You're rich, get over it.

[NC_Nurse]

http://www.slate.com/id/2243529/

You're Rich. Get Over It.
People who make $250,000 or more a year can afford a tax hike.
By Daniel Gross
Posted Wednesday, Feb. 3, 2010, at 11:28 AM ET

Here we go again. Whenever the subject of taxes comes up—and it's come up in the debate over the Obama administration's decision to let many of the Bush-era tax cuts expire this year—we're treated to a chorus of complaints that people who make $250,000 a year aren't really rich. Raising taxes on these people, we're told, would be raising taxes on the middle class. Media Matters has assembled a few choice quotes on the topic.


As I argued in an article in August 2008, now reprised and updated, I have two pieces of bad news for the over-$250,000 crowd. First, the reversal of some of the temporary Bush tax cuts is probably inevitable, given the appalling mismanagement of fiscal affairs between 2001 and 2008. (It's rich when Bush-era economic officials, like Edward Lazear, Greg Mankiw, and Keith Hennessey, carp about the fiscal situation.) Second, for those of you making more than $250,000, I regret to inform you yet again: Yes, you are indeed rich—any way you slice it.

To a surprising degree, feeling rich or poor is a state of mind. There are people who pull down $3 million a year who are miserable and feel strapped for cash and people who make $30,000 a year who believe they have everything they need. But income data can surely tell us something. And they tell us that $250,000 puts you in pretty fancy company, especially after the collective pratfall the economy took in 2008. The Census Bureau last summer reported that real median household income was $50,303 in 2008, down 3.6 percent from 2007. It's likely that figure fell further in 2009. So a household that's making $250,000 today is making about five times the median. In fact, as this chart shows, only 2.476 million U.S. households, the top 2.1 percent, had income greater than $250,000 in 2008. (About 20 percent of households make more than $100,000.)

[Romulox]

1. Bravo. The "top earners are WORKERS just like you and me" crap is too much. nt

[NC_Nurse]

2. Exactly.

[Hannah Bell]

49. The article is about the Bush-era INCOME TAX cuts on CAPITAL & labor:

"Obama administration's decision to let many of the Bush-era tax cuts expire this year"

It's not about SS taxes.

[Romulox]

267. Did you see a mention of SS in my posts, or are you trying to revive an old argument?

:silly: :hi:

[jgraz]

104. They are... they're just overpaid workers.

:D

Personally, I'd like to see ALL taxes on middle-income labor drop substantially while taxes on the idle rich are raised above the current RIDICULOUS level of 15%.

[DailyGrind51]

178. An RN working double shifts or an air traffic controller at O'Hare works much harder

than ANY of these over paid execs. And, on "9-11", when investment bankers, corporate attorneys, and CEOs ran from the WTC, "blue collar" members of NYFD, NYPD, and Iron Workers Local 134 ran towards the collapsed towers to search for survivors.

[Ishoutandscream2]

224. Fantastic post. Wish I could recommend.

[wolfgangmo]

253. Wonderful point

NYFD, NYPD, Iron workers, paramedics etc. were all heroes. And many of our heroes cannot even get health care.

The bankers are zeros IMHO based on past, present and future behavior. These asses actually believe that after some of the worst financial years EVER they DESERVE record breaking bonuses. WTF? Wall steet and every crook there should be plowed into the bay.

[treestar]

3. Amen!

You will get those posts saying the cost of living is so high in LA or NY that 250K is not much. But even there, that's comfortable.

If the economy that allowed some people to be that successful is in trouble, they are the ones who should be willing to help bail it out.

[asdjrocky]

4. Eat the rich.

The well fed taste better.

[NC_Nurse]

5. I don't want to eat them, just tell them to STFU and quit whining. If you can't

live well on $250,000, you're an idiot.

[asdjrocky]

6. If we can't eat them then I guess the least they could do is shut up.

Agreed.

[taught_me_patience]

26. $250k is upper-middle class in Los Angeles

not rich by any means. Imagine if they raised taxes on those making 130k in NC... there would be grumblings too.

[Caliman73]

90. I disagree.

Los Angeles spans almost 400 square miles, has over 4 million inhabitants, and encompasses communities diverse as Bel Air, Venice Beach, East and South Central L.A. The median income for households in L.A. in 2008 was approximately 54K. Perhaps in some parts of Los Angeles like Westwood, Brentwood, West L.A., and parts of Santa Monica where the wealthy live you might see 250K as a lower income. Go to South L.A., Highland Park, Southgate, Central L.A., Cudahay, or Bell Gardens and tell me how many people there make 250K a year.

Anytime those who have a lot more are asked to share with those who do not, there will always be grumblings. I was happy when my salary went up, until I moved up in the taxation bracket, but it is something that I have to live with by learning to live within my means.

[Frank Booth]

157. Plenty of yuppies/trust fund kids have moved into Highland Park.

$250k's not so unusual there anymore.

And regardless of whether or not $250k qualifies as rich compared to others on the westside, if you're making $250k a year you can afford to pay higher taxes.

[Caliman73]

160. I totally agree.

Gentrification part II then? 250K is about 3 years gross salary for my wife and combined. I certainly would not mind the higher tax bracket for that kind of cheese. Alas the helping professions are not very well paid.

[Ignis]

115. By what objective standard? (nt)

[geckosfeet]

155. $130k in NC is rich. You point out that rich is relative.

[blondeatlast]

7. A-effin'-men. nt

[MindandSoul]

8. Absolutely!

And what really gets me is that people always look at how much money they pay in taxes, but not how much money they take home!
For exemple, if a family of 4 makes 60,000 a year, and pays 10% taxes, they are left with $54,000 to take home. . .this is used for ALL their needs, and I don't believe there is much "left over" at the end of the month to put into a saving account or to invest in stock (except maybe save a tiny bit for college fund or retirement?). So, basically, they are taxed on EVERY dollars they make!

But if someone makes $1 million dollars, even if he pays 40% tax, his family is left with $600,000 to "struggle with!"

Let's even say that that family lives on a "big scale" and spends $500,000 . . .there is $100,000 left to INVEST in stock, or purchase property abroad, or put in a trust fund. . .and that $100,000 will continue to accumulate and INTEREST FROM INVESTING THAT MONEY will be taxed from then on. . .which means that each year, the "nest egg" that is NOT taxable grows. . .

And they are still complaining about paying too much taxes???
And, by the way, I haven't even approach the issue of "tax shelters" and "no tax on capital gain" etc. . . which, obviously, a family who needs to spend every penny of what they make to survive have no chance to take advantage of!

[dugaresa]

9. they are rich, but sadly people typically spend to the level of their income

and someone making $250K a year tend to go a bit more overboard because they have way more cushy options to borrow.

i only wish i made that much a year.

[vadawg]

12. yeah but you want people to spend some of their cash or else it slows the economy

i like to go on family vacations three or four times a year, if i cut that back then its less money going to the airlines, hotels, restaurants etc etc... its all very well to always shout tax the rich but what happens when people who make less than you start to take up that cry and want to heavily tax people at your level....

[laughingliberal]

14. There is no doubt the country did a lot better when the top rates were high

Sorry, Reagan's voodoo economics have been in place for 3 decades, now. I think the results speak for themselves. I really have not enjoyed living in the plutocracy.

[Raster]

190. It was George Herbert Walker Bush* that coined that phrase.

Poopy didn't really care for Ronnie the Raygun because he was an actor-man, and not a real-man like the Bush-men*. Of course Poopy was also envious of Raygun in that his wifey was actually a kinda-nice person, opposed to the harpy-from-hell Poopy was stuck with.

"Why should we hear about body bags and deaths," Barbara Bush said on ABC's "Good Morning America" on March 18, 2003. "Oh, I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"

But, I digress. Tax the fucking rich. Tax 'em until it hurts. Tax 'em until it hurts them as bad as the rest of us. It's time for the wealth of this country to STOP flowing up to the upper 2% of the population and back down to the rest of the 98% of us.

It's time for Paris AND Perez Hilton both to get J-O-B-S at Walmart.

[Kolesar]

225. "his wifey was actually a kinda-nice person"

thanks for a very entertaining post

[Raster]

238. My pleasure!

[EOTE]

17. The wealthy have a far smaller marginal utility of the dollar than the poor and middle class.

If a wealthy person receives an additional $1,000, on average they will spend a small portion of that money and invest the rest. The middle class will likely spend a great portion, if not all of that money. It's simply a matter of necessity That's why, right now, middle class tax cuts are so much more important than tax cuts for the rich and wealthy. If Bush/Reagan era policies have shown us anything, it's that trickle down economics is 100% bullshit. Get the middle class back on their feet and the rest of the economy will follow. Providing additional tax cuts for the rich will do very little in terms of short term gain and absolutely nothing in the end run. We need to be heading for a higher top tax rate, not a lower one.

[vadawg]

19. not disagreeing with you, i just love how people are always happy to paint others as the bad guys

but dont realise that to people making less than them they may be the bad guys, so the person making $100,000 a year attacking the person making $250K cant really complain when someone making $50k starts to attack them and wants to take money from them. personally ive paid higher taxes before and ill adjust if need be or move to where i pay lower taxes if they get to oppressive, thats the good thing in that you can move if you dont like the deal you are getting...

[EOTE]

21. Who's doing the attacking?

I certainly haven't seen any. And if you're talking about the country in general in terms of "class warfare", the lower and middle classes have been on the receiving end of that war for a very long time. No one here is attacking the wealthy, I just think it's very unlikely that you'll find many people here who will sympathize with them when they say they don't want to be taxed. There are lots of people genuinely hurting right now. I'll reserve my sympathy for them.

[vadawg]

23. and ill state again that people are always happy as long as its people other than them being taxed

more, thats the point im making, im interested in where the various groups believe that taxes should be raised, if you make 20K then you may say 21K, if you make 100k then you would say 105k etc etc etc, thing is no one wants to be taxed to oblivion and if you raise the taxes to much then people simply either dont try to earn as much or move.. personally i dont think of it as a war as that implies that you must pick a side and hope to win, in that way everyone will lose in the end..

[EOTE]

29. And I'll state again that as a democrat, I believe strongly in progressive taxation.

And I don't think that those making a bit more than me should be taxed more, I'm very much in line with the President in thinking that $250k is a good place to start that will cause the most gain to the economy while providing the most minimal negative impact. The marginal utility of the dollar is not a made up term. There are very smart economist who will tell you almost precisely what impact a dollar will have on the economy when given to any economic group. I don't think it should even be a debate amongst democrats that our tax code needs to become more progressive. And your argument about reduced incentive to earn is an awfully weak one considering that it wasn't too long ago that we had a 90% top tax rate and one can hardly say that the wealthy didn't have incentive to earn at that point. And while you may not consider what is being done to the middle and lower classes as a war, they've been at the receiving end of it for quite some time. You may not consider the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to be wars either, but I'd imagine your opinion on that means very little to the countless people who have been killed in them.

