Are you a student of Common Core? I never graduated from college, yet my PHD in the school of life, has enabled me to figure out who is ******* you and who isn't.
Nw, man, listening to hate radio every day doesn't make you smarter.
And that was why Nancy Pelosi assumed the gavel, because Conservatives saw how the establishment Repubs were against the people.
Nancy got the gavel because Bush lied us into a war in Iraq, and thousands of Americans came home in boxes or wheelchairs. that's why Nancy got the gavel. Of course, by then it was too late, the Wall Street Foxes had taken all the chickens.
Liberals don't want a consumption tax, for then everyone must pay a fair tax.
No, a consumption tax is a terrible idea for a totally different reason. People would actually consume less. They'll put off purchases and not make some purchases at all.
That means less money for people who make things and people who sell things, and then they have to start firing people.
Here's the thing, when you make the rich pay their fair share, you have the economic growth to keep the national debt down as a percentage of GDP.
Here's a graph to help you out. We had a big spike in the Debt with World War II when we were saving the world. But we kept making the rich pay their fair share, and the debt went down as the economy continued to grow and we invested in important infrastructure like schools and roads and stuff.
Then along came your boy Ronnie Raygun, who cut the taxes on the rich and busted the middle class,and guess what, the National debt tripled. Went from 30% of GDP to 70% of GDP by the time Bush-41 was thrown out of office.
Clinton made the rich pay their fair share again, and it started to do down, but then Bush cut their taxes and it ballooned up to where it is today.
Here's the thing, when you make the rich pay their fair share, you have the economic growth to keep the national debt down as a percentage of GDP.
Here is the $20,000 question, that liberals always avoid, because they have their heads up Uranus.
Now focus Joe, this question is always asked but never answered by you libtards.....
What is a FAIR SHARE that the rich should have to pay? Isnt 55% of the taxes taken in by the IRS from the RICH enough? Why should the poor get earned income credits, and not pay? Where is their fair share?
Brainwashed by BS^^
The one tax graph you really need to know
By Ezra Klein September 19, 2012
At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.
This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from "how much in taxes do you pay" to "how much in federal income taxes do you pay?" This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It's bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.
There's a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we've done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.
Wonkbook newsletter
Your daily policy cheat sheet from Wonkblog.
But most people don't know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, they're outraged -- even if they're among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they're paying taxes, and there's no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren't classified as "federal income taxes."
Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.
Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he's not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.
That's the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it's a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.
But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He's paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who's not getting a fair shake?
Which is why, if you want to understand who's paying what in taxes, you don't want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes -- you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group
Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:
That's really what the American tax system looks like: Not 47 percent paying nothing, but everybody paying something, and most Americans paying between 25 percent and 30 percent of their income -- which is, by the way, a lot more the 13.9 percent Mitt Romney paid in 2011*.
The one tax graph you really need to know
