Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

After looking through the threadabout Harry Reid attacking Romney, here's some charts I looked up that tell where the people of different income brackets fall on the amount of taxes paid:

http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

Going by these charts, the top 50% pay over 90% of the taxes in this country, and the top 1% pay almost 40% Of their personal income.
The bottom 50% pay on average about 3% of their personal income.

What is considered a fair share here?

What percentage of income do the top earners make?

If the top 50% of earners make 90% of the income then I really couldn't care less if they also paid 90% of the taxes.

http://www.epi.org/blog/inequality-exhibit-wal-mart-wealth-american/

gak like that is why.

d-usa wrote:What percentage of income do the top earners make?

If the top 50% of earners make 90% of the income then I really couldn't care less if they also paid 90% of the taxes.

Chances are better than good they busted their asses or worked smarter to be in the income bracket they're in. Should they be penalized for working hard and taking risks?

Also: this is income tax only. Lower income workers pay a higher percentage of their income in other taxes. Sales tax, tax on phone bills, cars & tags, property tax, government fees, etc are all a much bigger hit to small income earners than large income earners.

A family of four making $60,000 is spending a higher percentage of their income on sales tax than a family of four making 600,000.

Aside from income tax, making more money reduces the percentage of income spend on taxes dramatically.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

d-usa wrote:What percentage of income do the top earners make?

If the top 50% of earners make 90% of the income then I really couldn't care less if they also paid 90% of the taxes.

Chances are better than good they busted their asses or worked smarter to be in the income bracket they're in. Should they be penalized for working hard and taking risks?

I thought you asked about fair shares. I don't care how they got there, win the lottery or bust your behind. If 50% of the population takes home 90% of income then they should pay 90% of the income tax. Sounds fair to me.

Chances are better than good they busted their asses or worked smarter to be in the income bracket they're in. Should they be penalized for working hard and taking risks?

But they had "help" to be succesful

Relapse wrote:Going by these charts, the top 50% pay over 90% of the taxes in this country, and the top 1% pay almost 40% Of their personal income.
The bottom 50% pay on average about 3% of their personal income.

What is considered a fair share here?

Let us assume the charts are correct.

Depending on how paying taxes influences their ability to live, people with more can pay a greater share without losing personal and family comfort.

Let us say Person A makes 1 M even in USD annually. 40% of that is 400k USD, leaving him 600k USD. That is far and beyond considered a respectable amount of money to not only live off of, but also to be able to afford excesses such as a better education for his or her children, fancier meals, better healthcare, ect..

Person B makes 20,000, placing them in the bottom percentile. 3% of person B's income is about $600. Avoiding any other kind of taxation, that is a very low number to be able to subsist off of.

Let's consider the cost of living for Person B because it does make a difference as to where they live and what they can afford.

http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

The link is a cost of living calculator. Not exactly the most efficient study, but it does give a relative number to how much a person needs in order to live.

For my area, a single person needs about 27.7k USD to live off of. Earning below this number means a person now have to afford fewer necessities or luxuries they may of otherwise enjoyed. Further, suffering a lower standard of living could also impact the cost they incur to the social safety nets we have in place between healthcare and entitlements in order to provide Person B with the ability to struggle living within the area.

Person B could live with others to reduce the cost of their living, but even then it still means they are probably not going to live a very luxuriously lifestyle.

What constitutes as fairness between the two examples can have very broad interpretations. Person A can afford almost whatever they want and still not be severely hampered by paying 40 percent of his or her income. Person B struggles to make it. Of course, Person B probably still enjoys cable, internet, maybe a car, a cell phone, ect.. But they have to sacrifice certain choice in order to have certain amenities, or become a leech to the entitlements system and gain more of what they want after their needs have been met.

At that point, individual case by case situations need to be looked at. A person who tries to earn a decent and honest wage while also does not cheat (or honest overburdens the system through no fault of their own) the system as a low income earner I think can be fairly taxed at 3%. Asking more from them, even if they cost the taxpayer money to keep from struggling to survive would be unfair, even if they deservedly need to be taxed more when they cheat the system. Taking too much would force them to become even more dependent on the government to support them and ergo would be unfair to other people who pay taxes, such as the higher wage earners.

