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

[danielpalos]

Yes, they do, that was my point. It's also my point that the "wealthy" in this country currently pay much more than their fair share. They pay for all of us who don't pay anything at all.

Don't blame the poor, the one percent are lousy at tax avoidance.

The hell they are- we have basically a flat tax system, with ANOTHER cut for the rich coming.
By Ezra Klein September 19, 2012 Washington Post
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:

Silly liberal and goofy of course the guy who makes $4 million a year may pay $1 million in taxes while the guy who makes $40,000 a year May pay a measly $3000. Why should one guy pay millions of dollars and another guy pay next to nothing. Should a rich guy have to pay a higher price for a car too.why do only the rich have to pay for government while everyone else gets a virtual free ride. America was not founded it to be a nation of leechers and takers.

Dear, don't blame the poor for being better at tax avoidance.

well we can take their money away and they can keep their avoidance.

just right wing, "hate on the poor", and "blame the left"?

 

[danielpalos]

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, helps the working poor out of poverty.

Not at all.

The minimum wage is a trigger in many contracts. Doubling the minimum wage would necessarily double the wage of someone already earning $15.00 per hour to $30.00.

The end result will be that the nine of the ten order takers at the fast food restaurant will be replaced by one technician earning $40.00 per hour to maintain the ten kiosks which now eliminate nine jobs and they would still have two janitors earning the minimum wage of $15.00

The end result, the two janitors are still living in poverty, there are simply fewer jobs available to young people getting their first jobs and gaining valuable work experience.

That's okay, we're heading in that direction today so might as well get them out of work early!

Yes, it will. A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage competes favorably with the cost of social services. And, helps privatize costs instead of socialize costs.

Dear, nobody should take the right wing seriously about price inflation.

 

[jc456]

Don't blame the poor, the one percent are lousy at tax avoidance.

The hell they are- we have basically a flat tax system, with ANOTHER cut for the rich coming.
By Ezra Klein September 19, 2012 Washington Post
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:

Silly liberal and goofy of course the guy who makes $4 million a year may pay $1 million in taxes while the guy who makes $40,000 a year May pay a measly $3000. Why should one guy pay millions of dollars and another guy pay next to nothing. Should a rich guy have to pay a higher price for a car too.why do only the rich have to pay for government while everyone else gets a virtual free ride. America was not founded it to be a nation of leechers and takers.

Dear, don't blame the poor for being better at tax avoidance.

well we can take their money away and they can keep their avoidance.

just right wing, "hate on the poor", and "blame the left"?

how is it any different than someone working? You continue to avoid an answer smart guy. Well Poindexter, what say you?

 

[jc456]

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, helps the working poor out of poverty.

Not at all.

The minimum wage is a trigger in many contracts. Doubling the minimum wage would necessarily double the wage of someone already earning $15.00 per hour to $30.00.

The end result will be that the nine of the ten order takers at the fast food restaurant will be replaced by one technician earning $40.00 per hour to maintain the ten kiosks which now eliminate nine jobs and they would still have two janitors earning the minimum wage of $15.00

The end result, the two janitors are still living in poverty, there are simply fewer jobs available to young people getting their first jobs and gaining valuable work experience.

That's okay, we're heading in that direction today so might as well get them out of work early!

Yes, it will. A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage competes favorably with the cost of social services. And, helps privatize costs instead of socialize costs.

Dear, nobody should take the right wing seriously about price inflation.

clueless, completely clueless. you won't ever know economics friend. The real solution is to find a career job that pays more than 15 an hour. It is simple economics go to the jobs that pay the money to rise out of poverty. government forcing only ends up with higher cost products for supply and demand.

 

[francoHFW]

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?

No, the discussion was about how much people pay in taxes. The rich, nowhere near enough, the nonrich and YOU, TOO MUCH. Thanks , lying GOP (only income taxes count! LOL) and silly dupes.

View attachment 123638

How much did Mr. Trump pay in personal income taxes?

Why is it the poor's fault, the one percent are lousy at tax avoidance, and want tax breaks?

I believe Trump paid 28%?

And next year he'd pay 8% after alt tax is repealed per his plan. Great job!

 

[francoHFW]

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, helps the working poor out of poverty.

Not at all.

The minimum wage is a trigger in many contracts. Doubling the minimum wage would necessarily double the wage of someone already earning $15.00 per hour to $30.00.

The end result will be that the nine of the ten order takers at the fast food restaurant will be replaced by one technician earning $40.00 per hour to maintain the ten kiosks which now eliminate nine jobs and they would still have two janitors earning the minimum wage of $15.00

The end result, the two janitors are still living in poverty, there are simply fewer jobs available to young people getting their first jobs and gaining valuable work experience.

That's okay, we're heading in that direction today so might as well get them out of work early!

