Posted on 07/13/2007 2:51:48 AM PDT by Truthseeker2007
Leading Democrats in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail are having a difficult time agreeing on what it means to be wealthy.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has said it means earning $500,000 or more annually. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) contends that raising the tax rate on families making more than $400,000 could offset legislation to slash taxes on the middle class.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Finally, something the nation's most prominent supporters of "the little guy" know something about!
We’re from the Democratic Party and we’re here to help realign the economic system.
Interestingly, the CA and NYC base that these 2 come from probably think that anyone making under $300k is poor.
In their districts, making less than that means you basically can’t live there.
So.. 50k where I live is about the same as 400k where they are. (why the difference, I have no idea. People love NYC and CA for madness reasons)..
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
I wouldn’t be surprised if they get power to publically define RICH as being one thing in CA/NYC, and others in other SSR’s.. Oh, states.
See tagline...
lib/dems tag rich as anyone that has even a dollar in their pocket....
lib/dems feel...they as the govt.... are entitled to at least half of it!!!
I think it is even easier than that for a democrat:
No matter where you live, if you do not vote democrat, you have to be an evil rich person and your taxes should be increased.
Remember “earning” does not include income from stock trusts where the income is taxed as Capital gains, thus Kennedy and Kerry pay far less as a percentage than the “little people”.
Don’t get me wrong I believe that that capital gains should only be taxed at 3% because capital investment is the very reason that Capitalism works.
To the Dems, the definition of rich is you have an alarm clock.
Patronizing much?
In 2006 my wife and I had a gross income of under $100,000 and because we dared to take a medical deduction for some $20,000 of medical expenses not covered by our insurance, we got hit with the AMT that cost us an additional $1400 in taxes. I guess we must be rich as we got soaked.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.