So are liberals.Numbers are very easily to manipulate
Let me update your cute little socialist strawman example:
100 people are in a room.
50 of them work and 50 of them are worthless liberal leaches.
Of the 50 that are productive, 27 of them are not taxed at all.
The remaining 23 pay progressively higher taxes depending on their increased productivity.
Of the 23 who pay all the tax burden for the 77 "others,"
5 of them pay 95% of the bills of the entire 100.
The remaining 18 of the productive group pay the remaining 5% of the burden of the entire population of the 100.
Insert liberal "reasoning"---"Fair is fair, those 5 percenters earn more, dangit, it ain't fair that they don't pay more for those deserving 77 poor people."
i'm sorry, i was very confused as to what the bush tax cuts actually were... i looked it up so now i know what i'm talking about :p
You do realise that the top 1% of earners pay 40% of all taxes don't you? How many more dollars do you want to take from those that work hard for them? I say tax the poor. They're the parasites suckling at the government welfare tit. Let them start contributing more.Originally Posted by jnkbortka
since Paul most likely wont win the primary, i'd vote for Cain. the Dems wouldn't know what to do, because their most powerful weapon, the race card, would be rendered useless.
although one thing i don't like is he supports is bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. i don't say we should tax the rich more, but we should at least be taxing them the same as everyone else.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|