[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by dmek25

there isn't anyone on this board included in the top 1%, so why do we spend time defending them? i say let the rich pull their fair share, and even a bit more, if its going to help the cause. i guarantee they aren't going to miss it

Well considering that a person making 350k is technically in the top 1% it's not a far cry that somebody here is in the top 1%. However, it's not who we are addressing when we speak of the top 1%. We are speaking of guys that are raking in millions upon millions of dollars a year.(and billions) Guys like Romney would be included here. Bill Gates included. The doctor down the street making 500k....not included. Why they are all lumped in together is stupid, but it's done by our tax purposes so they can hide the true numbers the ultra rich are having to pay.

Do they lump a guy making 200k with the guy making 7k? Nope, so why would you lump a guy making 350k with a dude making 20 million? They do it so they can make the numbers average out to show the public peasants....LOOK WE ARE PAYING A HIGH NUMBER. When in reality, they aren't.

Proof?

Super-rich taxed at Romney’s rate triple, says BGOV Barometer - Business - The Boston Globe

A Bloomberg review found that the Republican presidential candidate, whose tax return shows he paid an effective rate of less than 15 percent on his 2010 income, has that in common with an increasing number of the nation’s 400 top earners. Of that group, 131 paid less than 15 percent in 2008, compared with just 38 in 1999.

Since 1996, the average effective tax rate for the top-earning 400 dropped by more than one-third, to 18.1 percent from 27.8 percent. In 1996, only 10 of the ultra-rich group paid effective tax rates of less than 15 percent; 305 paid at least 25 percent