I see a lot of conservatives trying to get traction on the "spread the wealth" line.
But which is really worse: Taking some money from the super rich to give the poor and middle classes a break in their taxes, or to drain the poor and middle classes to give it to the super rich?
Monday, October 27, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Umnnnhhhhh.....
ReplyDeleteCouldn't you come up with a MORE ludicrous false dichotomy?
"Taking some money from the super rich to give the poor and middle classes a break in their taxes"
ReplyDeleteIt's not going to happen.
What is going to happen is that the lower and middle class will see their income tax go up when Bush's tax cuts are allowed to expire.
Daddio-
ReplyDeleteOver the last eight years, our tax money has gone to CEOs and share owners. Billions of dollars in tax breaks to Big Oil; Medicare Part D and the refusal to negotiate with Canada for cheaper drugs only helped Big Pharma; Blackwater; Halliburton; Defense contractors; and did you forget Fannie and Freddie?
All those fat cats can go suck an egg. We want our money back.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteMy taxes went up under the Bush "cuts," just like the GAO said they would. Letting those things expire would alone give me about $400 more a year.
You must be making some serious money capper and congratulations. for me, my paychecks went up about $70, so I will lose that amount, about $1820 a year. I'll trade you.
ReplyDeleteNo, Dan.
ReplyDeleteGAO reported, accurately, that a large chunk of the middle class would actually pay more. Odds are that you make more than me. Also let me note that both my salary and my wife's wages were frozen for five of those years.
I would suggest you get a new accountant then. Since everybody's taxes went down, your's should have also, unless there was unique circumstance why your's went up.
ReplyDelete