Quote:
|
Originally Posted by onetime2
You're absolutely right it isn't the 12% and I never claimed that it was. In 2003 John Kerry paid a rate of 22.9% in Federal taxes. According to the 2003 tax tables a person who is married filing separately with an income of greater than $155,975 should pay $42,194 as a base and then 35% of the amount over $155975. That would have put Kerry at a 31.9% rate. I know I would love to be able to get almost a 10% reduction in what I pay in taxes but I do not have the knowledge or the resources that Mr Kerry (or Mr Bush or any number of our other elected leaders) has.
I do not fault them for paying as little as they can. I do fault them for claiming that the "rich" should be paying more and claiming that they would be glad to contribute more and yet they use every possible method of avoiding them.
|
Although I don't doubt your numbers, a source would be nice.
You may not have claimed that the 12% number was right, but you sure didn't claim that it was wrong until that fact was brought up by others.
"Every possible method of avoiding them?" You should start qualifying that statement. As far as we know, Kerry could have had massive deductions based on charitable contributions. I doubt that this is the case, but you also can't assume too much in the opposite direction.
It may be a little disingenuous for Kerry to say that he should pay more in taxes if he is avoiding the collection process, but not more so then Bush's statements that his tax cuts were targeted to the middle class. Those numbers don't add up, either.