Originally Posted by BigRedChief
Not going to give you specifics because I don't have time to debate each one. A couple of examples below.
and its irrelevant. Entitlment reform will not be done without the 1% paying their fair share of the taxes. It's not politically viable.
The Buffet rule etc. Why should the richest people in American pay less % of their taxes than their secretary?
Pay $4 billion annually in corporate welfare of our tax $ to the biggest most profitable companies in the world, oil companies.
This is the same old bullshit that you repeat over and over. I've debunked your false oil company fantasy repeatedly.
The Buffett rule isn't about closing loopholes, it's about applying additional taxes.
When a rich person pays less % of tax than their secretary, it's because (a) entitlement programs like social security are designed to benefit the secretary disproportionately (which is an understatement), (b) because the progressive tax system causes people who aren't in the top tax bracket to be priced out of some tax deduction opportunities (e.g. tax free municipal bonds), and (c) because the wealthy receive a disproportionate share of the "income" from investments which are already being taxed for the 2nd or 3rd time to begin with.
"Well, it is one thing for Bill Clinton to say, I feel your pain. It is another thing for Barack Obama to say I feel your pain that I have caused." - George Will