Why can't Public Assistance increase?

[JoeNormal]

I think it's time for me to quit my job. Move into Sec 8 housing, get me an ebt card, some welfare cash, an obamaphone, and kick back for awhile. This work shit sucks. Time for somebody else to pay my way.

Maybe you should actually get to know someone who can't work. It doesn't look very appealing to me.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Maybe you should actually get to know someone who can't work. It doesn't look very appealing to me.

Outside of their health issues, they don't live too bad of a life. The people I know that don't work have all the amenities that working people do: AC, microwave, stove, cable television, automobile and so on.

They may not live high on the hog or take Vegas vacations every year, but I'm with Smoke a Lib: working sucks.

The house next to me was one time rented to HUD people. Those people would come home 3;00am or so on work nights, radio blaring because they could care less about us working people, get out of the car drunk, high or both, laughing their ass off, and then go inside to continue their party.

In many ways, those people actually live a better life than the working. Not having bills to worry about or how early I have to get up for work in the morning would be a dream come true for me. Those people are living my dream.

 

[francoHFW]

What I got Franco on was that he claimed EVERYONE saying he had a source to prove it. After asking numerous times for him to post it, he did. It took about 2 seconds to find where one group, when the federal and state/local were added together, it was just over 17%. I addressed it and rather than saying he was in error, he said something about fees then said almost to 20 - 30%.

What's funny is that the source he kept saying proved his point is the one that discredited his claim .

Just about anybody can find some whacko site to backup what they say, but that doesn't mean the site is legit.

After people call out Franko for his bogus statistics, he panics and begins to scour the internet to find some site.......any site that may give his false claim credibility.

When he finds one, he doesn't bother reading or trying to figure it out. In desperation, he frantically posts it and hopes nobody else will figure it out for him.

He also forgets that there are people like myself that were around during the Reagan years. Reagan did increase SS, but that's because his calculations revealed the problems we are going to have in the near future with SS, but Reagan did not "double" payroll taxes for every working American. The SS increase was back in 1983.

But no President could ever double payroll taxes for every American and get away with it, and that includes Ronald Reagan. While I may have been just a young working man during the Reagan years and not caring about politics, I think I would have passed out if my payroll taxes doubled and questioned my employer about it.

But perhaps that's the problem. Franko is not some retired school teacher, but a welfare recipient who wasn't old enough to be an adult during the Reagan years.

I'm 65. lol. He also killedthe self employed with new SS regulations. In effect it was a doubling of payroll taxes for the nonrich. Prove me wrong. I'm sick of educating you tiny minded, brainwashed twits.

I don't need to prove you wrong, it's your job to back up your claims, moron! Where the fuck do you think we are, some libtard wet dream? No one has ever doubled payroll taxes... except for, maybe FDR!

Brainwashed? You're the idiot who keeps spewing propaganda you can't back up and challenging people to prove you wrong... you need to go look in the mirror bud!


Sent from my SD4930UR using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Franco made a claim about taxes stating he had a source that proved it. What was funny when it finally did was that his own source disproved his claim. He tried to add in things after that cover for his stupidity to the point of editing a previous post where he claimed he included what he now said was part of it.

Jeebus what a stupid lying a-hole lol...just like your lying, thieving hypocrite GOP heroes.
Dear middle class: Welcome to poverty

 

[francoHFW]

Maybe you should actually get to know someone who can't work. It doesn't look very appealing to me.

Outside of their health issues, they don't live too bad of a life. The people I know that don't work have all the amenities that working people do: AC, microwave, stove, cable television, automobile and so on.

They may not live high on the hog or take Vegas vacations every year, but I'm with Smoke a Lib: working sucks.

The house next to me was one time rented to HUD people. Those people would come home 3;00am or so on work nights, radio blaring because they could care less about us working people, get out of the car drunk, high or both, laughing their ass off, and then go inside to continue their party.

In many ways, those people actually live a better life than the working. Not having bills to worry about or how early I have to get up for work in the morning would be a dream come true for me. Those people are living my dream.

