Originally Posted by MtnGoat

Part of the reason I posted this. The defenses illuminate the basis of the views held. In this case, we see the percentage game being gamed so long as their guy comes out ahead, but then when it comes to taxes, why, we can't use percentage of income paid to judge equality.

Sure we can. I think those making over 250,000 should pay a higher percentage in taxes. I think a progressive tax structure was intended by our founders.

Sure we can. I think those making over 250,000 should pay a higher percentage in taxes. I think a progressive tax structure was intended by our founders.

Sure, that's why they didn't include an income tax. Because it was intended to be there and they just forgot.

Originally Posted by DenverJayhawk

this is what some on the right don't get....The hardship of giving away 1 buck when you make 100. Absolute numbers is all that matters for them, not the %

A widow giving 2 mites, all she had, rings a bell....

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/recentwarnings.php

slople Sep 24, 2012 04:56 PM 40 / Troll or Spam Account Troll account of banned member - animus cracker

Originally Posted by DenverJayhawk

uh..no. It's in response to criticisms from the right that Obama didn't give away nearly as much as Romney.

I'll give you a hint. HE DIDN'T. Romney gave away over $10,000 a day.

Originally Posted by madsci_guy

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/recentwarnings.php

Finally!

"The Obamas gave $172,130, or roughly 21.8% of their income, to charity in 2011, and about 14.2% in 2010. That was up from 5.9% in 2009. The Obamas gave between 4.7% and 6.5% of their income to charity between 2005 and 2008, when their income was typically more than $1 million."

So when the Obama's made more money, they gave a smaller percentage. Yet when Romney has more, he gives more. That should end the rational discussion right now. The irrational will continue, but that's the end of any logic being applied.

To those claiming the Obama's gave more percentage, here is AGI giving.

Originally Posted by DenverJayhawk

Obama gave away more (%)

Sure, of hard-earned working taxpayer's money to "charity" entitlements.....

Hmmm, looks like slople's ticket got punched...

Originally Posted by MtnGoat

I understand the attempt to avoid mathematics in favor of applying subjectives to measure 'hardship' perfectly well.

no one is avoiding mathematics. Using % to show hardship is perfectly valid. When the right argues that Obama didn't give as much as Romney, well yes....It's not rocket science to know that very few can give as much as Romney. It's hard to match dollar for dollar what was given when your dad set you up with investments that are now returning 13.4M/year. But that doesn't take into account a person's hardship to give what they did.

PS...it's a good thing for Romney that the markets are doing so well under O.

Originally Posted by srt8madness

To those claiming the Obama's gave more percentage, here is AGI giving.

That does not matter to them he is still evil because he is Republican!

Originally Posted by srt8madness

To those claiming the Obama's gave more percentage, here is AGI giving.

2011:

http://money.cnn.com/infographic/new...-romney-taxes/

22% vs 16%

Originally Posted by DenverJayhawk

no one is avoiding mathematics. Using % to show hardship is perfectly valid.

IF you want to introduce subjectives on 'hardship', sure. Which you plunge right into.

Originally Posted by MtnGoat

IF you want to introduce subjectives on 'hardship', sure. Which you plunge right into.

if the argument is going to only consider hard numbers of giving as the basis of the debate, then % should come in to play.