If you can't figure it out. . .that's your problem.
I figured out what you intended -- it was just absurd.
Yes, sure. . .so what? The fact is that people making under $25,000 pay no or very little FEDERAL taxes (although they still pay all the other taxes!). And. . .if you think clearly and rationally, it is exactly the same for people making $100,000, or $500,000 or $10 millions! THEY DO NOT PAY TAX ON THE FIRST $25,000 OF EARNINGS. . .That sounds pretty fair.
So. . .what is your complaint? That people making $25,000 a year do not pay tax on money they don't make?
Doesn't make much sense to me!
That is true -- someone making $100,000 a year does not pay taxes on their first X amount of income. My complaint is that I am being forced to subsidize the lives of those pay no taxes, and yet get rebate checks and tax benefits in return.
Class warfare has been in effect for at least 30 years. . .except that it is easy to hide, when it is only a small minority of people (1% or less) who wage "war" on the rest! Why do you think the income inequality has sky rocketed in the US? Because the Poor and the middle class are "waging class warfare on the poor wealthy 1%?
Are you saying that income inequality is on the rise because the rich take money from the poor? Where is the evidence? I could just as easily claim that income inequality is rising as government expands.
And, you're right. I wasn't very happy with the BANK bailouts because that money was given to people who created the problem to start with by their greed and their stupidity. They created instruments of doom, and even when they realize it, instead of backing off and trying to fix the huge problems they had provoked, they "bought insurance" to cover THEIR asses. . .but not that of the majority of peole. And still, they were stupid enough to buy that "insurance" from people like AIG who used the little guy's money to "supposedly" cover the greed of the banks and Wall Street. . .but didn't have enough to cover it. . .so the government had to do it.
Why did the "government have to do it" exactly?
However, if instead of hoping for a "trickle down" of the bailout money, that would ALSO benefit the people who lost so much (and who could truly not afford it), they should have used a "bubble up" bailout. . .by providing the money to people in trouble with their mortgage, who would then have been able to pay their mortgage and thus kept the banks going anyway!
Why in the world should I be forced to pay for someone else's house?