes, then the middle class.https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...-data/&usg=AFQjCNE_8LZl_VB-o4FAbNsJrxLxLCPy8gight want a parasite tax on these people to encourage them to pay their fair share??

Total BS, dupe.
they've been hurt by GOP pander to the rich for 35 years. Opportunities have been slashed to cut taxes on the rich, dupe.

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.

But here is really the only tax graph you need: It's total tax burden by income group. And as you'll see, every income group is paying something, and the rich aren't paying much more, as a percentage of their incomes, then the middle class.https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...-data/&usg=AFQjCNE_8LZl_VB-o4FAbNsJrxLxLCPy8g

 

[Timmy]

Top 1% earn 90% of the income . Shouldn't they pay 90% of income tax? They are getting away with measly 44%! Thieves !

they don't pay more in a supermarket so why should they pay more for govt????

top1% earn 20% of income not 90%. Feel stupid and liberal???

Top 10% earn like 1/2 the income .

And fed income taxes aren't the only taxes people pay .

 

[Wyatt earp]

Communist countries felt every able bodied person should be out working hard to build the communist paradise or to at least contribute to society. To discourage parasites they often had a so called "parasite tax". If someone got a job in a certain time frame the tax would often be refunded as an incentive.
In our society the top 1% for example pay 44% of all income tax and often supply millions of jobs and great innovative products while the bottom 1% pay no taxes and create no jobs or products. It seems that liberals mthey've been hurt by GOP pander to the rich for 35 years. Opportunities have been slashed to cut taxes on the rich, dupe.

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.

But here is really the only tax graph you need: It's total tax burden by income group. And as you'll see, every income group is paying something, and the rich aren't paying much more, as a percentage of their incomes, then the middle class.https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...-data/&usg=AFQjCNE_8LZl_VB-o4FAbNsJrxLxLCPy8gight want a parasite tax on these people to encourage them to pay their fair share??

Total BS, dupe.
they've been hurt by GOP pander to the rich for 35 years. Opportunities have been slashed to cut taxes on the rich, dupe.

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.

But here is really the only tax graph you need: It's total tax burden by income group. And as you'll see, every income group is paying something, and the rich aren't paying much more, as a percentage of their incomes, then the middle class.https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...-data/&usg=AFQjCNE_8LZl_VB-o4FAbNsJrxLxLCPy8g

working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.



Refresh our memory why people in blue states and cities pay a higher taxes in state and local?


Uhm could it be, just possibly they vote against their wallets by voting democrat dupe?


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Top 1% earn 90% of the income . Shouldn't they pay 90% of income tax? They are getting away with measly 44%! Thieves !

they don't pay more in a supermarket so why should they pay more for govt????

top1% earn 20% of income not 90%. Feel stupid and liberal???

Top 10% earn like 1/2 the income .

And fed income taxes aren't the only taxes people pay .

They know how to vote don't they?


.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Top 1% earn 90% of the income . Shouldn't they pay 90% of income tax? They are getting away with measly 44%! Thieves !

they don't pay more in a supermarket so why should they pay more for govt????

top1% earn 20% of income not 90%. Feel stupid and liberal???

Top 10% earn like 1/2 the income .

And fed income taxes aren't the only taxes people pay .

so you want the parasite tax???

 

[Timmy]

Communist countries felt every able bodied person should be out working hard to build the communist paradise or to at least contribute to society. To discourage parasites they often had a so called "parasite tax". If someone got a job in a certain time frame the tax would often be refunded as an incentive.
In our society the top 1% for example pay 44% of all income tax and often supply millions of jobs and great innovative products while the bottom 1% pay no taxes and create no jobs or products. It seems that liberals mthey've been hurt by GOP pander to the rich for 35 years. Opportunities have been slashed to cut taxes on the rich, dupe.

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.

But here is really the only tax graph you need: It's total tax burden by income group. And as you'll see, every income group is paying something, and the rich aren't paying much more, as a percentage of their incomes, then the middle class.https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...-data/&usg=AFQjCNE_8LZl_VB-o4FAbNsJrxLxLCPy8gight want a parasite tax on these people to encourage them to pay their fair share??

Total BS, dupe.
they've been hurt by GOP pander to the rich for 35 years. Opportunities have been slashed to cut taxes on the rich, dupe.

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.

But here is really the only tax graph you need: It's total tax burden by income group. And as you'll see, every income group is paying something, and the rich aren't paying much more, as a percentage of their incomes, then the middle class.https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...-data/&usg=AFQjCNE_8LZl_VB-o4FAbNsJrxLxLCPy8g

working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.



Refresh our memory why people in blue states and cities pay a higher taxes in state and local?


Uhm could it be, just possibly they vote against their wallets by voting democrat dupe?


.