[vadawg]

33. rofl, when poor neighbourhoods start to get bombed in DC etc then you can claim a war..

answer me this simple question would you continue to work your ass off if after 20 hours of work you were being taxed at %90 or would you just kick back, also say your tax rate went from 40% to 90% overnight would that impact you and would you consider moving to another locale, its all very well to believe that increasing taxes has no effect on the people paying them but it does, you just have to balance what people are willing to pay before they walk away...

[EOTE]

45. That would really depend on how much money would give me a comfortable life.

But if I was making over a million dollars annually and being taxed at 90% on money over that amount, chances are yes, I'd continue working. Even to make a "mere" additional 100k a year, it would most likely be worth it. And if perhaps some people were disincentivized to work, that would be more than offset by the additional revenue coming in by raising the top rate beyond 32% (incredibly low amongst first world nations). I have no doubt that at some point, many people would walk away, but we're nowhere near that point as of yet.

And with regard to your bombing comment, bombs aren't a necessity for a war. I'd say the mere fact that such a substantial portion of our population is homeless, broke and struggling shows to me that the war has been waged very effectively.

[Hannah Bell]

52. Marginal tax. There's never been 90% tax on all income.

[Statistical]

65. Thank You.

I think an understanding (with quiz) of marginal tax rate should be a requirement for posting in any topic related to taxes.

I really think some people think if they are in the 25% bracket that the govt just "gets 25%".

[vadawg]

67. no but you put a 90% tax on everytihng above a certain limit and people are going to work less once

they reach that limit, its human nature....

[EOTE]

81. Then let them become less productive.

They'll have already been taxed at a more appropriate rate and that money that has been taxed will now go directly to spurring job growth where as if the money had instead gone to the wealthy individual, most likely only a fraction of it will have. I'm not suggesting a return back to 90% top tax rates, but I think 50% or even 60% after a certain sum would be far more reasonable than what we have now.

[Hannah Bell]

82. most of the people you speak of aren't working, their money is.

and regardless, history proves your hypothesis incorrect. our high-wealth-tax eras were our most productive.

there's a reason, too. too much money at the top = too few productive investments to mop it all up & a move to non-productive financial speculation.

[vadawg]

85. wow and funnily enough its that money that employs people

as i said im not against taxing people but you have to balance the rate so you dont get people just saying fuck it and not bothering to try to make more, or they simply move to a more tax friendly place...

[Hannah Bell]

89. sure, bets on cds's "employ people". in a pig's ear.

like i said, high-wealth-tax eras were the most productive.

your hypothesis fails.

[vadawg]

91. yup and as i said in the global markets of today people can just move either physically or materialy

if you think someone is going to be taxed to the limit without them looking at getting out of it your mad, now do you think that the money in CD's just sits there or do you realise that its out there being reinvested in other areas...

[Hannah Bell]

97. let them move to low-tax somalia then.

[eilen]

147. Your post reminded me of the Dead Kennedy's song "Holiday in Cambodia.' nt

[bread_and_roses]

195. right - we had a global economic meltdown because "money" is so "productive"

Ah, yes, the concentrations of capital have been so good for the earth, have created jobs and reduced poverty thereby....eh?

You are basically spouting supply-side economics, which have been rather discredited lately, I do believe.

Every point you have brought up has been factually and historically discredited.

And I hate to tell you but "money" is not "productive." People are productive.

Most here are more moderate but I'd like to see that marginal rate right back at 90%, as a start toward a more equal and human social order. Even better, since wealth requires theft - of workers' labor, of resources that belong to the commons - I'd like to see the end of private "wealth" alltogether.

While I won't hold my breath for that, I will say that it is the deification of wealth - on which your premise is built - that has brought us to the sorry state of affairs we are in.

[Selatius]

208. CDS = Credit Default Swaps, not Certificates of Deposit.

Credit Default Swaps are basically insurance against default of loans and bonds, and a lot of them were taken out on these so-called "mortgage-backed securities" that failed, so somebody got a big pay-off when the housing market crumbled and houses were lost, while the sucker who sold CDSs got their asses handed to them. You might know some of them as Wachovia, Countrywide Financial, Lehman Bros., and Bear Stearns.

CDS and CDOs are woefully unregulated, and this led to the global economic crash of 2008. They are and should be considered more harmful than good to the economy and the global economy until strong regulations are implemented in this area as well as over hedge funds in general.

[Raineyb]

282. Actually that's not true. If it were so easy for people to pick up and leave

for someplace where they could make more money then companies wouldn't be able to run off to places like China and Haiti where they pay less than subsistence wages to the population.

It's easy enough for corporations to do so but despite what the Supreme Court thinks corporations are NOT people.

[Confusious]

150. And someone else will step in and take thier place

That's how the free market works isn't it? Or does it only work when certain conditions are met?

[road2000]

173. Yeah.

Trickle-down works great. So does illiteracy.

[abelenkpe]

230. Where in the world will they move today?

It's a Global economic crisis. I don't see any person or business doing better elsewhere.

We've given the wealthy tax cuts for years and all they have given back is outsourced jobs.

[wolfgangmo]

259. If the uber wealth want to move then let them.

But given that we still control the flow of goods into the LARGEST MARKET IN THE WORLD, then they can either play by our rules or they can go set up their stores in Somolia and see how far that gets them.

You seem to be saying that you know they are cheating, but that you don't care because if we say anything they will take their weighted dice and go play somewhere else.

Of course they won't. And the reason why is that lots of money is here. They are not stupid enough to abandon this market not matter how much they threaten to do so. The fact that you are buying their BS {give me a tax break or I'll move my store somewhere else - build me a stadium and give me a tax break or I'll move my team - give me a no bid govenment contract or I'll...} doesn't mean that the rest of us are buying the BS that is supply side economics.

Let me explain supply side economics to you. It says that if you build a big warehouse and fill it with goods (supplies) then you will drive the economy. Go ahead and give it a try. It will provide jobs for a while for manufacturers but it is not sustainable. Demand side economics however says that if most of the poeple have most of the money then they will spend it which will create a sustainable cycle of healthy local economies.

Your assumption is that we have no control and no choice in this matter. It is our damn country and for the last 30 years they have rigged the game so that they won everything everytime. It's time to take the weighted dice out of their hands, drag them into the alley and beat the living shit out of them for cheating.

[bread_and_roses]

182. Your subject line took the words out of my mouth - thank you

It's a critical point and one that seems to escape that poster. Also that whan our marginal rates were truly high that did not seem to disuade the rich from wanting to be richer. OR hurt the broader economy.

[valerief]

131. When the 90% tax was put in place after WWII, salaries were lower and

money was invested into growing businesses, not salaries.

[quaker bill]

144. More money is more money

The first fallacy in this statement is the notion that people who make a million dollars actually work 10 percent harder to make 1.1 million dollars. They don't work any harder or put any more hours in. People making 10 million dollars often do not work as hard as many folks making 20 thousand.

The second fallacy is this, say I am putting in my 40 to 50 hours a week to make a million dollars. Now someone comes along and offers me a position where for more or less the same 40 to 50 hours a week I will be paid 3 million dollars. Because of the tax rate I am only going to be able to keep 10 percent of the additional 2 million. So I have a choice, put in the same number of hours and take home what I am making now, or what I am making now plus 200 thousand more a year. You are telling me that I will choose to take home less money for the same work simply to avoid the taxes. No one behaves like this.

This is as logical as not playing the lottery because of all the taxes you would have to pay if you won. There are plenty of good reasons not to play the lottery, but avoiding taxes on your winnings is not one of them. People rarely work less to avoid taxes. The only example I know of folks doing this are war-tax resisters who intentionally reduce their incomes to avoid paying any income tax as a matter of conscience.

In our system of progressive tax rates, there is never a penalty for making more money. The higher rate is only applied on the portion of your income above a particular threshold. On the first 20K you pay the same rate as anyone only making 20K, no matter how much you make in total. However if you are making 3 million, you will pay a good bit more on the last 20K of it.

[Name removed]

203. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vadawg]

205. yes i do, worked hard all my life so i wouldnt when i get older

so my kids wouldnt have to if they didnt want to, but thanks for your concern..

[pattmarty]

210. Elaborate or shut the fuck up.

[vadawg]

215. lol why should i elaborate if you were more polite you might get a conversation

but yes i have worked the typical jobs you speak about, from the grill in eateries, to landscaping, ot labouring in construction, to temping in offices and thats just in the past decade.

[pattmarty]

223. Uh huh, sure. My guess, the last time you worked an "hourly job".......

.......was when you were in high school. That's probably where you get the past decade. The most money my wife and myself made together was just under 65K, AND we both worked our motherfucking asses off for every dime, with not a bonus to be had. I have no problem with anybody making money, just don't fucking whine about hours worked and how much you bust your ass. After many years in the workplace the higher up you go the more you make and the less time you put in. Maybe it's different in your universe, but in my 63 yrs that is what I have seen, but then again I have actually "produced".

[vadawg]

226. rofl no i dont bust my ass much these days though i do have days that are hell on earth

interspersed with easy days, nature of the job, never went to high school got my education whilst in the army so i guess you could say i worked whilst i was schooled.

[pattmarty]

242. Well, if that's REALLY the case, you are extremely "lucky".

:sarcasm:

[vadawg]

246. lol i think im probuably a lot luckier than your post suggests you are.

but thanks for asking...

[pattmarty]

271. Sarcasm intended.

[vadawg]

276. you see it dosent really work when you need to post its sarcasm twice

[pattmarty]

292. Oh, but it did.

[wolfgangmo]

257. "Human nature." You keep using that phrase.

I do not think it means what you think it means.

For people earning in a tax bracket that would given them a marginal fictional tax rate of 90 percent, extra money is not as much of a motivation as power and accomplishment.

Human nature is not a single thing. It is many things for many things at many points of thier life. There is, in fact, no such thing as human nature.

[Raineyb]

109. You obviously don't understand the concept of marginal taxes.

No one every pays 90% on a X hours of work. It's a percentage after a certain number. Even if the top marginal tax rate was 90% the person making a million dollars isn't paying 90% on a million. So to make it sound as though someone was working for only 10% of their check as though that's how they are taxed from the first penny they make is disingenuous to say the least.

[vadawg]

110. nope never said that if you look at my posts, thats the point why bother working beyond

say 250k if you are going to get hosed on anything earned above it, not that we are talking about %90 over that amount but its an example of human nature and what some people would like to do..

[Raineyb]

113. The tax rate they're talking about isn't being hosed and you did say that.. That's what I was

responding to in your post in the first place.

[lumberjack_jeff]

121. The other issue you raise is the prospect that someone in the 90% bracket "will kick back"

So? I see no problem. Tasks that need doing will find employees.

[laughingliberal]

139. Weren't a whole lot of people leaving when the top rate was 91%

I wouldn't think we need to return to that rate but people at the top have seen their rate come down from 74% when Reagan took office in 1980 to 38% now. I'd say they've done fine. Someone making a million pays the same rate as the guy making $60,000.

[eilen]

146. If you are making enough to live happily on 20 hours of work

then you are making room for another person to do so as well. Share the work.

[pattmarty]

207. That is extreme naivete. You and I may not be "greedy", but................

...........as witnessed since the 80's there are plenty of ass holes out there that are.

