Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Tuesday, January 23, 2018

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

When all forms of taxes and income are considered, poor Americans pay higher tax rates than the richest 1%.

The analysis starts with state and local taxes, which are often ignored by apologists for big-income tax cuts. According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, the state and local tax rate for the poorest 20 percent of individuals is double that of the top 1 percent (10.9 percent vs. 5.4 percent). New data from Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman allows us to go further: When unrealized capital gains are included in the wealth-building of the richest 1%, the overall tax rates plunge for the super-rich, causing the poorest Americans to pay the highest rates.

What is the justification for adding unrealized capital gains to one’s income? The 16th Amendment gives Congress the power “to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived.” Thus, under an original definition of income developed by the American economists Robert M. Haig and Henry C. Simons in the 1920s and still utilized by financial economists, an increase in the value of a stock or other asset would be subject to taxation even if it’s not sold.

With this more accurate guide to income measurement, the real tax rates paid by the 1% can be calculated. The bottom line is that poor Americans pay about 25 percent in total taxes, while the 1% pays anywhere from 18 to 23 percent.

Piketty, Saez and Zucman calculate government transfers to three groups: the richest 10%, the middle 40%, and the poorest 50%. Each group is evaluated for total transfers, including Social Security, as a percent of average national income.

Surprisingly, the middle 40% receives more government assistance than the bottom 50%, with a benefit equivalent to 23 percent of national income (see Figure S.13 in the report).

More surprisingly, the richest 10% as a group receives almost as much government assistance as the poorest 50%.

The critics of poor Americans should be informed that even after transfers, income for the working-age bottom 50% has not improved since 1979. And they should be reminded that the cost of the entire safety net is only about one-sixth of the $2.2 trillion in tax breaks and tax avoidance that primarily benefit the rich.

Most of society’s benefits go to the super-rich and their businesses:

  • Financial assistance: Stock markets, legal system, patent and copyright systems, intellectual property, contract law.
  • The military: National defense, local police forces, National Guard, Coast Guard.
  • Infrastructure: In the physical form of highways, railroads, airports; the energy grid; and in the form of communications though the airwaves, especially the internet.
  • Federal agencies: Federal Reserve, SEC, FTC, SBA, FAA, NASA. Research at the Department of Defense, the Air Force, NASA, and public universities.

Today the taking of our national wealth can be tax-deferred indefinitely. A just society should have some form of wealth tax, as recommended by Piketty, perhaps as a modified version of the Haig-Simons call for taxing annual stock gains. Then millions of non-stockholders would rightfully get a piece of our 70 years of national prosperity.

This article was made possible by the readers and supporters of AlterNet.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2017 The National Memo

64 Responses to The Rich Pay Fewer Taxes Than The Poor, And Get More Services

  1. As I’ve been saying for years. The rich benefit substantially more from government than the rest of us, and therefore should pay substantially more.

    Every business they own a part of benefits more than I personally do from passable roads and other infrastructure, the court system, police and fire protection, and even education and other benefits for the work force.

    I met Bill Gates, Sr. once at a gathering for the Responsible Wealth Project, of which he’s an active member, and he agreed with me. He said that instead of calling it a progressive tax, we should call it a “proportional” tax.

    • They do pay substantially more. The report you are now going to tell everyone proves otherwise is a deliberate distortion. Like counting income that has not even happened yet.

          • Yes Ivan, there’s no way anyone could think you’re A TOTAL GODDAM MORON just because you think MLK was a conservative or that Donald Trump is a Democrat, you total goddam moron. The only possibility is that I’m working for the hostile foreign dictator that you spinelessly support.

          • Well you’re not working for the USA, that is for sure. That leaves someone else.

            Now fess up to your Marxist ideology.

          • Yes, anyone that thinks you – a guy supporting the puppet of the Last Communist – are a TOTAL GODDAM MORON for the above-mentioned reasons must – MUST! – be a communist themselves.

            That makes total sense, KKKomrade, be sure to tell all the other traitors on Stormfront to use that argument.

          • I also don’t understand why you – an anti-American traitor cheering on treason – think you’re in a position to tell other people that they’re “not working for the USA”.

            Oh, wait, yes I do – you’re a TOTAL GODDAM MORON. The kind of moron that, for example, thinks that MLK was a conservative. So, so stupid.

          • Nice to see you sticking so closely to the rules of discussion on this site.

