Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Overpaid Union Thug" data-source="post: 1326897" data-attributes="member: 198">I don't have to be rich to stand up for them just like I don't have to be a women to stand up for women's rights. And attacking the rich is the main focus of the left and it has to be stopped. Why? It's wrong and causes many ignorant voters to vote democrat and this country is collapsing as result. Also....I don't listen to Rush.If they aren't paying those rates then it's either because of deductions, which are legal, or because they are tax dodgers. Either way the left's accusation that the rich in general "aren't paying their fair share" is completely without a doubt debunked (as in sending the lie down in flames) by the very simple math I mentioned before. You, and everyone else that participates in such class warfare, just refuses to ignore said math. It's simple: Take the known amount of rich people as a percentage of the population and their known tax contributions as a percentage and you will see that no matter how much you tax them it will not solve the problem. That problem is the amount of spending and borrowing our elected officials have accumulated. The left's whole premise on taxing the rich based on an OPINION that they aren't paying their fair share but in reality the numbers don't lie. They are paying their fair share. And more.Even with their deductions, which, again, are legal, they are STILL contributing what is required and so is most of those that are in their tax bracket. Again.....if they weren't then how could they also be accounting for up to 70% of the tax pie? Simple math and logic shows that you are dead wrong.I pay far less than 20% because I claim as much as I possibly can on my W4. I refuse to get a bunch of money back every year that amounts to nothing more than an interest free loan for the government to blow on god knows what that only adds to the debt. Anyone who complains about their tax rate while getting thousands of dollars back in refunds every year needs to wake up. You don't have to pay that high rate. Be smart and lower your withholdings. That's simply what "Mitt" and the like are doing. And yes I stick up for Mitt and Sean because they have done nothing wrong. They are being falsely accused of something despite their being ample evidence to the contrary. I defend ANYONE that is wronged.Yes, it does. It was written knowing that the deductions would lower the taxes paid just like it was written knowing that the deductions would lower the middle and lower class's taxes paid. Why? Because it was known that the rich would still be paying much more than the middle and lower class. Last time I check 14% of $3million is a hell of allot more than 20% of $85k. I do, however, think that all deductions should be eliminated for all classes. I'm in favor of a fair tax or something like it.Riiiiiiiiiiight. I believe that. Syke.Hear me on this one even though I've repeated it several times already and even explained how to understand it. THE MIDDLE CLASS DOES NOT PICK UP THE SLACK FOR THE WEALTHY PEOPLE! The proof is in the numbers. You just refuse to accept them. My link about the CBO study in 2010 alone should convince most people with an open mind and desire for the truth. You just refuse to open your eyes. Let alone your mind.I'll don't agree with such tax breaks. But guess what......it doesn't change a thing. No amount of tax revenue from condos or luxury boxes will put a dent in the deficit and spending. That's what you refuse to accept. The real problem is spending. Not the tax breaks for the rich. There aren't enough of them (tax breaks or rich people) to close the gaps. It's that simple math I keep mentioning and you keep refusing to apply.Umm...really? Is that what your rolling with here? We didn't lose 11 trillion dollars from raising taxes for 1% of the population. That came from two wars (one of which wouldn't have been necessary if Clinton hadn't been a whip at foreign policy and fighting terrorism).Taxing the rich, no matter how much you take from them, won't change a thing with the kind of spending this administration is dishing out. And the more they tax the higher they raise the debt ceiling.I don't repeat political talking heads. I use simple math, logic, and practicality. Only overly partisan minions accept that 1% of the population getting breaks on their condos and luxury boxes is causing a  government spending problem.Here's a decent way of explaining things for you to understand.......An apartment owner has ten units that should cost $1million/year to manage and he charges rent according to income. He spends $10million on lavish furniture that is included, full channel DirecTv, and provides each unit with food, medical insurance, and a car he would be in debt up to his ass and would eventually lose the complex. So, the logical thing to to would be to ditch all of those things....meaning....the tenants would have to provide their own furniture, food, cable tv, transportation, medical insurance. But....by your logic he should simply charge the one or two tenants with the highest incomes more (much more) even though they are already paying more than anyone else to offset the difference instead of making the logic choice of cutting what he shouldn't be spending money on. There. Get it now? Probably not. I'm sure it took plenty of hair off as that concept was whizzing by right over your head.</blockquote>

Verification