[teknomanzer]

153. Lets make it simple for you to understand.

The premise is that the less you make the more money is worth to you - in terms of survival. There is also what I would call a baseline cost of living - that would be the average amount a person would have to spend on food, clothing, shelter, utilities, transportation, and health care (after all I did say survival and heath care is essential for that.)

Lets take person A, he makes 20,000 dollars a year and his monthly costs for the very basics comes to 12,240 dollars a year. (I arrive at this very conservative number through vigorous research - that is my own personal experience) He has a pretty no frills diet. His clothing is mass produced and prone to wear. His rented living space is utilitarian and small, and he is able to keep the gas, electricity, and water running. He rides the bus to work which takes an hour and a half out of his day each way. He has a meager HMO policy with a high co-pay. Not exciting but he is surviving. Lets say hypothetically he is taxed at 20 percent (income tax, social security, medicare) That leaves 3,760 dollar a year or about 313 dollars a month.

Now lets let look at person B from the same city. This person is a CEO and makes 10,000,000 dollars a year total income. Lets make him really angry and raise his tax rate up to 90%. That leaves him with one million dollars a year or about 2,740 dollars A DAY! More than enough to twice pay for person A's MONTHLY expenses. Or to put it another way, the baseline cost of living for person A would be close to one percent of person B's take home income. Even though the government has siphoned away 90% of person B's income he can still afford a very luxurious life style in comparison.

Now is that fair? Mr CEO has been busting ass sitting at a desk sending out memos and having meetings all day. That is pretty hard work. Maybe not as hard as working in an non-air conditioned warehouse like person B does, but as a CEO some pretty damn important stuff to make decisions about.
Maybe he should "kick back" as you say and not work so "hard" and get a lower tax rate. Maybe he can work in a warehouse like person A and have his tax rate reduced. I don't know about you, but if I were person B I wouldn't even consider it.

[quakerboy]

167. Let me return a question

If I could live comfortably from my first 20 hours of work, and was disincentivised to press for more, would my boss just leave the other 30 hours of work that I do undone? Or would he find someone else to do that work, thus providing 2-3 people living comfortably, rather than one living ridiculously comfortably? Thus stimulating the job market, reducing unemployment, reducing social services spending to support the unemployed, providing ancillary jobs to support those jobs, and in general helping the economy?

We really should drop the regular work week a few hours. Honestly, aside from the economic benefits for the mass of people, in our age of mechanization, there is just really not enough work that needs done to justify 40 hrs/week as the standard of what someone should work to earn a basic living.

That said, where is a rich guy gonna go if the US raises the top marginal. Canada? The UK? Which country provides equal/better paying jobs with less taxes.

[vadawg]

180. good points, what im talking about is the people who want to raise taxes to extreme levels

but people will move themselves or capital in order to get better rates, i moved states in order to pay less taxes and have a lower cost of living, i also cutoff my hours when i get to a certain point or i start taking comp, people do adjust their lives when you start to hike up taxes its human nature, as to the person who cuts his hours im not talking about the hourly worker im talking about the small business guys who give business to others, you are right in that they are going to kick back and produce less, there may be others who will step in but there may not. The problem i see is that some people want to punish anyone they see as making more than they do by raising their taxes higher as a form of retribution for that person. I got no problem with taxes its just when you try to use them for a political reason that i find it amusing...

[quakerboy]

256. I will be fully forthright with you

There is a certain level of wealth that at least some part of me wants to punish. No way in hell the Walton family or a Hilton really earned the money they have, for instance, in my opinion.

That aside, other than in idle moments of fantasy, I don't really want to do that for that reason. The capitol gains tax should no way in hell be capped, but rather should be progressive. I do not want to destroy people who just want to build a nest egg and live a normal life, But I do not see a need to keep a system that unfairly support of the wealthiest among us at the cost of higher taxes to everyone who works a normal job for their money.

What I do want is a fair system that takes care of what I see as social necesities for every one of us who cares to participate. I see part of that being to tax us in a fair way. Which means that those who in the big picture gain the most benefit from our system pay the most back into it. And someone making 275k a year is getting a pretty good benefit from existing in our system. Not as much as someone making 5 million, to be sure, but easily enough to justify kicking in an extra $500 a year in taxes. I would argue that even more might be appropriate, but at the moment that does not seem up for discussion.

Were I dictator for a day, 250k would not be my breaking point for a very high top marginal rate. But I agree with the OP that that qualifies as rich in our country, and thus in every known place that humans live. I would also argue that there comes a point where income is no longer fair or just or earned, but instead becomes a drag on the company providing it, and hinders our economy as a whole. And thus deserves to be taxed at a much higher rate than anything that has been discussed by anyone in power in a very long time, to at least help to balance the scales on the drag it provides.

I was talking about the small business guys as well. They are not going to leave a gap in their business just because qualified people only want to work 20 hours. And if they do, someone else will start a similar business and fill that gap with their own guy working 20 hours. We are not a country to leave things undone if there is a way to make decent money getting them done.

[mainer]

294. I keep hearing that the rich get the most benefits back from taxes -- ???

I guess I don't really see it. The rich are less likely to use public transportation, require public assistance, use meals on wheels, send their kids to public schools, require medicaid, etc. It seems to me that, for taxes paid, it's the poor who get the most back, percentage wise, from taxes they pay in. (And below a certain income level, the poor don't pay any taxes.)

Could you expand on the premise that the poor don't get anything back for their tax dollars? And the rich get back more, percentage wise?

[quakerboy]

297. Its inherent

The rich are benefiting by BEING RICH. Take away the substructure of our society, and they would not be rich. As I saw somewhere in one of the parts of this tale, take the most inventive smart hardworking guy you can imagine, put him on a small deserted island, and give it as long as you want, and he still won't be able to make bluejeans

Your assertion is true when it comes to direct services used and to percentages. But these are both irrelevant.

If someone on welfare receives 100% of their money from the government, and banker with a 5 million dollar bonus could only attribute 20% to the government, the banker still made a million, where the welfare recipient only got 20k. Who benefited more from tax dollars?

Or another way: say 2 houses catch fire, and the fire fighters save both. The poor person might have been out 10k in personal posessions. The rich man might have been out 200k. Who benefited more

Or to put it in more concrete terms:

My disabled aunt receives far more direct use out of government provided services than I hopefully ever will. It provides literally everything she has. My uncle who is a proud man and would never dream to accept any form of welfare, working his private sector life and living in a home he pays for himself, does far better, though. He is by no means wealthy, as he works scrapping wrecked semi trucks. But without the roads, he wouldn't have semi's to scrap. Without police, the gang that tried to take over his neighborhood would have been realistically unstoppable. Without firefighters, when his old apartment burned, his life might well have been ended. And without regulation on insurance, after the fire they would have been devastated. All functions of the government that we pay for with taxes.

So who benefits more from government? My aunt or my uncle?

Lets take it a step further. The big money. Lets pick on a Walton, as I think they have broad enough shoulders to bear a little scrutiny. How do the workers get to their jobs at Walmart? Via tax-payer provided roads and public transit. When my above mentioned aunt goes grocery shopping, she often goes to Walmart with her government provided money. How many kids would buy school supplies from Walmart if there were no government provided schools? The goods that Walmart imports are carried to the US in ships powered by oil secured by relative world stability in decent part attributable to US soldiers, paid out of tax dollars. The goods arrive on a variety of transport system made possible by government interactions(ie Rail, ports, roads all relatively free of piracy) so that customers who again make extensive use of public facilities to arrive. Who then supplements the income, health care, and general livings of a great many Walmart employees so that they don't aren't desperate enough to quit or to riot? Not Walmart, its the government again. I could keep going, this interaction happens at every level of the structure we live in. There is a reason that hunter/gatherer societies don't have superstores. Down to the existence of the monetary system and money itself. Government provides the substructure that allows all the rest to be developed.

I would guess my aunt gets something akin to 30k a year income and benefits, directly and wholey from the government. I would guess my uncle is closer to 60k from private sources but impossible without the government. Samuel Robson Walton has a net worth of 19.2 billion that would be impossible to have collected without the structure and stability of our government to secure it, so even if he put it all in a savings account at my credit union and had no other income, he would make 32 million a year. So who benefits the most from the society we have built with our taxes?

[mainer]

301. "Inherent" is not hard numbers. It's "off the top of my head."

Because all that infrastructure you say benefits the rich also benefits all of us.

The highway systems? They allow the not-so-rich to get to work, to visit their families, to get the mail with their social security checks.

The railways systems? They bring my fresh vegetables to my grocery store, and they keep my grocer in business (who's not particularly wealthy). They bring school supplies to my kids -- who go to public schools.

The fire department? They protect my home, and every other home in a town where there are both rich and poor.

You can't say that these don't serve all of us. You can't put a price tag on those roads and say that Mr. Telecommuter -- who maybe makes millions sitting in his home office -- gets more benefit out of the highway system than the truck driver who uses it fifty weeks out of the year.

All you can really use for an argument are raw numbers. And society, if it does its job right, benefits those most in need. You can't simultaneously claim that society only benefits the rich, and then say that society is there to support the poor.

[quakerboy]

315. Why dodge the point?

The raw numbers are that my aunt benefits 30k a year and Sam Rob Walton benefits a superconservatively estimated 300 million a year. Both Based on the system we have created and contribute taxes to.

The not so rich managed to get to work before highways existed. People managed to get produce before railway systems. Without these things, my aunt would probably be a moderately successful farm helper on her parents farmstead. But Sam Walton would not have stores in every major community in the USA, and most places in the world.

As to your argument, I definitively can say that Mr telecommuter is getting more benefit from the entire system. Seeing as the government regulates and subsidizes the communications systems, originated the internet (military and educational), without which he would not be telecommuting. And most likely whatever he telecommutes to accomplish is transported via the roads. Which means he made his millions under the system provided by tax dollars, same as the trucker who only benefited a fraction of that amount. Probably as a profit on what the trucker actually did, no less. Yet he ends up with a grand amount, where the man who actually put in the time ends up with a modest amount. Because that is how our system works.

You are putting words in my mouth. I did not argue that society only benefits the rich. I argue that the benefit to the rich is greater in cold hard numbers than it is to the poor. If there are 1000 people like my aunt for every Sam Rob Walton, he still benefits 10 times as many dollars for his single self as they all collectively do. Per person, one to one, the disparity is 10,000 times as much.

[kenfrequed]

240. Absurd

An ironically absurd argument since the moment someone suggests even the slightest uptick in the taxes of the wealthy in America or suggests raising the income caps on social security in terms of taxation the rich scream "Class Warfare."

Perhaps you should be telling them to abandon the term instead since they have been using it for over thirty years now.

Also few have actually suggested seriously increasing the marginal tax on wealth to 90%. People are pointing this out to make comparisons to how much shirt tearing, whining, and red-baiting todays rich folk engage in.

But you fail to address one of the central points. Reaganomics, supply side economics, voodoo economics, or whatever you want to call it now has been a catastrophic failure.

[Wednesdays]

248. Yes, someone please clarify the phrase, "Class Warfare"

I mean, where are the guns? Where are the dead bodies?

