Studies confirm: Trump voters were motivated by racial prejudice — not ‘economic anxiety’

[Correll]

It became conventional wisdom during the presidential campaign that Donald Trump supporters were motivated by bigotry, until the Republican candidate won and it became politically incorrect for Democrats to say that.

But the problem with that forgiving logic is, it’s just not really true, reported The Intercept.

“Whether it’s good politics to say so or not, the evidence from the 2016 election is very clear that attitudes about blacks, immigrants, and Muslims were a key component of Trump’s appeal,” Philip Klinkner, a political scientist at Hamilton College, told the website.

An entire genre of newspaper reports has profiled Trump supporters who regret their votes, now that programs they use are on the chopping block, or still back the president — but a common theme is their disdain for “illegal” immigrants and changing U.S. demographics.

What a brilliant and fresh idea. Call your enemies racist. That is an excellent way to get them to support you.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/---- You mean Trump voters hate White People and that's why they didn't vote for Hildabeast? WOWZA
View attachment 120617

I don't know what our liberal friends could be thinking.

I don't see how the Dawg's Defeat could be attributed to "racism" at all. President Trump won Trumbull County by 6 points, Obama took the county by 23. How is it racism to vote for black guy by landslide proportions?

Trump lost Mahoning by 3, Obama won it 4 years previously by 28. Another 25 point swing in favor of the black guy.

The argument that Trump won because of "racism" is pretty specious, and probably made by someone who never heard of Trumbull County or Mahoning, or any of the other small to medium sized cities throughout the heartland. The "analyst" in question probably knows no one who owns an F150. But Trump's secret to victory was that the F150 is the best selling vehicle in North America. The smaller burgs added up for the Trumpster.

Snowflakes know their accusations of racism are bullshit. They've known it for 50 years.

/---- But racism against whom? Obozo won twice with the help of many of the Trump voters. I know playing the race card is second nature to Libtards but usually there is a Black guy involved somewhere.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Sure that's it........Trump supporters are racist. How original.

Caught me entirely by surprise.

I thought he was going to post photos of Trump pushing for abortion mills in nonwhite neighborhoods, racially dividing America and reacting to every law for order in our society or improvement of our welfare system with the presumption that blacksa re too lazy or stupid to take care of themselves.

Then I realized that, no, that would be the Democrats.

 

[koshergrl]

The OP, bumblebutt, seems a bit perturbed...

hysterical.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Sure that's it........Trump supporters are racist. How original.

Caught me entirely by surprise.

I thought he was going to post photos of Trump pushing for abortion mills in nonwhite neighborhoods, racially dividing America and reacting to every law for order in our society or improvement of our welfare system with the presumption that blacksa re too lazy or stupid to take care of themselves.

Then I realized that, no, that would be the Democrats.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

But

Until there is a study about how racist Democrats and Hillary supporters are, you can take this and all the other "studies" of this nature and shove it back up your ass.

We are all racist to some extent or another and there was a time when Dems were the racist party. That has changed. Repubs are now the party of the kkkd, white supremacists, alt-right, trailer trash garbage.

Fact is, its the RWNJs who openly blame people of color for their own failures.

Read this board and you can see that's true.

This country is less than 70% white and dropping.

That means that the racists in this country are at least 30% non-white and growing.

Which party defends non-white racists?

Only whites believe other races are inferior and are in a position to discriminate against them- the definition of racist. Just hating white racists doesn't make one a racist, hater dupe.

Now that's a crock of crapola.....have you ever been around 'minorities' in the REAL world? They too have that attitude toward other races. Pick one, any one and they think anyone else is dirt.

Problem is? Within every race, there are racists and there are those who aren't. Haters are everywhere, in all walks of life.

They don't have the power like whites do to discriminate and they hardly feel whites are less intelligent or are lazy etc...THAT is the definition. - not just hate them.

Wrong......they do have the power within themselves to take personal responsibility for their own actions, thoughts and beliefs, how far they go in life, where & who they go with. Nobody is stopping them, but themselves. They choose to blame whites for their own failures just because at one time or another in history whites have had all the power.

Whites & Asians have problems, they do something about it

Hispanics have problems, they join a gang

Blacks have problems, they blame everyone else and riot, loot and vandalize.

 

[sartre play]

Mix of every thing, just mad as hell, knee jerk reaction. only time will tell. need to stop beating on each other and start demanding they all work for us. as they use to say in the old hippy days" power to the people."

