You need to re-read what I said and re-read your article.

HockeyDad wrote:

It is hard to discuss taxation and tax cuts with someone who does not pay taxes!

HockeyDad wrote:

The 81.5 billion goes to less than 3% of all households in the US.

The 463 goes to 97%+.

FuzzNJ wrote:

In all fairness, you started this by shooting out a talking point.

HockeyDad wrote:

So you are taking the pro-tax position now? I'm taking the position that tax cuts should be cut for the middle class and raised on the wealthy, as a simple proposition. In reality the position is much more complicated as is the tax code itself and not worthy of discussion here.

FuzzNJ wrote:

The number of people reporting incomes of $200,000 or more but legally paying no federal income taxes skyrocketed in the second Bush term. A decade ago it was fewer than 1,500 taxpayers; in 2000 it was about 2,300. This high-income, tax-free group jumped to more than 11,000 in 2007 and then doubled in 2008 to more than 22,000.

In 2008 nearly 1 in every 200 high-income taxpayers paid no federal income tax, up from about 1 in 1,500 in 1998.

The share of high incomes that were untaxed increased more than sevenfold to one dollar of every $166.

The Statistics of Income data on tax-free, high incomes severely understate economic reality because they exclude deferral accounts, including those of hedge fund managers with billion-dollar incomes who can legally report no current income and borrow against their untaxed gains to live tax free.

FuzzNJ wrote:

Really? Without knowing what was happening? More like I read what happened and formed an opinion. Others here argued without even knowing. Like saying the government doesn't need any more of our money, when the subject is tax cuts not tax increases.

No one even supporting or pointing out that incorrect assertion. It's pathetic.

FuzzNJ wrote:

Wish that were the actual case, but feel free to be an a$$hole.

FuzzNJ wrote:

You never can figure out my position and just try to paint me into one of your labels. I've never taken the anti-tax position.

HockeyDad wrote:

Like I said, you need to re-read what I said.

HockeyDad wrote:

No what's pointless is borrowing money when spending isn't addresses.

You can't wave your outrage at redistribution of wealth till the cows come home to occupy the couch.

Your problem is people here never agree with the majority of your premises. And you're to partisanly deaf to have a conversation.

ZRX1200 wrote:

You spit out a talking point looking for an argument. Now you're outraged because you got an argument? ...and now something is "pathetic"? Really, "pathetic? Are you sure you aren't being just a little bit dramatic?

HockeyDad wrote:

i read it and understood it completely. Sure you didn't say that the rich benefited less, but the way it was written was meant to convey that idea. It's very impressive and something politicians do frequently. Good job.

FuzzNJ wrote:

lol.

No, I'm pointing out I'm being argued with by people who have no idea of what is going on, just arguing for arguing sake. You know, like arguing for tax cuts with me when I am arguing for tax cuts. You know, 'outrageous' stuff.

FuzzNJ wrote:

You can't wave your outrage at redistribution of wealth till the cows come home to occupy the couch.

ZRX1200 wrote:

Fuzz is a moron for posting this.

Even he knows Obummer only wants a 2 month extension so they can use the issue in the election,,

wheelrite wrote: