Reply With Quote
virtually 0%. So are you saying whiping out that 3% is all they are en led to?
What does that chart define "income" as? Does it include capital gains? So on and so forth....
virtually 0%. So are you saying whiping out that 3% is all they are en led to?
definition of income is income. definition of capital gains is capital gains.
Ah, 3 = 0.
The new math.
Is this a school voucher argument now?
one shot with you. Is 3% all they are en led to? Also, how about those who pay zero?
Virtually zero is not zero. You can't cut zero. You can cut 3. And we haven't even discussed the actual percent of personal income these people pay in federal income tax.
So your question ("How do you cut income taxes for 95% of the population when 50% of the population pays virtually ZERO?") sort of answers itself, doesn't it?
If they actually pay zero, then they will not receive a cut.
I like your attempts at saying 3 = 0 though.
Now you can say John McCain is virtually homeless.
stay with me, is cutting to zero the goal? If yes, I'm cool with it, but are they en led to more?
in what language? how do you cut zero? They reason I ask this is because Obama's tax cuts are not that at all. They are more like welfare checks which is OK, but I have trouble with him trying to hide them as tax cuts when people are receiving more than they put in.So your question ("How do you cut income taxes for 95% of the population when 50% of the population pays virtually ZERO?") sort of answers itself, doesn't it?
the debate shouldn't be on tax policy, but should be on en lements. A true leader would take that subject head on.
More what? Are you saying people all people who don't pay income tax will be receiving new direct payments from the federal government?
You'll need to provide a link to that, because I think you just made it up.
then how do those who do not recieve a cut still receive money? Obama is still calling that a tax cut, but we know what it really is.
It's virtually zero comparatively speaking.I like your attempts at saying 3 = 0 though.
comparatively speaking you're wrong.Now you can say John McCain is virtually homeless.
Last edited by 2centsworth; 09-02-2008 at 11:39 AM.
I'm not aware of the goal being zero. Technically, if the bottom 50% pays 2% of the total federal income tax collected as a result of Obama's plan, that cons utes a cut. But this is a confusing way to position the case because a tax cut has more to do with what people pay as a percentage of their salary, not as a percentage of total taxes collected.
You can't, that's my point.in what language? how do you cut zero?
It depends on what the taxes pay for. That's the real question. What will the new tax plan fund? Is every dollar of the tax increase on the top 5% going into the pockets of the bottom 95%?They reason I ask this is because Obama's tax cuts are not that at all. They are more like welfare checks which is OK, but I have trouble with him trying to hide them as tax cuts when people are receiving more than they put in.
Are you saying the bottom 20% of tax payers pay more than 0%? Obama still wants to give them $500 and $1000. Are you saying cutting the bottom 50% to zero will pay for Obama's direct payments of $500 per individual and $1000 per family in that group?
He's calling them tax cuts to deceive.
lets whipe out that 2%, will that fund Obama's plan of $500 per individual and $1000 per family within that group?
Is that virtually 0% or 0%? Once you start cheating on your definitions, you can't have a meaningful discussion about numbers.
the question is are people en led to more than they pay? IF so, why is the excess being called a tax cut? If you can't answer that then I'm done with you.
So you are just making up.
I understand and I'm done with you.
Yes.
Sincerely,
The people of the great state of Alaska.
bye bye.
if we call it tax cuts would it make you feel better.
Hey, if you say they are paying virtually zero, then these payments are virtually zero as well.
They cancel each other out.
virtually zero = virtually zero
See how easy that is?
If I understand fed income tax rates correctly, a single person making $0-$7,825 is taxed 10% of their income. So the only individuals who would receive an energy rebate check higher than the income taxes they paid are those who make less than $5,000 per year. Right?
Exactly, welfare is a great thing. That's why you're voting Obama I'm sure.
Hey, you're the one who is making up. Don't get mad because you got exposed doing so.
Also, from everything I've read those checks you're talking about are being called tax rebates, not cuts. When Obama said he'd cut taxes for 95% of working families, were those checks a part of it?
I guess I'm still confused about the point you're trying to make.
I know. He's really all over the map saying the people who make virtually nothing are paying virtually nothing in taxes and will receive virtually nothing in a tax rebate.
I applaud your attempt to get specific here.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions