Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This means that in NY and CA, when you include state and local taxes, some people will be paying over 80% in taxes. Thats just absurd, regardless of how much money anyone makes. The federal government does not have the right to take 70% of anyone's income, taking ~30% is questionable, especially considering how wasteful they are with it.
You know you are way out in left field when Whoopi Goldberg has to be the voice of reason.
You are using a false statistic to make me think that I am much poorer than I actually am. You are being disingenuous. You won't even admit that $60k for one person is twice the income/wealth that $60k for two or more people is
That depends on where in the US they live.
There are people in Ohio earning $30,000 who make $10,000 more than people in New Jersey earning $70,000.
Your government is fully aware of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Nope. Not according to the IRS or Obamacare rules, etc. Each US 1040 represents a household.
That's right.
If Grandma is living with you and you claim her as a dependent on your 1040/1040A then she is not eligible for SNAP benefits and may or may not be eligible for Medicaid depending on the exact circumstances.
But, if you do not claim her and she files her own separate 1040/1040A/1040EZ, then she is a totally separate household, and she is eligible for SNAP benefits and Medicaid and other benefits, but her SNAP benefits will be reduced because she pays no rent or utilities.
If Grandma claims to be paying rent or utilities, then you best be claiming that as income on your 1040/1040A or you'll both be subject to prosecution for criminal fraud.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220
That's median household income, the median individual income is around $27k; I don't know why you keep parroting that. And $28k is the median individual income in my county, Maricopa County, AZ
Actually, the median is $25 Million.
For any data-set you may derive the mean, median and mode.
The median is the mid-point of the data values. In 2017, the most recent data available, there were 205 people who had wages of $50 Million or more, mostly celebrities, entertainers and athletes.
If $50 Million is the highest value, then the median is exactly half of that value, or $25 Million.
The mode is the most common data value, and only exists when two or more data-points are of equal value.
Your modal wages are $0-$5,000, since 21,455,269 people, mostly retirees, have wages of $0-$5,000 annually.
Your wage average is $48,251 annually.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald
There is a precedent. She isn't proposing anything new.
Actually, she is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald
The Middle Class and most of America's infrastructure was built on 70% and above.
And under the 1954 IRS Tax Code.
Your claim is valid, if and only if, you revert back to the 1954 IRS Tax Code.
Apparently, you are totally incapable of grasping the implications of the IRS Tax Code.
Taxing people at 91% under the 1954 IRS Tax Code is not the same as taxing people at 91% under the 1986 IRS Tax Code or later changes to the Tax Code.
Likewise, taxing people at 70% under the 1954 IRS Tax Code is not equivalent to taxing people at 70% under the 1986 IRS Tax Code.
The 1986 IRS Tax Code eliminated thousands of income deductions and income tax credits that were available under the 1954 IRS Tax Code.
Precisely because of those income deductions and tax credits available under the 1954 IRS Tax Code no one ever paid 91% or even 70%. At most they paid 44%. You need only go to the IRS web-site and download the Statistics of Income to see that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Incorrect. You've never heard of Karen Ignagni.
She doesn't know what she's talking about.
Insurance works, because the total liability is known in advance.
If you issue $50 Million life insurance policies, what is your total liability?
Well, duh, that's a no-brainer, it's $50 Million, not $90 Million or $150 Million or $250 Million.
It's $50 Million, and not a penny more.
That concept holds true for auto insurance, boat insurance, home-owner's insurance, renter's insurance, business, fire and casualty and all other insurance, except health insurance.
Because in every instance insurers know their total liability in advance, they can employ actuarial science to set premiums for policy holders to cover their liabilities.
What is your total liability for policies issued under Obamacare?
You have no freaking idea, because thanks to the American Hospital Association and Elizabeth Warren and her colleagues at Physicians for NAZI Healthcare, policy limits are expressly banned under Obamacare.
How do you calculate premiums under Obamacare when your liability is Infinity?
Infinity isn't free. Someone's got to pay for it, so naturally, premiums went up.
Status:
"Moldy Tater Gangrene, even before Moscow Marge."
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,599,675 times
Reputation: 5697
Quote:
Originally Posted by t206
Um, no. We have laws that make bribery illegal.
Um, no. That doesn't stop bribery. At any rate, the infamous Citizens United decision effectively legalizes bribery, which is what large campaign contributions by private individuals are.
Um, no. That doesn't stop bribery. At any rate, the infamous Citizens United decision effectively legalizes bribery, which is what large campaign contributions by private individuals are.
And if it doesn't stop bribery from happening, then they can be put on trial, jailed, and fined. Taxes are not intended to stop bribery or other crimes except in your made up world.