            Yet I never see your posts removed or you censored. Kind of makes one wonder who is really in charge.

            Now please get some rest so you can have more energy tomorrow in defending your Marxist ideology.

          • “You’re breaking the ruuuuuules by being so meeeeean to me, an actual traitor an a TOTAL GODDAM MORON!!!!1”

            Sorry, petal, I forgot what delicate snowflakes you neo-Nazi scum are.

          • The easiest way to identify a communist is that they yell Nazi at anyone they cannot intimidate in any other way.

            And when that fails they resort to violence. That is also how most of us in the sane world know that Fascist are of the same family tree as the Socialists and Communists.

          • Yes Princess Adolf, I get that you’re a neo-Nazi traitor who is desperate to accuse everyone else of his crimes. It’s not a tactic that ever works, but then you ARE so stupid that you think MLK was a conservative.

          • PS: I just checked and it turns out there’s no rule against laughing at you for being the kind of TOTAL GODDAM MORON who thinks MLK was a conservative. Who knew?

          • Projection again?

            You do realize don’t you that our Govt. has been doing business with Russia ever since the wall came down. Does that mean our Govt. is colluding with Russia?

          • Not when there are sanctions involved. And only if it is on the up and up and not under the table. YOU and I both know that Russia wants those sanctions removed and they are blackmailing Trump. And then there is Ukraine. Can you please explain to my why nine Russian diplomats and associates have been killed since the Trump-Putin debacle?

          • jm

            I do NOT know that the Russians are blackmailing Trump or anyone in his group. That is conspiracy level thinking at this point.

            Do they want sanctions lifted? YES! But ask yourself whether they should have been imposed in the first place? Is your understanding of the Ukrainian situation complete? Did you know our Govt. had a role in toppling the Govt. that was elected by the people, who happened to also be friendly towards Russia?

            Did you know that Ukraine has a long cultural link to Russia? Along with Poland. Happens that the eastern half has traditionally been closer to Russia and the western half to Poland.

            People die who mess with Russian Govt. power elites. That is an easy answer. And if we have proof of connections our govt. has never released the “hard evidence”. But I can tell you the “Russian Mafia” was not destroyed by Putin, completely. So there is some slim chance these deaths are not all due to Putin himself.

            The point I was making is that we have always done business with bad people. So why is everyone throwing a fit over Russia? China is doing far more to damage our position that Russia at the moment.

          • Weird, because you – a neo-Nazi who willing bent over and spread his cheeks for Russia – are accusing everyone ELSE of being Nazis and communists. Perhaps you should invest in a mirror, if Putin pays you enough and the exchange rate of rubles is sufficient for you to spring for such a decadent Western luxury.

          • You’re not meant to advertise yourself out loud, numbnuts.

            Didn’t they teach you that in astroturfer school?

          • I actually thought that after I posted – he’s technically only the third dumbest. InformedVoter is, of course, the outright winner – but itsfun, a guy who keep insisting the FBI was not part of the DOJ even as org chart after org chart was posted, is a strong second place.

      • I could try to educate you on basic accounting, and when “income” “happens”… but I’m not going to bother.

        Just spouting bullsh1t that matches how you feel is not a convincing argument.
        “They DO PAY MORE”
        “Your report IS DISTORTED”
        “That income ISN’T REAL UNTIL I SAY IT’S REAL”

        I assume you also think that Bill Gates (one of the most successful Tech geniuses) and Warren Buffet (Perhaps the world’s most successful investor) are both wrong when they explain that the wealthy need to pay more?

        Please explain in detail why your belief is better than theirs.
        I’ll hold my breath.

        • It was clearly stated in the report so you can take your own accounting lessons.

          What Buffet and Gates pay is their business. They have no business claiming others should pay more. They are free to donate all they want.

          My belief is grounded in moral principle. Theirs in political expediency. That makes me the winner every time.

          • If Buffet and Gates “have no business claiming others should pay more” then explain why you have any business giving your (unfounded, unsubstantiated and anonymous) opinion on taxation?
            Should you also not simply STFU under your own logic?

            What moral principle is your taxation belief grounded in?

            What political advantage to Gates and Buffet intend to gain by saying the wealthy do not pay enough?