And that's all you knew about them...nothing. Only criminals can live like that- you exagerate to the point of lying. Non-disabled welfare people have to look for work and prove it, work at min wage for benefits, it's a huge pain. Raise the gd min wage. This mindlessly obstructive, greedy idiot rich GOP world of the future is a gd disgrace, dupe. Dear middle class: Welcome to poverty

 

[francoHFW]

Just more fear mongering. Y'all will say anything to justify paying Americans shite wages.

Where in my comment do you see fear mongering? What I'm telling you is the truth. I'll provide charts if you like. 93 million Americans are not working nor looking for work. We have a population in the US of about 315 million people. Remove the children and people too old to work and you have more than 1/3 of our working population not working.

As for wages, the individual decides on how much they are worth to an employer. If you don't provide worth, you don't get paid very well. If you can provide a service that others cannot, your worth to an employer is much greater and pay will reflect that.

How much you make is your decision; not societies, not employers, but yourself. If you decide you don't want to do anything that makes you worth something, that's a decision you made--nobody else.

Outside of the Greatest Generation, employers have always been greedy a-holes, dupe, and now the New BS GOP and its ignorant hater dupes have got us back to "the good old days". IDIOT.
Dear middle class: Welcome to poverty

 

[francoHFW]

Maybe you should actually get to know someone who can't work. It doesn't look very appealing to me.

Outside of their health issues, they don't live too bad of a life. The people I know that don't work have all the amenities that working people do: AC, microwave, stove, cable television, automobile and so on.

They may not live high on the hog or take Vegas vacations every year, but I'm with Smoke a Lib: working sucks.

The house next to me was one time rented to HUD people. Those people would come home 3;00am or so on work nights, radio blaring because they could care less about us working people, get out of the car drunk, high or both, laughing their ass off, and then go inside to continue their party.

In many ways, those people actually live a better life than the working. Not having bills to worry about or how early I have to get up for work in the morning would be a dream come true for me. Those people are living my dream.

Working suqs because the New BS GOP has ruined the economy for most people. 3 of 4 now have problem getting along at all and you morons want to tax THEM more, that is, YOURSELVES. So stupid. Dear middle class: Welcome to poverty

 

[francoHFW]

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.
The one tax graph you really need to know

 

[francoHFW]

That's the point- the rich are getting away with murder in this New BS GOP system, and all the dupes want to talk about is what heroes the richest are, and how lazy and lucky the poorest are. Total RW idiocy.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 EVER, and in the modern world!! And you complain about the victims? Are you an idiot or an A-hole?

 

[francoHFW]

Can you people quote completely by any chance?
Of course it's an average. Include fees, which are huge for the poor, and you can get to 20% in many cases.

According to YOU, the source you provided indicated EVERYONE paid between 20-30%. Your original claim didn't include fees and fees aren't a part of it. Fees come about due to a choice one makes to do something. Fees, by definition, are a charge paid for a privilege. Don't count.

What it boils down to is you made a claim about a source you had and when you finally provided the source, the source itself refuted the claim you made. Instead of being honorable and admitting you were wrong, you tried to bring other things not part of your claim into it.

Sorry, you lose.

Always said fees, dupe. Even with my hate of typing. Stupid small minded argument, the rich pay less than much of the middle class, and when 99% of new wealth goes to the 1% it's a corupt GOP system, dupe. D'OH!!

You went back and edited it AFTER being called out for lying. I checked. The post where you made the claim has been edited. Can't worm your way out of that liar.

The hell I did, dingbat.

The post itself shows an edit.

WHAT POST!?! The point is the rich don't pay enough, but you obsess about the poor. Hilarious.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Outside of the Greatest Generation, employers have always been greedy a-holes, dupe, and now the New BS GOP and its ignorant hater dupes have got us back to "the good old days". IDIOT.

