Bugman, you may want to pretend you were railing against a plan that died a while ago, but then you're still railing against it when it is irrelevant. Besides, Buffett was talking about the plan that passed. And so was I when I got into this "discussion" with you. Then you attacked me for focusing on the ordinary rate cuts instead of the dividend and cap gains cuts, claiming they skewed the whole thing in favor of the rich, which is true only in your mind as I proved.
As for your denials of the statistics I showed you (you said "averages are used to lie" and "if this is true, which i'm skeptical"), which came from the IRS and the Treasury Department, I can only respond that denying the facts in front of you just because they don't support your position is classic "slothful induction," the typical cop-out of one who can't counter strong evidence with evidence of his own.
BTW, if you want the detailed source of my IRS 2001 income class data (I gave you the Treasury sources already), here it is: irs.gov
Now, show me your source on the "3/4 of america's wealth" factiod you keep quoting.
Lastly, I don't have any idea and I don't really care how much Steve Forbe's taxes will fall. Same goes for Buffett. If they've found some flaw in the code that allows them to avoid paying comparable rates to other top bracket payers, then by all means close the loophole, but if you expect me to dismiss aggregate data and judge a plan unsound because you claim "folks like buffett can reduce their taxes rate 90%", then your smokin' something. This plan doesn't reduce ANYONE's taxes by 90% except for the lowest brackets of payers who will drop entirely off the tax rolls - 3 million taxpayers this year - or come close to doing so.
Why don't you stick to facts and quit calling everyone else a liar when they post evidence in support of their positions. |