As for the top 1%, taxing them more is fair as long as they can shoulder the tax burden and are not forced to evade their taxes or lose a substantial amount of their standard of living (which at that pay rate they probably are entitled to earn).

d-usa wrote:Also: this is income tax only. Lower income workers pay a higher percentage of their income in other taxes. Sales tax, tax on phone bills, cars & tags, property tax, government fees, etc are all a much bigger hit to small income earners than large income earners.

A family of four making $60,000 is spending a higher percentage of their income on sales tax than a family of four making 600,000.

Aside from income tax, making more money reduces the percentage of income spend on taxes dramatically.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

d-usa wrote:What percentage of income do the top earners make?

If the top 50% of earners make 90% of the income then I really couldn't care less if they also paid 90% of the taxes.

Chances are better than good they busted their asses or worked smarter to be in the income bracket they're in. Should they be penalized for working hard and taking risks?

I thought you asked about fair shares. I don't care how they got there, win the lottery or bust your behind. If 50% of the population takes home 90% of income then they should pay 90% of the income tax. Sounds fair to me.

Where's the incentive to work or be inovative if all the reward a person has to look forward to is having almost everything they earned taken from them?

Sometimes it is also not cost efficient to tax people, especially if there are safety nets in place. What is the point of collecting $500 in taxes from somebody only to spend $1000 to provide services that person would not have needed of they just had their $500.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

d-usa wrote:Also: this is income tax only. Lower income workers pay a higher percentage of their income in other taxes. Sales tax, tax on phone bills, cars & tags, property tax, government fees, etc are all a much bigger hit to small income earners than large income earners.

A family of four making $60,000 is spending a higher percentage of their income on sales tax than a family of four making 600,000.

Aside from income tax, making more money reduces the percentage of income spend on taxes dramatically.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

d-usa wrote:What percentage of income do the top earners make?

If the top 50% of earners make 90% of the income then I really couldn't care less if they also paid 90% of the taxes.

Chances are better than good they busted their asses or worked smarter to be in the income bracket they're in. Should they be penalized for working hard and taking risks?

I thought you asked about fair shares. I don't care how they got there, win the lottery or bust your behind. If 50% of the population takes home 90% of income then they should pay 90% of the income tax. Sounds fair to me.

Where's the incentive to work or be inovative if all the reward a person has to look forward to is having almost everything they earned taken from them?

1) if you think 40% of income (post deductions) is "almost everything they earn taken away from them" then you are more delusional than you look.

2) if you think a person eating ramen noodles because he is making $30,000 a year for a family of four is thinking "awesome, I'm in the lowest tax bracket, I'm never going to look for a better job" then you are also more delusional than I thought.

Relapse wrote:

d-usa wrote:What percentage of income do the top earners make?

If the top 50% of earners make 90% of the income then I really couldn't care less if they also paid 90% of the taxes.

Chances are better than good they busted their asses or worked smarter to be in the income bracket they're in. Should they be penalized for working hard and taking risks?

The reality is that the top 10% earned roughly 50% of all income in the '10 tax year while the bottom 50% earned roughly 13% (all statistics indicate that this has gotten even worse since then). It seems unlikely to me that they worked ~325 times harder on any given day. Do you ever even bother to think about the things you believe?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:

Chances are better than good they busted their asses or worked smarter to be in the income bracket they're in. Should they be penalized for working hard and taking risks?

But they had "help" to be succesful

Yes, statistically most of them came from rich families. The chances of breaking into the top 20% of income for someone born into a family there is significantly higher than someone who wasn't. I have roughly the same chance of winning on a single number in roullette as I do being a wealthy person not born into wealth. America has the worst economic upward mobility in the western world and our quality of life for lower 50% wage earners is falling noticeably.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I request people use their brains when discussing this issue. It's one where the wealthy have a disproportionately large media platform to reinforce their own wealth and statistically most proponents for low taxes and de regulated businesses are not and will never be benefited by the laws their voting habits create. It's self destructive ideological ignorance that people pay an awful lot of money to cultivate.

According to this chart I am in the top 25% of income earners in the USA, almost in the top 10%.

According to the logic by some in this thread I must be an idiot to bust my ass to get to this level. Why in the hell would I be such an idiot and go through all this hard work to put myself in a position where I would end up having to pay so much taxes.

I think it is because I have this insane idea that maybe $60,000 after taxes is still a hell of a lot better than $30,000 after taxes.