If you don't like what employers pay, then start your own company and pay yourself whatever you like........idiot.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

nd that's all you knew about them...nothing. Only criminals can live like that- you exagerate to the point of lying. Non-disabled welfare people have to look for work and prove it, work at min wage for benefits, it's a huge pain. Raise the gd min wage. This mindlessly obstructive, greedy idiot rich GOP world of the future is a gd disgrace, dupe.

What more do you need to know about them moron? In the winter time, they open up their windows because it's too warm inside. They don't bother turning down the heat. Why should they? They don't pay their own utilities. The only time their car leaves the driveway is around 6:00 pm, and they sure as hell aren't going to work unless they work together and get drunk there.

You are correct, only criminals live like that, and people who have the mental and physical ability to work and don't are criminals because they rip off the taxpayers with the blessing of the Democrat party.

 

[francoHFW]

nd that's all you knew about them...nothing. Only criminals can live like that- you exaggerate to the point of lying. Non-disabled welfare people have to look for work and prove it, work at min wage for benefits, it's a huge pain. Raise the gd min wage. This mindlessly obstructive, greedy idiot rich GOP world of the future is a gd disgrace, dupe.

What more do you need to know about them moron? In the winter time, they open up their windows because it's too warm inside. They don't bother turning down the heat. Why should they? They don't pay their own utilities. The only time their car leaves the driveway is around 6:00 pm, and they sure as hell aren't going to work unless they work together and get drunk there.

You are correct, only criminals live like that, and people who have the mental and physical ability to work and don't are criminals because they rip off the taxpayers with the blessing of the Democrat party.

Ignorance, paranoia, and brainwashed bigotry taken to extremism. This is called the country going to hell under Reaganism and the New BS GOP refusing all the usual solutions, all to protect its bloated greedy idiot billionaire masters from paying their fair share....

 

[francoHFW]

Outside of the Greatest Generation, employers have always been greedy a-holes, dupe, and now the New BS GOP and its ignorant hater dupes have got us back to "the good old days". IDIOT.

If you don't like what employers pay, then start your own company and pay yourself whatever you like........idiot.

And if 2/3 of the country don't like their jobs? This is politics, not angry white ignoramuses spewing hate and idiocy...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ignorance, paranoia, and brainwashed bigotry taken to extremism. This is called the country going to hell under Reaganism and the New BS GOP refusing all the usual solutions, all to protect its bloated greedy idiot billionaire masters from paying their fair share....

The top 10% of wage earners in this country pays over 70% of all federal income taxes. If that's not paying their fair share, then what is? 80%, 90%, 100%.

And who made you judge and jury of what a fair share is? You libs sure love spending money........when it's somebody else's.

"Just what is YOUR fair share of what somebody else worked for?"
Thomas Sowell

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And if 2/3 of the country don't like their jobs? This is politics, not angry white ignoramuses spewing hate and idiocy...

Then get a job they like. If they don't like any job, then they are just lazy SOB's and deserve to starve in the street.

 

[francoHFW]

Ignorance, paranoia, and brainwashed bigotry taken to extremism. This is called the country going to hell under Reaganism and the New BS GOP refusing all the usual solutions, all to protect its bloated greedy idiot billionaire masters from paying their fair share....

The top 10% of wage earners in this country pays over 70% of all federal income taxes. If that's not paying their fair share, then what is? 80%, 90%, 100%.

And who made you judge and jury of what a fair share is? You libs sure love spending money........when it's somebody else's.

"Just what is YOUR fair share of what somebody else worked for?"
Thomas Sowell

Totally duped...D'OH!

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.

The one tax graph you really need to know

 

[francoHFW]

And if 2/3 of the country don't like their jobs? This is politics, not angry white ignoramuses spewing hate and idiocy...

Then get a job they like. If they don't like any job, then they are just lazy SOB's and deserve to starve in the street.

Ok, it IS angry white ignoramuses spewing hate and idiocy...lol

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ignorance, paranoia, and brainwashed bigotry taken to extremism. This is called the country going to hell under Reaganism and the New BS GOP refusing all the usual solutions, all to protect its bloated greedy idiot billionaire masters from paying their fair share....

