Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by IJ Reilly, Apr 7, 2004.
Awesome post buddy. Awesome.
Yep, beware the 15th.
You read it, you know it, then you try and tell a middle class republican about it and they start with the dinner party analogy, flat tax proposals, welfare moms, social security "ponzi schemes", etc. etc.
anything anything not to admit that in the past 40 years they pay more and the super rich pay less. Smmehow they ended up in bed with the uber-wealthy and got screwed. Delusional?
What's wrong with standing up for your economic class? THe super-wealthy certainly do. They have hired a thousand lobbiests and spent millions on candidate contributions to make sure they pay less. All I am saying is you can still be a republican and demand middle class tax cuts.
Stand up for yourself! Say,"The hell with the multi-millionaires! Where's my tax cut! Let them pay for some of this!"
Tax cuts that result in deficits and higher local taxes don't count. My transit fares and higher property taxes are more than my federal income tax cut. Plus I have to pay off the federal deficit. Plus state Universities used to be cheap and of high quality.
I'm sorry to say it, but the talk radio mentality rules right now. It's tough to have a serious discussion about anything that really matters.
Well, I don't believe that anyone should get hammered just because they are successful. Especially since I want to be one of those people. But, I think there needs to be a distinction in law between what is middle class and what is upperclass.
I think you should have to make more than 500,000 a year to get truely hammered.
For example. I have come from lower middle class, the only person in my family to go to college (until my brother), and so has my wife.
If we both become very successful in our jobs we could make about 275,000 a year combined. Should we have to pay for being weathly? For being successful? I don't think the middle class, or the upper middle class should be punished.
Slightly off topic, but interesting none the less. The current calender in use by most of the world, the Gregorian Calender, was NOT in use during the reign of Julius Ceaser. They were in fact using the Julian Calender, which was slightly less accurate. Currently the Julian Calender is 13 days behind the Gregorian one. Meaning that the Ides (or middle) of March which occurs on the 15th is actually happening on the 28th in the Gregorian calender.
I don't think anybody is talking about hammering, chiseling or chain-sawing the successful. Johnston is talking about restoring real progressivity to the tax system, so that people pay based on their ability to do so. Most people think that's the way it works now, but it doesn't.
Oh, I agree with you, but I don't think that any income bracket should get destroyed by taxes. Example, if I make a million, why should I have to pay 400,000 in taxes.
from my earlier analysis. might want to check the examples before that, too.
i've often tried to explain to my friend's, who think that these tax cuts are really helping the middle guy, that it's an "inclusion illusion"...
i certainly don't believe in hammering the wealthy but they should at least pay as much as the middle class. ntm the write-offs that favor the wealthy..it's and it's a flawed system.
i'm buying his book...after i recover from paying this year's taxes.
i've always thought the most FAIR way to tax is straight down the line... a % that EVERYONE no matter you income pays... so if that means someone makes 10,000 a year and pays 100 in taxes and someone who makes 1,000,000 pays 10,000 in taxes so be it