Skull Pilot
Diamond Member
- Nov 17, 2007
- 45,446
- 6,164
- 1,830
how do you know how much they pay in taxes?
oh yeah you don't know
and I can guarantee it's probably more than you make in a year
Restaurants are adding labor surcharges to help offset minimum wage increases
- Thread starter Cellblock2429
- Start date
how do you know how much they pay in taxes?
oh yeah you don't know
and I can guarantee it's probably more than you make in a year
Skull Pilot
Diamond Member
- Nov 17, 2007
- 45,446
- 6,164
- 1,830
well his tax attorneys are smart
Skull Pilot
Diamond Member
- Nov 17, 2007
- 45,446
- 6,164
- 1,830
so you've never employed anyone and had everyone you call to ask to come in say no
thanks for admitting that
and where did I call anyone lazy?
Iceweasel
Diamond Member
You failed to answer the question and insulted instead. Why not make the business owner pay starting wages $50/hr to prove how good you are?
Dschrute3
Gold Member
- Dec 10, 2016
- 15,572
- 1,882
- 290
Obviously that happens. And they decline for various reasons. Some are valid reasons, and some aren't. But most Workers i've ever been around, accept as many hours as they can get.
So y'all greedy white Republicans are just demonizing to justify mistreating fellow Americans. It makes you feel better about it. If they're all 'Evil Lazy Welfare' folks, you feel good about mistreating them. It's hateful delusional thinking.
Iceweasel
Diamond Member
If everyone made a lot more everything would cost a lot more. DUUUUHHHHHH
Iceweasel
Diamond Member
You're a racist hate monger. Gee, I think I'll use your economic philosophy!
Dschrute3
Gold Member
- Dec 10, 2016
- 15,572
- 1,882
- 290
Like i said, just more bizarre greedy white Republican exaggerating. The sky won't fall if we pay our struggling fellow Americans a few more bucks. Your fear mongering doesn't fly with me.
Dschrute3
Gold Member
- Dec 10, 2016
- 15,572
- 1,882
- 290
Aw, all done beating Edith? Back to your recliner, Archie?
Mr Natural
Platinum Member
- Aug 23, 2009
- 24,020
- 11,785
- 950
I sure hope that the petty douchebags bitching about overpaid workers are employers and not employees.
Dschrute3
Gold Member
- Dec 10, 2016
- 15,572
- 1,882
- 290
Some are employers, but others are just confused hateful Republicans who don't know any better. They're ignorant.
Iceweasel
Diamond Member
Who would hire you? You're unemployable.
Dschrute3
Gold Member
- Dec 10, 2016
- 15,572
- 1,882
- 290
Just another greedy white Republican delusion. Y'all really do have problems. All American Workers aren't 'Evil Lazy Welfare' folks. Y'all have just created that Boogeyman in your warped minds. It's a way for you to justify mistreating your fellow Americans.
I mean if they're all 'Evil Lazy Welfare' folks, than it's perfectly ok to abuse them, right? Y'all are consumed with greed. I really do hope you come around and see the light someday. I really do.
francoHFW
Diamond Member
The OP says it's 3-4%. No big
No, they were totally obstructed. Duh. At least no GOP corrupt bubbles under them, and intelligent foreign policy. Reaganism rolls on, dupe.
francoHFW
Diamond Member
GOOD. About time.
Iceweasel
Diamond Member
I really hope you learn how to read someday. When you do, post where I said all that.
Dschrute3
Gold Member
- Dec 10, 2016
- 15,572
- 1,882
- 290
You've invented this 'Evil Lazy Welfare' Boogeyman in your greedy little minds. It isn't representative of most American Workers. I assure you, most American Workers aren't that Boogeyman. They're just decent folks struggling to get by.
francoHFW
Diamond Member
I read facts and journalism from IRS sources, DUH dupe.
francoHFW
Diamond Member
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjhxNjc39bSAhUo0oMKHREvB9gQFggrMAU&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=uy0aF6Qfav3OEFdmDiIHbA
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:
As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.
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:
As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.
francoHFW
Diamond Member
Like that matters, Pub dupe. They pay less %wise and end up with all the new wealth, dope
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:
As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
US aid cuts leave food for millions mouldering in storage- Started by C_Clayton_Jones
- Replies: 0
-
DHS Exploring Reality TV Show Where Migrants Compete For Citizenship- Started by EvilEyeFleegle
- Replies: 0
-
DOGE went looking for phone fraud at SSA -- and found almost none
- Started by C_Clayton_Jones
- Replies: 4
-
Ontario animal welfare agents seized dogs they said were in distress. Then the animals started to die on the government’s watch- Started by shockedcanadian
- Replies: 0
