Why do democrats hate poor black people and want them permanently on welfare?

[danielpalos]

Only for a Peoples' Wall; because the right hates the poor.

Not me your the one who hates the poor...

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, instead of a wall, to prove we don't hate the poor!

$15 minimum wage will reduce the number of jobs, and put more people on unemployment and welfare.

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment; not enough, corporate raiding in it for you?

In any case, short run changes are expected; in the long run, more money being circulated means more demand which means more labor will be required.

And,

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage competes favorably with the cost of social services.

So you want to get one more measly buck an hour more?


LMFAO

You don't believe in capitalism and "working your way up"?

you can learn how to cook and become a "chief corporal" in the kitchen, for as long as you want, on true unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.

 

[danielpalos]

Not me your the one who hates the poor...

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, instead of a wall, to prove we don't hate the poor!

$15 minimum wage will reduce the number of jobs, and put more people on unemployment and welfare.

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment; not enough, corporate raiding in it for you?

In any case, short run changes are expected; in the long run, more money being circulated means more demand which means more labor will be required.

And,

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage competes favorably with the cost of social services.

So you want to get one more measly buck an hour more?


LMFAO

Just $1.00 more?

How would that help you?

By having True Faith in Capitalism and practicing attaining Perfection in Money Management, as a Holy Grail.

 

[danielpalos]

Only for a Peoples' Wall; because the right hates the poor.

Not me your the one who hates the poor...

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, instead of a wall, to prove we don't hate the poor!

$15 minimum wage will reduce the number of jobs, and put more people on unemployment and welfare.

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment; not enough, corporate raiding in it for you?

In any case, short run changes are expected; in the long run, more money being circulated means more demand which means more labor will be required.

And,

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage competes favorably with the cost of social services.

you just don't get it. If McDonalds had to raise its pay to $15, what do you think would happen? They would have three choices: 1 raise prices, 2 hire fewer workers, 3 close their doors.

If they raise prices their sales go down and they don't need as many workers
If they hire fewer workers, or automate more there are fewer jobs
if they shut the doors there are no jobs

You libs just never think these things through.

The dollar menu will not double; unlike labor's pay. That is what will happen. Did you not read US history and how good capitalists can double wages and achieve gains from efficiency? Henry Ford was your capital, "pathfinder".

 

[jc456]

Socialized healthcare is how we ensure everyone is treated. It's an irrational fear of socialism without realizing socialist programs and services are around us in our everyday lives.

Sock, where? What do you consider to be the socialist programs and services around us every day?

People joining together to pay for a service is NOT Socialism.

Do you know the definition of Socialism?

So public ownership in which we all pay taxes into something and fund it so all of us could use it sounds like socialism to me.

hahahahahahaha how much tax do the poor pay into your new system?

They pay 17-18% now in all taxes- count fees and they're getting close to 20% if they're working. More than many rich, who average 28% and less than the upper middle class. Great job, GOP and dupes...

Socialism is FAIR, democratic capitalism, dupe. See Scandinavia, original, EU, OZ, NZ and the
US- tho ours is a feqqed up pander to the rich GOP mess. See sig.

so since when is 17% greater than 28%? I'm sorry, can you be a little more coherent and understand values? can you try again?

BTW, dining and toy purchases alone, the rich pay more in taxes.

 

[danielpalos]

Socialized healthcare is how we ensure everyone is treated. It's an irrational fear of socialism without realizing socialist programs and services are around us in our everyday lives.

Sock, where? What do you consider to be the socialist programs and services around us every day?

People joining together to pay for a service is NOT Socialism.

Do you know the definition of Socialism?

So public ownership in which we all pay taxes into something and fund it so all of us could use it sounds like socialism to me.

hahahahahahaha how much tax do the poor pay into your new system?

They pay 17-18% now in all taxes- count fees and they're getting close to 20% if they're working. More than many rich, who average 28% and less than the upper middle class. Great job, GOP and dupes...

Socialism is FAIR, democratic capitalism, dupe. See Scandinavia, original, EU, OZ, NZ and the
US- tho ours is a feqqed up pander to the rich GOP mess. See sig.

so since when is 17% greater than 28%? I'm sorry, can you be a little more coherent and understand values? can you try again?

BTW, dining and toy purchases alone, the rich pay more in taxes.

so what; don't blame the poor for being better at tax avoidance, than the rich.

 

[Redfish]

Not me your the one who hates the poor...

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, instead of a wall, to prove we don't hate the poor!