The top 10% of wage earners in this country pays over 70% of all federal income taxes. If that's not paying their fair share, then what is? 80%, 90%, 100%.

And who made you judge and jury of what a fair share is? You libs sure love spending money........when it's somebody else's.

"Just what is YOUR fair share of what somebody else worked for?"
Thomas Sowell

Totally duped...D'OH!

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.

The one tax graph you really need to know

 

[Conservative65]

What I got Franco on was that he claimed EVERYONE saying he had a source to prove it. After asking numerous times for him to post it, he did. It took about 2 seconds to find where one group, when the federal and state/local were added together, it was just over 17%. I addressed it and rather than saying he was in error, he said something about fees then said almost to 20 - 30%.

What's funny is that the source he kept saying proved his point is the one that discredited his claim .

Just about anybody can find some whacko site to backup what they say, but that doesn't mean the site is legit.

After people call out Franko for his bogus statistics, he panics and begins to scour the internet to find some site.......any site that may give his false claim credibility.

When he finds one, he doesn't bother reading or trying to figure it out. In desperation, he frantically posts it and hopes nobody else will figure it out for him.

He also forgets that there are people like myself that were around during the Reagan years. Reagan did increase SS, but that's because his calculations revealed the problems we are going to have in the near future with SS, but Reagan did not "double" payroll taxes for every working American. The SS increase was back in 1983.

But no President could ever double payroll taxes for every American and get away with it, and that includes Ronald Reagan. While I may have been just a young working man during the Reagan years and not caring about politics, I think I would have passed out if my payroll taxes doubled and questioned my employer about it.

But perhaps that's the problem. Franko is not some retired school teacher, but a welfare recipient who wasn't old enough to be an adult during the Reagan years.

I'm 65. lol. He also killedthe self employed with new SS regulations. In effect it was a doubling of payroll taxes for the nonrich. Prove me wrong. I'm sick of educating you tiny minded, brainwashed twits.

I don't need to prove you wrong, it's your job to back up your claims, moron! Where the fuck do you think we are, some libtard wet dream? No one has ever doubled payroll taxes... except for, maybe FDR!

Brainwashed? You're the idiot who keeps spewing propaganda you can't back up and challenging people to prove you wrong... you need to go look in the mirror bud!


Sent from my SD4930UR using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Franco made a claim about taxes stating he had a source that proved it. What was funny when it finally did was that his own source disproved his claim. He tried to add in things after that cover for his stupidity to the point of editing a previous post where he claimed he included what he now said was part of it.

Jeebus what a stupid lying a-hole lol...just like your lying, thieving hypocrite GOP heroes.
Dear middle class: Welcome to poverty

YOUR source didn't say what you claimed it said. When that was pointed to you, you added in the fee thing that you later when back and edited on the original post.

 

[Conservative65]

According to YOU, the source you provided indicated EVERYONE paid between 20-30%. Your original claim didn't include fees and fees aren't a part of it. Fees come about due to a choice one makes to do something. Fees, by definition, are a charge paid for a privilege. Don't count.

What it boils down to is you made a claim about a source you had and when you finally provided the source, the source itself refuted the claim you made. Instead of being honorable and admitting you were wrong, you tried to bring other things not part of your claim into it.

Sorry, you lose.

Always said fees, dupe. Even with my hate of typing. Stupid small minded argument, the rich pay less than much of the middle class, and when 99% of new wealth goes to the 1% it's a corupt GOP system, dupe. D'OH!!

You went back and edited it AFTER being called out for lying. I checked. The post where you made the claim has been edited. Can't worm your way out of that liar.

The hell I did, dingbat.

The post itself shows an edit.

WHAT POST!?! The point is the rich don't pay enough, but you obsess about the poor. Hilarious.

The point is you're wrong. Half pay zero incomes taxes and you think that's a fair share yet people who pay more than they should isn't enough to you. Dumb motherfucker.