Reaganism has killed the middle class, still going. Great job!

Lack or rebuttal noted.

 

What specifically did Reagan do?

 

Ah shucks! You ruined it! Just as I was developing some pride in your ability to write without using trite expressions, you used another one. Now I am disappointed in you. You might just as well revert to writing "Got it!"

 

This will embarrass Democrats. That plus the employment participation rate for Obama is sheer terror.

 

Time for a Trump trade/immigration policy

 

Lack of rebuttal noted again.

 

you do not have a right to extra super sized tax cuts.... they are not free, you get them, others have to make up the difference

how about we give the middle class a 100% tax cut and let the rich make up the difference, sure they would not mind, I mean tax cuts are free.. right?

.

 

the lower income earner puts almost 100% of their money back into the local economy, no reason for us to be jealous of the lower income earners..... if you want to be one, you could get a job paying less easy enough

.

 

Damn right!

-- History will be the judge. Not MSNBC.

 

Cut taxes on the rich and corps,raised them on the rest, and in effect state and local taxes and fees have risen in reaction to lower fed aid, killing the nonrich.

 

Time to tax the richest and corps their fair share and investing in the middle class and America, not ANOTHER tax cut for the rich and ANOTHER deregulation GOP bubble/bust. And an immigration bill with a good SS ID card ferchrissake. A wall is stupid and nuts, for ignorant bigots only.

 

The only "fair share" of taxes for anyone is none. See sig.

 

Federal spending has increased at roughly the same rate as it did before Reagan was elected. Why do state and local taxes hurt the nonrich???

 

Obamacare did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

You have a right to your own money now stop with the nonsense and answer the question.

Under which rate did we raise the most capital gains tax revenue the Clinton 29% or the Bush43 15% rate?

 

The highest earners the top 1% pay almost 40% of income taxes, the top 20% paying almost 90% of income taxes while the bottom 50% page virtually nothing. If the highest earners are not paying their fair share at those percentages then tell me what would be their fair share.

 

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.

But here is really the only tax graph you need: It's total tax burden by income group. And as you'll see, every income group is paying something, and the rich aren't paying much more, as a percentage of their incomes, then the middle class.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-47-percent-argument-is-an-abuse-of-tax-data/

 

so why do you have issue with the poor not paying taxes then, don't they have a right to keep more of their money, why is it only the rich the right seem to defend when it comes to extra super sized tax cuts

how about some extra supper sized tax cuts for the middle class for once

 

1. Stop dishonestly calling "sales taxes" state and local taxes. That may play in the echo chamber, not here. The reason this canard is played is that when taxpayers learn that sales taxes are the only taxes "the poor" pay the rational response is "hell yeah, they should pay -something- for the local services they get." So, they are dishonestly called "state and local taxes" to hide the reality that that's all the 47% pay (payroll taxes don't count, because as our Democrat sages tell us, those are "trust funds" returned to payors in time). Sales taxes are some of the only truly fair taxes in the US. Don't want to pay much in sales tax? Live in one of the -many- states that exempt food from sales taxes entirely, and don't buy lots of highly taxed products like cigarettes, alcohol and gasoline (use public transportation... partly paid for by others' sales taxes). Buy clothes and other necessities on tax free weeks and weekends. But of course that would require effort and good choices, something verboten to the US "poor."

2. Want to include -all taxes- at -all levels- in "who pays" analysis? The average working American pays 35-50% in taxes at all levels. You won't be raising lots of money with the resentment ad, "soak the rich," despite that the sewer pipe repeats that and variants constantly, so it will be the middle and upper middle who pays and pays and pays, not the 47% who don't pay. SO HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH? HOW MUCH OF THE YEAR SHOULD ONE HAVE TO WORK TO "EARN" THE PRIVILEGE OF HAVING LARGE, DUMB, CORRUPT government in one's life at every interval? How much should hard-working productive people pay so that there can be even more employees in courthouses, schoolhouses, bureaus, bureaucracies doing the work of 1/3 of a productive private sector person? HOW F-ING MUCH? They never answer this in a clear, direct, adult policy way because enough is never enough for the infinite greed of the gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-MSM Complex.

