those damn Brits prove the evil Republicans are right

[PoliticalChic]

in what reality is someone paying 50% in taxes? someone making $16,000 will pay an effective tax rate of around 10% and that includes payroll, FICA and such....... did you not even read what you posted originally? she was on welfare at $12k per year, then got a job at $16k per year but was being taxed at 50%....... thats just not possible. even the highest tax bracket i not that much.

She loses 50 cents in benefits for every dollar she now earns, that is the equivalent of a 50% tax!

OMG!!! Loses benefits as her income rises!!!!


“Means-tested welfare spending or aid to the poor…(non-welfare programs provide benefits and services for the general population)…in 2008, total government spending on means-tested welfare or aid to the poor amounted to $714 billion. This high level of welfare spending was the result of steady permanent growth in welfare spending over several decades rather than a short-term response to temporary economic conditions…$522 billion (73 percent) was federal expenditures, and $192 billion (27 percent) was state government funds.”
Obama to Spend $10.3 Trillion on Welfare: Uncovering the Full Cost of Means-Tested Welfare or Aid to the Poor


Do you understand the phrase "Means-tested"?

you are failing to recognize or fail to accept that no american rich or poor pays a 50% tax rate. can you prove that hypothetically a person making $16k would pay 50% in taxes? no because it is impossible. maybe if you threw in sales tax, property tax and a few others you might get close. but federal deductions are capped at a certain percentage of you pay.


#4 Multiple taxation.

1. ncentive effects are compounded in our tax system through the multiple taxation of capital, …several times in federal and state tax codes. so are you arguing that states should not be able to tax people, only the fed should or vice versa?

2. Example: invest one dollar in the stock of a corporation. A dollar that the corporation earns is taxed at the corporate income tax rate of about 40% (that includes federal plus state corporate taxes). If the rest of that dollar is paid to our investor in dividends, then it is taxed again via individual income tax at the dividend tax rate. With Obama increasing the dividends tax rate from 15% to 43.4%*, applying the 43.4% rate to the 60 cents remaining after paying the corporate income tax leaves just 34 cents for the investor, of the original dollar he earned!
the corporate tax rate is only 35%. your math is quite hilarious. as the money a corporation gets from IPO's and stock purchases is not the same as money an individual investor earn. i cant even begin to explain how terrible your argument is. ill try to put it in simple words. a man invests a dollar. he earns 10 cents in a dividend, he is taxed on the 10 cents, not the original $1 principle. if the stock rises to say $2 and the investor cashes out, he pays taxes on the $1 in capital gains, not the $1 in principle. the money that a company operates on is not the same money the investors put in the market. your argument is way off base.

3. A third layer of taxation of capital income is represented by the capital gains tax. Consider an asset such as a share of stock….If that asset is sold, taxing the increased value by the capital gains tax is effectively taxing that future income stream a third time.
wow, your comment make 0 sense.

4. The death tax (estate tax) is a fourth layer of taxation on capital income. If our investor saves the 34 cents from the corporate stock and leaves it to his children, the death tax would take about half, leaving 17 cents of the original dollar.
Ferrara, “America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb,” p. 215-216."

a person earns money in their lifetime, not a family. if my father was wealthy because he had a business and did well for himself, he earned that money. thus HE has already paid taxes on it. if he leaves that money to you upon his death, that money is now transferred into you name. you (personally, as an individual) have never paid taxes on it. only your father has. thus this is akin to winning the lottery, it is new money thus it is subject to taxes. if youre argument held true, why would a rich person every keep their own money? why not pass on everything you earn to you kids and avoid paying any taxes all together?

FYI the heritage foundation is not exactly a non partisan website.

I'm always surprised when one as ignorant as you document yourself to be has no problem revealing same to the world.

You should try to stick to subjects where you might actually have some cache, such as favorite Crayola, or how far to sit from the tv….this is out of your league.

 

[Syphon]

She loses 50 cents in benefits for every dollar she now earns, that is the equivalent of a 50% tax!

OMG!!! Loses benefits as her income rises!!!!