 

[danielpalos]

It became conventional wisdom during the presidential campaign that Donald Trump supporters were motivated by bigotry, until the Republican candidate won and it became politically incorrect for Democrats to say that.

But the problem with that forgiving logic is, it’s just not really true, reported The Intercept.

“Whether it’s good politics to say so or not, the evidence from the 2016 election is very clear that attitudes about blacks, immigrants, and Muslims were a key component of Trump’s appeal,” Philip Klinkner, a political scientist at Hamilton College, told the website.

An entire genre of newspaper reports has profiled Trump supporters who regret their votes, now that programs they use are on the chopping block, or still back the president — but a common theme is their disdain for “illegal” immigrants and changing U.S. demographics.

The right wing has no capital plans, only social plans on a national or international basis.

 

[francoHFW]

And bigotry against the poor too. The dupes believe it's their fault they're poor, despite 50 years of the GOP party of the rich pandering to the rich and wrecking opportunity (expensive public u's even and college loans, cutting training programs etc etc...) and don't KNOW the rich aren't paying their fair share and are laughing all the way to the bank.

Define fair share.

Quite a bit higher than now (about 29% in ALL TAXES- same as the middle class), and enough so infrastructure and the nonrich can be invested in so we stop becoming a Reaganist banana republic.

We already pay far more than that, dumbass.

The OP, bumblebutt, seems a bit perturbed...

He is young and it's easy to get into his head.

What with living in his head and all, do you pay rent?

Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

The rich don't.

They sure as hell do, moron.

Duped^

 

[francoHFW]

And bigotry against the poor too. The dupes believe it's their fault they're poor, despite 50 years of the GOP party of the rich pandering to the rich and wrecking opportunity (expensive public u's even and college loans, cutting training programs etc etc...) and don't KNOW the rich aren't paying their fair share and are laughing all the way to the bank.

Define fair share.

Quite a bit higher than now (about 29% in ALL TAXES- same as the middle class), and enough so infrastructure and the nonrich can be invested in so we stop becoming a Reaganist banana republic.

We already pay far more than that, dumbass.

The OP, bumblebutt, seems a bit perturbed...

He is young and it's easy to get into his head.

What with living in his head and all, do you pay rent?

Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

There's no source for your chart, moron. That makes it worthless.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiUkrre-pLTAhWs5oMKHfUgBhgQFgg6MAc&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

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.

 

[francoHFW]

But

We are all racist to some extent or another and there was a time when Dems were the racist party. That has changed. Repubs are now the party of the kkkd, white supremacists, alt-right, trailer trash garbage.

Fact is, its the RWNJs who openly blame people of color for their own failures.

Read this board and you can see that's true.

This country is less than 70% white and dropping.

That means that the racists in this country are at least 30% non-white and growing.

Which party defends non-white racists?

Only whites believe other races are inferior and are in a position to discriminate against them- the definition of racist. Just hating white racists doesn't make one a racist, hater dupe.

Now that's a crock of crapola.....have you ever been around 'minorities' in the REAL world? They too have that attitude toward other races. Pick one, any one and they think anyone else is dirt.

Problem is? Within every race, there are racists and there are those who aren't. Haters are everywhere, in all walks of life.

They don't have the power like whites do to discriminate and they hardly feel whites are less intelligent or are lazy etc...THAT is the definition. - not just hate them.

Wrong......they do have the power within themselves to take personal responsibility for their own actions, thoughts and beliefs, how far they go in life, where & who they go with. Nobody is stopping them, but themselves. They choose to blame whites for their own failures just because at one time or another in history whites have had all the power.

Whites & Asians have problems, they do something about it

Hispanics have problems, they join a gang

Blacks have problems, they blame everyone else and riot, loot and vandalize.

That's racist. Like everyone else but MORE SO of course, 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

 

[bripat9643]

Define fair share.

Quite a bit higher than now (about 29% in ALL TAXES- same as the middle class), and enough so infrastructure and the nonrich can be invested in so we stop becoming a Reaganist banana republic.

We already pay far more than that, dumbass.

He is young and it's easy to get into his head.

What with living in his head and all, do you pay rent?

Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

There's no source for your chart, moron. That makes it worthless.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiUkrre-pLTAhWs5oMKHfUgBhgQFgg6MAc&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

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.

"Citizens for Tax Justice" is a hardcore leftwing propaganda organ. Nothing they publish can be believed.