I know that "war" can be used as a term to mean "stamp out" something, such as "War on Poverty" and "War on Drugs." But in this case, is it a war to "stamp out class?"

I'm confused...

:shrug:

[ChadwickHenryWard]

272. I have always been amused by the wealthy's inability to understand a progessive tax rate.

If the top tax bracket is $250,000 at a rate of 40% (this would be considered very, very low for any other industrialized country) the taxpayer only pays 40% on that income that is after the first $250,000 earned. So if you earn $250,001 in a year, only that last $1 is taxed at a rate of 40%. Any income earned before the 250,000th dollar is taxed at its appropriate bracket. So your first $8,350 is taxed at only 10%, the next $25,600 is taxed at 15%, and so on. According to this site

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

a taxpayer earning $250,000 only pays 27.06% of his income to federal income tax. Considering that I myself as a minimum-wage earner pay upwards of thirty percent of my income, once local and state taxes that are not progressive are included, in taxes, that doesn't seem that bad to me.

And I should add that if I made $250,000 a year, I would gladly pay a slightly higher tax rate if it aided those Americans less fortunate than myself. You see, as someone who has lived in or near poverty his entire life, that amount of money seems a small fortune. And, as somebody who has never been on a vacation in my life, I cannot see taking three instead of four vacations a year as "cutting back." To somebody in my position, cutting back entails choosing between food and medicine, heat or electricity. Forgive me, but moving out of the country because of a small increase in your top marginal tax rate seems a little bit selfish.

[Pithlet]

32. Yes, and it's a totally baseless point. No one is saying what you claim. n/t

[vadawg]

35. what you dont see people drooling at the prospect of people who make more money than them being taxe

taxed more, its simple human nature. Not that this increase will effect me much if at all, but as a study of the way humans gang up on people that they feel are different its interesting...

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[maryf]

133. false

your version of "human nature" is historically quite recent, and mainly in capitalist societies, I believe.

[vadawg]

181. no human nature has dictated that people suffer from jealousy since the dawn of man

from the first time a caveman figured out how to catch fish easily his neighbours have tried to figure out a way to get some of them.. it dosent matter what society you are in there are always people who will excel in something and others who envy them whether its sports, art or anything inbetween..

[wolfgangmo]

260. What you call human nature ...

... seem to be what a psychologist would call projection.

[vadawg]

278. yeah okay and thats why jealosy exists in every society and culture

and yes like any body else i suffer from envy as well...

[laughingliberal]

138. What I do see is how the country has gone to hell for the working class since we decided the rich

should get big tax breaks.

[treestar]

123. Nah, that's a Republican point, I don't agree with that

People will try to earn as much as they can. Even after taxes, the rich have more money to spend.

[Go2Peace]

158. I have never had children and have always paid higher taxes than you. But I don't resent that

People without children pay the highest rate of all. You know what? I am a progressive and I do not resent that. I don't make a high income now but I have made a little more in the past. I paid quite high taxes on it as I was single at the time as well. But dammit, it never even occurred to me to complain! I was happy that I was making more and had money left over to put in the bank anyway.

You are ungreatful friend. You have an obligation to help out more just as as I have an obligation to pay taxes that support your children's welfare, even when I do not have them myself. That is part of being a freaking "community" and "Nation".

[liberation]

135. Dude, when you start equating paying your fair share with "being attacked"... your colors show

in full technicolor glory.

[vadawg]

184. no dude this is the point at what point is it about paying a fair share and simply become

avenging some perceived wrongs, thats the problem i have with some posts, its not about more equity its about retribution..

[Selatius]

216. There's a reason why it was given the appellation of "class warfare."

If it could be described as anything but a full-blown ground war, then it could easily fit the description of emotional, messy, complicated, and retributive. Personally, I have no problem paying 90% on every dollar earned beyond 1,000,000, simply because after only a few years I'd still accrue more money than 98% of all of you below me will over the course of your entire lives.

As long as people are willing to purchase my product, I go where the demand goes, and American consumers are some of the most voracious in the world. This cannot be said of some regions of the world like Latin America or war-torn Africa or dictatorships from China to Iran. If some douchebag wants to take his money to Tahiti, he is free to do so, but he leaves behind a vacuum that will be filled by a new entrepreneur and another and another after that. This is the logic of free markets. Somebody will always exercise the option to start a new business to fill a void left behind by another.

FDR instituted 90+ percent tax rates throughout the 1930s and 1940s on the top 1% of income earners, and he did it to pay for programs to fight the Great Depression and later to both fight that and World War Two in both the Pacific Theater and European Theater of operations. The taxes remained that high until JFK lowered the top rates down only to the 70% range, yet the 1950s and 1960s are considered one of the most prosperous periods in American history.

[wolfgangmo]

261. Perceived wrongs? WTF are you talking about?

They are real tangible wrongs. Huge national debt. No decent healthcare for the majority of the population (I own a medical clinic so if you want to debate this one with me then keep in mind that you are bringing a knife to a gun fight). Social safety net eroded. Transporation infrastructure eroded. National parks eroded. Income disparity increasing. Less social mobility in America than the EU now for the first time in HISTORY.

I could go on. These are tangible wrongs. The only perception is that they are real.

[laughingliberal]

137. All of the working class took a huge hit on the payroll tax increase under Reagan who used it to

fund the cuts for the wealthy. The SS tax surplus has been used to help cover some of the shortfall in the general fund that was created by lowering taxes on those at the top. Forgive me but I'm tired of paying more so those who can have more get to hoard it while the infrastructure and social safety net falls apart.

We know who the people at the top are and I know I'm not one of them.

[Orrex]

142. Regarding that paint job...

Let's be clear about this: every single thing that's wrong with our economy (and most of the things wrong with our country in general) can be traced directly to decisions that the super-wealthy made for the sake of their own interests.

Your complaint that "people are always happy to paint others as the bad guys" assumes that the playing field is level and/or that all parties are equally culpable, when in fact both of these assumptions are 100% false.

The deck isn't simply stacked in favor of the the top 1%; they own the deck. They manufactured the deck. They shuffled the deck. And from that deck they selected the best 51 cards and then allowed the rest of us to split the remainder among ourselves. Heck, they didn't even leave us any jokers.


There are undeniable, unambiguous "bad guys" in this equation, and they sure as hell aren't the people making $30K per year.

[bread_and_roses]

198. +100 - at least! (n/t)

[RaleighNCDUer]

245. "...you can move if you dont like the deal you are getting..."

If you have the income to do so, the freedom of employment to do so, the time to do so - you know, the stuff the wealthy have.

You know, solution by dislocation is NOT an option for the vast majority of people. Consider how much it costs to move, to set up in a new place, to secure an income and compare that to what the tax burden is - frankly, it is an option that is viable ONLY to the wealthy, because you'd have to be paying a shitload of taxes in the first place to see any benefit and that means you are RICH.

Think before you post.

[Fixed_Based_Operator]

24. What if the "wealthy"

start finding more loopholes to cheat the taxes?

Taking less in salary in exchange for another benefit, just so the taxes on paper mesh?

The rich WON'T take a paycut. That is what they pay their accountants for.

[EOTE]

27. Then I think more should be done to close those loopholes.

I'm not a tax accountant, so I don't know precisely what that would be. But I do know that if you raise the top rate, one way or another, there will be more government revenue coming from those sources.

[Fixed_Based_Operator]

66. Those folks are fairly creative

when it comes to hiding money. It would be much better for society if they used this train of thought to fix REAL problems facing normal Americans.

[EOTE]

77. That is true as well.

But it can't be denied that if the top tax rate were increased, revenue would increase as well. We need to focus on eliminating those loopholes in addition to creating a more progressive tax system. If we were to employ such a defeatist attitude when taxing the rich, our tax code would be upside down and the middle class would be even more disproportionately taxed.

[wolfgangmo]

262. If I may paraphrase your argument...

It is that because they have been getting away with these crimes we should just look the other way while they continue to rape the country. After all boys will be boys.

[mntleo2]

148. Poor People Pay The Most Taxes

Here is a state-specific graph of the porportion of their income the poor pay ~ in all states WAY more than the rich and middle class. http://www.itepnet.org/wp2009/statespecific.html. In my state, whcih takes tax rates that are the highest in the nation (WA), the poor pay upwards of 17-19%, while the rich and middle class pay around 5-10% of their incomes in taxes.

It is time for the rich to pay their fair share. In my state we have 2 of the richest men in the world (Bill Gates, Paul Allen). If just ONE of them paid what a welfare mom does (19%), it take away our budget deficit (at this time around $12 billion), they would completely erase our deficit and leave the state over a billion dollars in the black and STILL have over $56 Billion to live off. ar more than a minimum wage worker at full time who is left less than 800.00 per month to live off for themselves and their average of 1.7 kids at 17% of state taxes and 15% of federal taxes. Bill Gates on the other hand has almost $5 BILLION a month to live off for himself, his wife and three kids.

While Gates does good work for the world, perhaps he needs to help his community and at the very least just once pay the taxes of a low income mom.

This could be true the nation over if the rich paid their fair share. Cry me a river over their imagined "plight".

My 2 cents

Cat In Seattle

[bread_and_roses]

202. Thank you for those great charts! Everyone should take a look at them

Thank you! I had a chart for NY, but not other States. Most revealing, thanks again!

[xsquid]

239. OK, I understand what you are saying

but you really lost me. I'm not defending the rich but welfare moms do not pay taxes on, if they do work at all they get earned income credit and get back more than they paid in so thats a bad example.

Plus the charts actually hurt your argument, look at washington. The lowest 20% are paying 17.3% of the taxes and the top 1% are paying 2.6% which is a MUCH higher rate than the lower 20%. I'm not saying they should not, they certainly should, but this chart does not in any way help your argument. I can understand and back what you are saying, but lets at last be honest.

[mainer]

241. That chart excludes federal taxes. Totally misleading statement.

The poor pay a greater proportion of their income on state, property, and consumer taxes because those aren't all pegged to income.

If you add in federal taxes, then the rich do pay a larger proportion of their income in taxes.

[mntleo2]

296. A tax is a tax ...

If anything the additional federal taxes only add more burden to the poor.

Many of the state taxes on services and utilites is much of the revenue that is collected by the Feds. The more states can collect locally, the less they will need to ask the Feds to kick in. such as taxes on communications, gas, and electricity are all taxes comllected additionally by the feds. These are also included in rates and fees, collected (often by private companies) and then paid to the government.

Also the going rate for the poorest of poor is 15% for federal payroll taxes. Many do not take the deductions because they do not know how. If they collect the refund, this is nice but many cannot for many reasons. They are not accountants who can find every tax break, they are simple people working their low paying jobs. They do not havce interent connections or access, they are not able to make out the complicated forms as a couple examples. Just as an aside as well, do you know that the most often group member that gets called in for incoma tax audits are the poor?

Last of all, you forget Social Security Taxes, which are not refundable and are federal. They take quite a bit from every single wage, all working whether poor or not, all pay that up to $100,000 per year.