The same people that claim that it is stupid to work hard if you have to pay higher taxes are probably the same people that think it is smart to pay $8,000 a year in interest in your mortgage because "you can deduct that from your income and get $1000 of your taxes back".

Relapse wrote:

d-usa wrote:What percentage of income do the top earners make?

If the top 50% of earners make 90% of the income then I really couldn't care less if they also paid 90% of the taxes.

Chances are better than good they busted their asses or worked smarter to be in the income bracket they're in. Should they be penalized for working hard and taking risks?

I'm not sure that hard work is the best thing to use as a measuring stick in this case. People who work two full-time hourly jobs work really hard too, military personnel work really hard as well, lots of people work really hard jobs for long hours and that doesn't necessarily equate to being in a higher income bracket. I'm not saying hard work isn't important and I'm sure lots of people in wealthy income brackets did work their butts off to get there, but when people talk about rich people deserving to be wealthy because they work hard, that can often come off as incredibly condescending and dismissive of people who work just as hard and aren't anywhere close to wealthy and probably never will be.

@d-usa, Easy on with the personal attacks there, trigger. Take a couple of deep breaths and read this carefully before you burst a vessel I was addressing a comment you made about having 90% or more being fair to take.
The way you're talking, everyone should take home the same amount of income, after taxes, no matter what they do to earn it.
A good portion of those people you'd like to see taxed into the ground started out eating Ramen noodles, decided they didn't like it, and busted their asses to get away from where you would set them again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hordini wrote:

Relapse wrote:

d-usa wrote:What percentage of income do the top earners make?

If the top 50% of earners make 90% of the income then I really couldn't care less if they also paid 90% of the taxes.

Chances are better than good they busted their asses or worked smarter to be in the income bracket they're in. Should they be penalized for working hard and taking risks?

I'm not sure that hard work is the best thing to use as a measuring stick in this case. People who work two full-time hourly jobs work really hard too, military personnel work really hard as well, lots of people work really hard jobs for long hours and that doesn't necessarily equate to being in a higher income bracket. I'm not saying hard work isn't important and I'm sure lots of people in wealthy income brackets did work their butts off to get there, but when people talk about rich people deserving to be wealthy because they work hard, that can often come off as incredibly condescending and dismissive of people who work just as hard and aren't anywhere close to wealthy and probably never will be.

There are definitly other factors involved. I mentioned being willing to take risks as well as being inovative. You are correct about people working two jobs not always being higher up on the income bracket.
However, there are those who have a vision of where they want to be and have worked out how to get there, risking homes, inheritances, maxing out cards to keep a business running, and in many cases not seeing a real return until years into their endevors.
I think it's entirely unfair to tell them that they need to pay more taxes when they are already shouldering 97% of the bill.

Relapse wrote:@d-usa, Easy on with the personal attacks there, trigger. Take a couple of deep breaths and read this carefully before you burst a vessel I was addressing a comment you made about having 90% or more being fair to take.

1) what personal attack? Calling somebody delusional?

2) Also I never said that taking 90% of your income would be fair, somebody needs to work on their reading comprehension.

I said if 40% of the population makes 90% of the money, then it is fair that they pay 90% of the taxes. I never said anything about a 90% tax rate.

Relapse wrote:The way you're talking, everyone should take home the same amount of income, after taxes, no matter what they do to earn it.

Please point to a specific example of where I said that. Unless I am crazy paying 20% of 100,000 still leaves you with more money to take home than paying 5% of 30,000. I never said that everyone should take home $X,000 no matter what they do.

Relapse wrote:A good portion of those people you'd like to see taxed into the ground started out eating Ramen noodles, decided they didn't like it, and busted their asses to get away from where you would set them again.

Because making $100,000 after taxes would put people back to where they were when they made $30,000...

And you have yet to address all other taxes besides income.

You have two families, both with 4 people. One makes 30,000 and one makes 100,000. Both buy groceries and pay the same amount for groceries (230 a week to use a USDA estimate). The sales tax in Oklahoma County is 8.35% (I think). So that means both families pay right around $1,000 in sales tax just for food.

So the family making 30,000 pays 3% of their income in "food tax"
And the family making 100,000 pays 1% of their income in "food tax"

Instead of paying the following effective tax rate

100,000 = 20%
30,000 = 5%

it now becomes

100,000 = 21%
30,000 = 8%

By including taxes paid for food the effective tax rate on the family making 30,000 almost doubles.

