5 comments

• 

  QrazyQat

  8 months ago

  That's not her "tax return", that's the summary pages. They obviously feel they have something to hide by not releasing her tax returns as the Democratic candidates have done. Why this double standard? Why are the Democratic candidates hounded to release their tax returns but the Republcian candidates only have to release a summary page?
  
  For that matter, why has McCain refused to release his 1,000 page medical file? What's in that? Why has he only allowed a few select people to gaze at it for a brief period without any means of even taking notes? What's he hiding? Is his Stage 3 Melanoma that bad? Is there something in it about why his face twitches uncontrollably at times? What's wrong with his health that he feels he needs to hide it from the voters?
  reply
• 

  BD

  8 months ago

  Have you bothered to look at Obama's returns because they provide some interesting information. I have looked at McCain's (the candidate's) actual return on-line and have read more about hers. Both of them give quite a bit to charity; I think McCain's return alone reflects 25% of his income. I think the McCains' contributions are well into the six figures. Now let's look at Obama's for 2000 to 2006. Just Google and you will find the returns and schedules, not summaries. (Oh, yea - he paid a nanny only $23,000. Mr. Generous) When he was making $250,000 to $300,000 (the point he considers people "rich" and it fair and patriotic to pay more taxes), they gave less than $2,500 per year - the figures were not even close to 1% of his income (more like .4%, .6%)! The years he made $1.7 million and around $1 million, Obama did not give much more; the most he gave for those two years was around $73,000; for those two years 4%, 6.5% but less than 10%. Even factoring in taxes and what his net could be, at $1.7 million you probably have $750,000 after taxes. When you are a candidate who believes that people should pay higher taxes to help others, then shouldn't you live what you preach? He could have given $250,000 and still had $500,000 to live off; more than he had the years prior to the jump in income. Interestingly, I bet his tax increases (and the increases those under $250,000 will face when the cuts expire and that probably includes you, QrazyQat) exceed the $2,500 he didn't even give to charity. So, what we have is a candidate who wants to increase people's tax liability by more than he was willing to part with in charitable contributions. Hmmm, rather interesting, don't you think? It seems he is willing to spread the wealth around but only when it is not his money.
  reply
• 

  catclub

  8 months ago

  BD:
  
  Cindy McCain has been a wealthy woman all her life. The primary means she appears
  to make charitable donations is through the John and Cindy McCain foundation.
  Typically $175k per year - approximately 2.7% of the combined income of John and Cindy.
  Much of the donations made by this foundation are to the private schools their children attend. They gave about $4000/yr to their church.
  
  Quite a bit to charity!? Color me unconvinced.
  
  So John gives 25% of 'his' income while living with a woman who has an income 10 or 20 times as large as his. Who do you think pays for all the houses, all the cars, all the private jets? John? Right.
  reply
• 

  Tongue Untied

  8 months ago

  She is a fine example of regressive taxes. She ultimately paid some 25% of her income taxes. A lower rate than somehow with an income of $30,000, methinks.
  reply
• 

  jp

  8 months ago

  wheres barak hussien obama's birth cert.
  reply