            Income is earned when the tax department says it is earned. If the law says you pay tax on Capital Gains for assets you currently hold, then that is when the income is earned. If the Tax Department says that you pay tax on predicted future income, then reconcile it against the eventual outcome then that is when the “income” is earned (for tax purposes). None of this is unusual, and can be found in various other countries. Do your “moral principles” have something to say about when income is earned too? I’m dying to know…

            What do you think you are “winning” here?
            This argument?
            LOL

          • “Big words baffle and confuse me, a guy so dumb he thinks MLK was a conservative! THAT ISN’T FAIR!!!1”
            – you, a guy so dumb he thinks MLK was a conservative

          • Also, way to chicken out of answering the question, coward. Why is your dumb innumerate opinion important and theirs – based on experience you utterly lack – invalid?

          • It is only you who claim I have no experience. And I clearly stated why I thought my opinion was better than theirs.

          • Does that help you with your other psychological issues? Or does it just make you feel superior to others?

          • I’m sure that you thought whatever that feeble effort was was relevant somehow. Weird. I guess it’s true what they say – you’re a total goddam moron.

          • Do you, as presumably a typical rightist, think you are doing differently with your words.

            “When I use a word,’Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’ ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

          • Translation: “I don’t know how to answer you so I will accuse you of something random and not reply.”

            Fail.

          • Everyone thinks their beliefs are grounded in moral principle. It doesn’t prove anything or make the claimant “right”. Gates and Buffet have as much right to claim that the rich should pay more as you do to say that they shouldn’t pay more. In fact we all have right to advocate for an economic system that would serve us much better than what we have now.

          • Your confusing the right to say stuff with the basis of what is being said.

            Yes, many people think they operate from a moral base. But most of those people, when tested, cannot defend that moral base. Because it is usually filled with contradictions.

            I do not claim that rich people “should” pay anything. I claim they should pay what they want.

          • No, I’m just responding to your claim that Gates & Buffet “have no business claiming others should pay more”. Of course they have “business” to make that claim just as any us do and you have the right to disagree and make your own claim as to what taxation would be appropriate.

            You are making unfounded assumptions about the morality of those who simply disagree with your position.

            ” I claim they (rich people) should pay what they want.” Really, how about the not so rich, can they also choose what they will pay? We know that many rich, Trump is a prime example, choose to pay nothing when they can get away with it.

          • They don’t have any business claiming others should pay more. But since they are free to speak they can say any stupid and indefensible thing they want.

            I have made no assumptions about anyone’s moral principles except those I have had occasion to challenge. As for Gates and Buffet it is easy to see their moral standards are weak. Anyone claiming X should be taxed more is standing on corrupt moral foundations.

            Because taxation is FORCE, applied by one group against others.

          • “since they are free to speak they can say any stupid and indefensible thing they want” Yes as you or I can as well.

            Of course whether or not a statement is stupid is a matter
            of opinion. Saying it is stupid usually just means you disagree. IMO allowing such a small number of people to control enormous wealth while others struggle to survive is a stupid path for a country to follow. Wealth bestows power and
            as we all know power corrupts. Would you agree that corruption is a major problem here?

            “I have made no assumptions about anyone’s moral principles
            except those I have had occasion to challenge.” You said most of the people who agree that the rich are insufficiently taxed lack moral principles but you supply no evidence to support your assumption.

            “As for Gates and Buffet it is easy to see their moral
            standards are weak.” Maybe, IMO it’s likely that most billionaires have weak moral standards.

            “Anyone claiming X should be taxed more is standing on
            corrupt moral foundations.” Again that is only your opinion based on your own standards. I believe the rich should pay more tax. You disagree. Fine in itself neither position has an elevated moral position. I do believe it would be fair to tax them more heavily but it’s not fairness that concerns me here given how that is subject to perspective. I simply think that vast disparity of wealth leads a country to ruin.

            “Because taxation is FORCE, applied by one group against
            others.” Yes and if you are consistent then you must believe that all taxation is immoral.

          • I agree corruption is a problem. But it is not money that is the cause of that corruption.

            Money only becomes a tool in the hands of those without solid moral foundations.

            Attacking pieces of an argument while not including the punch line is a dishonest way to argue. So I will address the last part because that is the defense of the immorality which I provided, and you claimed I did not.

            Yes taxation if collected via force is immoral. Taxes willingly given are not immoral in and of themselves. But initiating force upon those who have not committed harm to others is the root moral principle. This makes much of what is written into law immoral. Because it initiates force against those who have done no harm.