“Means-tested welfare spending or aid to the poor…(non-welfare programs provide benefits and services for the general population)…in 2008, total government spending on means-tested welfare or aid to the poor amounted to $714 billion. This high level of welfare spending was the result of steady permanent growth in welfare spending over several decades rather than a short-term response to temporary economic conditions…$522 billion (73 percent) was federal expenditures, and $192 billion (27 percent) was state government funds.”
Obama to Spend $10.3 Trillion on Welfare: Uncovering the Full Cost of Means-Tested Welfare or Aid to the Poor


Do you understand the phrase "Means-tested"?

you are failing to recognize or fail to accept that no american rich or poor pays a 50% tax rate. can you prove that hypothetically a person making $16k would pay 50% in taxes? no because it is impossible. maybe if you threw in sales tax, property tax and a few others you might get close. but federal deductions are capped at a certain percentage of you pay.


#4 Multiple taxation.

1. ncentive effects are compounded in our tax system through the multiple taxation of capital, …several times in federal and state tax codes. so are you arguing that states should not be able to tax people, only the fed should or vice versa?

2. Example: invest one dollar in the stock of a corporation. A dollar that the corporation earns is taxed at the corporate income tax rate of about 40% (that includes federal plus state corporate taxes). If the rest of that dollar is paid to our investor in dividends, then it is taxed again via individual income tax at the dividend tax rate. With Obama increasing the dividends tax rate from 15% to 43.4%*, applying the 43.4% rate to the 60 cents remaining after paying the corporate income tax leaves just 34 cents for the investor, of the original dollar he earned!
the corporate tax rate is only 35%. your math is quite hilarious. as the money a corporation gets from IPO's and stock purchases is not the same as money an individual investor earn. i cant even begin to explain how terrible your argument is. ill try to put it in simple words. a man invests a dollar. he earns 10 cents in a dividend, he is taxed on the 10 cents, not the original $1 principle. if the stock rises to say $2 and the investor cashes out, he pays taxes on the $1 in capital gains, not the $1 in principle. the money that a company operates on is not the same money the investors put in the market. your argument is way off base.

3. A third layer of taxation of capital income is represented by the capital gains tax. Consider an asset such as a share of stock….If that asset is sold, taxing the increased value by the capital gains tax is effectively taxing that future income stream a third time.
wow, your comment make 0 sense.

4. The death tax (estate tax) is a fourth layer of taxation on capital income. If our investor saves the 34 cents from the corporate stock and leaves it to his children, the death tax would take about half, leaving 17 cents of the original dollar.
Ferrara, “America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb,” p. 215-216."

a person earns money in their lifetime, not a family. if my father was wealthy because he had a business and did well for himself, he earned that money. thus HE has already paid taxes on it. if he leaves that money to you upon his death, that money is now transferred into you name. you (personally, as an individual) have never paid taxes on it. only your father has. thus this is akin to winning the lottery, it is new money thus it is subject to taxes. if youre argument held true, why would a rich person every keep their own money? why not pass on everything you earn to you kids and avoid paying any taxes all together?

FYI the heritage foundation is not exactly a non partisan website.

I'm always surprised when one as ignorant as you document yourself to be has no problem revealing same to the world.

You should try to stick to subjects where you might actually have some cache, such as favorite Crayola, or how far to sit from the tv….this is out of your league.

thanks! im glad to see you that refuted everything i said. you can stay in your little bubble and think what you will. but your claims still dont hold up when challenged. so your automatic response to call people names and get angry. because yes, that is going to solve the problem and prove you point. well played.... well played.......

again, i would like to see a real world example of someone making $16,000 paying a 50% marginal tax rate. until you can prove that, youre simply a liar..

 

[PoliticalChic]

you are failing to recognize or fail to accept that no american rich or poor pays a 50% tax rate. can you prove that hypothetically a person making $16k would pay 50% in taxes? no because it is impossible. maybe if you threw in sales tax, property tax and a few others you might get close. but federal deductions are capped at a certain percentage of you pay.


#4 Multiple taxation.

1. ncentive effects are compounded in our tax system through the multiple taxation of capital, …several times in federal and state tax codes. so are you arguing that states should not be able to tax people, only the fed should or vice versa?

