If I draw parallels between you and say, Timothy McVeigh, it doesn't mean I can say you are similar in other ways. Plus, I know plenty of rich members of both major parties, and many poor and middle class members of both parties. Are you trying to say Obama is going to levy special taxes on non-Democrats?
Not necessarily, since using your argument, Obama's tax structure would make the "top" significantly lower.
Yeah, we are fuxored.
If you are going to try using what I said against me, why don't you pull it from whatever thread that was in, and put in in your post so everyone can write it.If I draw parallels between you and say, Timothy McVeigh, it doesn't mean I can say you are similar in other ways. Plus, I know plenty of rich members of both major parties, and many poor and middle class members of both parties. Are you trying to say Obama is going to levy special taxes on non-Democrats?
It wouldn't surprise me if he did.
Not necessarily, since using your argument, Obama's tax structure would make the "top" significantly lower.
I just meant that if the taxes on the rich were higher, there would be less distance between the richest people and the middle class. Forget it, it's irrelevant.
So you're saying that people who have money are able to hold onto it more easily because it's not taxed? Well if they made that money, then more power to them. If they inherited it, well, the estate tax will level the playing field a bit.
Minimum Wage does nothing more but make the difference between the rich and the poor that much greater.Look, whatever you may think about Obama, his goal in life is not to screw over the American people as much as possible.
I just meant that if the taxes on the rich were higher, there would be less distance between the richest people and the middle class. Forget it, it's irrelevant.
So you're saying that people who have money are able to hold onto it more easily because it's not taxed? Well if they made that money, then more power to them. If they inherited it, well, the estate tax will level the playing field a bit.
Well, if your goal is to amass a huge amount of money, you can put it in a 401k and then it's not taxed until you take it out. If you're trying to make a lot of money, you'd also be investing in a bunch of stuff, which also gives tax breaks in the sense that you can balance your gains and losses so as to put yourself in an advantageous tax bracket.
If you're talking about the minimum wage, I think the government is (and should be) more concerned whether people at the bottom end of the income scale are able to survive on what they make than whether a rich guy can get richer faster. I mean, both are important, but they aren't mutually exclusive.
Bwah? A progressive tax code places the burden more heavily on the rich than on the middle. That's the definition of it.
That's why Obama is lowering taxes for those people.
His tax breaks are a joke, they do absolutely nothing for us in the middle. An extra $1,000 is not enough to start a business, well, not enough to start most businesses.
I think it might be more intelligent for him to get one full time job, and one part time job...
Why don't you tell that to the employees of Steak n Shake, all 22,000 of them, who are working for a company that is blowing through cash like the federal government?
