Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
UPS on MSNBC last night?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jones" data-source="post: 333437" data-attributes="member: 4805"><p>Eh, that's not actually what it says. Taxes <strong>are</strong> lower under Bush, but that's about the only thing they got right. The numbers quoted in that email are completely off base. And it's not because they did not take into account the AMT, it's because they didn't take into account anything, not even the standard deduction. Snopes diplomatically attributes these oversights to plain old ignorance, but I think that's being a little generous.</p><p></p><p>For instance, in grunt's email the chart indicates that someone making 30k is paying about $4000.00 less in taxes under Bush than under Clinton. Now I don't care who you are, 4K is a chunk of cash! If you're making 30k a year it's about 10 weeks pay. If this were actually true it would be something to get worked up about. But according to the Tax Foundation, it's not true. The actual difference is about $400.00 (closer to just one weeks pay). Grunt's chart isn't just a little wrong, it's literally 1000% wrong. So it's not just the methodology that's incorrect, it's the numbers as well.</p><p></p><p>Taxes are lower under Bush, and Snopes says as much. If that's the point you want to make it should be enough to just give the real numbers,no? Why twist and misinterpret to make things look ten times as bad (or as good) as they actually are? As best I can make out from Big's latest gibberish, that's supposed to be what the evil liberals do.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jones, post: 333437, member: 4805"] Eh, that's not actually what it says. Taxes [B]are[/B] lower under Bush, but that's about the only thing they got right. The numbers quoted in that email are completely off base. And it's not because they did not take into account the AMT, it's because they didn't take into account anything, not even the standard deduction. Snopes diplomatically attributes these oversights to plain old ignorance, but I think that's being a little generous. For instance, in grunt's email the chart indicates that someone making 30k is paying about $4000.00 less in taxes under Bush than under Clinton. Now I don't care who you are, 4K is a chunk of cash! If you're making 30k a year it's about 10 weeks pay. If this were actually true it would be something to get worked up about. But according to the Tax Foundation, it's not true. The actual difference is about $400.00 (closer to just one weeks pay). Grunt's chart isn't just a little wrong, it's literally 1000% wrong. So it's not just the methodology that's incorrect, it's the numbers as well. Taxes are lower under Bush, and Snopes says as much. If that's the point you want to make it should be enough to just give the real numbers,no? Why twist and misinterpret to make things look ten times as bad (or as good) as they actually are? As best I can make out from Big's latest gibberish, that's supposed to be what the evil liberals do. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
UPS on MSNBC last night?
Top