 

[francoHFW]

Quite a bit higher than now (about 29% in ALL TAXES- same as the middle class), and enough so infrastructure and the nonrich can be invested in so we stop becoming a Reaganist banana republic.

We already pay far more than that, dumbass.

What with living in his head and all, do you pay rent?

Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

There's no source for your chart, moron. That makes it worthless.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiUkrre-pLTAhWs5oMKHfUgBhgQFgg6MAc&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

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.

"Citizens for Tax Justice" is a hardcore leftwing propaganda organ. Nothing they publish can be believed.

Sure. lol. That's the WAPO and US gov't stats, fake news jockey/dupe.

 

[bripat9643]

We already pay far more than that, dumbass.
Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

There's no source for your chart, moron. That makes it worthless.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiUkrre-pLTAhWs5oMKHfUgBhgQFgg6MAc&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

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.

"Citizens for Tax Justice" is a hardcore leftwing propaganda organ. Nothing they publish can be believed.

Sure. lol. That's the WAPO and US gov't stats, fake news jockey/dupe.

You can't read, can you dumbass.

"And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers"​

 

[JustAnotherNut]

But

This country is less than 70% white and dropping.

That means that the racists in this country are at least 30% non-white and growing.

Which party defends non-white racists?

Only whites believe other races are inferior and are in a position to discriminate against them- the definition of racist. Just hating white racists doesn't make one a racist, hater dupe.

Now that's a crock of crapola.....have you ever been around 'minorities' in the REAL world? They too have that attitude toward other races. Pick one, any one and they think anyone else is dirt.

Problem is? Within every race, there are racists and there are those who aren't. Haters are everywhere, in all walks of life.

They don't have the power like whites do to discriminate and they hardly feel whites are less intelligent or are lazy etc...THAT is the definition. - not just hate them.

Wrong......they do have the power within themselves to take personal responsibility for their own actions, thoughts and beliefs, how far they go in life, where & who they go with. Nobody is stopping them, but themselves. They choose to blame whites for their own failures just because at one time or another in history whites have had all the power.

Whites & Asians have problems, they do something about it

Hispanics have problems, they join a gang

Blacks have problems, they blame everyone else and riot, loot and vandalize.

That's racist. Like everyone else but MORE SO of course, 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=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiUkrre-pLTAhWs5oMKHfUgBhgQFgg6MAc&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

No, it's not racist....but it is stereotyping to make a point. Specific groups handle their problems differently. There are plenty of poor of all races, as well as middle class and even upper middle class. The numbers do get squeezed the farther up the financial ladder but I'm pretty sure there are a few minorities in the top as well.

What opportunities do whites have that other races do not? There is a whole bunch of high school graduates coming up in the next few months. Do not the Black, Hispanic, Native American, Asian, even Muslim and white kids as well have the exact same opportunity to get a job, or go on to college if they choose? Can you honestly tell me that one group over another can't do those things.....just because of their Heritage??? No, it has more to do with lack of motivation than anyone slamming the door in their face because of ethnicity

 

[francoHFW]

But

Only whites believe other races are inferior and are in a position to discriminate against them- the definition of racist. Just hating white racists doesn't make one a racist, hater dupe.

Now that's a crock of crapola.....have you ever been around 'minorities' in the REAL world? They too have that attitude toward other races. Pick one, any one and they think anyone else is dirt.

Problem is? Within every race, there are racists and there are those who aren't. Haters are everywhere, in all walks of life.

They don't have the power like whites do to discriminate and they hardly feel whites are less intelligent or are lazy etc...THAT is the definition. - not just hate them.

Wrong......they do have the power within themselves to take personal responsibility for their own actions, thoughts and beliefs, how far they go in life, where & who they go with. Nobody is stopping them, but themselves. They choose to blame whites for their own failures just because at one time or another in history whites have had all the power.

Whites & Asians have problems, they do something about it

Hispanics have problems, they join a gang

Blacks have problems, they blame everyone else and riot, loot and vandalize.

That's racist. Like everyone else but MORE SO of course, 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=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiUkrre-pLTAhWs5oMKHfUgBhgQFgg6MAc&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

No, it's not racist....but it is stereotyping to make a point. Specific groups handle their problems differently. There are plenty of poor of all races, as well as middle class and even upper middle class. The numbers do get squeezed the farther up the financial ladder but I'm pretty sure there are a few minorities in the top as well.

