3 ms·
You are arguing semantics not substance. The complaint is that (1) there is an effective tax hike (2) that is used to cover tax cuts for already well-off demog
by krastanov 9y ago
You are arguing semantics not substance.
The complaint is that (1) there is an effective tax hike (2) that is used to cover tax cuts for already well-off demographic.
Plenty of people would be fine with point 1 as long as the money is used to help to country / lower the deficit / pay national debt / invest in infrastructure. But people are unhappy with point 2 - the money is used to fund tax-cuts for the super rich.
- jbob2000 9y agoWell, arguably, the students were taking advantage of a loophole. They were receiving income and it wasn't being taxed, it's just that the letter of the law didn't consider this a form of income. They're still earning $10,000, it's still income, it's just coming off the paycheque before they receive it. But I do agree that this is the stupidest, pettiest loophole to close, especially because it's funding cuts of people who absolutely do not need them.