Quote:
Originally Posted by whell
I'm sorry, but for me this line of reasoning represents circular logic. For example:
"The proposed legislation benefits the rich."
Why does it benefit the rich?
"Because taxes for the rich would be reduced under the proposed legislation."
What taxes would be eliminated?
"Well, the net investment income taxes, the additional medicare tax on income over $225,000."
OK, but weren't those taxes rolled out under the ACA to fund specific provisions of the ACA, and if those ACA provisions are repealed those additional taxes wouldn't be necessary?
"That's correct. But the proposed legislation benefits the rich."
|
Passage of the ACA has benefited the rich. If the Republicans are able to replace or amend the ACA, I'd lay odds that the rich will benefit.