Quote:
Originally Posted by cthulu23
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.
|
I did the research a while back by looking up Kerry's 2003 publicly disclosed tax return and using the IRS's tax tables since I was curious. I don't have the links anymore but the information is relatively easy to track down.
I didn't dispute the 12% figure because it states that it is the Kerry's combined rate. I don't know what their combined rate is because I have never bothered to look into Teresa's filings. I figured she didn't pay the 32% rate because most of the super rich don't. It is simply a fact of life that having money generally means you have a greater ability to manipulate the system. Higher taxes will not change that fact.
Bush has said his tax cuts were for everyone and they were. It was not only a cut for the wealthy as Kerry has spouted. I got my $300 checks and I'm not wealthy. My fiancee got $600 and she is not wealthy.