(06-15-2025, 10:05 AM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-15-2025, 07:08 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Technically that's correct, but the chart of payroll tax would look very different. The rich pay comparatively little of that. The share of payroll tax that they pay is less than their share of income.
LOL. The question was how much of the personal income you feel is your share of "rich" peoples income. Not anything to do with the subject you are attempting to switch to. That is a different subject completely. Apples and oranges, not that it surprises me, when at a loss you do this like clockwork.
The subject you brought up payroll taxes. Let's review as you promoted a flat tax as a fair solution.
Everyone pay the same
Federal unemployment tax - Everyone pays the same a percent on the first $6,000 dollars of pay. I can remember it being about $66 per employee. After that no charge.
State unemployment tax varies (the States set them) but percentages will range between 5-7% and a limit of the first 5k to 10k of salary. After that no charge.
High earners pay more
FICA and Medicare/Medicaid a percentage of wages split between employer and employee. up to a max of about 125k of salary. (it used to be lower) so those making more pay more.
Do some research guy.
If liberals did any research, they might actually learn something and leave the Democratic party because they'll see what a crock of lies they've been feeding the sheeple for years...... But then again, doing any kind of research is too much trouble for liberals..... and when we point out the facts, they'll say it's all false even with the facts starring them right in the face and biting them on their [BLEEP]!!!!!!
I can NOT believe it's riot season already.
I still have my Ukraine decorations up.
(06-15-2025, 11:55 AM)The Drifter Wrote: [ -> ]I can NOT believe it's riot season already.
I still have my Ukraine decorations up.
[BLEEP] the Ukraine!!
[BLEEP] Israel and Palestine too!!
You can add Russia and China to that list as well!!
Happy Non-Birthing Parental Unit Day.
(06-15-2025, 10:05 AM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-15-2025, 07:08 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Technically that's correct, but the chart of payroll tax would look very different. The rich pay comparatively little of that. The share of payroll tax that they pay is less than their share of income.
LOL. The question was how much of the personal income you feel is your share of "rich" peoples income. Not anything to do with the subject you are attempting to switch to. That is a different subject completely. Apples and oranges, not that it surprises me, when at a loss you do this like clockwork.
The subject you brought up payroll taxes. Let's review as you promoted a flat tax as a fair solution.
Everyone pay the same
Federal unemployment tax - Everyone pays the same a percent on the first $6,000 dollars of pay. I can remember it being about $66 per employee. After that no charge.
State unemployment tax varies (the States set them) but percentages will range between 5-7% and a limit of the first 5k to 10k of salary. After that no charge.
High earners pay more
FICA and Medicare/Medicaid a percentage of wages split between employer and employee. up to a max of about 125k of salary. (it used to be lower) so those making more pay more.
Do some research guy.
You misunderstand literally everything I say.
The left has more innocent blood on their hands......
Innocent bystander gunned down at Utah protest as peacekeepers take aim at armed suspect
Police chief confirms victim was 'not the intended target' when peacekeepers fired at suspect carrying rifle
An innocent bystander who was shot during a "No Kings" protest in Utah has died, police said Sunday.
The victim, identified as Arthur Folasa Ah Loo, was shot during the Saturday protest, which attracted around 10,000 people, and died later that night, Salt Lake City Police Chief Brian Redd said.
"Our victim was not the intended target," said Redd, who added that Ah Loo, 39, was just participating in the march.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/innocent-byst...ed-suspect
(06-15-2025, 04:32 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (06-15-2025, 10:05 AM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]LOL. The question was how much of the personal income you feel is your share of "rich" peoples income. Not anything to do with the subject you are attempting to switch to. That is a different subject completely. Apples and oranges, not that it surprises me, when at a loss you do this like clockwork.
The subject you brought up payroll taxes. Let's review as you promoted a flat tax as a fair solution.
Everyone pay the same
Federal unemployment tax - Everyone pays the same a percent on the first $6,000 dollars of pay. I can remember it being about $66 per employee. After that no charge.
State unemployment tax varies (the States set them) but percentages will range between 5-7% and a limit of the first 5k to 10k of salary. After that no charge.
High earners pay more
FICA and Medicare/Medicaid a percentage of wages split between employer and employee. up to a max of about 125k of salary. (it used to be lower) so those making more pay more.
Do some research guy.
You misunderstand literally everything I say.
Maybe you should consider that you don't say what you actually mean. And we see through it.
(06-15-2025, 06:07 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (06-15-2025, 04:32 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You misunderstand literally everything I say.
Maybe you should consider that you don't say what you actually mean. And we see through it.
I say exactly what I mean, but the correct interpretation doesn't match your world view so you reinterpret in a way that your world view can cope with.
(06-15-2025, 06:07 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (06-15-2025, 04:32 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You misunderstand literally everything I say.
Maybe you should consider that you don't say what you actually mean. And we see through it.
this could be, is really hard to phrase things like he does that allows him to shadow box like he does..... also he must be far more intelligent than an Actuary that do the calculations, besides not realizing there is a cap on SSI benefits for the rich guys. In other words on this topic he is speaking from an orifice other than his mouth.
(06-16-2025, 07:31 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]I genuinely miss the old CNN when they were just actual news. As pointed out in the article, the media landscape has changed. But regardless of how people get their news, they still want honest news and not overt propaganda. CNN became a caricature of itself and refused to change even with the writing on the walls for all to see.
CNN has 'tears on the horizon' as Warner Bros. Discovery plots network spinoff, industry insiders say
Without social media to call out CNN's blatant lies, how do you know CNN was ever trustworthy back then?
(06-16-2025, 08:59 AM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ] (06-16-2025, 07:31 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]I genuinely miss the old CNN when they were just actual news. As pointed out in the article, the media landscape has changed. But regardless of how people get their news, they still want honest news and not overt propaganda. CNN became a caricature of itself and refused to change even with the writing on the walls for all to see.
CNN has 'tears on the horizon' as Warner Bros. Discovery plots network spinoff, industry insiders say
Without social media to call out CNN's blatant lies, how do you know CNN was ever trustworthy back then?
Only by comparing information received from other news sites. There was bias then, as Rush Limbaugh so successfully presented for years, but it wasn't as overt as today. Additionally, what has turned the public at large against the MSM is how the left actively attempted to silence any dissenters. The great irony being is that what the No Kings bowel movement claims to oppose is exactly what they were supporting just four years ago.
(06-15-2025, 09:06 PM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-15-2025, 06:07 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe you should consider that you don't say what you actually mean. And we see through it.
this could be, is really hard to phrase things like he does that allows him to shadow box like he does..... also he must be far more intelligent than an Actuary that do the calculations, besides not realizing there is a cap on SSI benefits for the rich guys. In other words on this topic he is speaking from an orifice other than his mouth.
I know there's a cap on SSI benefits. Just because I don't mention something doesn't mean I don't know it. It means I'm trying to keep the post concise. The fact that there's a cap on SSI benefits doesn't make anything I said false.
![[Image: 507930922-3651862415114066-6583707456379502219-n.jpg]](https://i.ibb.co/cSLZzscZ/507930922-3651862415114066-6583707456379502219-n.jpg)
![[Image: bxeRn.jpg]](https://s14.gifyu.com/images/bxeRn.jpg)