            Another key principle relates to the proper role of govt. That is that acts of govt. should equally apply to those governed. Thus national defense is appropriate. And if limited to defense the vast majority would willingly help pay the cost.

          • Yes it is not money per se that causes corruption but as you noted it is a tool for corruption. I think it is extremely naïve to think that vast wealth residing in the hands of a pampered privileged minority will not be used as a tool of corruption to maintain the status quo at a minimum. Greed is a powerful emotion and for some too much is never enough.

            For your position, which seems to be no involuntary taxation, to be a moral position we, all of us not just the wealthy, would be able to choose whether or not to fund any government service including defense. It’s easy to say national defense is important and most would willingly pay but who decides what constitutes “national defense”? Is invading a country that poses no threat to us national defense? Is building a wall national defense? Is regime change in foreign countries national defense? My answer is no on all three counts so by your moral principle I should be able to refuse to pay the portion of my taxes that goes toward these initiatives, right? National defense, is an amorphous concept at best. Is protecting our air, water and land from pollution national defense? For me it is.

            “much of what is written into law is immoral. Because it initiates force against those who have done no harm. ” So then you agree that marihuana should be legalized, right? Actually any drug since the harm done, if any, is self-inflicted.

          • Lucky

            “Is invading a country that poses no threat to us national defense?” NO!

            “Is building a wall national defense?” POSSIBLY! However, not necessarily the most efficient option to resolve the problem.

            “Is regime change in foreign countries national defense?” DEPENDS. If in a country posing a direct threat to US soil, then yes. Otherwise NO.

            Drugs legal? Yes, for the most part. There are some drugs that actually alter the brain, making informed choice impossible. Addiction is the outcome. If drug users had to support their own rehab or cost of their habit then absolutely. Only when they commit crimes to feed the habit would they be jailed. One caveat is selling or providing drugs to minors, because as minors we all still have a guardianship responsibility to them.

            Yes, self defense is a bit non descript. However, I think it is one of those things almost all of us would easily recognize when we saw it. People I’ve talked to in the military think a “defense only” position could be funded for about 3% of GDP at max. That is below current and planned spending by a lot.

            Environmental laws identifying limits of pollution based on harm to other humans are not immoral. It starts getting gray when you move to protection of habitat for other species where you cannot show potential harm to humans. What is not needed is a massive Govt. Bureaucracy to administer these laws. Instead make polluters personally liable and make access to civil court easy for plaintiffs. Prevent Corps from killing cases with delay and driving up court costs.

            As for the money and corruption issue, I don’t disagree that corrupt people exist. I don’t think money corrupts, though. I think the easily corrupted are easy to corrupt, money being only one aspect. But the bigger point regarding Govt. is that if you don’t try to use Govt. Force to even the playing field relative to income and outcomes of lifestyle, “redistribution” then you reduce the need for “big money” to play in politics. Remove the mechanisms from Gov.t which allow it to pick winners and losers. Stick to the basics of a “proper” govt. and you get less and less corruption.

            My summary: Hit a man with a stick and you give him the moral authority to hit you back. This applies no matter who uses the stick first. And once the fighting over the stick starts, nobody can remember who started it. And nobody is willing to end it.

          • “Is invading a country that poses no threat to us
            national defense?” NO!

            OK, we agree on that. Do we agree that the attack of Iraq
            was an example of such an invasion.

            “Is building a wall national defense?” POSSIBLY!
            However, not necessarily the most efficient option to resolve the problem.

            We’ll have to disagree on that one because not only is it
            inefficient it is also not needed and will no effect whatsoever on keeping America safe.

            “Is regime change in foreign countries national
            defense?” DEPENDS. If in a country posing a direct threat to US soil, then yes. Otherwise NO.”

            Who decides what country poses a direct threat to US soil? Very few countries are capable of that or have a desire to do so since they know what the response would be. By deposing a regime we create an unstable situation wherein groups like al queda and isis can grow. Iraq is a good example of the “cure” being worse than the disease.

            “Drugs legal? Yes, for the most part. There are some drugs
            that actually alter the brain, making informed choice impossible. Addiction is the outcome. If drug users had to support their own rehab or cost of their habit then absolutely. Only when they commit crimes to feed the habit would
            they be jailed. One caveat is selling or providing drugs to minors, because as minors we all still have a guardianship responsibility to them.”

