Your quoting a bunch of tree hugging scientists???? LOL Should I put up a link form the National Review?,
Agreed, the tax cut does affect joint tax returns above $114,650, but the point is that where is most of the money being given back? The bulk is at the top of the income scale. That money is needed, we're in a time of national crisis (budget, wars, economy) and the people that can make the "sacrafice" of paying the same rate they were paying should, just until we get things back in balance.
Yeah, but they're SMART tree hugging scientists Sure, I'd love to read an insightful piece on missile defense from the National Review.
Are you listening to what you are saying? here's the scale again: Old rate New rate Tax-bracket end points Single Joint 10% Same $7,000 $14,000 15% Same $28,400 $56,800 27% 25% $68,800 $114,650 30% 28% $143,500 $174,700 35% 33% $311,950 $311,950 38.6% 35% None None If you for ex. make 60k at IBm , your wife works for around 50k...your taxes go down....Now....why is it that a combined income of 100k contibutes 25k and a couple makes 200k has to pay 66k??? they are paying the bigger bulk of taxes and still paying a higher tax rate by 10%!!!! But many want to punnish them even more??? If i had may way it would be a flat 15% across the board for every man...no deductions. But what Ime really pointing out is a couple that makes 100k or more combined is considered RICH by congress,,,,we run around and claim equal rights for men, women and gays......but then apply different % rates to people making more....how unfair is that? whats good for one is good for all...a guy makin 100k will pay 15k , a guy making 1 mill will pay 150k....what is wrong with that?
I know you're a flat tax guy, and I agree with that, but the fact is that we're changing the system, to the greater benefit of the rich in real dollars, when our country needs the money. We're putting ourselves in debt that we can't afford... especially when we have to pay for the baby boomers retiring, war, etc. It's just priorities. And I think that you're confusing the "rich" rhetoric a bit. I'm not saying that the couple making 114k a year is rich, I'm saying the guy making a million a year doesn't need to get a tax cut when the country is in deep debt. That's all. The latest tax cut is in favor of the rich, not the poor. If you're going to cut taxes, why not cut the tax rates for the couples making under $56,800? They need it more, it wouldn't impact the country's bottom line nearly as much, and it would increase consumption of basic goods and services.
No offense but....who the F#ck are you to decide that the guy makign a million dosn;t deserve to have his percentage dropped? He's already paying 12% more then you on a percentage basis....he's still gogin to pay 10% more then you on a percentage basis....so while you contribute 25% of 100k income( 25000) you think theres nothing wrong with him paying 33% on his million or 333,000 to the government???? nice punnishement for success...your a typcial socialist commie pinko punk...but i love you anyway
I'm the president, in this case. And I have to think about the country above my millionaire cronies. Then again, since our government is bought and paid for, I can just attend campaign dinners, raise more money, and outspend those dems in the next campaign year! And, if I can step out of my presidential role for a moment, I'd have to answer your question with "Percentages don't matter when you can't pay the rent!". If I make $15000 a year, $150 means more to me than $1500 would to a person making $150,000 a year, or $15000 would to a person making $1,500,000. The millionaire isn't worried whether or not he can stretch his $15000 enough to buy gas, food, and clothes for his children, but the guy making the extra $150 a year does.
Amzing how you pull the old " millionaire cronies" schtick....but then start talking about ' peopl making 150k per year???? which ,was my exact point....its not just the wealthy...a couple making 15ok combined with 4 kids is not a millionaire...thank you for proving my point...in addition, a couple making 15k per year....do not pay ANY taxes...and most likley will have their rent paide for byt the govenrment and recieve food stamps and other benefits....and i do not think the govermentment should try to decide who can excpet the most financial burden in terms of %%....Unless of course they want to use a system whereby if i pay 40% to your 20%, i get to vote twice and collect twice as much in benefits...for insance, should the rich be given a higher % of Social security upon reaching 60?? of course not you would never go for that
The results of a system of voting that gave more votes based on wealth would be disasterous. I think we're almost to that point now, though, with the way politics and campaigns are governed by the money and gifts given to candidates. The fact is, the parties are more alike than ever, and because of the money flow into the political parties, it doesn't look like that's going to change anytime soon. But hey, if you want to give me a million dollars for my vote, we can talk!!! If your point was that couples making 150k a year get a tax cut, then your point is made in the table posted earlier. Congrats. If your point is that the tax cut benefits our society, then I think my post citing proportionality in taxation disproves that. We don't need an aristocracy in this country, we need a thriving economy where people have as equal a playing field as possible. And 10 or 15 percent of a poor family's income is a large chunk for them, though it might not be to a "rich person" It does, however, constitute taxation. Check out the table again... if they made under $14000, then yes, you're right... no taxation... unless of course you count sales and other taxes. Old rate New rate Tax-bracket end points Single Joint 10% Same $7,000 $14,000 15% Same $28,400 $56,800 27% 25% $68,800 $114,650 30% 28% $143,500 $174,700 35% 33% $311,950 $311,950 38.6% 35% None None
I would have to agree with Robert Pape in his OP-ED piece on 09/22/03 in the New York Times. Very good reading about SUICIDE TERRORISM being on the rise NOT because it is being perpetrated by Muslim terrorists professing religious motives, but because: "nearly all suicide terrorist campaigns have in common a specific secular and strategic goal: to compell liberal democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland. Religion is rarely the root cause, alhtough it is often used as a tool by terrorist organizations in recruiting and in other efforts in service of the broader strategic objective." Moreover, "In terms of casualties, suicide attacks are far and away the most efficient form of terrorism. From 1980 to 2001, suicide attacks accounted for only 3 percent of terrorist incidents, but caused almost HALF of total deaths due to terrorism - - even if one excludes as an aberration the unusually large number of fatalities on 9/11." "For the United States, especially in light of its growing occupation of the Persian Gulf, it is crucial to immediately step up border and immigration controls".