$15 minimum wage will reduce the number of jobs, and put more people on unemployment and welfare.

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment; not enough, corporate raiding in it for you?

In any case, short run changes are expected; in the long run, more money being circulated means more demand which means more labor will be required.

And,

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage competes favorably with the cost of social services.

you just don't get it. If McDonalds had to raise its pay to $15, what do you think would happen? They would have three choices: 1 raise prices, 2 hire fewer workers, 3 close their doors.

If they raise prices their sales go down and they don't need as many workers
If they hire fewer workers, or automate more there are fewer jobs
if they shut the doors there are no jobs

You libs just never think these things through.

The dollar menu will not double; unlike labor's pay. That is what will happen. Did you not read US history and how good capitalists can double wages and achieve gains from efficiency? Henry Ford was your capital, "pathfinder".

wrong, they either raise their prices, reduce the number of employees, or go out of business. There are no other options.

the "gains from efficiency" occur when humans are replaced by machines. In case you don't know it, machines are not paid an hourly wage.

 

[Redfish]

Sock, where? What do you consider to be the socialist programs and services around us every day?

People joining together to pay for a service is NOT Socialism.

Do you know the definition of Socialism?

So public ownership in which we all pay taxes into something and fund it so all of us could use it sounds like socialism to me.

hahahahahahaha how much tax do the poor pay into your new system?

They pay 17-18% now in all taxes- count fees and they're getting close to 20% if they're working. More than many rich, who average 28% and less than the upper middle class. Great job, GOP and dupes...

Socialism is FAIR, democratic capitalism, dupe. See Scandinavia, original, EU, OZ, NZ and the
US- tho ours is a feqqed up pander to the rich GOP mess. See sig.

so since when is 17% greater than 28%? I'm sorry, can you be a little more coherent and understand values? can you try again?

BTW, dining and toy purchases alone, the rich pay more in taxes.

so what; don't blame the poor for being better at tax avoidance, than the rich.

LOL, the tax code exempts the poor from paying taxes. they are not better at tax avoidance, what a dumb statement.

 

[francoHFW]

Socialized healthcare is how we ensure everyone is treated. It's an irrational fear of socialism without realizing socialist programs and services are around us in our everyday lives.

Sock, where? What do you consider to be the socialist programs and services around us every day?

People joining together to pay for a service is NOT Socialism.

Do you know the definition of Socialism?

So public ownership in which we all pay taxes into something and fund it so all of us could use it sounds like socialism to me.

hahahahahahaha how much tax do the poor pay into your new system?

They pay 17-18% now in all taxes- count fees and they're getting close to 20% if they're working. More than many rich, who average 28% and less than the upper middle class. Great job, GOP and dupes...

Socialism is FAIR, democratic capitalism, dupe. See Scandinavia, original, EU, OZ, NZ and the
US- tho ours is a feqqed up pander to the rich GOP mess. See sig.

so since when is 17% greater than 28%? I'm sorry, can you be a little more coherent and understand values? can you try again?

BTW, dining and toy purchases alone, the rich pay more in taxes.

Romney paid 9-12%, and many other rich pay less than 17% duh...The rich poor gap has NEVER been bigger after 35 years of Reaganist tax policy, and now ANOTHER giant cut for the rich. Only brainwashing bs propaganda makes this possible...

 

[francoHFW]

So public ownership in which we all pay taxes into something and fund it so all of us could use it sounds like socialism to me.

hahahahahahaha how much tax do the poor pay into your new system?

They pay 17-18% now in all taxes- count fees and they're getting close to 20% if they're working. More than many rich, who average 28% and less than the upper middle class. Great job, GOP and dupes...

Socialism is FAIR, democratic capitalism, dupe. See Scandinavia, original, EU, OZ, NZ and the
US- tho ours is a feqqed up pander to the rich GOP mess. See sig.

so since when is 17% greater than 28%? I'm sorry, can you be a little more coherent and understand values? can you try again?

BTW, dining and toy purchases alone, the rich pay more in taxes.

so what; don't blame the poor for being better at tax avoidance, than the rich.

LOL, the tax code exempts the poor from paying taxes. they are not better at tax avoidance, what a dumb statement.