2. Example: invest one dollar in the stock of a corporation. A dollar that the corporation earns is taxed at the corporate income tax rate of about 40% (that includes federal plus state corporate taxes). If the rest of that dollar is paid to our investor in dividends, then it is taxed again via individual income tax at the dividend tax rate. With Obama increasing the dividends tax rate from 15% to 43.4%*, applying the 43.4% rate to the 60 cents remaining after paying the corporate income tax leaves just 34 cents for the investor, of the original dollar he earned!
the corporate tax rate is only 35%. your math is quite hilarious. as the money a corporation gets from IPO's and stock purchases is not the same as money an individual investor earn. i cant even begin to explain how terrible your argument is. ill try to put it in simple words. a man invests a dollar. he earns 10 cents in a dividend, he is taxed on the 10 cents, not the original $1 principle. if the stock rises to say $2 and the investor cashes out, he pays taxes on the $1 in capital gains, not the $1 in principle. the money that a company operates on is not the same money the investors put in the market. your argument is way off base.

3. A third layer of taxation of capital income is represented by the capital gains tax. Consider an asset such as a share of stock….If that asset is sold, taxing the increased value by the capital gains tax is effectively taxing that future income stream a third time.
wow, your comment make 0 sense.

4. The death tax (estate tax) is a fourth layer of taxation on capital income. If our investor saves the 34 cents from the corporate stock and leaves it to his children, the death tax would take about half, leaving 17 cents of the original dollar.
Ferrara, “America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb,” p. 215-216."

a person earns money in their lifetime, not a family. if my father was wealthy because he had a business and did well for himself, he earned that money. thus HE has already paid taxes on it. if he leaves that money to you upon his death, that money is now transferred into you name. you (personally, as an individual) have never paid taxes on it. only your father has. thus this is akin to winning the lottery, it is new money thus it is subject to taxes. if youre argument held true, why would a rich person every keep their own money? why not pass on everything you earn to you kids and avoid paying any taxes all together?

FYI the heritage foundation is not exactly a non partisan website.

I'm always surprised when one as ignorant as you document yourself to be has no problem revealing same to the world.

You should try to stick to subjects where you might actually have some cache, such as favorite Crayola, or how far to sit from the tv….this is out of your league.

thanks! im glad to see you that refuted everything i said. you can stay in your little bubble and think what you will. but your claims still dont hold up when challenged. so your automatic response to call people names and get angry. because yes, that is going to solve the problem and prove you point. well played.... well played.......

again, i would like to see a real world example of someone making $16,000 paying a 50% marginal tax rate. until you can prove that, youre simply a liar..

After several valiant, yet fruitless attempts to educate you...no doubt, the same results and emotions your grade-school teachers accumulated, I realized that the reference from Matthew 7:6, from the Sermon on the Mount, applies here.

My efforts are no more efficacious than pearls before swine.

 

[Syphon]

so your response is "youre dumb". really? i rip apart your position and dispel your "evidence" and im the one who is dumb?

you have provided no proof to support your positions, and your argument claims that corporate profits are the actual money as stock profits and dividends; which are then tax three times because the corporation pays taxes on the money, then the investors pays taxes on the dividends and then they pay taxes on the capital gains. this being the same dollar is taxed 3 times, bringing the tax level to 66%.

wow, there is no help for you at all.

what world do you live in? you have no comprehension of how taxation works.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

you are failing to recognize or fail to accept that no american rich or poor pays a 50% tax rate. can you prove that hypothetically a person making $16k would pay 50% in taxes? no because it is impossible. maybe if you threw in sales tax, property tax and a few others you might get close. but federal deductions are capped at a certain percentage of you pay.


#4 Multiple taxation.

1. ncentive effects are compounded in our tax system through the multiple taxation of capital, …several times in federal and state tax codes. so are you arguing that states should not be able to tax people, only the fed should or vice versa?

