US Mexico Border Wall

[Syne]

We absolutely need harsher penalties for failing to use E-Verify to determine legal worker eligibility. But that's not the only problem. The US is one of the few, if not the only, country that allows any child born in the country to automatically be a citizen. Recently, there was a bust of a hotel or apartments being used for foreigners to stay until they gave birth. They then take their US citizen child home until they are old enough to come back and, as a citizen, sponsor their own parents for citizenship. We've even had a few terrorist attacks by people who came to the US through exactly such "chain-immigration." Border security, whether a wall, fence, or better measures, could help stop that, but so could changing that idiotic "anchor-baby" law. Either way, border security would still be necessary to stop illegal drug and human trafficking and those fleeing the law of their own country.

People do not leave their own country to become "slave labor." They leave because the opportunities are great enough to take the risk. If they were "slave labor" they wouldn't be here, using identity theft to avoid detection for decades and whining about rights....while never lifting a finger to become a citizen the proper way.

The top %1 earn 20.6% of all earnings but pay 39.5% of all income tax. The top 50% pay 97.3% of all income taxes, and the bottom 50% (which includes the working middle-class) only pay the remaining 2.7%. [source]

[RainbowUnicorn]

We absolutely need harsher penalties for failing to use E-Verify to determine legal worker eligibility. But that's not the only problem. The US is one of the few, if not the only, country that allows any child born in the country to automatically be a citizen. Recently, there was a bust of a hotel or apartments being used for foreigners to stay until they gave birth. They then take their US citizen child home until they are old enough to come back and, as a citizen, sponsor their own parents for citizenship. We've even had a few terrorist attacks by people who came to the US through exactly such "chain-immigration." Border security, whether a wall, fence, or better measures, could help stop that, but so could changing that idiotic "anchor-baby" law. Either way, border security would still be necessary to stop illegal drug and human trafficking and those fleeing the law of their own country.

People do not leave their own country to become "slave labor." They leave because the opportunities are great enough to take the risk. If they were "slave labor" they wouldn't be here, using identity theft to avoid detection for decades and whining about rights....while never lifting a finger to become a citizen the proper way.

The top %1 earn 20.6% of all earnings but pay 39.5% of all income tax. The top 50% pay 97.3% of all income taxes, and the bottom 50% (which includes the working middle-class) only pay the remaining 2.7%. [source]

The top 50% pay 97.3% of all income taxes,

less

39.5% of all income tax.

= 

The top 50% pay 97.3%

-

39.5%

= 57.8 % of all income tax is the vast majority paid by the working class added to
+

only pay the remaining 2.7%

= 60.5 % of all income tax paid by working class yet they get no health care system from it
all their social services for sexual health and reproductive care are also not provided.

what are they paying tax for ?
police & millitary ?

why no social services ?

illegal worker working for a farm which comprises around 7% of the US total work force as being illegal workers are paid soo little they cant afford health care.
while their employer dodges paying tax
tax traitors !
tax cowards !
tax-cowadice employers by the score !

all stealing off the government and voting republican

doesnt that make them socialist conspirator traitors seeking to destroy the countrys government system ?

im using your analogys.

[Syne]

Learn how to do math.

The working class is the bottom 50% of earners, who only pay 2.7% of all income tax.

[RainbowUnicorn]

Learn how to do math.

The working class is the bottom 50% of earners, who only pay 2.7% of all income tax.

lol

trying to fudge the figures huh

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_(statistics)

us household income = 2 full time working adults @ 59,000 divided by 2 = 29,500 each full time working adult

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_...ted_States

The U.S. Census Bureau reported in September 2017 that real median household income was $59,039 in 2016

you wont find a "mode income" because they deliberately hide the real figures.

[Syne]

The mode has nothing to do with the upper and lower 50% of earners, since the mode is just the most frequently occurring value...which can even be more than one non-unique value. So clearly, you have no idea what you're talking about. You won't find "mode income" because it is a useless and meaningless value in this context.

