Dubya apologists, let's hear your spin P art II

“Hundreds of Billions to those who need it least.

”

“Violin, why you gotta pick on "The Shrub"?

Oh yeah......keep at it!”

“Who’s picking on him? I’m in serious negotiations with my boss right now to have most of my compensation paid into a specially created subsidiary – it’s sole function will be to pay dividends – to me!

Dubya is my hero!”

“Aw yeah, he's a real ruling class hero!”

“Yup. Actually that cartoon should depict him on the drowning side as well. The public is fed up with his BS and is finally starting to call him on it. Better take care of issues at home, Dumbya.”

“Who's doing the spin? Yes, I know you've heard that the top 50% pay over 96% of taxes which might not catch your eye unless you take into consideration that individuals who fall into that category only bring in $26,000+. And yes, if you make 26+ your gov't considers you rich. We’re not talking about millionaires here. So how can you give a tax cut to those who do not pay taxes to begin with? By definition it’s impossible. Yet these are the people you are claiming that needs a tax cut. Can you tell me how that would help? Are you looking for a tax cut or should the appropriate word be a handout? Never has it been a gov’ts job or business to redistribute wealth.

BTW the current tax cut proposal would also allow the lower 50% to pay fewer taxes than the current plan.”

“Check your facts and get back to us.”

“Yeah, my facts stand; please correct me if any of my numbers are wrong. I hear no complaints about the democratic tax proposal which is not all entirely different. Many of the same points can be made about the democratic tax proposal.”

“I’m sorry – that was rude but you’re grossly misinformed.

I'll provide some numbers later.”

“People in the lower tax brackets have been getting tax breaks for years. Accroding to federal tax rates for individuals in 2002, Tax Rates The fed taxes for a single person break down the following ways:

Income - Tax - % of Income Taxed
$ 32,650 - $3,913 - 14%
$ 72,400 - $14,715 - 22%
$145,950 - $36,690 - 26%
$311,750 - $94,720 - 31%

*Income based on standard deduction of $4,700.

With the above figures, If you make $72,400, you are making 2.2 times the amount of the lowest bracket, yet paying 4 times the amount in taxes. If you made $145,950, you are making 4.5 times the lowest bracket, yet paying 9.5 times the taxes. And, if you made $311,750, you made 9.5 times the lowest bracket, yet paid 24 times the taxes.

Quite a disparity.”

“2002 Tax RETURNS by income:

Under $25,000 - $13,948,800,000
$25,000 - $49,999 - $30,108,900,000
$50,000 - $99,000 - $23,377,600,000
$100,000+ - $ 9,326,300,000

Source - IRS ”

“1998 Figures:

Mean Household Income

Lowset 20% - $ 9,223
Second Lowest - $23,288
Middle - $38,967
Second Highest- $60,266
Highest - $127,529+

Source: US Census bureau ”

“If you people keep picking on Dubya, you're gonna get sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act!”

“Buddha Bear, the numbers don't tell the entire story.

What you have to look at is the tax rate on DISCRETIONARY income, not GROSS Income.

If we look at the applicable tax rates to discretionary income, I think you will find the cuts heavily favored the upper brackets.”

“BB - Your tax rates only look at income tax rates. Income taxes only account for about half of federal revenue. Payroll taxes are the next biggest bite and they fall disproportionately on the lower and middle-income brackets. There's too much to reproduce here but the figures from the Congressional Budget Office tell a more complete story. Compare the "Total Effective Federal Tax Rate" tables with the "Effective Individual Income Tax Rate" tables and you'll see that our federal tax system is not terribly progressive at all.

Looking further, a recent report by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy shows that state and local taxes take a larger proportion of income from the poor and middle class. Taking that into account, the argument that the wealthy are overtaxed becomes much harder to defend.

If you realize that wealthier people tend to benefit more from our system overall, paying more as a percentage of income seems fundamentally fair.

The trend toward widening income disparity in this country goes against our anti- aristocratic roots. Numerous studies have shown that more equitable distribution of wealth leads to a more efficient (and therefore more productive) economy.”