2. Example: invest one dollar in the stock of a corporation. A dollar that the corporation earns is taxed at the corporate income tax rate of about 40% (that includes federal plus state corporate taxes). If the rest of that dollar is paid to our investor in dividends, then it is taxed again via individual income tax at the dividend tax rate. With Obama increasing the dividends tax rate from 15% to 43.4%*, applying the 43.4% rate to the 60 cents remaining after paying the corporate income tax leaves just 34 cents for the investor, of the original dollar he earned!
the corporate tax rate is only 35%. your math is quite hilarious. as the money a corporation gets from IPO's and stock purchases is not the same as money an individual investor earn. i cant even begin to explain how terrible your argument is. ill try to put it in simple words. a man invests a dollar. he earns 10 cents in a dividend, he is taxed on the 10 cents, not the original $1 principle. if the stock rises to say $2 and the investor cashes out, he pays taxes on the $1 in capital gains, not the $1 in principle. the money that a company operates on is not the same money the investors put in the market. your argument is way off base.

3. A third layer of taxation of capital income is represented by the capital gains tax. Consider an asset such as a share of stock….If that asset is sold, taxing the increased value by the capital gains tax is effectively taxing that future income stream a third time.
wow, your comment make 0 sense.

4. The death tax (estate tax) is a fourth layer of taxation on capital income. If our investor saves the 34 cents from the corporate stock and leaves it to his children, the death tax would take about half, leaving 17 cents of the original dollar.
Ferrara, “America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb,” p. 215-216."

a person earns money in their lifetime, not a family. if my father was wealthy because he had a business and did well for himself, he earned that money. thus HE has already paid taxes on it. if he leaves that money to you upon his death, that money is now transferred into you name. you (personally, as an individual) have never paid taxes on it. only your father has. thus this is akin to winning the lottery, it is new money thus it is subject to taxes. if youre argument held true, why would a rich person every keep their own money? why not pass on everything you earn to you kids and avoid paying any taxes all together?

FYI the heritage foundation is not exactly a non partisan website.

I'm always surprised when one as ignorant as you document yourself to be has no problem revealing same to the world.

You should try to stick to subjects where you might actually have some cache, such as favorite Crayola, or how far to sit from the tv….this is out of your league.

thanks! im glad to see you that refuted everything i said. you can stay in your little bubble and think what you will. but your claims still dont hold up when challenged. so your automatic response to call people names and get angry. because yes, that is going to solve the problem and prove you point. well played.... well played.......

again, i would like to see a real world example of someone making $16,000 paying a 50% marginal tax rate. until you can prove that, youre simply a liar..

He refuted half of what you said before you said it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

so your response is "youre dumb". really? i rip apart your position and dispel your "evidence" and im the one who is dumb?

you have provided no proof to support your positions, and your argument claims that corporate profits are the actual money as stock profits and dividends; which are then tax three times because the corporation pays taxes on the money, then the investors pays taxes on the dividends and then they pay taxes on the capital gains. this being the same dollar is taxed 3 times, bringing the tax level to 66%.

wow, there is no help for you at all.

what world do you live in? you have no comprehension of how taxation works.

Let me get this straight, someone explains that the combined state and federal tax rate is 40% and you respond by saying that the federal corporate tax rate is only 35% you think that you somehow refuted something? Dumb is way to kind.

 

[PoliticalChic]

so your response is "youre dumb". really? i rip apart your position and dispel your "evidence" and im the one who is dumb?

you have provided no proof to support your positions, and your argument claims that corporate profits are the actual money as stock profits and dividends; which are then tax three times because the corporation pays taxes on the money, then the investors pays taxes on the dividends and then they pay taxes on the capital gains. this being the same dollar is taxed 3 times, bringing the tax level to 66%.

wow, there is no help for you at all.

what world do you live in? you have no comprehension of how taxation works.

"youre dumb".

Actually, you're uneducated.

And, with no basis for understanding the material offered, you have no hope of being educated.

There are the folks who know, and the folks who don’t know, but you belong to the third group: the ones who don’t know, and don’t know they don’t know.

But you’d make a damn fine organ donor…

 

[Syphon]

so your response is "youre dumb". really? i rip apart your position and dispel your "evidence" and im the one who is dumb?

you have provided no proof to support your positions, and your argument claims that corporate profits are the actual money as stock profits and dividends; which are then tax three times because the corporation pays taxes on the money, then the investors pays taxes on the dividends and then they pay taxes on the capital gains. this being the same dollar is taxed 3 times, bringing the tax level to 66%.

wow, there is no help for you at all.

what world do you live in? you have no comprehension of how taxation works.

