I'm against income tax on low earners. Once they pay their 20%, they won't have enough to live on, and we'll end up giving it, and more, back to them anyway.

20% of 40,000, for instance, is a lot to someone who makes 40K a year, but to the government, it's meaningless.

For the record, GE paid billions in taxes. They just didn't owe federal income tax.

---

Here are questions for our liberal left friends....you all say that the so-called 'rich' need to pay their 'fair share.' Okay, well, what exactly is their 'fair share?' Is it a dollar amount? Is it a percentage? What exactly is it? And what exactly makes a person 'rich?' Who makes the determination that someone is 'rich?' Again, is it a specific dollar amount that they are worth or what they earn each year, and if so, what is the cut off number? And in paying their 'fair share,' where exactly should that money go, to whom should it go? Please be specific. Let's see if any of you can answer these questions. (The same questions have been asked of liberal columnists, folks protesting at occupy protests, liberal congressmen/women, and none of them, NONE, could come up with answers, or the same answers, showing they are not on the same page.)

Oh, and why is it okay for someone on the left to call out wealthy conservatives or wealthy folks in general, but when it's pointed out to them that they, too, are wealthy (AHEM, Michael Moore), they call the reporter who does it a 'punk' and a 'liar' when the reporter has his facts in order, with figures?

I consider myself more in the middle but I will answer your questions:


Definitions of rich (or poverty) should be defined in terms of average income levels. There can be various degrees of being rich. One level of rich may be twice the average income, while medium rich may be 3 times, and dirty rich may be 4 times. Same with low income and poverty. Levels may be 75%, 50%, and 25% of average incomes.

I support something similar to the current system. My complaint was the Bush tax cuts. I didn't feel we could afford it as a nation with our huge national debt. Also, the high tax bracket got a greater percentage drop then the medium tax brackets which I did not support. Also, spending has gone through the roof by both Obama and Bush. Both thought they had endless bank accounts.

As far as paying the fair share, tax rates need to be set, and deductions need to be capped. Everyone needs to pay. For example, I don't agree with mortgage interest deduction on second homes. If you are rich enough to afford a second home, you shouldn't get that luxury. Also, the amount of 1 million dollar homes is crazy. I think the deduction should be capped at something far less. These are just examples. Wealthy companies deduct costs of expensive cars, vacations (they call them retreats or business trips), etc. The richer you are the easier it is to find deductions which I feel they need to be capped or eliminated.

I also, want to talk about welfare. The welfare program has gone too far. I think there are many lazy people that have accepted welfare as a way of life. I don't think it should be eliminated but things like the welfare having fancy cell phones, cable TV, large TV's game consoles, name brand foods, manicures, fancy hair, jewelry, name brand cloths, etc. needs to stop. I can't afford many of these things but how can they?

The other thing I want to say is Chris said "NONE, could come up with answers, or the same answers, showing they are not on the same page.". This is one really big problem with politics. The media tries to group everyone as black or white when there are shades of gray in there. The media doesn't want to see the grays because that can lead to compromise and the media doesn't want to see that. They want to see the divide of the nation because that sells news.

---