“Also – You’ve got some “fuzzy math” there BB. Remember that income tax rates are marginal rates - that is, the 31% tax rate only applies to that portion of income above $94,720. Income before that is taxed at the lower rates.”

“violin you missed the point completely”

“Exsqueeze me?”

“the point they are trying to make, violin, is that they believe they are right and nothing you can do or say is going the change that”

“This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws. Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this.

The first four men, the poorest would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18; and the tenth man, the richest would pay $59.

That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day; the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut).

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

So the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12; leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59.

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man, but he, pointing to the tenth. "But he got $7!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!" That's true!" shouted the seventh man, why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important.

They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill!

Imagine that!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.

Where would that leave the rest? Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straightforward logic!”

“Suppose the wealthy man believed in fairness?”

“violin that link didn't work. chilie, no that's not the point. the point is is....YOU are the wealthy...I am the wealthy....and furthurmore, nobody hasthe right to decide who doesn't need any more money. nobody is so great that they decide who needs money. when did this happen? you guys are talkin bout "the rich" as if theirs billions of them all over the place. look at the numbers man, if you make 70K ,which i gurantee MANY on this board do, you are rich according to democrats. they are coming after you and you are so blinded by envy and fear and greed that you don't even see it coming. it's astounding. you are so brainwashed that you can't even believe the numbers when you see them. i showed you all this stuff before and all ya'll could do was say...oh..that can't be right..well, it is right. if they took out everybodies taxes at the end of the year , all in one big chunk, instead of trickling it out every paccheck, there would be an absolute revolt in the country. i can shoot down any argument you can make about it. open your mind to the possibility that you have been duped in the greatest flimflam in history. there's aren't that many millionaires in this country. i dont care if you call it discretionary or gross or cow$h!t, it's a scam. what if i want to increase my salary? hmmm...if i do you think you are intitled to more of my money....guess i won't do it then.....that'll help the economy, good thinkin.



The trend toward widening income disparity in this country goes against our anti- aristocratic roots. Numerous studies have shown that more equitable distribution of wealth leads to a more efficient (and therefore more productive) economy."
Violin

WHAT!?!? numerous studies? name one. name numerous ones. weaelth distribution? geesh man, think about what you are saying. nobody has the right to distribute wealth. i just can't fathom this line of reasoning. they comin after you...SUCKAHS!







oh i got plenty more where that came from......after basketball practice though....i gotta go teach a bunch of 3rd graders that competition can be a good thing...to raise their level of play...not lower everybody elses....”

“I believe responsible fiscal spending is more important that cutting taxes”

“Strat, you really are a little rich boy, aren't yas? I got mine and nobody else can have it and I don't care if you're my next door neighbor and are starving because what is mine is mine.

It's this selfish I-don't-give-a-crap-about-anyone-else attitude that's driving this country into the ground. Look around you, man.

Nationally, the number of poor people jumped to 32.9 million in 2001, or 11.7 percent of the U.S. population, from 31.6 million in 2000, or 11.3 percent.

A family of four was considered to live in poverty in 2001 under federal guidelines if its annual income was less than $18,104.

Children younger than 18, who make up 26 percent of the population, accounted for 36 percent of the nation's poor.

I don't even know how the hell a family can live on $18,000 a year.

Bush is driving the economy into the ground and all you can do is whine about they're taking all your hard earned cash. Your philosophy makes me wanna puke. You're all that's wrong with America, dood.”

“gee rosey,,next time tell us what you really think...LOL”

“Sorry, I'm just tired of the whole "picking on the wealthy" cry-baby act.”

“"Numerous studies have shown that more equitable distribution of wealth leads to a more efficient (and therefore more productive) economy."

Yes, just look at the Soviet Union. They had a very efficient and productive economy.

I'm for everyone paying their fair share. Seems to me that the poor having been getting a free ride for too long.”