"youre dumb".

Actually, you're uneducated.

And, with no basis for understanding the material offered, you have no hope of being educated.

There are the folks who know, and the folks who don’t know, but you belong to the third group: the ones who don’t know, and don’t know they don’t know.

But you’d make a damn fine organ donor…

can you provide the section of the US tax code that states the corporate profits, dividends and capital gains are in fact treat as the same money and thus are subject to taxation 3 times?

good luck, its doesnt exist.

can you also point me to the section of the tax code which allows for a person making $16k per year to pay an effective tax rate of 50%?

and you call me uneducated? if you can not provide any proof of this to support your argument, you are simply a liar.

 

[Syphon]

so your response is "youre dumb". really? i rip apart your position and dispel your "evidence" and im the one who is dumb?

you have provided no proof to support your positions, and your argument claims that corporate profits are the actual money as stock profits and dividends; which are then tax three times because the corporation pays taxes on the money, then the investors pays taxes on the dividends and then they pay taxes on the capital gains. this being the same dollar is taxed 3 times, bringing the tax level to 66%.

wow, there is no help for you at all.

what world do you live in? you have no comprehension of how taxation works.

Let me get this straight, someone explains that the combined state and federal tax rate is 40% and you respond by saying that the federal corporate tax rate is only 35% you think that you somehow refuted something? Dumb is way to kind.

seeing as how state and federal taxes are separate, your argument doesnt hold water. its also a know fact that state taxes for corporations can be a federal tax deduction in certain states. http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/corp_inc.pdf

now tell me again how corporate profits, stock dividends and capital gain are the exact same money and are taxed 3 times?

windbag actually suits you quite well.......

 

[PoliticalChic]

so your response is "youre dumb". really? i rip apart your position and dispel your "evidence" and im the one who is dumb?

you have provided no proof to support your positions, and your argument claims that corporate profits are the actual money as stock profits and dividends; which are then tax three times because the corporation pays taxes on the money, then the investors pays taxes on the dividends and then they pay taxes on the capital gains. this being the same dollar is taxed 3 times, bringing the tax level to 66%.

wow, there is no help for you at all.

what world do you live in? you have no comprehension of how taxation works.

"youre dumb".

Actually, you're uneducated.

And, with no basis for understanding the material offered, you have no hope of being educated.

There are the folks who know, and the folks who don’t know, but you belong to the third group: the ones who don’t know, and don’t know they don’t know.

But you’d make a damn fine organ donor…

can you provide the section of the US tax code that states the corporate profits, dividends and capital gains are in fact treat as the same money and thus are subject to taxation 3 times?

good luck, its doesnt exist.

can you also point me to the section of the tax code which allows for a person making $16k per year to pay an effective tax rate of 50%?

and you call me uneducated? if you can not provide any proof of this to support your argument, you are simply a liar.

Uneducated is the least of it.....here, let me amplify: you're also a dunce.

You'd be well advised to pay attention to the old saying: Better to let people think you’re a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Silence is golden. Duct tape is silver.

 

[Syphon]

great! glad to see you totally disproved my argument. still waiting on your evidence......

 

[PoliticalChic]

great! glad to see you totally disproved my argument. still waiting on your evidence......

The problem is hardly the lack of evidence, the problem is your lack of understanding same.

You're wasting so much time here when you could be learning to fold fitted sheets.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

so your response is "youre dumb". really? i rip apart your position and dispel your "evidence" and im the one who is dumb?

you have provided no proof to support your positions, and your argument claims that corporate profits are the actual money as stock profits and dividends; which are then tax three times because the corporation pays taxes on the money, then the investors pays taxes on the dividends and then they pay taxes on the capital gains. this being the same dollar is taxed 3 times, bringing the tax level to 66%.

wow, there is no help for you at all.

what world do you live in? you have no comprehension of how taxation works.

