Is the United States Crazy?

Indeed. And that's why I like them with vinegar ... since I tried it first in 1963 (wrapped in the Poole Advertiser or Bournemouth Echo).

They are all wrong.

Fries go best with either ranch dressing or bbq sauce, anything else is just plain old wrong and should be made illegal. Mayo is disgraceful, Miracle Whip is for sandwiches and the occasional burger.

Sounds to me like Europe is even crazier than the United States. (At least as far as fries are concerned.)

Sometimes Europe has been pretty smart lucky (gustatorially speaking). It was Europe who first said that
"De Nex tink zat kumss out off dat chikn's ass, Im goink too eet"

Yeah, that was smart. But prolly just a lucky guess.

Yes I have thought about it and I thank my lucky stars that I dont live in a communist country where I DONT keep what I work hard for (save the tax man, which is redistribution enough and a failure at that) and where it is all redistributed to those who would live off my hard work. If I want to give it should be up to me NOT government

I hope you drown in your bile.

I dont seem to have enough...maybe you can redistribute some of yours.

What an asshole.

All governments redistribute wealth, John.

In America, the nuts on the right want the government to redistribute what little the poor have to the rich.

And they manage to get the cooperation of people unable to see that...people like you.

Uh huh, and would you care to cite your reference for this ridiculous statement? (it's pretty hard to redistribute zero taxes or a negative tax number)


The rich do not pay the most taxes, they pay ALL the taxes
Jane Wells | @janewells
Wednesday, 11 Dec 2013 | 11:56 AM ET

Buried inside a Congressional Budget Office report this week was this nugget: when it comes to individual income taxes, the top 40 percent of wage earners in America pay 106 percent of the taxes. The bottom 40 percent...pay negative 9 percent.

You read that right. One group is paying more than 100 percent of individual income taxes, the other is paying less than zero.

It's right there in Table 3 on page 13 of the report. The numbers are based on 2010 IRS and Census Bureau figures.


How does someone pay negative taxes? The CBO's formula offsets whatever taxes are paid with "refundable tax credits." Some of these are due to "government transfers" of money back to the taxpayer in the form of social security and food stamps.

According to the CBO, the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans saw before-tax income grow more than 16 percent from 2009 to 2010, which isn't such a surprise since the stock market was coming off the bottom. Most of the rest of the country only saw gross incomes grow about 1 percent. When it comes to federal taxes,the top bracket paid 69 percent of the total last year. The bottom bracket paid 0.4 percent.

However, the greatest disparity in the report is the one mentioned above, regarding the share of individual income taxes paid by various income groups.

First, let's look at incomes. The report shows the lowest-paid Americans earned on average $8,100 in 2010 but received nearly $25,000 in government aid. You begin to see how "transfers" create a negative tax burden.

But wait, there more. The CBO says about a quarter of the lowest earning group actually paid negative 15 percent of all individual income taxes. Contrast that with the combined share of the wealthiest two groups, which totals more than 100 percent.

April 17, 2014
By Andrew Lundeen

The question is often asked: Do the rich pay their “fair share” in taxes? It’s never particularly clear what the rich currently pay, nor is it clear what share of taxes is fair for them to pay. A good place to start would be to determine exactly what high-income earners currently pay.

Estimates from Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation and recently highlighted in the Wall Street Journal make it abundantly clear that high-income earners pay a disproportion share of taxes in relation to their income in the U.S.

According to the Journal, taxpayers with income over $100,000 a year earn 60 percent of the nation’s income and pay 95.2 percent of the income taxes in the United States. If we consider all federal taxes paid (income, payroll, and excise taxes), those making over $100,000 (a little over 20 percent of taxpayers) pay for 75.7 percent of total federal taxes (this excludes the burden on corporate and investment taxes).

If we break this down further (as in the chart below), the level of progressivity in the tax code becomes even clearer. Those making over $200,000 comprise just over 5 percent of the nation’s taxpayers, earn 32.3 percent of the income, but pay 46.7 percent of total federal taxes and 70 percent of federal income taxes.

As we move down the income scale the ratio of taxes to income decreases. Those making between $100,000 and $200,000 a year make up 15.6 percent of all taxpayers, earn 27.7 percent of income, pay 29 percent of total federal taxes and 25.2 percent of federal income taxes.

Those between $50,000 and $100,000 make up about a quarter of the country, earn 23.6 percent of all income, pay 18.6 percent of federal taxes and 11.3 percent of federal income taxes. Finally, taxpayers making less than $50,000 a year represent about half of the country, earn 16.4 percent of the nation’s income, pay 5.6 percent of taxes and have a negative share of income taxes because they receive more back then they pay out (largely due to refundable tax credit programs).

Continue to have the barons pull your strings. They need puppets...and you are one of them.

Back in the old days...the barons owned damn near everything.

Soon...here in our age...the barons will own EVERTHING.

So, John, continue to support the party devoted to doing as much for the wealthiest of our population...and to telling the masses who are the poorest that it is their fault they are poor.

I notice again frank that you make a ridiculous statement but can not back it up with any authority...but then Im used to that with you.

Give me a reason why anyone has to be poor in this country.
I know people who have served 5 years in prison, close to 60 when they get out, nowhere to live, no marketable skills and in a years time is making $55,000 a year working for the government.

Good. Then what I say should not come as a surprise.



Because!




That is very interesting. Did any of them work in law enforcement?



A question for you if I may, John:

Why would someone like you who considers what I have to say to be "ridiculous" and who acknowledges that he "is used to (me being ridiculous in my responses)"...

...possibly want to direct question to me?

No Frank, they they were dopers.


To hold your feet to the fire Frank, cause you seem to always expect a certain level of correctness from others but dont seem to practice that standard yourself.

You said they made their money by working for the government. I didn't realize the government employed dopers or paid them $55,000 a year for doing it.

My bad.




One...the notion of you "holding my feet to the fire" got a belly laugh from me. Not sure if that was what you were intending, but if it was...I thank you.

As for me not holding to the supposed standards I set for others...give me an example...actually using quotes. Then we can discuss it. Otherwise, I will just consider it something you said simply because you had access to a keyboard.

Uh yeah Frank...guess you're not really paying attention let me explain it so even you may understand...the dope got them sent to jail when they got out they got work with the Government. Now if you were asking if they got a job as a cop after they got out, this would be an idiotic question...I assumed you were referring to what they did before they went to jail...but I guess I will have to be careful answering you in future if you are going to ask idiotic questions.
As to an example I have neither the time nor volition to go back and sift through your posts...anyone who has had any discourse with you will be able to identify with my charge.

I was paying attention...and I was yanking your chain. Glad to see it worked.



One...it was not an idiotic question. It was a wise-ass question...mostly asked to bust your chops. You gave the opening with a poorly constructed response...I took it. Apparently you were not able to tell that...although I think almost anyone paying attention would have understood what I was doing.

Two...ALWAYS be careful answering question...with me or with anyone else...otherwise you can end up looking like a chump.




I doubt that.

But your best move was to evade my request for you to substantiate your charge. After all...you made it up, so evading the request had to be your best move.



Oh, ball in your court, John.

LOL...Machiavelli you're not...but I'll give you a C+ for that convoluted explantion and trying to cover not looking like a dork.

I definitely do not look like a dork...although since you did not see what was happening despite it being quite obvious...you might be looking like one. I'll leave that up to you and others.

Everything I said was absolutely the truth...no cover up. And...not particularly convoluted. (Obviously you are not a detective!)