It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by WTFover
One last time, I will repeat that it is completely unfair to tax one American at a higher rate than another.
Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by aching_knuckles
Your failure to answer my question, simply by asking one of your own clearly suggests your lack of knowledge on the topic. Did you fail math? If the top 1% of the rich as you claim, pay the most of the nations taxes, how is it a burden to give a tax break for that contribution?
As an example to come down to your learning level:
If you someone pays a tough guy 10 bucks to beat the crap out of you, and i pay only 2 bucks for the same service, don't you think the guy who paid 10 bucks is gonna want some type of compensation?
Can you answer that simple question? A yes or no will suffice~
Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by aching_knuckles
You do know the top 2% of the richest people in the US pay over 37% of the nations annual taxes grossed right?
Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
Since the "wealthy" pay the lions share of the taxes, they should be the first ones on the receiving end of any tax cuts.
Taxing someone more than others just because "they can afford it" is an offense to liberty.
Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
Since the "wealthy" pay the lions share of the taxes, they should be the first ones on the receiving end of any tax cuts.
Taxing someone more than others just because "they can afford it" is an offense to liberty.
Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by aching_knuckles
I never suggested that the top 2% should pay less....I'm simply suggesting that allowing the rich to keep some type of compensation, also known as a " tax break " is logical. And is fair. Especially when they supply the most to our nations taxes/burden.
What part of that concept don't you understand?
Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by aching_knuckles
Which would further suggest tax breaks cuts across the board would it not?
Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
reply to post by aching_knuckles
How about we cut everything not specifically authorized by the Constitution? No more foreign aid, no more ridiculous social assistance programs, end the laughable war on drugs, etc etc. End all that BS, and we can cut taxes across the board for everyone who actually pays them. (that would not include the low earners since they do not pay an income tax as it is. )
Originally posted by WTFover
Actually, the unemployment numbers were relatively steady for the first eight years, following the tax cuts.
2001 4.7 %
2002 5.8
2003 6.0
2004 5.5
2005 5.1
2006 4.6
2007 4.6
2008 5.8 www.bls.gov...
Then, in 2008, the political climate changed. It became apparent the Democrats would take control of the executive branch, in addition to the already controlled Congress. Also apparent, was the intent of the Democrats to enact legislation that would be extremely detrimental to the job creators; namely, "health care" reform and tax increases. The result,
2009 9.3 %
2010 9.8
I know there were other contributing factors, but I believe those circumstances to have had the greatest negative effect.
Originally posted by Whereweheaded
....
ST~
Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by aching_knuckles
Is that all you got out of that? You lack the ability to conjure up a productive response so you identify something you know nothing about? how lame are you...you have just proven to other readers, you lack the intellect to carry on a debate. Go back to re-runs of sesame street, leave the important stuff for us big boys~
Originally posted by aching_knuckles
Why? Because you feel it is unfair? I feel it is not unfair.
WTF is wrong with you?