Exempts them from FED INCOME TAXES ONLY, dupe. There you go again. Look up brainwashed. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjbo4W8lsXTAhXh5oMKHfePBy8QFgg4MAY&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/19/heres-why-the-47-percent-argument-is-an-abuse-of-tax-data/&usg=AFQjCNE_8LZl_VB-o4FAbNsJrxLxLCPy8g&sig2=S1pMazGUSOJIVx4ZUUlnYg
The one tax graph you really need to know




By Ezra Klein September 19, 2012

At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's really what the American tax system looks like: Not 47 percent paying nothing, but everybody paying something, and most Americans paying between 25 percent and 30 percent of their income -- which is, by the way, a lot more the 13.9 percent Mitt Romney paid in 2011*.


B) True

 

[Markle]

You don't understand the concept. True AnCaps fail more often than socialist economies.

What socialist countries have succeeded?

 

[jc456]

hahahahahahaha how much tax do the poor pay into your new system?

They pay 17-18% now in all taxes- count fees and they're getting close to 20% if they're working. More than many rich, who average 28% and less than the upper middle class. Great job, GOP and dupes...

Socialism is FAIR, democratic capitalism, dupe. See Scandinavia, original, EU, OZ, NZ and the
US- tho ours is a feqqed up pander to the rich GOP mess. See sig.

so since when is 17% greater than 28%? I'm sorry, can you be a little more coherent and understand values? can you try again?

BTW, dining and toy purchases alone, the rich pay more in taxes.

so what; don't blame the poor for being better at tax avoidance, than the rich.

LOL, the tax code exempts the poor from paying taxes. they are not better at tax avoidance, what a dumb statement.

Exempts them from FED INCOME TAXES ONLY, dupe. There you go again. Look up brainwashed. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjbo4W8lsXTAhXh5oMKHfePBy8QFgg4MAY&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/19/heres-why-the-47-percent-argument-is-an-abuse-of-tax-data/&usg=AFQjCNE_8LZl_VB-o4FAbNsJrxLxLCPy8g&sig2=S1pMazGUSOJIVx4ZUUlnYg
The one tax graph you really need to know




By Ezra Klein September 19, 2012

At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's really what the American tax system looks like: Not 47 percent paying nothing, but everybody paying something, and most Americans paying between 25 percent and 30 percent of their income -- which is, by the way, a lot more the 13.9 percent Mitt Romney paid in 2011*.


B) True

it's called a with-holding tax to be accurate. So the guy making 40k pays into Federal Tax, SS, Medicare and state taxes, (if in a state that has state tax), along with insurance. And the only federal dollars in that, outside SS and Medicare, the 40k a year guy gets back after April 15th. All of it. So, the Tax Trump is working on is the Federal Tax, not SS, not Medicare yet, doesn't have anything to do with State nor insurance. So, how is it the 40K a year guy is affected more than the rich dude again?

 

[francoHFW]

They pay 17-18% now in all taxes- count fees and they're getting close to 20% if they're working. More than many rich, who average 28% and less than the upper middle class. Great job, GOP and dupes...

Socialism is FAIR, democratic capitalism, dupe. See Scandinavia, original, EU, OZ, NZ and the
US- tho ours is a feqqed up pander to the rich GOP mess. See sig.

so since when is 17% greater than 28%? I'm sorry, can you be a little more coherent and understand values? can you try again?

BTW, dining and toy purchases alone, the rich pay more in taxes.

so what; don't blame the poor for being better at tax avoidance, than the rich.

LOL, the tax code exempts the poor from paying taxes. they are not better at tax avoidance, what a dumb statement.

Exempts them from FED INCOME TAXES ONLY, dupe. There you go again. Look up brainwashed. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjbo4W8lsXTAhXh5oMKHfePBy8QFgg4MAY&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/19/heres-why-the-47-percent-argument-is-an-abuse-of-tax-data/&usg=AFQjCNE_8LZl_VB-o4FAbNsJrxLxLCPy8g&sig2=S1pMazGUSOJIVx4ZUUlnYg
The one tax graph you really need to know




By Ezra Klein September 19, 2012

At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's really what the American tax system looks like: Not 47 percent paying nothing, but everybody paying something, and most Americans paying between 25 percent and 30 percent of their income -- which is, by the way, a lot more the 13.9 percent Mitt Romney paid in 2011*.


B) True

it's called a with-holding tax to be accurate. So the guy making 40k pays into Federal Tax, SS, Medicare and state taxes, (if in a state that has state tax), along with insurance. And the only federal dollars in that, outside SS and Medicare, the 40k a year guy gets back after April 15th. All of it. So, the Tax Trump is working on is the Federal Tax, not SS, not Medicare yet, doesn't have anything to do with State nor insurance. So, how is it the 40K a year guy is affected more than the rich dude again?

