Quote:
Originally Posted by OpieCunningham
Yes. And I'll hold on tightly to my .05% savings. In the mean time, I'll continue to complain that the upper class got the vast majority of the tax cut unjustifiably.
Why are you confusing the concept of breaking the law with paying ones' share? Using the system to pay as little as you can possibly pay, with an advantage over ~90% of the country in determining methods of using the system, is not paying ones' share. Ones' share is not the amount which results from priviledged manipulation of the system. If there was a loophole which brought the tax rate for almost everyone making over $200k down to 1%, it would be, by definition, legal - but it would not be ones' share.
Sure. Which is exactly why we should not be lowering their taxes. As I said - increasing their taxes will offset their ability to maximize advantage of loopholes which are essentially unattainable to ~90% of the country. There is no foolproof way of doing anything - that doesn't mean we remove all safeguards. It doesn't mean we go in the opposite direction of attempting to mitigate the problem.
|
I am not confusing the fair share argument with the legality of doing so in the least. They are doing everything legally to avoid taxes. Apparently Kerry agrees that if it's legal, then it's his fair share since he makes the most of the loopholes. I think everyone should pay less taxes. Doesn't matter if you're rich or poor, the government takes more than it needs and still spends more than it has. Having a different definition of "fair share" than you does not change my point.