Cause they live in winner states with higher wages and quality of life ?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

, every income group is paying something, and the rich aren't paying much more, as a percentage of their incomes,

who cares about the %. If you are top % you pay 40% of what govt spends not 1%!!! Do you want rich to pay more in supermarket too so we can have yet another form of crippling welfare????

 

[Timmy]

Top 1% earn 90% of the income . Shouldn't they pay 90% of income tax? They are getting away with measly 44%! Thieves !

they don't pay more in a supermarket so why should they pay more for govt????

top1% earn 20% of income not 90%. Feel stupid and liberal???

Top 10% earn like 1/2 the income .

And fed income taxes aren't the only taxes people pay .

so you want the parasite tax???

Oh brother . Whenever righties come up with tax ideas it's just a shell game to fuck over the poor and working class .

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Oh brother . Whenever righties come up with tax ideas it's just a shell game to fuck over the poor and working class .

hey, the parasite tax was used all the time by liberal communist countries to provide an incentive to work and contribute. What do you propose or is stealing from the rich at gunpoint to create an ever growing parasite class your only answer??

 

[Timmy]

, every income group is paying something, and the rich aren't paying much more, as a percentage of their incomes,

who cares about the %. If you are top % you pay 40% of what govt spends not 1%!!! Do you want rich to pay more in supermarket too so we can have yet another form of crippling welfare????

who says they are getting equal government? The top 1% get far more gov protection/services.

Suddenly you are a commie now?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

who says they are getting equal government? The top 1% get far more gov protection/services.

really, the top 1% depend on food clothing housing education health care to survive daily as do the poor????????????? See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance??

 

[LeftofLeft]

Communist countries felt every able bodied person should be out working hard to build the communist paradise or to at least contribute to society. To discourage parasites they often had a so called "parasite tax". If someone got a job in a certain time frame the tax would often be refunded as an incentive.
In our society the top 1% for example pay 44% of all income tax and often supply millions of jobs and great innovative products while the bottom 1% pay no taxes and create no jobs or products. It seems that liberals might want a parasite tax on these people to encourage them to pay their fair share??

Top 1% earn 90% of the income . Shouldn't they pay 90% of income tax? They are getting away with measly 44%! Thieves !

This is the reason Liberalism fails in a decidedly Capitalist Economy. Timmy, where is the incentive?

 

[LeftofLeft]

Communist countries felt every able bodied person should be out working hard to build the communist paradise or to at least contribute to society. To discourage parasites they often had a so called "parasite tax". If someone got a job in a certain time frame the tax would often be refunded as an incentive.
In our society the top 1% for example pay 44% of all income tax and often supply millions of jobs and great innovative products while the bottom 1% pay no taxes and create no jobs or products. It seems that liberals might want a parasite tax on these people to encourage them to pay their fair share??

Liberals want any tax they can get. In Maryland, at one time, a failed LIberal Governor tried to tax the rain.

 

[Timmy]

who says they are getting equal government? The top 1% get far more gov protection/services.

really, the top 1% depend on food clothing housing education health care to survive daily as do the poor????????????? See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance??

Then why live here if its so bad? Top 1% can go anywhere they want .

I tire of this bullshit righty mantra that the super wealthy have it so bad .

They have all the power to influence our pols . And change our laws . And they do .

Show me a real life example of some rich dude getting hosed on taxes. The system is made for them!

 

[BluesLegend]

Top 1% earn 90% of the income . Shouldn't they pay 90% of income tax? They are getting away with measly 44%! Thieves !

they don't pay more in a supermarket so why should they pay more for govt????

top1% earn 20% of income not 90%. Feel stupid and liberal???

Top 10% earn like 1/2 the income .

And fed income taxes aren't the only taxes people pay .

And the top 10% pay 60% of the fucking taxes you dimwit. Get a job loser stop mooching off me.

 

[Timmy]

Communist countries felt every able bodied person should be out working hard to build the communist paradise or to at least contribute to society. To discourage parasites they often had a so called "parasite tax". If someone got a job in a certain time frame the tax would often be refunded as an incentive.
In our society the top 1% for example pay 44% of all income tax and often supply millions of jobs and great innovative products while the bottom 1% pay no taxes and create no jobs or products. It seems that liberals might want a parasite tax on these people to encourage them to pay their fair share??

Top 1% earn 90% of the income . Shouldn't they pay 90% of income tax? They are getting away with measly 44%! Thieves !

This is the reason Liberalism fails in a decidedly Capitalist Economy. Timmy, where is the incentive?

Everyone has incentive to do better .

 

[EvilCat Breath]

California has fucking over the poor down to a science.

"The state is going to stick it to the rich. Raise the sales tax."

"Yeah. Get the rich. Get 'em. Raise those taxes. Sales taxes. Yeah get the rich."