A tax is a tax is a tax, and the poor pay a higher percentage of their incomes than upper income people, it is a horrible burden that unlike most upper income and rich have that leaves them millions, thousands, but less than a few hundred to live on.

My 2 cents

Cat In Seattle

[mainer]

300. "the poor pay more in taxes" is still totally wrong.

You can't leave out federal taxes and be in any way honest about that statement.

I'm all for raising taxes on the rich, but let's try and stick to facts here.

[mntleo2]

303. The facts ...

...usually I leave the last word even if it is wrong because there is little I can do to convince you. This is *not* for you since you refuse to understand what is happening to the 30% of our population who live in poverty that is being joined by the middle class every day. This is directed to all else who WILL consider the gross burden of taxatin on the poor. As someone who has worked on the terrible cost to the poor mostly from regressive taxes in this country, whether state or federal, the bottom line (pun intended) is that ALL taxes decimate low income people the most.

Still, about a tax being a tax, you might look at our history and pre-Revolution activities, such as the Boston Tea Party. This incident happened because of an odious tax on a monopoly of tea, which was the last straw for the Colonists. Do you think this was the only tax they were unjustly forced to pay or who collected what taxes and where it went, so much as the tea tax epitomized the fact that ALL taxes were breaking them? No. The tea tax was just another tax and while the monopoly enraged them because of the unfairness handicapped them from being able to make a living (like the poor again endure) so do those taxes. I do not think it mattered whether the king got the revenue or the local rich guy who ruled the area collected it. The bottom line for them was ...it was just another tax that hobbled their ability to make a living taking from their hard earned wages, most colonists were poor and they had little to give into an industry and king that did not benefit them all.

States and the feds need to understand that they BOTH lend to the discord and anger in the populace. Not split hairs as to who is getting what. Concentrating on federal taxation is good ~ but the feds are just the beginning. They take from the states and then allocate monies back, and it is all from essentially the same pot.

Just do the math: If a low income worker makes minimum wage, and pays 15% of their income to the feds, and then another 19% to the state, they cannot make enough to feed their families and this is true across the board. In this economy it is only going to get worse and the anger even deeper when those middle income people who've been laid off take these low paying jobs out of desperation and have a horrible awakening about what the poor have been talking about forever. Even worse, this fate of few opportunities and life long poverty will be what they face because as the poor they are joining, their jobs are gone and they have few other places to turn.

The poor pay more of their incomes in taxes and they sacrifice more than any other class for the good of all. Period.

Cat In Seattle

[mainer]

306. The facts? The poor pay 19% of their income in state taxes?

Your quote:

"Just do the math: If a low income worker makes minimum wage, and pays 15% of their income to the feds, and then another 19% to the state, they cannot make enough to feed their families and this is true across the board."

In which state do the poor pay 19% in taxes to the state?

I don't argue that the poor have shouldered far too much in the way of taxes. But you are claiming that minimum wage workers pay 19% to the state PLUS 15% to the feds, adding up to 34% of their income.

Yet the chart you posted above, showing taxation rates, shows that in the state of Maine, the lowest income group pays MAX 9.5% to the state.

Again, it would as a starting point if we could be both consistent and accurate with the facts.

[mntleo2]

316. Check my state (WA)

...while the average in my state for the poor is 17%, the poorest of the poor pay higher. The estimate for my state for the poorest is 19% ~ this was also quoted to me by Ron Simms, who is now working for the Obama Administration in Urban Housing, but at the time of the quote, he was the executive president of our King County Council.

Also according to Robert McIntre, who did this study, while other states than mine are lower, there are many "hidden" taxes that burden the poor he could not include because they fluxuate and are different for all 50 states, again it was about the median averages.

One of the issues here is regressive taxation, which is added every year by our Congress nationally as well as locally. Seldom do they end, they are just added. In my state, taxation for the poor is the highest in the nation, but the point here is that in all states the poor pay the highest taxes off their already meager wages, leaving them paltry amounts to live upon.

If you REALLY want to get mad, go to the site where it shows the stats for state corporate taxes. In my state, where Boeing, Fluke, and other mega-companies like Microsoft reside, some of our biggest corporations paid nothing while recieving billions back from the feds. http://www.ctj.org/html/corp0205.htm. While this information is a little more than 5 years old, Dr McIntyre's take about it is that according to the stats the Institute is working on now, it has only gotten much worse.

Here is the home page for this research site, which will give you more research information: http://www.ctj.org/itep/

Hope this helps ...

Cat In Seattle

[JHB]

193. If Reagan/Bush era policies have shown us anything...

...it's that real trickle down works the opposite of what their theory was:

More money to the wealthy is like water to a sponge: it just grows into a bigger sponge. If you want the water to trickle down, you have to squeeze it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

53. If that money were spent on teachers, police officers and street sweepers...

... it's a wash.

The economy-suppressing effects of higher taxes are both proven false, and ignore the value of directing spending to areas of the economy which provide most benefit.

In other words, I'd rather know that the money is being spent on employing firefighters than hoping that it is spent on travel agents.

[vadawg]

72. yup but the point is that its not a zero sum game, when you take money from one pot

then its going to have an effect on other pots either negatively or positively, my contention is that some people keep saying that increased taxes wont be noticed by higher earners and im saying that you dont know how tight their budgets are and at what level does it cause the taxpayer to simply leave the area or become less productive...

[lumberjack_jeff]

83. On the other hand, we do know how tight the budget for the out of work policeman is. n/t

[vadawg]

87. as a policeman who moved to another jurisdiction due to now paying lower taxes

and a lower cost of living i can attest to the human nature of deciding that its time to move...

[EOTE]

92. You should totally look into Colorado Springs.

I've heard they're doing amazing things since greatly slashing taxes.

[vadawg]

94. nope happy to live were i live (VA) and get paid what i get paid

gotta love VA cheap to live in and NOVA pays real well as well... as i said im happy to pay taxes i just dont want to be taxed out of existance...

[EOTE]

96. No one would be taxed out of existance in even the most radically progressive tax plans.

That's the great thing about progressive taxation. Say a new rate is created for the income of 250k to 500k at 37%. A person who was previously taxed at 32% will now only be taxed that additional 5% on income made over the 250k line. So if he/she were making 300k per year, they'd only be taxed an additional $2500 (which is less than 1% of their total income). If an additional tax rate were created above the 500k mark, the same thing would apply. This is how progressive taxation works and it's absolutely clear that in order to save this country, we need a return to that. Nobody is suggesting taxing anyone out of existence.

[dotymed]

127. LOL

:rofl: 3-4 vacations a year? Poor you!! I haven't had one in 10 years!!!

[Hassin Bin Sober]

151. And he's a cop sucking on the taxpayer tit - bitching about taxes.

Maybe Jon Gault can go be a cop in Somalia.

[vadawg]

177. no hes a cop whos well compensated for doing his job, who pays taxes

but who dosent think that taxing people to the point it hurts helps, big difference from what you wrote i think...

[vadawg]

186. its down to what you spend you working life for, i work so i can go on vacations

if i didnt take the vacations then i might not want to work, for some people work is their hobby, others its to feed themselves, others to save, everyone has different reasons for what they do..

[truedelphi]

168. So you are saying exactly what?????????

People who are well off and use that argument seemingly do not realize that this is one of the few industrialized nations in the world whose tax code is regressive.

When those who can afford two and three vacations a year start saying that they are thus helping our economy, just who do they think is enabling them to have that lower tax rate?

Why, it is the less affluent who are being taxed more heavily.

My last year as a single mom I made 22K, and I had no discretionary income. My tax burden was at least 15%. And as I lived in an area where to this day most people cannot afford a home, so I had no mortgage deductions, and also as an indie contractor I owed 15% for Social Security I will probably never see.

I had absolutely no discretionary income. None, nada. Couldn't take even a trip to some afternnoon pleasure park.

In most other nations, people making less than 35K are not even taxed. Period.

But in this great land of ours, the lower middle incomed pay through the nose. While the richer people seem to think that their several vacations a year are an absolute necessity. Too bad if someone else foregoes eating the last couple days of the month (An activity that also bolsters the economy!)

[Zhade]

188. "but I wanna go on vacations 4 times a year" WAAAAAH!!! So spoiled.

Do you even know how good you have it?

I have a BS and work in satellite broadcasting, and thanks to SELFISH ASSHOLES who don't want to pay their fair share, my friends/roommates are un- and underemployed. We're hoping we don't get turned down for food stamps because we can barely afford to eat and pay bills. I'm responsible for five people's welfare on 50k in Los Angeles (I pay child support, for which btw I get nada tax-wise), and you're whining because you're worried you might have to take one vacation less by paying more in taxes to help the community that helped you become successful?

Are you kidding me?

Do you realize how utterly self-centered and myopic your statement makes you sound?

Attitudes like yours are repugnant. I can't believe you can kvetch like Veruca Salt on a forum where people post how much they're hurting on the daily.

Have you no shame?

[vadawg]

191. okay so what is my fair share, should all the money i make after i but food be taken away from me

thats the whole point how much do you want to have to work extra for nothing in order for someone else to get the money your making in those extra hours. im interested in what you would deem an acceptable tax rate for people to pay once their basic needs are met.

[wolfgangmo]

266. Ok, your fair share is nothing.

I think there should be a special tax code just for you so that every dollar you make is taken in taxes and given to random stock brokers on Wall Street. Bwahahahahaha. Does that make you feel better?

For the rest of us there should be progressive taxes so that those who benefit the most from our country also contribute the most. And those who get into temporary problems don't lose their families home and savings. I want every kid in the country to have the same opportunity to get a good education and chance at bettering their lives without taking on so much debt that they never crawl out. I want the idle rich to have an incentive to stop being idle and actually start contributing.

You talk a lot about what you don't want and what you don't believe in.

So why don't you take a moment and tell us what you do believe in or support.

[fasttense]

199. Vacation 3 to 4 times a year????

I'd be lucky to get a vacation once every 10 years. You're rich and you know it. But spending on vacations will not support an entire economy.

It's just another form of trickle down (your's leg most likely) economics.

Don't tax the rich, or they will stop going on numerous vacations. What a load. A country can NOT survive on service industry alone, despite what the uber wealthy "free" marketeers want to tell you.

[pattmarty]

201. Only 3 or 4 times a year? Quit fucking whining. There are literally............

.........10's of million people that have never taken a "vacation". But, you probably didn't know about that or read it in the fucking Wall st Journal.

[ctaylors6]

93. I'd be curious to see how raising taxes in the $200-$500k range affects spending

I agree with you that people typically spend to their level of income (as opposed to saving). I think that must stop at some point of income that's around the $200k-$400k range (of course that would depend on area/cost of living). If they're spending to their income level, then a tax increase would result in less spending rather than less saving. I certainly don't think this is an argument against a tax increase on the wealthy, but if there's an income level in that range at which spending is not as greatly affected, I would be in favor of using that income level instead of $250k. Maybe it would make sense to make an even higher tax bracket for a very high amount of income, e.g., $500k or $1million or even higher, taxed at something like 40-45%, and increase taxes on the $200k-$400k not as much.