            OK we pretty much agree on that. If they were legal the cost
            of supplying a “habit” would be much smaller with no turf to protect and crime would be reduced. Harsh punishment for those supplying minors is appropriate.

            “Yes, self defense is a bit non descript. However, I think
            it is one of those things almost all of us would easily recognize when we saw it.” Reasonable people may agree in many cases but you may have noticed we have a lot of frightened unreasonable people in this country, not to mention the war mongers who profit from our imperialism.

            “Environmental laws identifying limits of pollution based on
            harm to other humans are not immoral. It starts getting gray when you move to protection of habitat for other species where you cannot show potential harm to humans.”

            It is often hard to “prove” the harm until after the fact
            when it is too late. The ecosystem is interconnected and harm to one species usually means harm spread throughout the system as when pesticides are used massively by large agribusiness and we have a resulting die off of bees.

            “What is not needed is a massive Govt. Bureaucracy to
            administer these laws. Instead make polluters personally liable and make access to civil court easy for plaintiffs. Prevent Corps from killing cases with delay and driving up court costs.”

            When the last part happens then I will support the first
            part. Until then at least the Govt. Bureaucracy administering the laws provides some protection, though not nearly enough. Profit rules.

            “As for the money and corruption issue, I don’t disagree
            that corrupt people exist. I don’t think money corrupts, though. I think the easily corrupted are easy to corrupt, money being only one aspect. But the bigger point regarding Govt. is that if you don’t try to use Govt. Force to even the playing field relative to income and outcomes of lifestyle,
            “redistribution” then you reduce the need for “big money”
            to play in politics. Remove the mechanisms from Gov.t which allow it to pick winners and losers.”

            You’ll have to explain that to me. There is no need now for “big money to play in politics” except that it bolsters their profits.

            “Stick to the basics of a “proper” govt. and you get less and less corruption.” Well sure but when has that ever happened?

            “My summary: Hit a man with a stick and you give him the
            moral authority to hit you back. This applies no matter who uses the stick first. And once the fighting over the stick starts, nobody can remember who started it. And nobody is willing to end it.”

            I agree and that’s a good summary of the world situation
            particularly in the ME. It’s also a good rationale for becoming a terrorist for someone who has the misfortune of living in a part of the world where imperialists see potential profit. I’m sure that if I lived in many areas of the ME I’d be doing anything I could to destroy the people who are bombing my homeland and killing my family.

            Applied to this country I think it’s plain who struck first.
            The wealthy have always oppressed the poor and exploited the middle class as a source of wealth for themselves.

            Cheers

            BTW ignore the dummies like helpy, who I just noticed changed his name again who abhor a free discussion and prefer to just call names and act superior.

          • Lucky

            “The wealthy have always oppressed the poor and exploited the middle class as a source of wealth for themselves.”

            Not only a said outlook on human history but wrong. You need to put each era of human advancement in context. Even during the dawn of the industrial revolution THE wealthy were not all oppressing people and exploiting them. Don’t fall for all the propaganda seeded into the history books. Some did occur. As old behaviors collided with new technology. But approaches to wealth creation quickly evolved into mutual benefits. Yes, there is always a give and take. But wealthy people do not get more wealth via oppression and exploitation.

            They get it by creating business and enterprise which employs others. The make more wealth by capturing a portion of the profit from such ventures. Those who oppress and exploit do not last long. Never have.

            Even in the olden days, it might take a hundred years but all the despots got their just deserts.

          • I totally disagree except for “THE wealthy were not all oppressing people and exploiting them” as I’m sure there were exceptions.
            See White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America
            by Nancy Isenberg

          • Lucky

            The point here is that stereotyping entire groups is not a factual look at history. Remember, the founders of this country were well schooled in history and philosophy. Plato was one of those often cited. Plato leads to belief in an educated and righteous ruling group. Problems was with maintaining the second quality.

          • That’s true but the stereotype is based on the fact that the moneyed class has always used the leverage provided by wealth to skew the playing field in their favor. Are there exceptions where wealthy people have used their money to further the interest of the commonwealth rather than just further enrich themselves? Sure and they are to be lauded but my reading of history shows them to be a distinct minority within their class and it seems to be a shrinking %.

            Some of the founders were well schooled in the classics but that didn’t stop most of them from owning human beings as chattel. The belief that wealth was a sign of superiority entitling its possessor to lord over those not so fortunate was a Platonic ideal they embraced.

