Democrats Finally Stop Lying About the Rich "Not Paying Their Fair Share"

Democrats are finally abandoning their phony class warfare propaganda about those who single-handedly shoulder almost the entire federal income tax burden in this country by themselves "not paying their fair share" and are now advocating for them to receive a sweeping tax break.

Democrats say wealthier Americans deserve a state and local tax break:

That is not true, the state and local taxes are "worth just dollars to the average middle-class taxpayer," if you are deducting, as probably anyone with a middle class income would do, the state and local taxes were important. Sure the higher level incomes paid more, but that doesn't discount the effects on the middle class taxpayer, "just dollars" is a relevant term totally depending on your tax burden

The Democrats aren't pushing this change because they have altered their view on tax, but rather because it is an issue for all taxpayers in a lot of States they represent, that, and the fact that already the blue states pay more and get less with Federal tax, and this only increases that imbalance
 
Arminius stands for one thing: Russian power.

GetAttachmentThumbnail
 
That is not true, the state and local taxes are "worth just dollars to the average middle-class taxpayer," if you are deducting, as probably anyone with a middle class income would do, the state and local taxes were important. Sure the higher level incomes paid more, but that doesn't discount the effects on the middle class taxpayer, "just dollars" is a relevant term totally depending on your tax burden

The Democrats aren't pushing this change because they have altered their view on tax, but rather because it is an issue for all taxpayers in a lot of States they represent, that, and the fact that already the blue states pay more and get less with Federal tax, and this only increases that imbalance

^Another low IQ dumbfuck who doesn't have the slightest clue of what they are bloviating about.
 
I’m a liberal and that is not what I stand for, I think you generalize.

Nobody said liberals say they stand for Democrat power, just that every time that one defining principle (the only thing they are ever consistent on) is threatened, everything else gets thrown under the bus.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation


is an American conservative public policy think tank based in Washington, D.C. The foundation took a leading role in the conservative movement during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, whose policies were taken from Heritage's policy study Mandate for Leadership.[4] Heritage has since continued to have a significant influence in U.S. public policy making, and is considered to be one of the most influential conservative research organizations in the United States.


a fucking right wing thin tank you idiot
 
Funding[edit]
In 1973, businessman Joseph Coors contributed $250,000 to establish The Heritage Foundation and continued to fund it through the Adolph Coors Foundation.[81][82] In 1973, it had trustees from Chase Manhattan Bank, Dow Chemical, General Motors, Pfizer, Sears and Mobil.[83]
Heritage is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization as well as a BBB Wise Giving Alliance accredited charity funded by donations from private individuals, corporations and charitable foundations.[84][85][86] As a 501(c)(3), Heritage is not required to disclose its donors and donations to the foundation are tax-deductible.[85] According to a MediaTransparency report in 2006, donors have included John M. Olin Foundation, the Castle Rock Foundation, the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation and the Bradley Foundation.[87][unreliable source?][importance?] Other financing as of 2016 includes $28,129,000 from the combined Scaife Foundations of the late billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife.[88][89][90] Heritage is a grantee of the Donors Trust, a nonprofit donor-advised fund.[91][92][importance?][93] As of 2010, Heritage reported 710,000 supporters.[94]
For the fiscal year ending December 31, 2011, Charity Watch reported that Edwin Feulner, past president of The Heritage Foundation, received the highest compensation in its top 25 list of compensation received by charity members. According to Charity Watch, Feulner received $2,702,687 in 2013. This sum includes investment earnings of $1,656,230 accrued over a period of 33 years.[95]
Heritage's total revenue for 2011 was $72,170,983 and its expenses were $80,033,82
 
Nobody said liberals say they stand for Democrat power, just that every time that one defining principle (the only thing they are ever consistent on) is threatened, everything else gets thrown under the bus.

you believe whatever the wealthy shit heads who own your brain want you to believe



DUPE
 
Noticed you didn't offer anything proving me incorrect

Next

How do you prove stupid? This is stupid: "worth just dollars to the average middle-class taxpayer," That's not facts, it's just stupid and makes ZERO sense.

This is stupid: "just dollars" 'is a relevant term totally depending on your tax burden' That's not facts, it's just stupid and makes ZERO sense.

This is stupid: "and the fact that already the blue states pay more and get less with Federal tax, and this only increases that imbalance" That's not facts, it's just stupid and makes ZERO sense.
 
Democrats are finally abandoning their phony class warfare propaganda about those who single-handedly shoulder almost the entire federal income tax burden in this country by themselves "not paying their fair share" and are now advocating for them to receive a sweeping tax break.

Democrats say wealthier Americans deserve a state and local tax break:



So the question is, did liberals finally start comprehending human nature, learning from history, and/or comprehending first-year economics concepts (like robbing job-creators blind just kills jobs) [i.e., did they stop being liberals]...or did they just finally come to terms with the fact, contrary to everything they've told us, that it is Democrats whose base is a tiny handful of rich extremists?

You're conflating two issues. (1) what should the overall tax distribution be as between the rich and everyone else, (2) to what extent should people be double-taxed on their incomes. The Republicans, who spent years whining about "double taxation" when the issue was whether heirs should pay taxes on unearned income despite some of that income already having been taxed when earned by the deceased, suddenly decided "double taxation" was fine if it was a way of sticking it to people in states with higher tax rates, in order to try to force those states to lower taxes.

Basically, the new rule isn't about shifting more tax burden to the rich, generally, but rather about shifting more tax burden to higher earners in particular states.
 
How do you prove stupid? This is stupid: "worth just dollars to the average middle-class taxpayer," That's not facts, it's just stupid and makes ZERO sense.

This is stupid: "just dollars" 'is a relevant term totally depending on your tax burden' That's not facts, it's just stupid and makes ZERO sense.

This is stupid: "and the fact that already the blue states pay more and get less with Federal tax, and this only increases that imbalance" That's not facts, it's just stupid and makes ZERO sense.

Do you ever stop to think about what you post or do you just make it up as you go along?

The statement, "worth just dollars to the average middle-class taxpayer," that you think is stupid was part of the point of the title post that was attempting to say that the elimination of SALT as a deduction didn't matter much to the average taxpayer cause to them it was "worth just dollars," DUH

And the second statement you find "stupid" is a fact

http://democraticactionteam.org/redstatesocialism/
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...ate-socialism-graphic-says-gop-leaning-state/
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/359669-red-state-lawmakers-find-blue-state-piggy-bank

No wonder you have to resort to the personal attacks and corny copy and pastes, you don't process information all that well
 
You're conflating two issues. (1) what should the overall tax distribution be as between the rich and everyone else, (2) to what extent should people be double-taxed on their incomes. The Republicans, who spent years whining about "double taxation" when the issue was whether heirs should pay taxes on unearned income despite some of that income already having been taxed when earned by the deceased, suddenly decided "double taxation" was fine if it was a way of sticking it to people in states with higher tax rates, in order to try to force those states to lower taxes.

Basically, the new rule isn't about shifting more tax burden to the rich, generally, but rather about shifting more tax burden to higher earners in particular states.

Of which it applies to the majority of tax payers in those particular states, everyone in New York aren't living on the upper West side
 
Back
Top