Add all the other sales tax, vehicle tax, government fees to the taxes paid by both families and I am going to guess that they will pay almost the same percentage in taxes.

A good portion of those people you'd like to see taxed into the ground started out eating Ramen noodles, decided they didn't like it, and busted their asses to get away from where you would set them again.

No. They didn't. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and have clearly never even heard of familial wealth advantages let alone actually researched where the top earners in this country actually came from.

@d-usa, At the point you keep calling someone delusional pretty much ends any dialogue worth having. You make yourself look like a child sitting in the corner having a tantrum because someone doesn't agree with you.
Welcome to ignore.

Relapse wrote:@d-usa, At the point you keep calling someone delusional pretty much ends any dialogue worth having. You make yourself look like a child sitting in the corner having a tantrum because someone doesn't agree with you.
Welcome to ignore.

Is there anyone left that you can actually see on this forum?

People with more money pay more taxes than people with less money. . . sounds fair to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:@d-usa, At the point you keep calling someone delusional pretty much ends any dialogue worth having. You make yourself look like a child sitting in the corner having a tantrum because someone doesn't agree with you.
Welcome to ignore.

Well, he did make some pretty good points. The fact that you just put him on ignore instead of addressing his argument doesn't make yours look particularly strong either.

Relapse wrote:Going by these charts, the top 50% pay over 90% of the taxes in this country, and the top 1% pay almost 40% Of their personal income.
The bottom 50% pay on average about 3% of their personal income.

You don't understand your link. That % isn't the amount of tax they pay, but the share of the tax burden paid by that group. So, of the $2.3 trillion in taxes collected, 36.73% or $840 billion was paid by the top 1%. The bottom 50% paid 3%, or $69 billion.

Now of that makes any comment at all on fairness, because judging the contribution made by each bracket would need to consider the share of national income claimed by that bracket, which your link neglects to mention, or even consider at all.

And that's kind of the thing that people completely miss in things like this. The tax burden has shifted more and more to the top income earners because more and more income has shifted to the top income earners. At the same time median income has declined considerably relative to average income (for a more complete study of this look up the Gini coefficient), meaning the bottom 50% basically has less money, so it's no wonder they drop off from the requirement to pay tax.

The real, meaningful way to address this is to start looking at ways to grow household income for average wage earners. They'll be taxed more when they've got incomes that are high enough to make taxing them morally justifiable, and the rich will be taxed less when they claim a lesser portion of the national income.

But I predict that'll keep on being ignored, in order to continue this very strange idea that the wealthiest people are somehow the most hard done by.

@Sebster,

Thank you on correction.. The fact remains, however that all but roughly 3% of taxes in the country are covered by the top 50% income bracket.
I started this thread because I got sick of Reid lying through his teeth about Romney not paying any taxes at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rubiksnoob wrote:People with more money pay more taxes than people with less money. . . sounds fair to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:@d-usa, At the point you keep calling someone delusional pretty much ends any dialogue worth having. You make yourself look like a child sitting in the corner having a tantrum because someone doesn't agree with you.
Welcome to ignore.

Well, he did make some pretty good points. The fact that you just put him on ignore instead of addressing his argument doesn't make yours look particularly strong either.

I was willing to read what he had to say and present my side up to the point he started in with the attacks. At that point there's nothing meaningful to be gained. He's only the second person I've ever put on ignore.

God I hate that term..."paying your fair share"...

It reeks of class warfare and greed.

Simple solution. Flat Rate it.... say any $$ earned over poverty level is taxed at 15%... period. All new money are considered income (wages, dividends, inheritence, olympic prizes, etc...). NO DEDUCTION! Not charity, not mortgage, no nothing!!

This stops the wealthy/corporations from lobbying for tax benefits/shelters with the government.

That way, everyone has some "skin" in the game, so to speak and may force voters to be more politically aware.

Saying that Bill Gates should pay more than 15% is purely greed and class envy.

You don't like what your earning... you think it's unfair that some folks are born into money... deal with it and do something about it.

/rant off

whembly wrote:
God I hate that term..."paying your fair share"...

It reeks of class warfare and greed.

Simple solution. Flat Rate it.... say any $$ earned over poverty level is taxed at 15%... period. All new money are considered income (wages, dividends, inheritence, olympic prizes, etc...). NO DEDUCTION! Not charity, not mortgage, no nothing!!