Yes, it will. A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage competes favorably with the cost of social services. And, helps privatize costs instead of socialize costs.

Dear, nobody should take the right wing seriously about price inflation.

clueless, completely clueless. you won't ever know economics friend. The real solution is to find a career job that pays more than 15 an hour. It is simple economics go to the jobs that pay the money to rise out of poverty. government forcing only ends up with higher cost products for supply and demand.

Poverty line is much lower than $15/hour, dingbat dupe.

 

[jc456]

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?

No, the discussion was about how much people pay in taxes. The rich, nowhere near enough, the nonrich and YOU, TOO MUCH. Thanks , lying GOP (only income taxes count! LOL) and silly dupes.

View attachment 123638

How much did Mr. Trump pay in personal income taxes?

Why is it the poor's fault, the one percent are lousy at tax avoidance, and want tax breaks?

I believe Trump paid 28%?

And next year he'd pay 8% after alt tax is repealed per his plan. Great job!

and the poor guy still paid zero%

 

[jc456]

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, helps the working poor out of poverty.

Not at all.

The minimum wage is a trigger in many contracts. Doubling the minimum wage would necessarily double the wage of someone already earning $15.00 per hour to $30.00.

The end result will be that the nine of the ten order takers at the fast food restaurant will be replaced by one technician earning $40.00 per hour to maintain the ten kiosks which now eliminate nine jobs and they would still have two janitors earning the minimum wage of $15.00

The end result, the two janitors are still living in poverty, there are simply fewer jobs available to young people getting their first jobs and gaining valuable work experience.

That's okay, we're heading in that direction today so might as well get them out of work early!

Yes, it will. A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage competes favorably with the cost of social services. And, helps privatize costs instead of socialize costs.

Dear, nobody should take the right wing seriously about price inflation.

clueless, completely clueless. you won't ever know economics friend. The real solution is to find a career job that pays more than 15 an hour. It is simple economics go to the jobs that pay the money to rise out of poverty. government forcing only ends up with higher cost products for supply and demand.

Poverty line is much lower than $15/hour, dingbat dupe.

you don't get it either do you? LOL

 

[jc456]

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, helps the working poor out of poverty.

Not at all.

The minimum wage is a trigger in many contracts. Doubling the minimum wage would necessarily double the wage of someone already earning $15.00 per hour to $30.00.

The end result will be that the nine of the ten order takers at the fast food restaurant will be replaced by one technician earning $40.00 per hour to maintain the ten kiosks which now eliminate nine jobs and they would still have two janitors earning the minimum wage of $15.00

The end result, the two janitors are still living in poverty, there are simply fewer jobs available to young people getting their first jobs and gaining valuable work experience.

That's okay, we're heading in that direction today so might as well get them out of work early!

Yes, it will. A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage competes favorably with the cost of social services. And, helps privatize costs instead of socialize costs.

Dear, nobody should take the right wing seriously about price inflation.

clueless, completely clueless. you won't ever know economics friend. The real solution is to find a career job that pays more than 15 an hour. It is simple economics go to the jobs that pay the money to rise out of poverty. government forcing only ends up with higher cost products for supply and demand.

Poverty line is much lower than $15/hour, dingbat dupe.

so go find a career job paying 15 dollars an hour. Doing what you said on the minimum wage salary doesn't. And it's been explained. your poverty line then would move to 25 dollars an hour. Then you'd be crying to make the minimum wage 25 dollars an hour and then the poverty level would rise to 25 dollars an hour. get it yet?

 

[francoHFW]

Yes, they do, that was my point. It's also my point that the "wealthy" in this country currently pay much more than their fair share. They pay for all of us who don't pay anything at all.

Don't blame the poor, the one percent are lousy at tax avoidance.

The hell they are- we have basically a flat tax system, with ANOTHER cut for the rich coming.
By Ezra Klein September 19, 2012 Washington Post
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:

Why do one percenters, need a tax break?

They need a big tax hike, like Dems want to do.

for the purpose of what?

To invest in the nonrich and infrastructure like the good old days before pander to the rich and baffle the chumps Reaganism, dupe.

 

[jc456]

facts are always telling signs.

 

[jc456]

Don't blame the poor, the one percent are lousy at tax avoidance.

The hell they are- we have basically a flat tax system, with ANOTHER cut for the rich coming.
By Ezra Klein September 19, 2012 Washington Post
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:

Why do one percenters, need a tax break?

They need a big tax hike, like Dems want to do.

for the purpose of what?

To invest in the nonrich and infrastructure like the good old days before pander to the rich and baffle the chumps Reaganism, dupe.

fifty years and there's been zip improvement except in the 90s with the GOP contract. oops, the GOP did it. you all failed it.