“liberals haven't had aa new idea regarding poverty since the new deal and look at what all that spending has gotten us. TRILLIONS down the tiolet. has poverty gotten better? no, it's worse. creating a dependant class of voters is the only result. it divides the nation.


rosey, if you are interested in a real debate, answer me this...what, in your mind, is "wealthy"? i'll tell you flat out, we as a family make around 65K. you think i'm rich? how much do you make rosey? it took me 3 years to buy a stinking $100 solo tent! the boston tea party was over a 5% taxation rate. we're staring at 40-50% now, when you add up all the hidden taxes, local taxes, double taxes. I'm poor rosey. i FEEL poor. i have ALWAYS felt poor all my life. i don't whine about it, i work harder to try to advance my plight. i hope to be rich some day, but i doupt it will ever happen. the point is, YOU say i'm rich and i'm not paying my fair share? the AVERAGE tax payer(ME) works a over third of a year for the government, and then can keep his money for the rest of the year. and tell who has the right to decide how much money i should have? what if i invent some miracle product and get rich? what if i write i song that hits big? what if i win the lottery? then i am a bad person? seriously, stop spewing your polotics of envy and class hatred and answer these question.

"Children younger than 18, who make up 26 percent of the population, accounted for 36 percent of the nation's poor." roseymonster

WHA!?! this doesn't even make sence. are you saying that kids that are going to school and don't have a job are under the poverty level cuz they don't make X$? i wanna see a credible source for your figures. the fact is that liberals are lying about the tax issue and i hope they keep it up because the people elected 63% of the last election for republicans and this coupled with the dems weakness on national defence is the reason.



chillie, you are absolutely correct that cutting waste would make a huge difference. but guess what happens if you try to do that? all the libs will FREAK out because all the waste is beurocratic fat cat government union workers, feeding at the public trogh. there's WAY too many middle men. look up the figures on how much of every dollar TAKEN from us in the name of poverty goes to poor people. look at how much out a 1 dollar TAKEN from us for education gets to a classroom. it's WAY LOWER than you think. too many fatcats , all want you dependant on them , so you'll keep voting for them to keep giving you crumbs and think the "other guy" will take your crumbs. waste fraud and abuse is huge and should be dealt with, but who's gonna do that? our govenor just laid out a new education plan because some liberal judge said ours was unconstitutional. well, he said...ok fine, we'll take the number of school districts from 300+ to 120. OH MY! YOU'd think he was killing school kids with his bare hands. the libs are throwing a REALLY REALLY BIG fit now cause that means they don't have their cushy jobs and pensions any more.


hate is not a good enough reason to tax people. taxation stymies economic growth. like savage said, ask the soviet union how your socialist utopia worked out....”

“That's tell'em like it is!”

“First off, if you’re paying 50% in taxes, may I suggest you shop for a better accountant because you’re being taken.

My link does work, you just need a PDF viewer to read it. You can get Adobe Acrobat Reader free. The link is to the testimony of William H. Gates Sr. on the estate tax.

While almost nothing in economics can be considered settled, the theory that high rates of income inequality leads to inefficiency is widely accepted. You asked for one source, try Furman & Stiglitz – Economic Consequences of Income Inequality. There are certainly opposing views.

As far as your unfounded beliefs about taxation and income redistribution I refer you to Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution which reads, in part: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States”.

Many of our nation’s founders believed that equitable (not equal) distribution of wealth was crucial to the American experiment. Try reading a little Jefferson, Paine, Franklin, Webster or Adams.

The tremendous growth in inequality that we have seen in the last couple of decades does have a historical precedence in the US. Would you like to guess when that was?”

“I hate when that happens!

