Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The Dems need total control, filibuster proof, to do anything. The GOP has no clue about compromise for 30 years now. The "no-compromise, un-American TP GOP
So your cure for the whole country and the middle class falling apart is for people to find a good job? LOL.the big picture? you have no idea where the picture is.It's a whole class and the whole country going to hell under your greedy idiot party policies. Ever heard of the big picture? That's politics, not your moronic GOP talking points, dupe.then all one has to do is look for a job that pays that much. Why is that so hard for you stoops to figure out?I think he means a living wage or 15/hr makes it worthwhile to get off social services, while 7 or 8 or even 9 doesn't...tho don't start- being on welfare is a full time pain in the ass. Certainly having ACA Medicaid or subsidies for poorer workers keeps many off welfare too...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?????
poverty and the new deal 1933:Actually, 35 years of Reaganism and the slow ruin of the nonrich and the country....I did. go back and look.right wing fantasy is all you have. why not post links?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.To invest in the nonrich and infrastructure like the good old days before pander to the rich and baffle the chumps Reaganism, dupe.for the purpose of what?
The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.
Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:
1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.
Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.
But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):
1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%
A 13% drop since 1980
2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.
Share of National Income going to Top 10%:
1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%
An increase of 16% since Reagan.
3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.
The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.
1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)
A 12.3% drop after Reagan.
4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.
Household Debt as percentage of GDP:
1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%
A 45% increase after 1980.
5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.
Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:
1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%
A 5.6 times increase.
6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.
The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:
1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%
A 10% Decrease.
Links:
1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release - Financial Accounts of the United States - Current Release
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America
Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts
REAGANISM JUST ROLLS ON, defended to the death by the New BS GOP...
right now there 5.6 million Mike Rowe has been on many shows letting the country know about these jobs. No one is coming for them. Why?So your cure for the whole country and the middle class falling apart is for people to find a good job? LOL.the big picture? you have no idea where the picture is.It's a whole class and the whole country going to hell under your greedy idiot party policies. Ever heard of the big picture? That's politics, not your moronic GOP talking points, dupe.then all one has to do is look for a job that pays that much. Why is that so hard for you stoops to figure out?I think he means a living wage or 15/hr makes it worthwhile to get off social services, while 7 or 8 or even 9 doesn't...tho don't start- being on welfare is a full time pain in the ass. Certainly having ACA Medicaid or subsidies for poorer workers keeps many off welfare too...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?????
Don't blame the poor, the one percent are lousy at tax avoidance.dear, the one percent and the poor Only pay the taxes they are legally obligated to pay; don't complain, be Patriotic.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?
The 1% have nothing to do with what they are forced to pay in taxes. Like most people, I'm sure they do what they can to pay the least, but you have to obey the law.
Just like the bottom 45% of our country that pay no income taxes at all. It's not being slick, clever, or creative, they just don't have to pay taxes because of our laws.
Why do the one percent want a tax break? Because they pay over 40% of all collected income taxes. think of that: one percent of our country are supporting nearly half of those social goodies, our military, and all federal government spending outside of SS and Medicare.
Instead of insisting they pay more, wouldn't it make more sense to have the bottom 45% pay something into federal income tax?
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.dear, the one percent and the poor Only pay the taxes they are legally obligated to pay; don't complain, be Patriotic.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?
The 1% have nothing to do with what they are forced to pay in taxes. Like most people, I'm sure they do what they can to pay the least, but you have to obey the law.
Just like the bottom 45% of our country that pay no income taxes at all. It's not being slick, clever, or creative, they just don't have to pay taxes because of our laws.
Why do the one percent want a tax break? Because they pay over 40% of all collected income taxes. think of that: one percent of our country are supporting nearly half of those social goodies, our military, and all federal government spending outside of SS and Medicare.
Instead of insisting they pay more, wouldn't it make more sense to have the bottom 45% pay something into federal income tax?
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.
Do you read what other people say or do you say the same shit over and over to try and look dumb.
And not much else, as the rich are making out like bandits, and about to get ANOTHER big tax cut from Trump. Your tax graph is basically a flat tax already. A disgrace.https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwihu-uNlsbTAhXLOSYKHZZQA1oQFgg2MAU&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=xYPpaEMcNvg2lSJR0GnSkwdear, the one percent and the poor Only pay the taxes they are legally obligated to pay; don't complain, be Patriotic.The 1% have nothing to do with what they are forced to pay in taxes. Like most people, I'm sure they do what they can to pay the least, but you have to obey the law.
Just like the bottom 45% of our country that pay no income taxes at all. It's not being slick, clever, or creative, they just don't have to pay taxes because of our laws.