 

[francoHFW]

No, the discussion was about how much people pay in taxes. The rich, nowhere near enough, the nonrich and YOU, TOO MUCH. Thanks , lying GOP (only income taxes count! LOL) and silly dupes.

View attachment 123638

How much did Mr. Trump pay in personal income taxes?

Why is it the poor's fault, the one percent are lousy at tax avoidance, and want tax breaks?

I believe Trump paid 28%?

And next year he'd pay 8% after alt tax is repealed per his plan. Great job!

and the poor guy still paid zero%

If you ignore every tax and fee except the fed income tax, the only progressive (barely) tax we have, and all dupes like you can talk about lol.

 

[jc456]

View attachment 123638

How much did Mr. Trump pay in personal income taxes?

Why is it the poor's fault, the one percent are lousy at tax avoidance, and want tax breaks?

I believe Trump paid 28%?

And next year he'd pay 8% after alt tax is repealed per his plan. Great job!

and the poor guy still paid zero%

If you ignore every tax and fee except the fed income tax, the only progressive (barely) tax we have, and all dupes like you can talk about lol.

the majority of the country pays 50% into some tax. Again, you don't think that's enough? how much should we all pay in? come now.

 

[francoHFW]

How much did Mr. Trump pay in personal income taxes?

Why is it the poor's fault, the one percent are lousy at tax avoidance, and want tax breaks?

I believe Trump paid 28%?

And next year he'd pay 8% after alt tax is repealed per his plan. Great job!

and the poor guy still paid zero%

If you ignore every tax and fee except the fed income tax, the only progressive (barely) tax we have, and all dupes like you can talk about lol.

the majority of the country pays 50% into some tax. Again, you don't think that's enough? how much should we all pay in? come now.

 

[jc456]

I believe Trump paid 28%?

And next year he'd pay 8% after alt tax is repealed per his plan. Great job!

and the poor guy still paid zero%

If you ignore every tax and fee except the fed income tax, the only progressive (barely) tax we have, and all dupes like you can talk about lol.

the majority of the country pays 50% into some tax. Again, you don't think that's enough? how much should we all pay in? come now.

dude, you don't have SS, Medicare, property tax, sales tax, general tax. get all that in there too. I'm waiting.

 

[francoHFW]

And next year he'd pay 8% after alt tax is repealed per his plan. Great job!

and the poor guy still paid zero%

If you ignore every tax and fee except the fed income tax, the only progressive (barely) tax we have, and all dupes like you can talk about lol.

the majority of the country pays 50% into some tax. Again, you don't think that's enough? how much should we all pay in? come now.

dude, you don't have SS, Medicare, property tax, sales tax, general tax. get all that in there too. I'm waiting.

Add in the ridiculously high fees that Reaganism has given us and the state and local contribution goes up again, for the poor especially and nonrich. Great job!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, helps the working poor out of poverty.

Not at all.

The minimum wage is a trigger in many contracts. Doubling the minimum wage would necessarily double the wage of someone already earning $15.00 per hour to $30.00.

The end result will be that the nine of the ten order takers at the fast food restaurant will be replaced by one technician earning $40.00 per hour to maintain the ten kiosks which now eliminate nine jobs and they would still have two janitors earning the minimum wage of $15.00

The end result, the two janitors are still living in poverty, there are simply fewer jobs available to young people getting their first jobs and gaining valuable work experience.

That's okay, we're heading in that direction today so might as well get them out of work early!

Yes, it will. A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage competes favorably with the cost of social services. And, helps privatize costs instead of socialize costs.

Dear, nobody should take the right wing seriously about price inflation.

WTF is the cost of social services? What does that even mean?

What are privatized costs and social costs, and what does that have to do with $15.00 per hour?????

 

[Markle]

Why does a one percenter, need a tax break?

If you confiscated all the wealth of all your hated 1% ers, how much would that reduce the National Debt run up by petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama?

 

[danielpalos]

The hell they are- we have basically a flat tax system, with ANOTHER cut for the rich coming.
By Ezra Klein September 19, 2012 Washington Post
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:

Silly liberal and goofy of course the guy who makes $4 million a year may pay $1 million in taxes while the guy who makes $40,000 a year May pay a measly $3000. Why should one guy pay millions of dollars and another guy pay next to nothing. Should a rich guy have to pay a higher price for a car too.why do only the rich have to pay for government while everyone else gets a virtual free ride. America was not founded it to be a nation of leechers and takers.

Dear, don't blame the poor for being better at tax avoidance.

well we can take their money away and they can keep their avoidance.

just right wing, "hate on the poor", and "blame the left"?

how is it any different than someone working? You continue to avoid an answer smart guy. Well Poindexter, what say you?

Dear, don't blame the poor for being better at tax avoidance.