What opportunities do whites have that other races do not? There is a whole bunch of high school graduates coming up in the next few months. Do not the Black, Hispanic, Native American, Asian, even Muslim and white kids as well have the exact same opportunity to get a job, or go on to college if they choose? Can you honestly tell me that one group over another can't do those things.....just because of their Heritage??? No, it has more to do with lack of motivation than anyone slamming the door in their face because of ethnicity

No, it has to do with mainly GOP racism and discrimination against blacks especially and the nonrich in general, especially the last 35 years. Pander to the rich policy (more expensive public university, cuts in training programs, more expensive college loans, less investment in infrastructure, fewer incentives for manufacturing to stay here, etc etc- all to save the now bloated rich - the especially greedy idiot ones now run the GOP and brainwash the dupes like you...Poor America. see sig.

After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!! And you complain about the victims? Are you an idiot or an A-hole?

 

[JustAnotherNut]

But

Now that's a crock of crapola.....have you ever been around 'minorities' in the REAL world? They too have that attitude toward other races. Pick one, any one and they think anyone else is dirt.

Problem is? Within every race, there are racists and there are those who aren't. Haters are everywhere, in all walks of life.

They don't have the power like whites do to discriminate and they hardly feel whites are less intelligent or are lazy etc...THAT is the definition. - not just hate them.

Wrong......they do have the power within themselves to take personal responsibility for their own actions, thoughts and beliefs, how far they go in life, where & who they go with. Nobody is stopping them, but themselves. They choose to blame whites for their own failures just because at one time or another in history whites have had all the power.

Whites & Asians have problems, they do something about it

Hispanics have problems, they join a gang

Blacks have problems, they blame everyone else and riot, loot and vandalize.

That's racist. Like everyone else but MORE SO of course, 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=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiUkrre-pLTAhWs5oMKHfUgBhgQFgg6MAc&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

No, it's not racist....but it is stereotyping to make a point. Specific groups handle their problems differently. There are plenty of poor of all races, as well as middle class and even upper middle class. The numbers do get squeezed the farther up the financial ladder but I'm pretty sure there are a few minorities in the top as well.

What opportunities do whites have that other races do not? There is a whole bunch of high school graduates coming up in the next few months. Do not the Black, Hispanic, Native American, Asian, even Muslim and white kids as well have the exact same opportunity to get a job, or go on to college if they choose? Can you honestly tell me that one group over another can't do those things.....just because of their Heritage??? No, it has more to do with lack of motivation than anyone slamming the door in their face because of ethnicity

No, it has to do with mainly GOP racism and discrimination against blacks especially and the nonrich in general, especially the last 35 years. Pander to the rich policy (more expensive public university, cuts in training programs, more expensive college loans, less investment in infrastructure, fewer incentives for manufacturing to stay here, etc etc- all to save the now bloated rich - the especially greedy idiot ones now run the GOP and brainwash the dupes like you...Poor America. see sig.

After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!! And you complain about the victims? Are you an idiot or an A-hole?

Yet all those you've just listed aren't targeting the blacks....those things effect EVERYONE.....dipstick

 

[francoHFW]

But
They don't have the power like whites do to discriminate and they hardly feel whites are less intelligent or are lazy etc...THAT is the definition. - not just hate them.

Wrong......they do have the power within themselves to take personal responsibility for their own actions, thoughts and beliefs, how far they go in life, where & who they go with. Nobody is stopping them, but themselves. They choose to blame whites for their own failures just because at one time or another in history whites have had all the power.

Whites & Asians have problems, they do something about it

Hispanics have problems, they join a gang

Blacks have problems, they blame everyone else and riot, loot and vandalize.

That's racist. Like everyone else but MORE SO of course, 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=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiUkrre-pLTAhWs5oMKHfUgBhgQFgg6MAc&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

No, it's not racist....but it is stereotyping to make a point. Specific groups handle their problems differently. There are plenty of poor of all races, as well as middle class and even upper middle class. The numbers do get squeezed the farther up the financial ladder but I'm pretty sure there are a few minorities in the top as well.

