What is dishonest is trying to redefine a term on the fly to suggest something untrue. Ten percent of the taxpayers are NOT "Most taxpayers". Facts is facts. Honest is honesty.
No I am not angry. Someone else's disagreement on a faceless chat forum is never worth being angry about; there are far more important things. One last time: you said in post 116 that "it has been proven that you can do all that (balance a budget) without raising taxes." I came back and said prove it, name a single state or federal government or any government for that matter that has balanced their budget without raising taxes and you have still failed to do so. You have however, finally admitted that a balanced budget cannot be accomplished without increased tax revenues.
I named the Federal government. And yes, I said you can do it without raising taxes. I have shown you this. President Clinton Cut taxes his second term and cut spending.
This is my first post since you made that comment. You have cleared nothing up with me. I can't read your frigging mind. What you say is all I can go on.
sorry, you lost me. where did 8,354 come from? another thing I just thought of that we have both failed to do is to factor in the standard deduction.
I responded to this initial statement It is untrue. Had I made enough money to get up to the highest tax bracket, I would have paid 33% in federal income tax and about 3% in employment taxes. That's 36% on all the money above what I made. So my rate would have been even higher. Not sure how that proves your point. You pay a lower percentage of income taxes than I do because, like you said, investment income. You are taxed lower on some of your earnings. Dividends are taxed lower and so are capital gains. The eternal debate on dividends is the double taxation that I won't get into. On capital gains, the rate is lower because it is generally accepted that it spurs transactional business that is good for the economy. Neither the dems or republicans argue that ltcg should be taxed as ordinary income. The point I'm making is that it's wrong to say that everyone who makes 250k a year or 500k a year, or whatever the magic number is these days, is paying less tax than their secretary. I know lots of guys who make lots of money and pay lots of taxes. A 5% surcharge on the "wealthy"? If the issue is the effective tax rates of millionaires, then create a floor for the effective tax rate of people making over $1 million. But in my business, if I ever make that kind of money, I will be taxed through my teeth and told I'm not paying my share. It's crazy.