The links are:

Adobe Acrobat Reader

Furman & Stiglitz – Economic Consequences of Income Inequality ”

“Object not found!
The requested URL was not found on this server. The link on the referring page seems to be wrong or outdated. Please inform the author of that page about the error.
If you think this is a server error, please contact the webmaster



ok violin, you've convinced me. .. . .untill i read this by walter williams, an african american ;

"While Washington's criminal education establishment robs its
teachers, the damage to teachers pales in comparison to the
damage to the children of the district. That the undying and
unquestionable support that Washington teachers gave to their
unions is unwarranted is beyond question. Through educational
vouchers, there's opportunity for changes that benefit both
teachers, students and taxpayers. Suppose parents were to
receive a $6,000 voucher, that's less than the $10,500 per
student expenditure now, for each school-age child? A group
of teachers themselves might start their own private school. If
the school enrolled 400 students, its revenue would be close to
$2.5 million. Schools would emerge that tailored their education programs to differing needs. Teachers, rather than administrators and union officials, would be in control and set the agenda. Parents would be empowered through choice. Students would get a
much better education. Finally, taxpayers would be less burdened.
It's a no-brainer that everyone benefits if we can get children
out of high-cost, low-quality schools into lower cost, higher
quality schools. The only losers I see are teacher unions and
the board of education." --Walter Williams

and then there's this;

"Our opponents are openly committed to increasing our tax burden. We are committed to stopping them, and we will. ... They would place higher and higher taxes on small businesses, on family farms, and on other working families so that government may once again grow at the people's expense. You know, we could say they spend money like drunken sailors, but that would be unfair to drunken sailors...because the sailors are spending their own money. Our tax policies are and will remain pro-work, pro-growth, and pro-family. We intend to simplify the entire tax system -- to make taxes more fair, easier to understand, and most important,
to bring the tax rates of every American further down, not up.
Now, if we bring them down far enough, growth will continue strong; the underground economy will shrink; the world will beat a path to our door; and no one will be able to hold America back --
and the future will be ours." --Ronald Reagan



how bout this?

"The first thing to keep in mind is that it is almost impossible
to cut any tax without making the people who pay that tax
richer. And, rich people pay a lot more taxes than poor people
do. According to the Tax Foundation, more than five out of every six dollars collected by the federal government were paid by the
top 25 percent of taxpayers. You need a gross adjusted income of
$55,225 to qualify as a member of the top quarter. Now, if all
these people qualify as 'rich,' so be it. If cutting their taxes
makes them richer, so be that, too. The top 1 percent, by the way,
pay 37 percent of the total income taxes collected by the federal
government. Democrats keep talking about how little poor people
will get from an income tax cut. That's true--because poor people
pay so little in income taxes. How about creating a tax system in
this country that makes everybody feel like they're paying their
fair share? I don't want to raise taxes on anybody--I want to cut
them for everybody. But having a system where vast segments of the
working population are clients of the government and a small number
are funders of it is not only institutionalized class warfare,
it's the exact opposite of shared sacrifice." --Jonah Goldberg



did you catch that violin? $55K and your in the top 25% how much do you make violin? are you rich? am i rich? i'm in that bracket and i am ashamed of my house, BECAUSE I AM POOR! i'd be willing to bet my last dollar that 75% of the libs whining about the mean ole rich people gettig to keep more of their money are in that bracket too and have NO IDEA they are cutting their own throat.



“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States”.

Many of our nation’s founders believed that equitable (not equal) distribution of wealth was crucial to the American experiment. Try reading a little Jefferson, Paine, Franklin, Webster or Adams.

The tremendous growth in inequality that we have seen in the last couple of decades does have a historical precedence in the US. Would you like to guess when that was?"
Violin


ok, so the constitution says that congress can take our money for defense....and that's it. welfare of the people refers to infrastructure, not social programs. look through the federalist papers for a more accurate depiction of the founders intent when it comes to taxes and a tyrannical government. they didn't trust government, and rightly so.



i don't know what your referring to about the percedence of "iequality" but it has nothing to di with a moneythirsty government sucking the life out of it's citizens, i'll bet you money on that. i guess you mean slavery? democrats were the party that fought and chose to leave the nation to keep that institution alive.




and i am not spazing out, TYVM!”

“2nd Amendment: A well regulated milita being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms against those who would tax us too much, shall not be infringed.”

“that was the idea ultra.......it's why they founded the united states of america and they wanted to make sure they could defend themselves again should this new government go too far......”

