No. It's about maintaining the status quo. Dems want to raise taxes on the "rich" so it very much relates to the thread topic.
Not sure if it was a mistake or you don't know how greater than & less than signs work, but.... you mixed them up.
Okay, so what is your point exactly? That the rich should have higher taxes, but that "the rich" are people making substantially more than $300k?
Yeah, I typoed them both as "less than" and then went back and changed the wrong one. Back to the editing window . . .
What is rich? Something I'm not. :hihi: Broad range for being considered "rich", but being "wealthy" is a lot higher.
Let's review: You said that $300K is rich I said not necessarily. You said it is if they spend wisely I said they can spend anyway they want to but why should they curb spending because (here's where we went crossways) Obama wants to increase their taxes just because they are rich. You tried to twist my words into something other than what I was saying.
Inaccurate. Obama proposes doing nothing. He wants to allow the specifically legislated temporary tax breaks for the wealthy to expire as was always intended. The rich simply return to paying their fair share. There is a new sheriff in town.
What if I had said $1 million was rich? Would you have posted some scenario where that was not enough money?