"In 2013, the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers (those with AGIs below $36,841) earned 11.49 percent of total AGI. This group of taxpayers paid approximately $34 billion in taxes, or 2.78 percent of all income taxes in 2013." - https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest...15-update/

[RainbowUnicorn]

The mode has nothing to do with the upper and lower 50% of earners, since the mode is just the most frequently occurring value...which can even be more than one non-unique value. So clearly, you have no idea what you're talking about. You won't find "mode income" because it is a useless and meaningless value in this context.

"In 2013, the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers (those with AGIs below $36,841) earned 11.49 percent of total AGI. This group of taxpayers paid approximately $34 billion in taxes, or 2.78 percent of all income taxes in 2013." - https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest...15-update/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_(statistics)

[Image: 512px-Comparison_mean_median_mode.svg.png]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average#Mode

A type of average used in finance is the average percentage return. It is an example of a geometric mean.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median

http://msue.anr.msu.edu/news/mean_vs_med...u_use_them

It is important to understand the difference between average (mean) income and median income. The average (mean) income is the sum of a set of numbers divided by the count of numbers in the data set.

Syne, do try and educate yourself on statistics if your going to start debating the manipulation of data by organisations to give false information values to the less informed.

The mode income is th emost cmmon wage
the median income is mixing all the megga rich income with all the lowest paid then getting a mathamatical single value of all that money divided by the number of people surveyed.
it does not give any true information on what the majority are earning.

clearly you will see that now i have provided allthis readily avalible information that the upper and lower 50% of earners relates directly to the disparity in income which is being deliberately hidden by organisations using the word "average" to fool people when they then apply the term median and call it average.

my point is thus simply put
those organisations who collect the data then put it out using the word "Average income" are doing so to fool the public.
the median income has absolutely no use what soo ever to working class people or even companys looking to better service markets for pricing.
companys that deal with working class probably employ other companys to give them mode income levels while all the TV is being played out as average to fool people by surrupticiousely using the word median.

its all very dishonest and is clearly social engineering.

[Syne]

The mode income IS the most common income. And that has ZERO to do with the upper and lower 50% of earners. There can be, for example, 80% of earners making more than the mode income, just because some relatively low income value happens to be the most common single value. Hell, if the bottom 2% all have the exact same income, it's even possible that the remaining 98% are ALL making more than the mode income. It's an economically meaningless value, which is why you have yet to show a single source referencing the "mode income".

If you had even looked, you might have found this:

It is clear that the "median" is less than the "mean." But the "median" represents the middle income. So half of all households make more than the $38,855 and half of all households make less than $38,885. Therefore, more than half of all households make less than $51,855. Or, as we said before, "most households make less money than the mean household."

Note: a sneaky person may try and substitute the word "average" for "mean" and say, "Most households make less money than average." This is sneaky because the truth of the statement depends upon how "average" is defined. If they are using "average" instead of "median" the statement makes no sense. If they are using "average" instead of "mean" the statement is in fact true (as we just discussed). However, if they are using "average" instead of "mode" their statement is wrong! The most typical income ("mode") is actually between $5000 and $9999 (as reported by the US Census). Therefore, not only is this sneaky but it could give someone the wrong impression. Most households actually make more than the typical household.
- http://www.pafko.com/average/a_mean2.html

Now educate yourself, and quit sounding like an economically illiterate crank.

[RainbowUnicorn]

The mode income IS the most common income. And that has ZERO to do with the upper and lower 50% of earners. There can be, for example, 80% of earners making more than the mode income, just because some relatively low income value happens to be the most common single value. Hell, if the bottom 2% all have the exact same income, it's even possible that the remaining 98% are ALL making more than the mode income. It's an economically meaningless value, which is why you have yet to show a single source referencing the "mode income".

If you had even looked, you might have found this:

It is clear that the "median" is less than the "mean." But the "median" represents the middle income. So half of all households make more than the $38,855 and half of all households make less than $38,885. Therefore, more than half of all households make less than $51,855. Or, as we said before, "most households make less money than the mean household."