“I don't know what your problem is with the Furman and Stiglitz link. It works for me on this computer too. Try cutting and pasting: http://www.kc.frb.org/publicat/sympos/1998/S98stiglitz.pdf

I used the wrong word. I guess I was sleepy. I meant historical precedent, not precedence. I was referring to the inequality of wealth, overproduction/underconsumption and overextension of credit leading up to the Great Depression. Herbert Hoover’s prescription was a ‘trickle-down’ approach – giving money to business to create jobs. It didn’t work out too well.

I can’t believe that we’re debating the same stupid approach today. I don’t think anyone is arguing for increasing the tax burden on ‘the rich’. Bush’s plan cuts the rates on the top brackets while increasing the rate on those making under $20,000 per year. He wants to eliminate taxation of corporate dividends to those few who receive them directly. The dividends in your 401k are still subject to taxation when you withdraw them. How is this fair? Can you explain to me how taking money away from those most likely to spend it and giving it to people who would have no reason to invest it as long as aggregate demand stays low will help? Can you explain how expanded government borrowing will not increase interest rates and choke off the mortgage financing that has kept us from going into free-fall? If we make permanent a cut in taxes to the highest income brackets, who do you think will pay off our spiraling deficit?”

“violin, do you wear green tights?”

“Why don't you come up and see for yourself, big boy?”

“Bush’s plan cuts the rates on the top brackets while increasing the rate on those making under $20,000 per year. He wants to eliminate taxation of corporate dividends to those few who receive them directly. The dividends in your 401k are still subject to taxation when you withdraw them. Violin



who ever told you this is lying to you. your playing with a flat ball dood. and look up the numbers for yourself on how much percentage of your income is taxed...ALL taxes. it's hanious but nobody even knows. you keep skirting this part of the equation. like you never acknowledge that someone making %55k a year is in the top 25% of taxpayers and therefore, by your definition, rich.









LOOK EVERYBODY! VIOLIN'S RICH! GET FILTHY, EVIL CAPITOLIST !!!!














if 10% should seem too small, be thankful i don't take it all....cuz i'm the taxman....yeahhahh i'm the taxmannnn”

“That's capitAlist......


Is that 55K per person or per family?

Something tells me its PER PERSON.
That would indeed be a "well off" family.

I can't argue with you guys anymore.

The trill is gone!”

“Strat – What is your hang up with defining who is rich? It gets us nowhere. I’m comfortable with whatever number you want to use. Can we move on?”

“i reckon it is per person, but what if the family only has one working person (stay at home parent). they wouldn't be so well off anymore.”

“Right you are.

55K for a family of several certainly wouldn't put them on easy street.”

“"Suppose parents were to
receive a $6,000 voucher, that's less than the $10,500 per
student expenditure now, for each school-age child?

A group
of teachers themselves might start their own private school. If
the school enrolled 400 students, its revenue would be close to
$2.5 million."

Yep.
And those students would require at least 25 teachers, an administrator or two, a few parapros, a few subs, a couple of secretaries, a kitchen staff(?), custodians, etc.

The payroll alone would be prolly $1.5 million.

So that leaves $1 million for transportation, a $10 million building, utilities, athletic and recreational equipment, books, desks, chalk, computers, floor buffers, toilet paper, computer paper, construction paper, etc...

I suppose that a school with 400 enrollees could get by on $2.5 million a year, but I wouldn't want my kids learning in what would surely be such a bland environment.”

“gojo... good poitn, but that voucher is in addition to whatever local taxes are collected to fund the school. (It's my job to know this stuff bro.)

Those folks making $18,000 per year need help, yes, i agree. They way they are helped depends on 2 things.

Do they want to help themselves?

Do they want the government to help them?

If they want to help themselves, they need to educate themselves, work harder, work longer, OR NEGOTIATE their deal a little better. If all the lower class, and middle class tax bracket folks were in unions, they would fare much better.

Then, we need to tax and tarrif the hell out of foriegn products coming into the states, so companies will keep labor here, and Americans will become more apt to buy American made products.

