Economics (again)

[joecoolfreak]

Couldn't have said it better myself

[Vteckidd]

So you agree with Mccain Now?

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

The "RICH" or top 50% of earners pay more than 96% of ALL INCOME TAXES.

So 50% pay 96%, and the other 50% pay 4% of total Taxes.

So we should tax the rich more? You should look up the word PROPORTIONAL.

I saw something funny the other day about Obama saying hes going to let the Bush Tax Cuts expire, there for MOST middle class people (who the cuts were designed for) their average tax liability will go UP 4%, now, when Obama implements his TAX CUTS, itll lower taxes 5% for middle class.

SO its not this 5% drop from where they are NOW, its 1% which is meaningless.

Interesting none the less

[tony]

So you agree with Mccain Now?


The "RICH" or top 50% of earners pay more than 96% of ALL INCOME TAXES.

So 50% pay 96%, and the other 50% pay 4% of total Taxes.

So we should tax the rich more? You should look up the word PROPORTIONAL.

I saw something funny the other day about Obama saying hes going to let the Bush Tax Cuts expire, there for MOST middle class people (who the cuts were designed for) their average tax liability will go UP 4%, now, when Obama implements his TAX CUTS, itll lower taxes 5% for middle class.

SO its not this 5% drop from where they are NOW, its 1% which is meaningless.

Interesting none the less

The person I am quoting didn't speak of a proportionate tax, he spoke of a progressive tax. For those that argue a progressive tax prevents an individual from striving to achieve more, Adam Smith created that theory but again.. he supports a PROGRESSIVE tax.

And Mike.. that top 50% includes incomes in the $40k range.. two individuals making $20k a year fits into that category.. hardly "Rich" so this whole notion of taxing the "RICH" is evil, a lot of those individuals are nowhere close to wealthy.