So your cure for the whole country and the middle class falling apart is for people to find a good job? LOL.
poverty and the new deal 1933:
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?
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=xYPpaEMcNvg2lSJR0GnSkw
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?
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."
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.
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:
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.
if it were that easy, there would be no homelessness, in Right to Work States.
the poor don't whine about taxes.
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=xYPpaEMcNvg2lSJR0GnSkw
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.
They should.