3. Face it, the whole appeal is in favor of not "the poor" but greedy PUBLIC UNIONS, NEA and others smaller who think a teacher (or other gov union employee) should earn 6 figures and have among the fattest pensions in the land. The SICK thing is that WE taxpayers pay for all the ignorant buffoonery resentment propaganda leveled at US, telling US that after a long career busting our ass and being underpaid, when things start to finally pay off, that "we're the 1%, we're the rich," as if all the hard work was a silver spoon, not deprivation for years, and that we have "always" been there. <Vomit>. That's right, the unions all have PR departments full of people peddling this horsesht 24-7... and those of us who pay, pay for all of that. Sound fair?

Abolish public unions utterly and entirely. They are a cancer in our culture and economy, fomenting lie narrative resentment constantly without any thought to the consequences we suffer from near daily now.

 

No it is quite accurate IRS tax data.

Well since we are talking federal taxes and the rates at which they are collected and for which individuals these are primarily income taxes...................you know the ones Republicans have cut.

Well when you start to conflate all sorts of non-associated taxes and then with your FICA contributions into defined benefits programs you can't hardly have a conversation.

There is no one tax bill people pay, they pay all sorts of unconnected unassociated taxes. This thread is talking about federal income tax rates. I know you need to conflate all these other taxes and fees in order to ask you the salient question.

Yet the Democrats and left claims they are not paying their "fair share" and want to raise income tax rates on the highest earners.

Even those taxes are nowhere near what the higher earners pay.

Which one we have many varied tax codes.

Not only that but make money off the tax code, we should be outraged that almost half the taxpayers pay virtually nothing to fund the operation of the federal government.

It makes it discussable at all. Cities and counties tax as they see fit, states tax as they see fit, the federal government taxes as it sees fit, of course all with THOSE citizens of those separate tax entities overseeing that with their votes. If you think you state taxes your lower income citizens too high, then change it in your state. It has nothing to do with federal tax rates.

Yes the federal income tax system if that is what you are talking about as I assume.

The rich guy pays more than double into they system, does he get double the benefit? The rich guy has a net loss on the money he pays into his retirement from SS, the middle class guy actual makes a return on his investment into it. Now who's getting a fair shake?

Then take that up with your local and state government it has nothing to do with federal tax rates or tax law or tax revenue and federal tax rates cannot be set on state and local policies because there are thousands of completely separate ones.

 

Wrong , the graph shows how much people pay. The point is that the RICHEST don't pay their fair share, and 58-99% of new wealth stays with them. Dems want them to pay more, and you less. Change the channel.

READ THIS: The graph won't copy.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-47-percent-argument-is-an-abuse-of-tax-data/

 

Fed aid to states etc go done, state and local taxes go up duh.

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.

But here is really the only tax graph you need: It's total tax burden by income group. And as you'll see, every income group is paying something, and the rich aren't paying much more, as a percentage of their incomes, then the middle class.

Wonkbook newsletter
Your daily policy cheat sheet from Wonkblog.
Sign up


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*.

When politicians try to convince you that half of Americans aren't really paying taxes, it's usually because the real data undermines their preferred policies. For instance, you wouldn't look at these numbers and think tax cuts for the rich need to be a huge priority. And that's one reason people who want more tax cuts for the rich don't like to show you these numbers.

* Romney's 13.9 percent rate only counts his federal taxes. He hasn't released his state and local returns for 2011, so we can't say how that would change his total tax rate. But given the state and local averages for someone in his income group, it's likely to remain well below the 25-30 percent that is typical.

 

Unresponsive, and it's you who are "wrong" in peddling easy to debunk wealth resentment propaganda created by well-paid public union parasites on the taxpayer. You and yours aren't fooling reasonable people, especially the small businesspeople of this country with the constant "help the poor" canard. It's really "help yourselves" and we know it full well.

 

Payroll taxes are extremely progressive in that the low-mid earner will easily get back what they put in and far, far more, while the people who cap out will -never- get anywhere near the amount they put in. That's a fact.

 

LOL

Obama killed the middle class.