And no, Citizens United doesn't legalize bribery. It is important to our freedom and democracy for corporations to hold the same rights as individual citizens. Some of our corporations that benefit from Citizens United are labor unions and news organizations. But don't take my word for it, here is an article from a left leaning newspaper, The Boston Globe.
The constitution has protected businesses and groups since the early days of the republic. Some of our most beloved cases limiting governmental power have been brought by corporations. The New York Times and The Washington Post — both for-profit companies — asserted First Amendment rights to publish the Pentagon Papers. Companies sued during the Korean War to stop Harry Truman from asserting inherent presidential power to seize steel factories during wartime. Planned Parenthood, organized as a corporation, won a hard-fought battle in 1992 to have the Supreme Court reaffirm Roe v. Wade. When I helped organize a coalition of law schools 15 years ago to sue the Pentagon over its discrimination against our gay and lesbian students, we formed a nonprofit corporation — an “artificial entity” who represented the interests of “aggregations of people.”
Why wouldn't she? She's proposed Medicare for all, which would cost $3 trillion a year, and her Green New Deal will cost $1 trillion a year, so she needs to steal the people blind to fund her ludicrous liberal socialist Utopia.
Of course there is no reason for the 3 trillion number, considering that currently (2017) Medicare spending is about 700 billion/year and while it covers only 15% or so of the population, this is the oldest fraction requiring much more health spending per capita (3 times higher than working age, 5 times or so higher than children).
BTW, the current total NHE (2017) is 3.5 trillion.
Status:
"Moldy Tater Gangrene, even before Moscow Marge."
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,599,675 times
Reputation: 5697
Quote:
Originally Posted by t206
And if it doesn't stop bribery from happening, then they can be put on trial, jailed, and fined. Taxes are not intended to stop bribery or other crimes except in your made up world.
And no, Citizens United doesn't legalize bribery. It is important to our freedom and democracy for corporations to hold the same rights as individual citizens. Some of our corporations that benefit from Citizens United are labor unions and news organizations. But don't take my word for it, here is an article from a left leaning newspaper, The Boston Globe.
Bribery is not a matter of legal status of the act or not. It's a matter of buying influence over the formal powers-that-be. Bribery is still bribery, even when there's no laws against the act - which is precisely what motivated laws against buying influence in the first place.
As for Citizens United, equating money with speech. That's a b.s. decision by the SCOTUS. Freedom of speech is stating that you don't like a government policy, whether vocally, visually, in print, lithograph, song, whatever. None of those things are a "medium of exchange", "storer of value", or "unit of account" (measure of wealth).* That makes those things of extremely limited, if any, utility for anything beyond viewpoint expression and persuasion of others.
Money, by contrast, is much more than mere expression of viewpoints and genuine persuasion to come over to one's side of the fence. It is actually useful in purchasing goods and services, creating wealth via investments, starting businesses, and generally enhancing one's physical quality of life. That makes it more than just "speech", it is essentially purchasing a service from the powers that be - namely making laws that fit the buyer's own agenda. Even worse, a few people and institutions (or even one) who contribute a substantial fraction to a candidate's campaign (or their threat to fund their opponents) hold substantial influence over the candidate/officeholder - meaning a few people can easily influence the legislative process to the detriment of the many. THAT is the flaw in equating money with speech.
*To the nitpickers: Yes, I suppose you can exchange a physical object or performance of an act (speech) for some kind of favor. But that is not money in the actual sense of the word, for the actual value of the goods and services are so vague as to be an unreliable measure of value. It's more akin to barter than actual capitalism.
ADDED: That goes to show that I, at least, don't believe everything in a "liberal rag" (as the right would put it) despite the fact I am clearly to the left of the general American population. How many Fox News, Breitbart, and InfoWars fans can say the same (I'm thinking of two people in particular, who I won't name).
I love how she's making the right's heads explode. Yadda Yadda. Yeah okay, not really. It was just fun saying it back to the right. That mentality shouldn't exist on either side. I find her a tad too radical for my liking. She's also very young and has accomplished something quite extraordinary. Not only did she knock a long term Democrat off the ballet, she got elected, and at such a young age. I think part of the problem is her age. She's quite bright and someone to watch when she's in her 40's and 50's.
So Toy, I'm really happy to hear that you value facts, and how you value not rejecting them. I'll remember that that when yet another Trump lie comes to light and if you ignore that concept. I promise I won't call you a hypocrite if you defend a lie and ignore a fact. Well , okay. I'm lying.
This place has turned from a place for political discussions to a discussion board for anti-Trump trolls. Might as well rename this board “I hate Trump!”
Oh and move to Norway if you want her as President.
Why move to Norway? It's just starting to get fun up in here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
