Total Members Voted: 79
I have said probably close to a hundred times that my main reason (issue for you) is because most of the benefits go to the rich/corporations. You can argue or spin all you want but it doesn't change the fact the rich/corporations benefit the most. You agree the rich/corporations benefit the most. You look foolish trying to say now they don't.
What do you mean when you say rich/corporations? Is that the rich (definition?), the corporations, or the rich devided by the corporations (please explain how you do that math)?
BUMPWhy don't we start with definitions before we go into any specifics. Once we get all the definitions straight, we might find out that there's a lot more agreement 'round here.
Ok, what's the problem with the "rich/corporations" getting the biggest benefit?
Sure that works.Low/middle class - 100k or less?
Where did I say they don't?
Ok so you agree the rich/corporations benefit the most from this bill. So now we can move on to if they should. Are we on the same page?
Ok
1. What about rich/corporations?2. In my dictionary definitions don't end with a question mark.3. Is 100k in NYC the same as 100k in Biloxi? Is 100k for a single person the same as 100k for a family of 8? Is 100k talking about AGI, Net Worth? Gross Receipts? EBITDA?
This is all irrelevant. How do you want to define middle class that the middle class got more $$$ than the upper class and corps?
I have a problem with separating the corporations and businesses from the middle, or even lower class. Everyone benefits from that.
So how about we deal with only individuals.
One issue is that we tax income rather than wealth, and in doing so sort of distort what is means to be rich. A family making 250k is around the 1% of earners, but is likely to be not even close to the 1% of wealth accumulated.
One issue is that we tax income rather than wealth, and in doing so sort of distort what is means to be rich.
And individuals are the beneficiaries of the business tax breaks.