            “…nature herself intimates that it is just for the better to have more than the worse, the more powerful than the weaker; and in many ways she shows, among men as well as among animals, and indeed among whole cities and races, that justice consists in the superior ruling over and having more than the inferior. – Plato, Gorgias

          • I agree….if I had my druthers, I wouldn’t pay much of what I owe. First of all, it galls me that my taxes this year will go to support an administration that wants to cut everything to the bone that most of us need and are good for our nation! My taxes also pay for 45’s weekly trips to Mar-a-Lago on Air Force One, or his so-called “office” for his daughter, Ivanka! Why am I paying for these things out of MY pittance? It’s ludicrous, and if I could, I’d not pay at all to this administration! Let his “billionaires” pay for his ridiculous government (or lack of ) that he’s proposing!

          • Yes if we could have voted on the Iraq invasion we could have saved a lot of money, not to mention lives.

      • Not percentage wise, they don’t. And now you want us to think “poor little rich people”, they deserve aour hard earned tax dollars.

        • On a percentage of gross and adjusted gross income, “the rich” pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the rest of us.

          You see this is the problem with using “groups” and “stereotypes” to discuss polices. That and a lack of reading comprehension. I see that as a kind of confirmation bias. I say A and you claim I said C, because A doesn’t fit your preconceived notions.

          For example, allowing someone to keep more of THEIR money is not the same thing as “giving them money”.

          So let me make this clear. It is not the proper role of Govt. to GIVE money to anyone other than its employees or contractors.

          • The rich get grants, subsidies and loop hole, that’s money given by the government, so you are wrong.

          • How does it make me wrong?

            Did I say they don’t get money? No. I said they shouldn’t get money and that keeping their money is not the same as “getting money” from the rest of us.

            Seriously JM, please take time to read the actual words and stop assuming you know what is being said.

          • I agree…..they have the money to hire top-notch ex-IRS attorneys to do their taxes…..most of us can’t afford that. I pay my CPA over $300 to do my taxes…..I bet if I could afford a more qualified CPA (although mine is very good), I’d be able to write off a heck of a lot more!

          • You are incorrect when you state that the wealthy pay more on their adjusted gross income ( you only pay taxes on your adjusted gross income not on your gross income). Romney during the 2012 election released his 2010 and 2011 taxes information. In 2010 Romney’s effective federal tax rate was 13.9% and in 2011 his effective rate was 14.1%. In both years my effective rate was higher than his and I made less than 1% of his income.

    • Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj552d:
      On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      !mj552d:
      ➽➽
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash552ShopMarketingGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!mj552d:….,…….

  2. I was paid 104000 bucks last 12 month period by doing a web based work while I was able to do it by w­orking in my own time f­o­r several hours on a regular basis. I utilized work opportunity I found out on-line and I am thrilled that I was manage to earn such good money. It is undoubtedly newbie-friendly and therefore I’m so blessed that I discovered out regarding it. Go and visit what I do… http://www.cat.org.uk/snip/93439

  3. We don’t have power, we don’t have money, and now Citizens United has taken our voice. The Mercers have Russian ties as does Bannon and they bought the presidency, because being billionaires is just not good enough, now they want superiority. Abortion is a front, using the christians like drug lords use people that are weak and addicted.

  4. All I know is that my tax bill this year is about $8,000 for Federal and around $1,000 for State. I’m paying a small fortune, and I’m not even a part of the 1%! All of my money is hard-earned! What kills me is that my Social Security is taxed both by the Federal AND by my state! I’ve had to go in and have them take 20% of my monthly SS check and pay the Federal government, but I’m sure I’ll still get hit with a big tax bill next year! This is a killer for me, and I’m not even retired. I can imagine what big hit this is going to be when I DO actually leave my job and retire! I certainly won’t be able to afford to survive and, unfortunately, I have a little Honda FIT, so I don’t have a great place to live if I’m out on the streets (LOL)!!! I also don’t have children to rely on! And, if they put through this healthcare plan, I’ll be in BIG trouble! All that Medicare money that they took our of my paychecks for the past 50+ years will be for naught! I want it back if they aren’t going to let me use it!!! I want it ALL back!
    What gets me is that I use less than the 1% as far as services are concerned…..why am I paying their way?

Leave a reply