All states have taxes- there you go again with income tax brainwashed obsession. These graphs includes refunds. Enjoy the state tax hikes that will immediately follow the Trump tax cuts and will KILL the nonrich AGAIN. Then MOST of the middle class will pay a higher % than the RICHEST. Great job!!

 

[jc456]

so since when is 17% greater than 28%? I'm sorry, can you be a little more coherent and understand values? can you try again?

BTW, dining and toy purchases alone, the rich pay more in taxes.

so what; don't blame the poor for being better at tax avoidance, than the rich.

LOL, the tax code exempts the poor from paying taxes. they are not better at tax avoidance, what a dumb statement.

Exempts them from FED INCOME TAXES ONLY, dupe. There you go again. Look up brainwashed. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjbo4W8lsXTAhXh5oMKHfePBy8QFgg4MAY&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/19/heres-why-the-47-percent-argument-is-an-abuse-of-tax-data/&usg=AFQjCNE_8LZl_VB-o4FAbNsJrxLxLCPy8g&sig2=S1pMazGUSOJIVx4ZUUlnYg
The one tax graph you really need to know




By Ezra Klein September 19, 2012

At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's really what the American tax system looks like: Not 47 percent paying nothing, but everybody paying something, and most Americans paying between 25 percent and 30 percent of their income -- which is, by the way, a lot more the 13.9 percent Mitt Romney paid in 2011*.


B) True

it's called a with-holding tax to be accurate. So the guy making 40k pays into Federal Tax, SS, Medicare and state taxes, (if in a state that has state tax), along with insurance. And the only federal dollars in that, outside SS and Medicare, the 40k a year guy gets back after April 15th. All of it. So, the Tax Trump is working on is the Federal Tax, not SS, not Medicare yet, doesn't have anything to do with State nor insurance. So, how is it the 40K a year guy is affected more than the rich dude again?

All states have taxes- there you go again with income tax brainwashed obsession. These graphs includes refunds. Enjoy the state tax hikes that will immediately follow the Trump tax cuts and will KILL the nonrich AGAIN. Then MOST of the middle class will pay a higher % than the RICHEST. Great job!!

Tennessee, Florida, Texas and others do not have state taxes. sorry fella, you're coming up short.

from Wikipedia:

United States


"Payroll taxes were among the most regressive in 2010.
See also: Taxation in the United States and Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax
In the United States, payroll taxes are assessed by the federal government, some of the fifty states (Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming do not have state income tax; New Hampshire and Tennessee only tax income from interest and dividends)"

Gd I wish you fking libturds would learn about your own country.

 

[Markle]

The dollar menu will not double; unlike labor's pay. That is what will happen. Did you not read US history and how good capitalists can double wages and achieve gains from efficiency? Henry Ford was your capital, "pathfinder".

Fast food restaurants at $15.00 per hour.

You have no comprehension about what Henry Ford accomplished.

 

[francoHFW]

You don't understand the concept. True AnCaps fail more often than socialist economies.

What socialist countries have succeeded?

Scandinavia, original EU, Canada, Oz, NZ, Japan, and the US under ACA- tho the greedy a-hole lying GOP will try to screw that up, AND the world economy AGAIN. Thanks and great job, GOP swine and dupes (who don't know what socialism IS)..

 

[francoHFW]

so what; don't blame the poor for being better at tax avoidance, than the rich.

LOL, the tax code exempts the poor from paying taxes. they are not better at tax avoidance, what a dumb statement.

Exempts them from FED INCOME TAXES ONLY, dupe. There you go again. Look up brainwashed. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjbo4W8lsXTAhXh5oMKHfePBy8QFgg4MAY&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/19/heres-why-the-47-percent-argument-is-an-abuse-of-tax-data/&usg=AFQjCNE_8LZl_VB-o4FAbNsJrxLxLCPy8g&sig2=S1pMazGUSOJIVx4ZUUlnYg
The one tax graph you really need to know




By Ezra Klein September 19, 2012

At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's really what the American tax system looks like: Not 47 percent paying nothing, but everybody paying something, and most Americans paying between 25 percent and 30 percent of their income -- which is, by the way, a lot more the 13.9 percent Mitt Romney paid in 2011*.


B) True

it's called a with-holding tax to be accurate. So the guy making 40k pays into Federal Tax, SS, Medicare and state taxes, (if in a state that has state tax), along with insurance. And the only federal dollars in that, outside SS and Medicare, the 40k a year guy gets back after April 15th. All of it. So, the Tax Trump is working on is the Federal Tax, not SS, not Medicare yet, doesn't have anything to do with State nor insurance. So, how is it the 40K a year guy is affected more than the rich dude again?