This stops the wealthy/corporations from lobbying for tax benefits/shelters with the government.

That way, everyone has some "skin" in the game, so to speak and may force voters to be more politically aware.

Saying that Bill Gates should pay more than 15% is purely greed and class envy.

You don't like what your earning... you think it's unfair that some folks are born into money... deal with it and do something about it.

/rant off

How are you supposed to do something about it if your hit by a car and can't work? Or you're black, meaning that statistically colleges are less likely to accept you and businesses are less likely to hire you? Or what if you're a woman, meaning that you'll be paid less for doing the exact same work as a man? And did you know that you can legally be fired for being gay?

On the flip side, what if you're like me? I'm a white, heterosexual male and my dad is a lawyer with a lot of money. I've done nothing to earn this money. But when I inherit it, should I be taxed the exact same percentage as a person struggling to feed their family every day? I'd like that, but it isn't fair in the slightest.

Relapse wrote:I started this thread because I got sick of Reid lying through his teeth about Romney not paying any taxes at all.

Oh, awesome, you've seen his taxes and hence know Reid is lying! Sweet, can you share a link? I'm curious about them too.

Ouze wrote:

Relapse wrote:I started this thread because I got sick of Reid lying through his teeth about Romney not paying any taxes at all.

Oh, awesome, you've seen his taxes and hence know Reid is lying! Sweet, can you share a link? I'm curious about them too.

The fact that he produced tax records for , I believe the last two years, puts Reid saying he hasn't paid any taxes at all in the last ten years into the column of liar.
The White House distancing themselves from what he's saying also doesn't make him look very credible.

LoneLictor wrote:

How are you supposed to do something about it if your hit by a car and can't work?

Where did I say to get rid of Disability safety net?

Or you're black, meaning that statistically colleges are less likely to accept you and businesses are less likely to hire you?

Not sure how this is relevent to a tax discussion, but I call BS on this... ever heard of Racial Quotas?

]Or what if you're a woman, meaning that you'll be paid less for doing the exact same work as a man?

Not sure how this is relevent to a tax discussion, but depends on the job... in a office setting, woman get hired (gender quotas do exists). But there's several social dynamic here that I believe skews the data and I don't want to use this thread to explain, but here's a TL;DR Men are more aggressive in pursuing higher paying positions and more likely to demand wages than women.

And did you know that you can legally be fired for being gay?

Not sure how this is relevent to a tax discussion, but yeah, that suxs. But, again, my philosophy is that you "deal with it".

On the flip side, what if you're like me? I'm a white, heterosexual male and my dad is a lawyer with a lot of money. I've done nothing to earn this money. But when I inherit it, should I be taxed the exact same percentage as a person struggling to feed their family every day? I'd like that, but it isn't fair in the slightest.

So... you shouldn't feel guilty about it... and yes, you should be taxed at the same rate as that struggling family.

Here's the deal... everyone should pay the same rate (without any deductions) and its NO ONE's BUSINESS how much money you have.

There shouldn't be a philosophy that you can look at your neighbor and say "Hmmm... he's making enough money, we should tax him at a higher rate because he should be able to afford it". <-------- that my friend is perpetuating class warfare and greed.

The super rich have enough money to support the poorest of the poor and still have waaay more money than everyone else.

But I guess you don't like that because the rich would be slightly less richer than everyone else. And that's (buzzword of the day) class warfare!

I can't argue against this, because morality is entirely subjective.

But it kinda disturbs me.

LoneLictor wrote:The super rich have enough money to support the poorest of the poor and still have waaay more money than everyone else.

But I guess you don't like that because the rich would be slightly less richer than everyone else. And that's (buzzword of the day) class warfare!

I can't argue against this, because morality is entirely subjective.

But it kinda disturbs me.

Morality, subjective?

Sounds like the discussion at 1:15 of this clip:

http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?feature=plpp&v=woEP6TMmXNA

whembly wrote:
God I hate that term..."paying your fair share"...

It reeks of class warfare and greed.

Simple solution. Flat Rate it.... say any $$ earned over poverty level is taxed at 15%... period.

You know, I agree with some of what you said. I do think that arguing that the working poor, eligible for food stamps, getting minimum wage (> $16,000 a year) needs to have their tax liability increased from zero to 15%, while a 1%'er making 2 million a year should have their tax liability reduced from 35% to 15%... that is class warfare. Just not the direction you're implying it's going in.

