On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:01:58 -0700, jps wrote:

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:36:16 GMT, KK wrote:

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:12:25 -0700, jps wrote:


Yeah, that was the money Bush insisted was ours and proceeded to give
it to the wealthiest 1%.

That's a lie. 70% of people in the second-lowest quintile benefited
from the cuts. Even 16% of those in the *lowest* 20% benefited - and
most of them don't pay income tax.

The share of total federal taxes paid by the 80-99th percentile of
earners *increased* by half a percent (you're welcome).

Those in the top 1% had the greatest absolute benefit, yes - because
they pay more in taxes than anyone else.

And they need the money more than anyone else.

It's astounding that you place no significance whatsoever on the fact
that it's theirs in the first place. They've worked or risked or
invested to obtain it.

And - regardless of who "needs" it (and in my opinion, a government whose
biggest expense is paying interest on its out-of-control-spending is the
abso****ing *LAST* one who needs it) if a tax rate - any tax rate - is
lowered, of course the ones who pay the most will save the greatest
number of dollars. It's just math.