All states have taxes- there you go again with income tax brainwashed obsession. These graphs includes refunds. Enjoy the state tax hikes that will immediately follow the Trump tax cuts and will KILL the nonrich AGAIN. Then MOST of the middle class will pay a higher % than the RICHEST. Great job!!

Tennessee, Florida, Texas and others do not have state taxes. sorry fella, you're coming up short.

from Wikipedia:

United States


"Payroll taxes were among the most regressive in 2010.
See also: Taxation in the United States and Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax
In the United States, payroll taxes are assessed by the federal government, some of the fifty states (Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming do not have state income tax; New Hampshire and Tennessee only tax income from interest and dividends)"

Gd I wish you fking libturds would learn about your own country.

So they don't have property tax, sales tax etc etc etc? DUHHHH. YOU ARE BRAINWASHED to only think of income tax, dupe.

 

[jc456]

LOL, the tax code exempts the poor from paying taxes. they are not better at tax avoidance, what a dumb statement.

Exempts them from FED INCOME TAXES ONLY, dupe. There you go again. Look up brainwashed. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjbo4W8lsXTAhXh5oMKHfePBy8QFgg4MAY&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/19/heres-why-the-47-percent-argument-is-an-abuse-of-tax-data/&usg=AFQjCNE_8LZl_VB-o4FAbNsJrxLxLCPy8g&sig2=S1pMazGUSOJIVx4ZUUlnYg
The one tax graph you really need to know




By Ezra Klein September 19, 2012

At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's really what the American tax system looks like: Not 47 percent paying nothing, but everybody paying something, and most Americans paying between 25 percent and 30 percent of their income -- which is, by the way, a lot more the 13.9 percent Mitt Romney paid in 2011*.


B) True

it's called a with-holding tax to be accurate. So the guy making 40k pays into Federal Tax, SS, Medicare and state taxes, (if in a state that has state tax), along with insurance. And the only federal dollars in that, outside SS and Medicare, the 40k a year guy gets back after April 15th. All of it. So, the Tax Trump is working on is the Federal Tax, not SS, not Medicare yet, doesn't have anything to do with State nor insurance. So, how is it the 40K a year guy is affected more than the rich dude again?

All states have taxes- there you go again with income tax brainwashed obsession. These graphs includes refunds. Enjoy the state tax hikes that will immediately follow the Trump tax cuts and will KILL the nonrich AGAIN. Then MOST of the middle class will pay a higher % than the RICHEST. Great job!!

Tennessee, Florida, Texas and others do not have state taxes. sorry fella, you're coming up short.

from Wikipedia:

United States


"Payroll taxes were among the most regressive in 2010.
See also: Taxation in the United States and Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax
In the United States, payroll taxes are assessed by the federal government, some of the fifty states (Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming do not have state income tax; New Hampshire and Tennessee only tax income from interest and dividends)"

Gd I wish you fking libturds would learn about your own country.

So they don't have property tax, sales tax etc etc etc? DUHHHH. YOU ARE BRAINWASHED to only think of income tax, dupe.

no, those aren't in withholding taxes from an employer. That, stupid ass, was the discussion. So, now, can you get back on topic and answer my original question? cat got your fingers?

 

[Markle]

Scandinavia, original EU, Canada, Oz, NZ, Japan, and the US under ACA-

You're a fool, which we all know.

NONE of those countries are Socialist.

See North Korea, Venezuela, and Cuba.

 

[jc456]

Scandinavia, original EU, Canada, Oz, NZ, Japan, and the US under ACA-

You're a fool, which we all know.

NONE of those countries are Socialist.

See North Korea, Venezuela, and Cuba.

ahhh man, you're going to confuse the lad.

 

[francoHFW]

Scandinavia, original EU, Canada, Oz, NZ, Japan, and the US under ACA-

You're a fool, which we all know.

NONE of those countries are Socialist.

See North Korea, Venezuela, and Cuba.

Cuba and NK are communist, you stupid dupe cold war dinosaur. Only ugly American dupes are so dumb. Venezuela was until recently a GOP utopia/oligarchy banana republic then became socialist but is a wreck because of collapsing oil prices and the Booosh World Depression. OTOH, homelessness and illiteracy WERE almost wiped out in about 8 years. Socialism since WWII and before has been defined as ALWAYS DEMOCRATIC. Start there, moron.