Then, we need to REGULATE, all the private industry out there, so we won't have Enron's creeping up on us again.

Then, we need to privatize as many government agencies out there as we can (schools, postal system, etc.), and let ENTREPENUERS get a shot at making something of themselves.

After that, we have to elect competant, educated, ethical, business people to run our government..... not a bunch of lawyers and politicians.

Finally, we need to get rid of all the lobbyists, so our elected offficials can create laws that actually are efficient, productive, and good for the common folks out there.

Since NONE of this will ever happen, I'll just keep making as much money as I can, #&%!$ about paying taxes, observe more folks buying things with food stamps and then driving away in a brand new 2003 Caddy SUV, give to charities and voulenteer my time to the causes that legitimately help combat some of the crap from above, and laugh my a$$ off everytime we have to select between an Al Gore and George Bush for our leadership.

Have fun ripping that fellas”

“"If all the lower class, and middle class tax bracket folks were in unions, they would fare much better."

Really? How? All the jobs would move offshore. It's already happening. The time for unionized labor is over. Come back from the dark side dude, you've been involved with union labor a little too long.”

“well said buddha


violin, my point is this. you are a hypocrit. look who's calling the kettle black. you see , the middle class working people, like all the people on here are REALLY the rich. you guys hear "rich" and you think of private jets and football teams and enron execs, but that ain't nuthin man, it's all on us. you and me. and i need relief, i could use a break. like buddha said, i'll keep dukin it out and doing the best i can but if i get some more money, i can start my house eariler. i can run my electric lines or dig out the driveway. i WILL put it into the economy, just like you will and all the rich people will. you said something eariler, eluding to the fact that the rich won't spend extra money from tax relief. well, that's rediculous. they will spend it, just like you and I will. unless they invest it into the stock market, or put it into a savings account, which the bank would invest into the stock market. the only way a rich person, or anyone else for that matter to "not spend money" is to put it in a hole in the back yard or in a matress. it's all spending, no matter where they put it, it gets spent. even if they just put it in the bank. see what i mean? money will go into the economy, period. confiscatory tax collections just take money that someone worked hard for. some guy works his way through college, two jobs, never goes and parties with the guys because he does his homework instead. works long hours and spends weeks outta town to make his business a sucess.....and then someone comes along & says, you don't need that much money, i'll take it and spend it for you in the "right" ways.


that's my point and i'm sticking to it.”

“So Strat, what would you say the poverty line is? If one makes less than that amount, should he pay taxes? Should he pay the same percentage as the man who makes five hundred times that amount?”

“OK fine. I’m a rich hypocrite. That’s settled. But I do know the difference between spending and savings/investment. Can we at least keep the debate within the bounds of the English language?

In the face of Mitchell Daniels’ projection of $200 - $300 BILLION deficits for the foreseeable future (before factoring in possible war costs) is it remotely responsible to talk of further tax cuts and the elimination of key sources of revenue (dividends, estate tax) that come from those who benefit most from our society and are most able to pay?”

“Violin, you realize, of course, that the phrases "most able to pay" and "benefit most from our society" will automatically label you as a marxist, and all further thought on any point you might have made will cease.

Pinko.”

“phaedrush, i don't know what the peverty level is. i feel like i am in poverty to tell you the truth. i would be willing to bet that most in my neighborhood ,most on this side of town fall under the peverty level(wrong side of the tracks). and yes, i think it's fair that the upper brackets pay a little more percentage, but there is a limit in my mind ..a point at which you start harming the economy. think about someone on the brink of moving from one tax bracket up to the next. this has happened to us in the past, where we got a raise and made less money because we moved up to a new tax bracket. what kind of incentive is that to improve your lot in life? how is this fair? wtf are you to tell me i ain't payin my fair share? why don't all you lib's just make an extra donation on your tax returns? it's legal, you can do it. if every liberal who wants more taxes just donated an extra $500, would that end poverty? what if we just bought state run mansions for everyone in poverty, would that end poverty?”