Quote:
Originally posted by: reeds
LRG- you are totally jumping to conclusions. "So now we deal with the stratified tax brackets where the more you make the higher percentage of money you pay. I'm sure the Reeds of the world won't be satisfied until there are no rich in the world. " Where did that come from?? The rich will all the sudden no longer be rich if the tax breaks for them were taken away?? Dont think so, lets be realistic for a moment. If the tax breaks makes them pay an extra 50k a year, that will not make the rich become poor, but it could help the country in other ways, using that money for something useful- affordable drugs, social security, etc...
And DUDE- i think the tax brakets during the Clinton years would be just fine for the rich..deficits were nothing and the economy was booming...proof that these tax breaks for the rich are not the only way to a healthy economy..
|
Reeds what you adamently refuse to do set a limit on what is enough to tax the rich. So no you want to tax everyone making 250k + per year an extra 50k. Is that it? Will that suffice, or when things fail to improve are you going to be back asking for more? How much is enough? 35%? 45%? 55%? 65%? 75%? 85%? 95%? just what amount is the ultimate, you will never advocate taxing the rich more than this limit?
Your rants make you sound like you hate the rich. You constantly advocate taxing them more and more. Define you limits please.
Personally I don't think any one or any entity should pay more than 30% of income as income tax period, no exceptions. If we need more money for something then we need to cut something else. I'm not exactly happy about the 30% but that's my personal max. Name yours.
And BTW since John Forbes is so concerned with the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy, did he and Terry take advantage of those tax breaks? They are among the wealthiest 1% of all Americans. Just curious.