Why do the one percent want a tax break? Because they pay over 40% of all collected income taxes. think of that: one percent of our country are supporting nearly half of those social goodies, our military, and all federal government spending outside of SS and Medicare.
Instead of insisting they pay more, wouldn't it make more sense to have the bottom 45% pay something into federal income tax?
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.
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:
Right, keep posting your crap about total tax bill to avoid talking about federal income tax.
Social Security deductions do not fund our military. Medicare does not fund welfare, food stamps or education. Sales taxes do not make the payroll of federal employees. Only federal income tax does that.
I've been talking about this for years, and so have the Dems, but the GOP refuses cheap training programs and cheap college or college loans, as usual to save the rich and their giant corporation cronies from paying their fair share. Good to see someone on the New BS GOP propaganda machine has woken up finally.right now there 5.6 million Mike Rowe has been on many shows letting the country know about these jobs. No one is coming for them. Why?So your cure for the whole country and the middle class falling apart is for people to find a good job? LOL.the big picture? you have no idea where the picture is.It's a whole class and the whole country going to hell under your greedy idiot party policies. Ever heard of the big picture? That's politics, not your moronic GOP talking points, dupe.then all one has to do is look for a job that pays that much. Why is that so hard for you stoops to figure out?I think he means a living wage or 15/hr makes it worthwhile to get off social services, while 7 or 8 or even 9 doesn't...tho don't start- being on welfare is a full time pain in the ass. Certainly having ACA Medicaid or subsidies for poorer workers keeps many off welfare too...
5.6 Million Reasons to Stop Ignoring the Skills Gap
5.6 Million Reasons to Stop Ignoring the Skills Gap
February 15, 2016
Mike Rowe on How to Combat Unemployment & the Skills Gap
"
March 01, 2017 As seen on Tucker Carlson Tonight
Television host Mike Rowe explained Wednesday on "Tucker Carlson Tonight" the importance of fixing the "skills gap" in America.
Rowe said there are 5.6 million job openings waiting to be filled in fields that for the most part do not require a bachelor's degree."
Poverty line is much lower than $15/hour, dingbat dupe.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.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.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!
Dear, nobody should take the right wing seriously about price inflation.
You are brainwashed. You ignore that we're still under Reaganist tax policy and the NEW BS GOP since has blocked all reform, and don't seem to have heard of the corrupt Booosh DEPRESSION that accounts for the great majority of Obama's debt.Taxes are taxes, and the more the rich don't pay, the more the nonrich do, and the less there is to invest in America. The middle class and the country are a wreck after 35 years of Reaganism/GOP tax policy.That's income tax again, ferchrissake, the only progressive tax we have, and it appears the only tax Pub dupes can talk about...If you count all taxes, everyone with any income pays around the same %wise, and the richest keep all the new wealth, and the nonrich and the country go to hell...a flat tax is unfair to the nonrich.
We are not talking about all taxes. We are talking about income taxes since those are the only taxes that our government uses to spend on federal things.
Social Security and Medicare are nothing more than savings accounts for those who live into their retirement age. FICA is just a cute acronym for Social Security. In other words, those taxes you get back, so it's not really a tax at all. If you live to the average lifespan in America, you not only get those taxes back, you get more than you put in.
This has nothing to do with Reagan you idiot. Most of your posts are about how everything wrong in this country had to do with Reagan who presided under a Democrat led Congress. Yet no mention how they went along with Reagan's ideas.
Sixteen years of Democrat leadership in the White House since Reagan left; a few of those years with an all Democrat house, and they changed nothing of Reagan's.
Yes, the Democrat party is the party of poor excuses, but you take that to another level.
So one more time: the rich pay the most in federal income tax for the rest of us that don't pay or pay very little. It doesn't matter how much they do or don't pay. The non-rich (notice the dash between non and rich you fake retired school teacher) will not pay anymore. We just go deeper into debt which DumBama doubled in his eight years in the White House.
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:
Yes, it does; much better than a lesser minimum wage under Any form of Capitalism.dear, it is about privatizing costs, not socializing costs. a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, helps do that.A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, helps the working poor out of poverty.And you have not showed me a bill that the Democrats introduced to help the poor out of poverty.
You have been had, silly dupe.
No, no it doesn't. That keeps up with inflation, no one gets out of poverty at $15 an hour. Also that isn't a federal bill that was introduced. Nice try, you got anything else?
A $15 hour wage does not lift one out of poverty, no you are wanting to move the goal posts. I am asking for one bill that lifts the poor out of poverty by Congressional Democrats, that you can't find one is not surprising at all. Thanks for trying and thanks for proving my point.
Any more Red Herrings, right wing, fishmonger?
you can't "rest on your laurels". Y'all have nothing but repeal, now.I did. go back and look.right wing fantasy is all you have. why not post links?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.To invest in the nonrich and infrastructure like the good old days before pander to the rich and baffle the chumps Reaganism, dupe.for the purpose of what?They need a big tax hike, like Dems want to do.