[dotymed]

128. Absolutely

It is supposed to be a graduated income tax. It was before Reagan. Upper Tax bracket about 90%.

[L0oniX]

10. IMO $100,000 a year per house hold is rich anywhere in Florida.

Most average people here are lucky to make 20k a year.

[Froward69]

11. When I was Young

I wanted Wealth. I only dated Girls from the suburbs. I went to University and found a profession I could make as much as I could.

Now that I am older and have seen the pratfalls of wealth and how miserable people can get regardless of how much cash they have...

I am following my Grandmas Advice... "if you have Family, a roof over their heads, and fruit in the fridge... YOU ARE wealthy.
Money is merely the grease on the wheel of life."

and Now I am Happy.

[FormerDittoHead]

13. But they work so HARD! They make so much because they do so much MORE!

THOSE POOR PEOPLE!!!

:sarcasm: for the whole thing.

PS: they DO work hard but the implication there is that the rewards are proportionate to the work involved or even the benefit made. Bullshit on that.

[newtothegame]

15. Let's just spend our current tax revenue more wisely.

There is NO REASON AT ALL that a country of 350m taxpayers should need people giving 30% of their earnings back to the government.

[Rebubula]

48. Best post

Nothing to add...

[lumberjack_jeff]

61. Care to provide evidence?

The government spends roughly 20%-21% of gdp. Even if 100% of gdp were paid to taxpayers as earnings, in no event would budget neutral taxation be less than that.

We're about 87th out of 180 countries in that regard.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/gov_gen_gov_fin_con_exp_cur_us_pergdp-expenditure-current-us-per-gdp

[Statistical]

70. However over last decade spending has risen at much faster rate than inflation

Also spending has risen faster than federal revenue.

[lumberjack_jeff]

76. No, only the last 3 years.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usgs_line.php?title=Total%20Spending&year=1950_2010&sname=US&units=p&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&col=c&spending0=15.25_14.42_19.97_21.09_20.42_17.71_17.37_17.74_18.42_18.46_18.48_19.25_18.24_18.02_17.86_16.44_17.08_18.91_19.58_18.66_18.84_18.65_18.63_17.78_17.96_20.29_20.37_20.16_19.99_19.66_21.18_21.68_22.91_22.86_21.67_22.44_22.19_21.19_20.87_20.86_21.60_22.09_21.80_21.17_20.67_20.44_19.96_19.28_19.04_18.20_18.35_18.52_18.90_19.39_19.76_19.56_20.28_19.90_20.65_24.71_25.44&legend=

That spike is almost entirely bank bailouts.

[Statistical]

84. Except that trend is projected to continue for some time.

Also the revenue line has not kept pacing with spending line which is a 1 2 punch.

Spending is expected to be historically high in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013. Even 2014-2019 spending will grow at faster than expected rate of inflation.

[JackintheGreen]

16. I'm still troubled by this

I married into a family where my father-in-law, at one point, made well over this amount. I remember looking over his taxes 4+ years ago (he's now been unemployed for nearly 3) and he paid more in taxes than my wife and I earned combined. His family was "comfortable": nice split-level in a nice neighborhood with two nice cars and a fair number of extras. I didn't care for any of it, taste-wise, but it was there.

Still, with (at one point) two kids in college, he made too much for financial aid and after a couple of years there wasn't much extra. Still, he and his were comfortable. More than enough to live well on. I would never have called him rich. Maybe if he didn't have 4 kids. Maybe if his wife didn't spend money on dumb shit like it was going out of style.

Still and all, he would have been all for a tax hike.

So maybe this is all moot.

[Statistical]

18. The thing that is unfair about tax code is it doesn't adjust to varied standards of living.

For example: a couple (filing jointly) making $100,000 in Norfolk, VA has the equivalent lifestyle as a couple in NYC making $267,000.

Likely nothing we can do about it (not that wouldn't be massively complex) but the federal tax code discriminates against those who live in higher cost of living areas.

$250,000 in Virginia is pretty damn rich, $250,000 in NYC not so much.

Maybe a system where people who live in a city that has a cost of living some % higher than median (NYC is 47% higher than median) would get a tax credit to compensate.

[Romulox]

20. That's because it isn't for people in Virginia, e.g., to subsidize people in NYC...

I don't see any "fairness" issue here that should be addressed in the tax code--you choose to live in NYC, it costs more. You don't deserve a tax break therefore.

[Statistical]

30. Except states like NY as a result pay MORE in taxes than they receive in benefits

and states like VA for example RECEIVE more benefits from federal govt then they pay in taxes.

Also remember I live in VA so any change you hurt not help me.

$100K isn't the same level of prosperity all over the country.

[Romulox]

31. OK, but there is really no correlation between the two issues.

Michigan is a net tax donor, and yet is a "low income" state relative to NY. You'll find that most of the "blue" states are net tax donors. That doesn't mean that they are mostly wealthy. Not how it works.

"$100K isn't the same level of prosperity all over the country."

And? Is this a "wrong" that the government is meant to correct? I repeat: if you live in a high cost part of the country, the natural consequence is that it will cost ya. :shrug:

edit: It's worth noting that the mortgage interest deduction actually does amount to a subsidy to these high cost parts of the country, and one which (perhaps unwittingly) helped inflate the real estate bubble in these places to begin with. As the saying goes: "subsidies assure you will get more of the behavior subsidized."

[Statistical]

37. Actually Michigan IS a "rich state".

Not to the same extent as NY but median income is 14% higher than national average.

Median income is the greatest contributing factor to likelihood that a state will pay net taxes.

Michigan for example has higher median income than VA (thus pays more per capita in taxes) however adjusted by Cost of Living Michigan has a lower standard of living. So VA has the higher standard of living, pays less in taxes, and receives a net inflow of federal money (federal benefits - federal taxes paid).

Then again if you have no problem with Michigan citizens paying more in income taxes despite having a lower standard of living than Virginian citizens well who am I to argue?

The goal of tax code is not to be arbitrary but rather to be progressive so the burden of taxation is lifting by those who can most handle it.

SINCE YOU ARE VERY HARD OF HEARING:
Kinda works out great for me having above average income in a state with below average median income. So any hypothetical change I am proposing wouldn't be for my benefit. If anything it would hurt both my personal income taxes and my state's relative ranking.

[Romulox]

41. The phrase "relative to NY" was crucial to my post. I notice you missed it.

Michigan's epicenter, Detroit, is the poorest city in the nation, by the by, so your "14% higher" figure shouldn't be taken out of context.

"Then again you go no problem with Michigan citizens paying more in income taxes than Virginian citizens well who am I to argue."

I haven't the foggiest what the basis of this assertion is. :wtf:

"The goal of tax code is not to be arbitrary but rather to be progressive so the burden of taxation is lifting by those who can most handle it."

OK, but it's a huge stretch to go from your premise to the idea that it is the job of the Federal government to "even things out" so that people living in wealthy parts of the country should always enjoy the same relative purchasing power as those in low income parts of the country.

Because if the government works the way you describe, I wanna know: when will Uncle Same be building me a MET, a subway, Broadway, Wall Street, etc here in Detroit? Oh wait, they won't be, because the underlying premise is faulty--namely, that the government actively works to "even out" and "make fair" living conditions throughout the country.

"SINCE YOU ARE VERY HARD OF HEARING:"

Did it occur to you that I don't find the issue of your personal motivations interesting? I haven't offered my personal motivations as any kind of rejoinder... :hi:

[lumberjack_jeff]

54. That's because the income is concentrated.

Come up with an idea that distributes the income more fairly, and I'm listening.

[JVS]

51. AMEN! Preach it!

[lumberjack_jeff]

50. And it shouldn't.

There is no good reason - none - that someone who chooses to live in South Dakota despite lower income should subsidize a tax break for someone who chooses to live in NYC because of the higher incomes.

[Statistical]

59. Wealth & Prosperity is subject to cost of living.

If we inflated the money supply so much that we had 1000% inflation then average income in the US would be $400,000 however nobody would be any "richer" than they are now.

So the only measure of true prosperity is that of equivalent purchasing power.

Someone who makes $100K in Souix Falls, SD has the EXACT SAME purchasing power as someone who makes $232K in NYC, NY. Depsite someone in NYC making more "raw income" they have no a penny more purchasing power than the person in Souix Falls.

The person in NYC doesn't get a tax break and the person in SD isn't subsidizing anything. Actually the reverse is true. The person in NYC will pay a HIGHER % of income to taxation despite having the EXACT SAME STANDARD OF LIVING as the person in SD.

This isn't a complex problem. We use purchasing power metric when evaluating prosperity in other countries all the time. Prosperity is a measure of purchasing power not raw dollars. If we could make everyone wealthy by simply increasing the raw dollars we could just cause runaway inflation and raise incomes 10x. However Purchasing Power would decline by the exact same 10x so despite having an extra 0 in your paycheck the cost of everything would have an extra 0 at the end of it.

http://www.cityrating.com/costofliving.asp

[lumberjack_jeff]

62. That's right. It's not a complex problem. In fact, it's not a problem at all.

If the relative prosperity of a realtor in NYC is inadequate, he will move to South Dakota where, apparently, the living is easy.

I am not going to support anything that further shifts income from those earning little to those who earn much, and establishing a punitive tax rate for the SD taxpayer to finance a break for the NYC taxpayer does exactly that.

Here's a better idea. How about we tax net worth? Your $200,000 equity in your $2m condo compares favorably to the SD mechanic with $18,000 equity in his $60,000 house. I'm fine with that.

[Statistical]

64. By that logic if a UAW worker can't afford standard of living in Michigan he can move to Mexico.

Also I don't live in NY.
I live in VA which has one of the lowest cost of livings thus I am taxed at a much lower rate of my purchasing power.

You still don't get it despite a larger NUMBER on the paycheck the person making $234K in NYC has no greater purchaing power = prosperity than someone in SD making $100K

Income is arbitrary. With 1000% inflation we can all be millionaires. Of course milk will cost $28.90 a gallon, and average home will cost $2.8 million but we will ALL BE RICH!

Yeah runaway inflation. Just making the income higher solves all problems.

[lumberjack_jeff]

71. Uh, I understand the concept of standard of living.

What you don't seem to understand is the concept of a U-haul truck.

And the Mexico analogy might be relevant if;
a) he could
b) both countries had the same tax system

Income isn't arbitrary. A person weighs income opportunities relative to the costs. If the ratio is wrong, he won't take it. This country has one federal taxation model because we are each able to choose the home which makes the most sense, including financial.

[Statistical]

74. Generally speaking poorer people have less oppertunity to move

Moving is expensive, also requires savings to bridge unemployment gap.
Given an unfair burden rich are more likely to escape it by moving than the poor are.

Here is another way of looking at it.
You favor raising taxes on someone making $250K in NYC. So do I. The question is would you favor raising taxes on someone in SD making an EQUIVALENT amount of money ($103K)?

If you are then you understand the concept of purchasing power parity.
If you don't or it somehow seems "unfair" then you are still stuck on the dollars not wealth/prosperity.

