Originally Posted by NW Ponderer
Originally Posted by Harv3
Which confirms a compassionate nation gives welfare payments to those earning less than $25K/year exceeding the aggregate value of income taxes paid.
Well, duh. That is what the earned income tax credit is. The point is that there are more people who qualify for it now, thanks to the President and an irresponsible GOP Congress, than there were in 2000. Funny how numbers work, isn't it?
Quote
OBTW, these so-called tax credits are a couple of those many Federal projects not authorized by the Constitution.
In your opinion. Of course, to get there you have to ignore the first clause of Article I, section 8. Minor detail, I know, but inconvenient nonetheless.
You should quit while you're ahead! Take another look at the notes; which explain more qualified for EITC because the irresponsible GOP President and GOP controlled Congress took those folks off the tax rolls altogether. smile

Originally Posted by NW Ponderer
This whole discussion, though, boils down to what is "fair"? Is it "fair" that the Fortune 400 richest people has remained constant for most of a decade for the first time since it was started? One of the best things about America is that it gives people the opportunity to "move up" economically, but that has not been true in Republican administrations, especially this one. Is it "fair" that different tax rates apply to investors than wage earners? Is it fair that those with the greater disposable income have a lower tax burden than those who don't? Is it fair that those with wealth are given means to shelter income that those who work for a living don't get?
Clearly, "fairness" is a subjective value and thus simply in the eye of the beholder. FWIW, aren't you one of those "whiners" former Senator Phil Gramm was commenting on on his way out of the McCain campaign?

Originally Posted by NW Ponderer
How many people here have actually lived in poverty, drawn unemployment, had to survive on welfare and foodstamps, wondered how they were going to pay the rent, lived from paycheck to paycheck? Is it fair that the government would take a greater share of their income than that of a CEO who has mansions in five separate states and yacht or jet to take him between them?
But counselor, you haven't demonstrated the government takes a greater share. FWIW, some will always endure a subsistence life and others will enjoy yachts and mansions; the late, great JC told us the poor would always be with us. smile
Originally Posted by NW Ponderer
"Fair" in these arguments usually boils down to whom you wish to feel sympathy for. Does anyone here really believe that an annual income over a million dollars allows more room for taxation than one of under 10 thousand? Is the difference between a $ million in assets and a $ billion insignificant?
As noted earlier "fairness" to some appears to equate to equality of outcome and moreover that some higher temporal authority sit in judgement of those outcomes. smile