Let me get this straight, someone explains that the combined state and federal tax rate is 40% and you respond by saying that the federal corporate tax rate is only 35% you think that you somehow refuted something? Dumb is way to kind.

seeing as how state and federal taxes are separate, your argument doesnt hold water. its also a know fact that state taxes for corporations can be a federal tax deduction in certain states. http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/corp_inc.pdf

now tell me again how corporate profits, stock dividends and capital gain are the exact same money and are taxed 3 times?

windbag actually suits you quite well.......

You want me to explain the obvious? While I am at it should I also explain how the sun rises in the east, even though it doesn't?

 

[Syphon]

Let me get this straight, someone explains that the combined state and federal tax rate is 40% and you respond by saying that the federal corporate tax rate is only 35% you think that you somehow refuted something? Dumb is way to kind.

seeing as how state and federal taxes are separate, your argument doesnt hold water. its also a know fact that state taxes for corporations can be a federal tax deduction in certain states. http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/corp_inc.pdf

now tell me again how corporate profits, stock dividends and capital gain are the exact same money and are taxed 3 times?

windbag actually suits you quite well.......

You want me to explain the obvious? While I am at it should I also explain how the sun rises in the east, even though it doesn't?

now tell me again how corporate profits, stock dividends and capital gains are the exact same money and are taxed 3 times?

answer the question.

 

[theHawk]

Obama has already proven Republicans right, he refused to raise taxes when he had an all Dem Congress, and now he is calling for corporate tax cuts.

That's all the Obam-bots need to know.

 

[Syphon]

Obama has already proven Republicans right, he refused to raise taxes when he had an all Dem Congress, and now he is calling for corporate tax cuts.

That's all the Obam-bots need to know.

hes calling to lower the rate and eliminate loop holes. which will in effect raise the effective rates that some corporation actually pay. companies such as GE who paid 0% in taxes last year.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

seeing as how state and federal taxes are separate, your argument doesnt hold water. its also a know fact that state taxes for corporations can be a federal tax deduction in certain states. http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/corp_inc.pdf

now tell me again how corporate profits, stock dividends and capital gain are the exact same money and are taxed 3 times?

windbag actually suits you quite well.......

You want me to explain the obvious? While I am at it should I also explain how the sun rises in the east, even though it doesn't?

now tell me again how corporate profits, stock dividends and capital gains are the exact same money and are taxed 3 times?

answer the question.

The Earth rotates about its axis making the sun appear to rise in the East. Everyone knows this is not what actually happens, but Einstein actually proved that everything is relative to the person observing it, and that means it does, even though it doesn't if you were observing from a place other than the surface of the Earth.

 

[kiwiman127]

1. The 1993 Clinton tax increase appears to having the opposite effect on the willingness of wealthy taxpayers to expose income to taxation. According to IRS data, the income generated by the top one percent of income earners actually declined in 1993. This decline is especially significant since the retroactivity of the Clinton tax increase in that year limited the ability of taxpayers to deploy tax avoidance strategies, temporarily resulting in an increase in their tax burden.
The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform

This Joint Economic Report that is being used as fact is actually an opinion report by a committee made up entirely of Republicans!
"...poor people rely on social services..."
Rather than 'rely on,' these folks are sold into welfare-slavery..."

2. Of course, our Liberal friends have made certain that their ‘client base’ cannot escape! There is no way out of the ‘Poverty Trap’- those who try to work to find their way out of the trap will find that, as income rises, the loss of their welfare benefits is the same as a huge tax on their earnings!
Ferrara, "America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb," chapter five

a. Take the example of someone receiving $12,000 in welfare benefits. She takes a new job earning $16,000 a year. But if she loses 50 cents in benefits for every dollar she now earns, that is the equivalent of a 50% tax! Plus, the payroll tax is another 7.65%, and federal tax is another 10% on the margin, plus state tax of 5%.... total: 72.65% tax. Where is the incentive to work? Comes to a salary of $84.15/ week. Now subtract transportation, lunches, etc., etc.