What opportunities do whites have that other races do not? There is a whole bunch of high school graduates coming up in the next few months. Do not the Black, Hispanic, Native American, Asian, even Muslim and white kids as well have the exact same opportunity to get a job, or go on to college if they choose? Can you honestly tell me that one group over another can't do those things.....just because of their Heritage??? No, it has more to do with lack of motivation than anyone slamming the door in their face because of ethnicity

No, it has to do with mainly GOP racism and discrimination against blacks especially and the nonrich in general, especially the last 35 years. Pander to the rich policy (more expensive public university, cuts in training programs, more expensive college loans, less investment in infrastructure, fewer incentives for manufacturing to stay here, etc etc- all to save the now bloated rich - the especially greedy idiot ones now run the GOP and brainwash the dupes like you...Poor America. see sig.

After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!! And you complain about the victims? Are you an idiot or an A-hole?

Yet all those you've just listed aren't targeting the blacks....those things effect EVERYONE.....dipstick

Like I said, they hurt the nonrich in general and the blacks especially, hater dupe. Great job. Now, which races are least motivated?

 

[danielpalos]

Quite a bit higher than now (about 29% in ALL TAXES- same as the middle class), and enough so infrastructure and the nonrich can be invested in so we stop becoming a Reaganist banana republic.

We already pay far more than that, dumbass.

What with living in his head and all, do you pay rent?

Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

There's no source for your chart, moron. That makes it worthless.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiUkrre-pLTAhWs5oMKHfUgBhgQFgg6MAc&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

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.

"Citizens for Tax Justice" is a hardcore leftwing propaganda organ. Nothing they publish can be believed.

it is more believable than your alleged, right wing think tanks.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

Wrong......they do have the power within themselves to take personal responsibility for their own actions, thoughts and beliefs, how far they go in life, where & who they go with. Nobody is stopping them, but themselves. They choose to blame whites for their own failures just because at one time or another in history whites have had all the power.

Whites & Asians have problems, they do something about it

Hispanics have problems, they join a gang

Blacks have problems, they blame everyone else and riot, loot and vandalize.

That's racist. Like everyone else but MORE SO of course, 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=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiUkrre-pLTAhWs5oMKHfUgBhgQFgg6MAc&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

No, it's not racist....but it is stereotyping to make a point. Specific groups handle their problems differently. There are plenty of poor of all races, as well as middle class and even upper middle class. The numbers do get squeezed the farther up the financial ladder but I'm pretty sure there are a few minorities in the top as well.

What opportunities do whites have that other races do not? There is a whole bunch of high school graduates coming up in the next few months. Do not the Black, Hispanic, Native American, Asian, even Muslim and white kids as well have the exact same opportunity to get a job, or go on to college if they choose? Can you honestly tell me that one group over another can't do those things.....just because of their Heritage??? No, it has more to do with lack of motivation than anyone slamming the door in their face because of ethnicity

No, it has to do with mainly GOP racism and discrimination against blacks especially and the nonrich in general, especially the last 35 years. Pander to the rich policy (more expensive public university, cuts in training programs, more expensive college loans, less investment in infrastructure, fewer incentives for manufacturing to stay here, etc etc- all to save the now bloated rich - the especially greedy idiot ones now run the GOP and brainwash the dupes like you...Poor America. see sig.

After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!! And you complain about the victims? Are you an idiot or an A-hole?

Yet all those you've just listed aren't targeting the blacks....those things effect EVERYONE.....dipstick

Like I said, they hurt the nonrich in general and the blacks especially, hater dupe. Great job. Now, which races are least motivated?

Don't be calling me the hater. You know nothing about me. I see that all people in this country are subject to the same conditions, for better or worse. Everyone does have the same opportunity to better themselves, everyone does have to pay taxes, and everyone is subject to the same laws.

You on the other hand keep trying to say only Blacks have it so bad because of some political party has it out for them. Guess what? The rich have always downtrodden the non-rich.....since the beginning of time...long before political parties were established, long before this country was even discovered. Is it fair??? no....Is it race specific? no.....can anyone do anything about it??? no. That is the way and always has been and always will be. The rich get richer and the poor get the shaft. All races are sucked into that vacuum. You keep trying to separate everyone into a neat little pile based on whatever ideology.


worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility,

more expensive public university, cuts in training programs, more expensive college loans, less investment in infrastructure, fewer incentives for manufacturing to stay here, etc etc

All these things are issues EVERYONE faces. Not just blacks. I don't know about the homeless numbers, but the panhandlers I see everyday are 98% white. About the only thing are the numbers for prison. Yes there are more Blacks behind bars. You should maybe ask WHY. Is it just because they're black? NO. It's because they've committed some crime.