Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes. His comment about the 47% was actally a very salient point, and an important matter that has been largely ignored. This is the number of tax filers who pay zero or less federal income taxes. The number was fairly stable from 1950 to 1990 at around 20 pct. Starting around 1990 it took off like a jet, reaching 47% in 2012. Tax foundation report on the growth of 'nonpayers' of federal income tax.
It was a major shift that was hardly covered by the MSM or debated in the public discourse. During the election Dems completely demagogued the question. Maybe Mitt Romney can do a terrific public service by revisiting this and other issues. I'm all for it.
This is great news.
With the republican party digressing to nothing more than sort of a training course in carnival freak show barking, another nail gets pounded into the coffin of this craziness with every Rmoney, Ryan, Bachmann or philandering SC politician whom avers "they are not going away"
Yes. His comment about the 47% was actally a very salient point, and an important matter that has been largely ignored. This is the number of tax filers who pay zero or less federal income taxes. The number was fairly stable from 1950 to 1990 at around 20 pct. Starting around 1990 it took off like a jet, reaching 47% in 2012. Tax foundation report on the growth of 'nonpayers' of federal income tax.
It was a major shift that was hardly covered by the MSM or debated in the public discourse. During the election Dems completely demagogued the question. Maybe Mitt Romney can do a terrific public service by revisiting this and other issues. I'm all for it.
Yes because slamming the elderly and low income people (both Democrats and Republicans) is always the right way to go
So based on your response, you implicitly believe that Bill Clinton was guilty of "slamming the elderly and low income people." At the end of his second term, 1999, the number of non-payers was 25.6%, not far from half of the 47% figure from last year. Is that what you think? Bill Clinton slammed the elderly and low-income people?
mr romney lost nothing. he showed real guts as did everyone that voted for him. i spent money to elect him and routed for what was right, a balanced budget. the crazy behavior in DC makes me realize i did the right thing. no spending cuts higher taxes and higher debt cliff/ceiling. the only sense i can make out promise of limitless opportunities is that he hopes to get the 17 trillion he owes out of the corporations, good luck.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