Why do the one percent, need a tax break. That is the question.cause you don't know how revenue comes in. It's a simple little thingy as well. the more paying in, the more dollars you get. Not sure why it is so hard for you to understand that.Why does the right wing claim, the one percent need a tax break, when we already have massive debt?Don't swallow the crap that the rich pay so much. After 30 years of New BS GOP tax policy, we basically have a flat tax system for everyone over the poverty line.Dear, don't blame the poor for being better at tax avoidance.how is it any different than someone working? You continue to avoid an answer smart guy. Well Poindexter, what say you?just right wing, "hate on the poor", and "blame the left"?
The Dems need total control, filibuster proof, to do anything. The GOP has no clue about compromise for 30 years now. The "no-compromise, un-American TP GOP
Luckily, our country is so strong economically it can do better than anywhere else even under total GOP disfunction and pander to the rich policy, except of course when we have a GOP president and congress and the corruption and idiot cronyism gets out of hand, like the Real Estate bubble depression of 2008, the S+L bubble of the late 80's, or the 1920's Wall St madness. In fact the only time they've had 8 years and didn't wreck the country was under independent Ike.
if it were that easy, there would be no homelessness, in Right to Work States.then all one has to do is look for a job that pays that much. Why is that so hard for you stoops to figure out?I think he means a living wage or 15/hr makes it worthwhile to get off social services, while 7 or 8 or even 9 doesn't...tho don't start- being on welfare is a full time pain in the ass. Certainly having ACA Medicaid or subsidies for poorer workers keeps many off welfare too...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.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!
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?????
the poor don't whine about taxes.I enjoy my life. I don't have to wait in line to get a dollar. I enjoy challenges in life. I'm competitive.according to the right wing, the poor don't pay any taxes. why not become poor, so you can avoid paying any taxes, better?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.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.and the poor guy still paid zero%And next year he'd pay 8% after alt tax is repealed per his plan. Great job!
Because everyone who is over the poverty line pays the about the same in all taxes duhhh. We had a 70% tax on the highest income until Reagan, the only thing that kept executive pay from becoming obscene...GOP dupes can't get past all the propaganda about fed income taxes. Fed taxes have been going down, fed aid to states goes down, state and local taxes go up, and they are regressive taxes that kill the nonrich, along with cuts in services.And not much else, as the rich are making out like bandits, and about to get ANOTHER big tax cut from Trump. Your tax graph is basically a flat tax already. A disgrace.https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwihu-uNlsbTAhXLOSYKHZZQA1oQFgg2MAU&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=xYPpaEMcNvg2lSJR0GnSkwdear, the one percent and the poor Only pay the taxes they are legally obligated to pay; don't complain, be Patriotic.
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.
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:
Right, keep posting your crap about total tax bill to avoid talking about federal income tax.
Social Security deductions do not fund our military. Medicare does not fund welfare, food stamps or education. Sales taxes do not make the payroll of federal employees. Only federal income tax does that.
A flat tax? How do we have a flat tax when the bottom 45% pay no income tax and the top 1% pay 40%?
A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, helps the working poor out of poverty. Health care reform also helps.Yes, it does; much better than a lesser minimum wage under Any form of Capitalism.dear, it is about privatizing costs, not socializing costs. a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, helps do that.A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, helps the working poor out of poverty.
No, no it doesn't. That keeps up with inflation, no one gets out of poverty at $15 an hour. Also that isn't a federal bill that was introduced. Nice try, you got anything else?
A $15 hour wage does not lift one out of poverty, no you are wanting to move the goal posts. I am asking for one bill that lifts the poor out of poverty by Congressional Democrats, that you can't find one is not surprising at all. Thanks for trying and thanks for proving my point.
Any more Red Herrings, right wing, fishmonger?
That wasn't the question, the question is which bill did Congressional Democrats introduce to Congress that lifts the poor out of poverty.
I know you want to avoid discussing an issue and you throw out BS that has nothing to do with answering the question. That is why people don't take you seriously, because you are not serious.
I think he means a living wage or 15/hr makes it worthwhile to get off social services, while 7 or 8 or even 9 doesn't...tho don't start- being on welfare is a full time pain in the ass. Certainly having ACA Medicaid or subsidies for poorer workers keeps many off welfare too...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.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!
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?????
They should.the poor don't whine about taxes.I enjoy my life. I don't have to wait in line to get a dollar. I enjoy challenges in life. I'm competitive.according to the right wing, the poor don't pay any taxes. why not become poor, so you can avoid paying any taxes, better?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.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.and the poor guy still paid zero%