Relapse wrote:@Sebster,

Thank you on correction.. The fact remains, however that all but roughly 3% of taxes in the country are covered by the top 50% income bracket.
I started this thread because I got sick of Reid lying through his teeth about Romney not paying any taxes at all.

Sure, but that graph said nothing about the taxes Romney personally paid. I expect the exact amount would differ wildly from billionaire to billionaire, dependant on their ability to classify earnings as capital gains or other lower taxed forms of income, and their ability to delay income through various tax incentives and loopholes.

And yeah, the fact remains most of the taxes are paid by the top 50%. Because over time the bottom 50% in your country have drifted more and more to income levels that you can't morally justify taxing. Which is a serious problem, and should prompt the question 'what can we change so that the average income earner has a healthier income?'

Instead it gets people complaining that the poorer half of the country aren't paying taxes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:It reeks of class warfare and greed.

As I explained to you in the other thread, progressive tax isn't class warfare. Taking land off the aristocracy and giving it to the serfs is class warfare. Nationalising the assets of the rich is class warfare. Lining up bankers in the street for public execution is class warfare. Arguing for progressive taxation is not class warfare.

Please use words according to their actual meaning.

Simple solution. Flat Rate it.... say any $$ earned over poverty level is taxed at 15%... period. All new money are considered income (wages, dividends, inheritence, olympic prizes, etc...). NO DEDUCTION! Not charity, not mortgage, no nothing!!

That system is neither a flat tax, nor simple, nor viable in any way, shape or form.

A flat tax would tax the first dollar just as much as it would tax the millionth dollar. What you're arguing for is a progressive tax that happens to be flatter than the current system.

You have to have deductions. The idea that a store that bought a sweater for $10 and sold it for $20 couldn't deduct the cost of buying that sweater in the first place is flying rodent gak.

Also, the tax burden is more than 15%. That number is thrown out by libertarians arguing for a flat tax, in part because their flat taxes are part of a fantasy vision of a much smaller government, but mostly because libertarians have shockingly little idea about the real numbers of government budgets.

That way, everyone has some "skin" in the game, so to speak and may force voters to be more politically aware.

People who think everyone will be more informed about government if they pay more tax have never met Paris Hilton.

Saying that Bill Gates should pay more than 15% is purely greed and class envy.

No, its a basic acceptance of the cost of government in a developed country.

You don't like what your earning... you think it's unfair that some folks are born into money... deal with it and do something about it.

What I do or don't earn has nothing to do with the need to generate revenues to pay for government, and the basic realities of which parts of society have those dollars.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:The fact that he produced tax records for , I believe the last two years, puts Reid saying he hasn't paid any taxes at all in the last ten years into the column of liar.
The White House distancing themselves from what he's saying also doesn't make him look very credible.

They aren't distancing themselves from it, they already got everything they wanted out of it. They took Romney's personal story as successful businessmen who knows how to get the country back on its feet, and they introduced questions about the rich not paying taxes, and jobs being moved offshore.

That's like claiming Bush distanced himself from the swiftboating claims once it was clear they weren't true. Bush by that time had moved on to other things, because he'd already soured Kerry's story about being a war hero. There's no point making it a battleground, because Bush had already done all the damage it was ever going to do. Same here with Obama.

The only way Obama will get trapped into this is if idiots like Reid keep making claims, allowing Romney to continue to defend the allegations.

LoneLictor wrote:The super rich have enough money to support the poorest of the poor and still have waaay more money than everyone else.

Right... they're the bad guys... gotcha there

But I guess you don't like that because the rich would be slightly less richer than everyone else. And that's (buzzword of the day) class warfare!

I just hate that term "fair share" that you hear out of liberals. THEY ARE ALREADY PAYING their fair share.

I can't argue against this, because morality is entirely subjective.

Not sure if I follow this thinking... to me, "fair" is paying the same tax rate. But that'll never happen.

Why can't we go back to how the Fed used to collect taxes... it used to be that only tariffs and tax excise on foreign trade were the only income the Feds directly recieved. Then, if they needed more $$$ from the taxpayers, they'd ask the individual states... "hey, we need more money to provide these services"... then the states determine how they taxed their constitutes.

But it kinda disturbs me.

Your free to believe in that... but you shouldn't be treated any different for being succesful or lucky. It's no one else's business how or how much $$$ you have.