Quote:
Originally Posted by RIJIMMY
God help me, Im on the side of the libs with this one!
Why this wasnt an issue with Kerry is because the republicans were not making the deficit a major battle cry when Kerry ran. They couldnt because Bush was key culprit in raising it
Jim in CT was not talking about making the deficit a major battle cry, but about not making Kerry's tax rate an issue.
To be straight - I am for significantly lowering government spending and for lowering taxes.
And how is this on the liberal side?
But we have significant loopholes that WAY overbenefit the wealthy and honestly are not fair.
"Conservatives" are not against closing loopholes, and they are in favor of various "fair" forms of taxation, including everybody paying the same rate, and even excluding the poorest from that rate. But, then, "fair" is in the eyes of the beholder.
I've spent my career in investments, i know cap gains inside and out. I get this stuff.
But its crap that I pay $30 a day to commute to my job, make good money, take the "risk" every day of major decisions, sacrifice a shat load but due to AMT, I can barely take any deductions and NO TAX code benefits me. Yet multi millionaires can take all kinds of deductions and pay a less effective rate. The tax code needs to be changed. Loopholes need to be closed
|
Fine, eliminate loopholes, get rid of the AMT, give RIJimmy a tax code that benefits him, etc. I don't think Jim in CT was talking about that. I think he was clearly explaining the rationale behind using the tax code to encourage investment.