If you are in the second camp then the fed is going to love people like you. When inflation takes hold in this country you wages/income in pure dollars will likely rise, it might even rise 20% however you won't be any richer (you likely will be poorer). Then again the number on your check will be bigger (like a check in NYC) and that is all that matters. Sometimes ignorance is bliss.

[lumberjack_jeff]

88. Who's point are you trying to make?

Of course poorer people have less opportunity to move. U-haul trucks cost $40 per day, whether you make NYC $250k or SD $25k.

How does giving the NYC income earner a tax break change that math?

I don't see a single problem which comes from decentralizing incomes.

My lack of support for disproportionately taxing people in low income areas is not the result of not knowing the issues. I know, but I simply don't care. If you choose to live in the high rent district, power to you. Your choices are yours alone. I don't see any compelling reason to subsidize the flight of people to the urban centers.

Hyperinflation is a non sequitur. It has nothing to do with the conversation. Bringing it up does not successfully obfuscate the actual issue.

[JustAnotherGen]

130. You tried

I've read several of your posts on this thread. It's a complex concept to explain without spreadsheets. . . Several years ago I had a great spreadsheet showing what would happen if Alabama or Mississippi actually had to carry their own weight on the tax burden. Or - let's see if VA actually had to take OWNERSHIP for D.C.

In the meantime - MI has bled jobs left and right - and they are still one of the larger/high contributors to the Federal Pot. *sigh*

I would pay the 2% more in taxes - GLADLY do so - as long as it's for Health Care. Me? Allllllll those 10's of thousands of dollars I make more than the median? After NJ and Fed taxes, my rent, gas, heat, electric, etc. etc. - I have to make sure my mother can purchase her blood pressure medication and that I can supplement my fathers Medi and VA benes. I will sacrifice getting married and having a family of my own (unless I marry someone who is rich and generous) because the reality is -

I can't afford to help my parents: Who worked hard and busted their asses all of their lives - including my father's service in Vietnam (read exposure to agent orange and all that this implies) AND live high on the hog.

150K when your country throws the last, the least, and the lost under the bus is not enough - if you have close family members who are slowly spiraling into that despair. And you live in a state with a high cost of living.

So let them raise my taxes. But you better give me relief in my parents health care expenses. And you better shift some of the burden to AL, and MS. I.E. Someone single making 75K in Alabama without children and single needs to be get hosed over as I am.

[Statistical]

149. Yeah it is a complex issue and likely one not suited to internet forums.

Funny (sad) thing is that unless people understand PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) they will never truly understand wealth/prosperity.

People see an Indian IT worker making $25K (50% or less per year compared to US) and think they are working for a "slave wage".

However due to PPP an IT worker in India actually has a very good standard of living. India has a PPP of 0.17 (goods and services on average only cost 17% that of in the US) so the equivalent purchasing power of $25K in India is $147K in the United States.

Making $25K in India or $147K in the United States is immaterial. Since goods & services in India on average cost 17% of that in US you could have the same lifestyle in either location with those two salaries. On the other hand between the choice of $100K in the US and $25K in India you actually would be "poorer" taking the $100K job in the US.


Anyways I tried and failed. I think this medium is not well suited for trying to get across a complex point. People in low PPP states are more than happy to raise taxes on those making $250K+ in high tax states however if they were asked to have taxes raised on people making say only $120K in their state (to compensate for PPP) they would find it unfair when in reality it is exactly the same. Raising taxes on someone in NYC making $250K and raising taxes on someone making $120K in Alabama are equivalent in terms of reduction of PURCHASING POWER.

One easy fix to this would be to add another tax bracket. Our income tax system makes out at $384K in income. So the $385K or $38,000,000,000 in income are treated the same. Given the rise in ultra wealthy income ($10,000,0000+) it only makes sense to add a new higher brackets. Say 48% of income above $1,000,000 and 61% of income above $10,000,000.

[JoeyT]

163. There are other problems with that argument as well.

Of course cost of living doesn't reflect the cost of everything. It doesn't even reflect most of the major purchases.
Since you use Alabama and NYC as examples:
According to the best numbers I could find, making $100k in Mobile, Alabama is equal to $231,017.84 in New York City.
I was pricing vehicles in Mobile just this morning. A brand new F150 costs $30,000 here. Does it cost almost $70,000 in NY?
If someone from Alabama and someone from NY both order a $10000 dollar TV from Amazon, does the person in Alabama pay $10,000 while the person in NYC pays $23,100?
If either answer is no, you're asking people in low income areas to subsidize people in high income areas.

[Statistical]

192. You don't understand how PPP works.

While someone in NY might get a vehicle or TV at close to the same price it is all the daily costs which add up to produce higher cost of living.

i.e. going to movies in Alabama might cost $7 and it cost $16 in NYC. Going out to Dinner might cost $30 in AL but $70 in NYC. Groceries for family of 4 might be $200 per week in AL but $700 in NYC. Rent and utilities are another large source of expenses.
Electricity in AL is $0.10 per kWh and it is $0.19 for NY. NYC is actually higher than the state at $0.232 per kWh.

So when PPP indicates one location costs 2x another location it doesn't mean that every single item is EXACTLY 2x.
Some items will be less and some items will be more however the average on a basket of goods is 2x. PPP is calculated by comparing hundreds of items to get equivalent lifestyle.

If you think AL or VA or SD if subsidizing the taxes of NY then you are crazy. Even if NY and CA and MI (and other high cost states) were given a 25% reduction in taxes THEY (not the low tax states) WOULD STILL be subsidizing AL, VA, NC, SD, etc.

[JoeyT]

228. I understand that that's how it's supposed to work.

But what makes a huge difference is the amount of choice in the larger area.
Going to dinner at a comparable place is about the same price. There just aren't any $400+ dollar a plate places in Mobile.

I do see what you're saying, but I still find the number to be a little suspicious when virtually all the high price things are the same, (With the exception of rent/utilities.) most of the medium costs are approximately the same, and luxuries seem to have the largest difference.

Another issue with it is the houses/land that are factored into it aren't lost money. The property can be resold at or above what it was purchased for. As far as I know this is a huge part of the PPP. (And I have the feeling I'm not saying what I'm getting at very concisely either.)

[Statistical]

243. True principle payments on property isn't lost however

higher property value = higher real estate taxes, higher insurance costs, higher interest paymanets and those are "lost" costs.

Even worse in higher property locations ownership rate actually declines. Compared the nation in places like NYC very few people own their residence and thus entire rent becomes an expense and not a partial investment.

Likely cost of living is simply an intangible that prevents the tax system from being truly fair. Also based on the responses in this forum it would be politically impossible to provide relief to the "rich" people in these high cost cities. It is just something to think about.

However given the L shaped curve of wealth and income in this country fighting over if $250K is rich or $100 is rich is silly. Rather than raise taxes 3% on people making $250K you could raise the same amount of money raising taxed 15% on people making $2,000,000.

[vadawg]

183. interesting, but im intrigued why VA would take ownership of DC, surely MD would make more sense..

[Hannah Bell]

174. $234 in nyc = $100 in sd? maybe in real estate, but not in e.g. food, clothing, etc.

however, since median household income in nyc is $38K, i suspect there's something wrong with your calculus.

that would mean that $38K = $15K in south dakota - but median household income in sd = $43K.

people making $250K in nyc are still in the top brackets, even in nyc. somehow the 1/2 of households making <$38K manage to survive there.

[Statistical]

200. Median income doesn't have anything to do with purchasing power.

Your point illustrates exactly that since NYC has a PPP that is 2.34x that of SD someone making $43K is SD has a substantially higher level of prosperity than someone making $38K in NYC.

Dollars and sense in an abstract is totally meaningless. The PURCHASING POWER of those dollars in sense is what determines prosperity.

We could cut all wages in the US by 90% and if the cost of all goods and services went down by 99% every American would have subsntantially higher level of prosperity despite making on average $4,000 per year.

[Hannah Bell]

273. median income has nothing to do with purchasing power? au contraire.

does a gallon of milk cost $7 in nyc? i don't believe it. where do you get this 2.34?

[Raineyb]

111. The problem with your argument is that most people don't really choose where they live.

Most people don't move too far from the places where they were born. If people are born in expensive cities and their family is there the odds are they'll live in those cities as well. It's more than unreasonable to expect people to move ot places like North Dakota because it's cheaper when their support systems are in NYC.

Arguing "choice" in an area where most people don't choose makes for a poor argument.

[hfojvt]

58. it does if you itemize deductions

Higher mortgage interest is deductible
Higher state and city taxes are deductible
Higher sales taxes from more expensive stuff (if prices are higher in New York City for the same item) are deductible

Not gonna help if you are renting, but some higher living expenses are deductible and there's probably a lower percentage of higher income people who rent.

[Raineyb]

112. You can't deduct both sales tax and state taxes. You have to pick one or the other

And New York has a state income tax.

[hfojvt]

117. most states have a state income tax

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/228.html

but you are right about only one being deductible. I never itemize, so I missed that.

[wolfgangmo]

269. Something like that could be handled on the state level.

[Hello_Kitty]

22. The tax increase for people making slightly $250K would be so miniscule they'd barely notice it. eom

[Statistical]

34. Thats is another good point.

However I am not sure where this "magic" $250K comes from.

There is no income tax bracket that begins at $250K

Single (Taxable Income)
$0 - 8,375 10%
8,375 - 34,000 15%
34,000 - 82,400 25%
82,400 - 171,850 28%
171,850 - 373,650 33%
373,650+ 35%

[vadawg]

39. good point, never realised that, mayby its just a number the campaign came up with..

[Statistical]

40. I hope they don't make it even more complex.

Simply raise the Bush tax cuts expire on two highest income tax brackets.

33% -> 35% ($171,850+)
35% -> 39.6% ($373,650+)

[vadawg]

44. probuably the best way to do it, as an individual i hate having to pay more taxes but its part of li

life i guess.

[Hannah Bell]

86. +100. i fear there's some jiggerty-pokerty involved in the $250k plan.

[FLDCVADem]

118. Then the President breaks his promise

My guess is that that 4 "untouched" brackets (10%, 15%, 25%, 28%) are expanded out so that the next bracket up will start at $250,000 for couples, $200,000 for singles. Of course, that would reduce revenue, so who knows.

[taught_me_patience]

25. $250k is NOT "rich" in Los Angeles

Cost of living is expensive here.

[Romulox]

28. Well, those making $250k living in LA may have to get the next Lexus down this time.

:shrug:

[MilesColtrane]

38. Works out to be just over 163k where I live.

Seems rich to me.

Cost of Living Comparison Calculator

http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/savings/moving-cost-of-living-calculator.aspx

[Statistical]

42. However if you were making $163K you WOULDN'T be subject to higher taxes.

$250K in LA = same standard of living = $163K in your area.

However a person in LA is already paying more taxes than someone making $163K in your area.
With tax raise they will be paying EVEN MORE.

Despite when adjusted for cost of living both people have same level of prosperity.

It is likely to complex to resolve but it is something to think about.