b. “…but the central point is obvious. Marginal tax rates for inner-city inhabitants are prohibitively high. Over the entire wage range from zero to $1,600 per month (equivalent to a gross paycheck of $1,463 per month), the family's monthly spendable income rises by $69. This corresponds to an average tax "wedge" of 95.7 percent. More shocking, between zero and $1,200 per month in gross wages, the family loses $46 in monthly spendable income -- an average tax in excess of 100 percent. This loss in net spendable income is concentrated between gross wages of $700 and $1,200 per month. As monthly wages paid rise by $500 in this span, the family loses its entitlement to $385 in AFDC benefits and $9 in food stamps. In addition the housing subsidy is reduced by $23 and the value of medical benefits declines an estimated $130. At the same time the family's tax liabilities increase by a total of $161 -- $8 in state income and disability insurance taxes, $68 in payroll taxes, and $85 in federal income tax. (Details of these calculations are given in the appendix.)” The Tightening Grip of the Poverty Trap

What do you think the lesson is?
You should read Alexis de Tocqueville.

You should read books that aren't written by authors that represent just one ideology! Peter Ferrara, whose book you quoted is a columnist for the strong right wing resource, The American Spectator

So your post uses nothing but opinions of the the Right,,nothing new here.

Only the weak-minded Leftist...oops...was I just redundant???...attempts to dispense with facts by objecting to the one who presents same.

So...rather than the sophomoric attempt you've proposed...

...how about attempting to show any errors in the post...

...can you?

I didn't think so.


So, let's review: the simple-minded folks argue against reading, and offer nothing by way of rebuttal...merely moan about who offers the evidence, not the authenticity of said evidence.

I'd laugh at you if you weren't so sickening.


But the way...just to prove what an idiot you are, one of the books I'm reading is

"Rights Gone Wrong: How Law Corrupts the Struggle for Equality" by
Richard Thompson Ford


Another is
"Static: Government Liars, Media Cheerleaders, and the People Who Fight Back" by Amy Goodman and David Goodman

Others I've read this year include
Glenn Greenwald's “With Liberty and Justice for Some; How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful”

and
“Why We’re Liberals,” by Eric Alterman

Every on is way Liberal, dope.


Now you....did you finish the "Cat in the Hat" yet???

I can Google "liberal books" or conservative for that matter and say I have read anyone these books.

Cat in the Hat? I read that book to my kids and also to their children. What's your point? Do you need to know the ending?

I am what I say I am, I'm a independent moderate. I have recent posts that are against raising taxes on the wealthy, against Obamacare and, pro-Keystone Pipeline. True, I'm 100% for Main Street America which conflicts with the narrow ideology that you married. But hey, I'm middle class! What am I supposed to do, cower to folks with Big Money? That's self-defeating!

You know, I bet if your ego wasn't the size of Texas, you might just be bearable. Open your eyes, the world has more sides than your narrow vision can identify.

 

[Syphon]

You want me to explain the obvious? While I am at it should I also explain how the sun rises in the east, even though it doesn't?

now tell me again how corporate profits, stock dividends and capital gains are the exact same money and are taxed 3 times?

answer the question.

The Earth rotates about its axis making the sun appear to rise in the East. Everyone knows this is not what actually happens, but Einstein actually proved that everything is relative to the person observing it, and that means it does, even though it doesn't if you were observing from a place other than the surface of the Earth.

what does this have to do with the claim of triple taxation? and in reality the sun never actually sets or rises. it is always there, it just happens to out of the line of sight of an individual. if you were in the space station, you would see the sun at all times.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

now tell me again how corporate profits, stock dividends and capital gains are the exact same money and are taxed 3 times?

answer the question.

The Earth rotates about its axis making the sun appear to rise in the East. Everyone knows this is not what actually happens, but Einstein actually proved that everything is relative to the person observing it, and that means it does, even though it doesn't if you were observing from a place other than the surface of the Earth.

what does this have to do with the claim of triple taxation? and in reality the sun never actually sets or rises. it is always there, it just happens to out of the line of sight of an individual. if you were in the space station, you would see the sun at all times.

It illustrates the problem of explaining things that are relative to a person who insists his POV is the only valid one. If you go back and actually read what I posted you will see I used different words, but I actually said exactly the same thing you did. In order for me to explain the double taxation on corporate dividends you would have to move from your view where you are the center of the universe and actually view what it looks like from what, to you, is essentially an omnipotent viewpoint that can track the money through a system that is outside your solar system.