Note: a sneaky person may try and substitute the word "average" for "mean" and say, "Most households make less money than average." This is sneaky because the truth of the statement depends upon how "average" is defined. If they are using "average" instead of "median" the statement makes no sense. If they are using "average" instead of "mean" the statement is in fact true (as we just discussed). However, if they are using "average" instead of "mode" their statement is wrong! The most typical income ("mode") is actually between $5000 and $9999 (as reported by the US Census). Therefore, not only is this sneaky but it could give someone the wrong impression. Most households actually make more than the typical household.
- http://www.pafko.com/average/a_mean2.html

Now educate yourself, and quit sounding like an economically illiterate crank.

So half of all households make more than the $38,855 and half of all households make less than $38,885.

= propoganda & lies...

But the "median" represents the middle income.

The median only represents the middle of the total number of data sets divided by the total income of all surveyed.

im guessing your drunk while reading.

thus median is a numerical value completely irrelivant to the mode of house hold income level.

the question remains the same as a test.
how much can the average house hold afford to pay without borrowing for transport to get to work to earn money to pay for food and shelter ?

you see i already know the other game of lies being back lit ready for more propoganda.

people want to know how much income most people are earning.
that is the mode income
NOT the median

but snake-oil salesmen will always go to bed with fools

[Syne]

But the "median" represents the middle income.

The median only represents the middle of the total number of data sets divided by the total income of all surveyed.

No, you're doing exactly what I just cited says "makes no sense". You're calling the median the average when it's the mean that is the average.
Hell, you don't even seem to know how to do the math in finding an average, since you've reversed the dividend and the divisor.

people want to know how much income most people are earning.
that is the mode income
NOT the median

I'll try one more time to educate you, although I'm sure you're hopelessly and willfully ignorant.

The mode is the specific value that shows up the most. So from the set (0, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7), 1 is the mode even though 6 of the 10 values are higher than 1. How many people make exactly $12,674.24 tell us nothing about the income distribution. It's meaningless and random how many people just happen to make the exact same income. The set could just as easily be (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6, 6, 7), where the mode is 6 and more than half are less than the mode.

For example, consider the statement, "Most households make less money than the mean household." Could this possible be true? Yes, and here is why...

The US Census Bureau reported the following figures for 1998:
US Household Income
Median $38,885
Mean $51,855

It is clear that the "median" is less than the "mean." But the "median" represents the middle income. So half of all households make more than the $38,855 and half of all households make less than $38,885. Therefore, more than half of all households make less than $51,855. Or, as we said before, "most households make less money than the mean household."
- http://www.pafko.com/average/a_mean2.html

[RainbowUnicorn]

But the "median" represents the middle income.

The median only represents the middle of the total number of data sets divided by the total income of all surveyed.

No, you're doing exactly what I just cited says "makes no sense". You're calling the median the average when it's the mean that is the average.
Hell, you don't even seem to know how to do the math in finding an average, since you've reversed the dividend and the divisor.

people want to know how much income most people are earning.
that is the mode income
NOT the median

I'll try one more time to educate you, although I'm sure you're hopelessly and willfully ignorant.

The mode is the specific value that shows up the most. So from the set (0, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7), 1 is the mode even though 6 of the 10 values are higher than 1. How many people make exactly $12,674.24 tell us nothing about the income distribution. It's meaningless and random how many people just happen to make the exact same income. The set could just as easily be (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6, 6, 7), where the mode is 6 and more than half are less than the mode.

For example, consider the statement, "Most households make less money than the mean household." Could this possible be true? Yes, and here is why...

The US Census Bureau reported the following figures for 1998:
US Household Income
Median $38,885
Mean $51,855

It is clear that the "median" is less than the "mean." But the "median" represents the middle income. So half of all households make more than the $38,855 and half of all households make less than $38,885. Therefore, more than half of all households make less than $51,855. Or, as we said before, "most households make less money than the mean household."
- http://www.pafko.com/average/a_mean2.html

what is the mode income ?

half of all households make less than $38,885

divided by 2 adults & 1 child for the average american home, speaking averagly

which means each adult is earning $19,000.00 each.
$365.00 per week
that is the average US wage. $365.00 per week

the average mode income is $365.00 per week for full time employed US adults.