Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
foxnews
had this whole area segment
about phil mickelson
and
income
i want to do away too much so let's listen to it and then we'll break it
down
aphis writer eats coming in second and poetic
again this week arrogant last week that
back and this is case for have of some sort of sometimes coming in second paisa
ends at that
article said
meat that you need to save any money yet that the fact that he came in second
we've got down the numbers with the help of some taxpayers for how much you get
an answer is four hundred thousand dollars in taxes because
california animation over thirteen percent
so there isn't any first in second place is seventy six thousand dollars in taxes
and kansal sponsors advises you can get relaxing
at sandoval at callaway estimated that
million dollars to that and now that we hundred thousand dollars status please
you didn't get that
he five thousand dollars richer hideout
all that is also
now isle of as they're going along there they'll realize it makes no sense
because all they're doing is reading over the teleprompter
and then by the end there like so all in all cheese four hundred thousand richer
they came in second how's that possible and all the ones i i don't dance
always grain and all that so much fun
when what you're saying what your telling the reporters of boxes is a
belief that dumb that even
that the reporter themselves alike
that can't be right
you know it's stupid any you know it's incorrect
sold do you get the insinuation there
notice they keep telling you
this would be his savings if he finished second
savings savings savings they keep repeating that work
they're trying to make you believe
that you make more money if you finished second because first please is gonna be
so tremendously overtaxed
it's a poor attempt for them to say that french uh... feel so bad for justin rose
who won the u_s_ open because he's going to be so
for now
dot for your eyes open where are you going in food stamps you know right
buddy
uh... in
they'll let me tell the way used in which that is ***
first and foremost the main point i always come back to when that fox news
does the pity the rich segments is like you to understand that rich by
definition means that they have more money than other people you realize that
that means they have more money than the middle class in the poor
so if you're so concerned about the rich in you being more concerned about the
middle class in the poor
isn't that just
well a logical truism is a medic axiom that follows from what you're saying
cages deduced that
but no they only focus on off the rich the rates are so prosecutor in the in
the united states of america
and furthermore of course that's not true it's ***
it's absolutely false so like we just talked about the last segment what's
about the rule remember that came from
warren buffett said hey c_e_o_'s on wall street if you can prove to me you pay a
higher percentage of a federal income taxes then you're secretaries do make
sixty eight thousand dollars a year meanwhile you make millions on u million
dollars in my own money
nobody collected because all of them to be a lower tax rate federal income tax
rate than their secretaries did undersecretaries made so much less money
than than why because we have a regressive tax system
now it might say on paper that the rich pay more in taxes but again you got the
factory all the deductions and when all is said and done we have a regressive
tax system
never mind the capital gains tax which that's how mit romney pay fourteen to
fifteen percent taxes on over twenty million dollars made while uh...
but each year
making seventy thousand dollars a year ended up paying more as a percentage is
that fair does that make sense
when opening the rich