[taught_me_patience]

60. Excellent post. Thanks.

[MilesColtrane]

75. Their choice to live in a highly desirable city and/or neighborhood.

[progressoid]

219. $87,000 more in taxes? Bullshit.

No matter how you slice it, 250K is still a better income than most Americans make.

[hfojvt]

63. works out to $163,000 compared to Lawrence, Kansas as well

However I do not know where they get their numbers. They show home price in Lawrence as 270,899. That may be the median price, but I doubt it. I think many houses are purchased in Lawrence for under $100,000. When I got the paper last year they listed real estate listings and I remember seeing lower priced housing being purchased.

It's kinda funny though because I know an upper management guy here who makes about $80,000. He complains that he is scraping by because he still has his old house payment and he is paying $800 a month to rent a place 15 miles from where he works. Silly, because he could easily find a house in this town for less than $70,000 and his payments would be less than $800 a month. Perhaps his apartment is nicer than any $70,000 house, but it still seems like he is wasting his money and then kinda complaining that he is barely getting by. Probably most people making $150,000 would scoff at the idea of living in one of those $80,000 'dumps'.

[taught_me_patience]

98. These "cost of living" calculators are misleading

because it looks at things like "median" housing prices. Well, the median is skewed in Los Angeles because many (including myself) choose to live in a condo, because a home is too expensive. This significantly lowers the median price of housing. When comparing on an apples to apples comparison, the cost of housing is much different. Suppose the average price of a home in a nice neighborhood in Lawrence is 300k, and the price of a nice condo in Long Beach is 350k, the cost of living wouldn't be much different. However, the price of a comparable home in Long Beach is 1.2MM, or 4x Lawrence. Living in a condo does not make one feel "rich".

[DCBob]

43. OMG. 250,000 is plenty anywhere on this planet...

Buy a smaller house in a less expensive neighborhood.. jeez.

[havocmom]

55. Anyone who believes that needs to learn the dif between need & want

Lots of people WANT a lot more than they need and think they are not rich if they can't buy everything their hearts desire.

Needs are basic. Too many people are not able to meet basic needs. Society NEEDS to assist. Sorry, but 250K is plenty and those in that bracket can sure as hell afford a bit more in taxes.

[redqueen]

56. Very well said. (nt)

[Pithlet]

57. Yeah, there's an income level where that talking point just doesn't wash anymore.

And I'd say that 250,000 falls in that realm. If you can't make it comfortably on 250,000, something is seriously wrong.

[Ignis]

95. Having lived poor in LA, I'm forced to agree.

$250k isn't chump change in any city in the country.

[Posteritatis]

102. $250K isn't chump change in any city on the *planet*. (nt)

[Ignis]

114. Point taken. (nt)

[JVS]

125. But I want to live in Monaco! Give me a break!

;-)

[NC_Nurse]

106. The crux of the problem. Being grateful for the basics is not on a lot of folks

minds anymore. There are so many places in the world that you can work your ass off and still go hungry and live in filth without clean water or shelter...

But it's a real injustice if you have to pay a little more so that someone else could see a doctor or have the hope of a job and a roof over their head. WTF?

[JVS]

124. Seriously.

[vadawg]

189. great point, but even the need thing is arbitrary, you may not need 10 acres of land

but someone who feeds their family and community will, im pretty sure that what you need at a rudimentary level is different than what i would need as i would be different from someone else..

[havocmom]

237. We need food, water, shelter, basic clothing, education,

Arbitrary beyond that is really wants, not needs.

I WANT 10 acres of irrigated land so I can raise food. That would raise more than I NEED but I WANT to be able to give food to others.

I need a bit of food, and that takes a little income. The 10 acres is not needed in this nation, if we have enough economic justice to allow that everyone is able to afford food, water, shelter, education, basic clothing. In nations that do not have infrastructure to get foods to all the people, that 10 acres may be a need as people live on what they, themselves, can produce.

And nobody needs vacations. People need time to rest and relax. But doing it via any sort of trips is a WANT.

[lukasahero]

68. Oh knock it off

Cost of living is equivalent in Boston, MA and $250k is still a healthy freakin' amt of money to live on. I speak from (past) experience and fully support eliminating the tax cuts for those making +250k.

[lumberjack_jeff]

78. Then move. n/t

[NC_Nurse]

100. You're welcome.

:-)

On edit. I meant to respond to your other post thanking me for the OP. I don't know how I managed to respond here instead. :crazy:

[Forkboy]

99. LOL

[jgraz]

101. Neither is it in the Bay Area

But at $250k, you have more than enough disposable income to adjust to a tax hike. And remember, it kicks in *above* $250k. Your first quarter-mil is still taxed at the current rate.

Now, what really should have happened is for taxes below, say, $100k to drop substantially and taxes on millionaires and billionaires to rise back to pre-Kennedy levels.

[anonymous171]

143. Then move. Try some Personal responsibility. nt

[TomCADem]

159. Sorry, No Reason You Can't Live Comfortably On Less Than $250K In Los Angeles

Many people do. I do. If you are making $250K or over in Los Angeles. You are pretty well off.

[taught_me_patience]

164. Pretty well off does not equal rich

thanks for agreeing with my post.

[Luminous Animal]

227. I know a single father school teacher in LA who would beg to differ.

[Wednesdays]

249. The median income in L.A. is $250,000? Who knew?

:shrug:

[Uncle Joe]

46. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, NC_Nurse.

[lumberjack_jeff]

47. Exactly right. It's all about the math.

"middle class" is a state of mind. Don't make tax policy around feelings.

"Middle income" on the other hand, is math. The middle 60% of earners are between $18,500 and $88,030 in annual income. 20% earn more, 20% earn less.

If you make $250,000 annually, you make more than 98.5% of other taxpayers. You're high income, and I really don't care where you choose to live.

[NYC_SKP]

69. Yep. nt. Rec.

[Naturyl]

73. Huge K&R

Yep, $250k = rich, period. The classic excuse is "cost of living is high where I live, so I'm not rich." Baloney - if you weren't rich, you couldn't live there to begin with.

"My bills are high!" Yeah, that's because you're mortgage is 3k a month, and that's because YOU ARE RICH.

[Orsino]

79. This was never about $250,000.

People earning a quarter-million dollars aren't allowed anywhere near the real opponents of progressive taxation, who will nonetheless try to frame this as having something to do with the middle class.

[redqueen]

263. The sad thing is how many in the middle class will take sides with those

who are doing their level best to destroy that same middle class.

[krispos42]

80. Not to mention that the extremely wealthy can stop paying taxes any time they want to

Simply retire early.


As a working-class stiff, I don't have that option. But any professional sports player, any entertainment star, any high-paid lobbyist or executive... if you don't want to pay X percentage of your income to the evil, evil, gubmint.... stop making income. Or take a pay cut to a "mere" $249,999 a year.


Rush Limbaugh, A-Rod, Mel Gibson... they and people like them have so much money that they've already paid taxes on that they can retire, Roger Ailes, now, draw a couple of million bucks a year from their savings to live on... and die well before their fortunes are exhausted.

Oh, they may have to "downgrade" to a 4,000 square foot home in an exclusive, affluent suburb instead of an estate. My heart bleeds...

[Robb]

103. As someone who earns more than $250K I have to object

...OK, I don't really. But I did make you look, so somewhere in your heart of hearts you think I could make that kind of money somehow, doing something. You and my mom. :D

[NC_Nurse]

107. LOL. Yay for Moms everywhere!

[lumberjack_jeff]

120. Dingbattiness doesn't pay as well as it ought to?

:hi:

[Blue_Tires]

105. major kick

[annabanana]

108. but but but. . This will make people who only make $245K a year

LAZY! It will take away their incentive to get out there and be productive. .

[FLDCVADem]

287. It won't make me lazy, I'll still shoot for the higher pay

but it will go into a 401(k) to keep us under the threshold.

[Fire1]

116. Absolutely. K&R

[guardian]

119. I notice the threshold always mentioned (i.e., $250K)

is always higher than Congressional pay...thus excluding them from the tax hikes. Verrrrrry convennnnnnient. Even better is the automatic pay hikes for Congress. Wish I could count on a guaranteed pay hike every year.

[Wednesdays]

244. Well, then there goes the argument about how "rich" congresscritters are

:shrug:

So, if taxing $250k earners is "taxing the middle class," then that's what congress people are: middle class. If you consider congresspeople to be "rich," then proposing a tax hike on $250k would be an increase on the rich, and not the middle class.

You can't have your argument both ways.

[jtrockville]

122. Everyone should pay their fair share.

Even folks making more than $250k. I'm all for it.

[FLDCVADem]

126. We live in NOVA

We're fortunate, we both have good jobs and we each have a military retirement, so in AGI, we're within several thousand of the $250,000 mark. At that point, we'll just up our 401(k) contributions to stay under the threshold. We're definitely paying our share now, and I personally have no desire to be earning 60 cents on the dollar (33% marginal rate + state income tax rate).

[dorktv]

129. I made about 110K last year-and paid $21K in income taxes.

I would never consider myself rich-well off definitely but rich? However I can and am totally willing to pay more in taxes (I usually have more than necessary taken out in taxes anyway.)

Anyone who makes more than I do needs to get over it.

[SeattleGirl]

132. Couldn't agree more!

I'm so sick and tired of the lower economic classes carrying their share AND the share of the upper crust when it comes to taxes.

The rich can afford to pony up some more money.

The rest of us really can't.

[Warren Stupidity]

134. Endless confusion. Conflating 'income' with 'wealth'.

This game is played to divide us and get us into dog fights. Wealth is not income. There are many people with incomes in the 1% range who simply are not 'wealthy'. Wealth is surplus income accumulation. No surplus, no accumulation, no wealth. If your expenses match your income, you may have a lot of income, you probably do not have a lot of wealth.

However, even if we want to call people rich just by income, we make a horrible mistake, one that is being deliberately pushed on us, by thinking that even the upper 1% represents some mythical dividing line between 'the rich' and 'the rest of us'. Here is why:




The US population is represented along the length of the football field, arranged in order of income. Median US family income (the family at the 50 yard line) is ~$40,000 (a stack of $100 bills 1.6 inches high.)
--The family on the 95 yard line earns about $100,000 per year, a stack of $100 bills about 4 inches high.

--At the 99 yard line the income is about $300,000, a stack of $100 bills about a foot high.

--The curve reaches $1 million (a 40 inch high stack of $100 bills) one foot from the goal line.

--From there it keeps going up...it goes up 50 km (~30 miles) on this scale!
http://www.lcurve.org/

There exists a very small group of people with both wealth and income that is several orders of magnitude beyond the artificial ratchets of %1 or 10% or whatever that the mindcontrol experts push at us. The wealth distribution - accumulated surplus income - is even more skewed than the income distribution, and of course it is essentially a somewhat smaller subset of the same right hand side of that graph who possess all the wealth as well. We are being lied to and gamed on a massive level. If you want to tax the rich you need to understand who the rich are and just how rich they are and just how powerful they are. We have not been in this lopsided a wealth distribution in over 100 years, but the real rich learned very well the lessons of class warfare and the threat that represents to their controlling position in the world. They are not about to let the first half of the 20th century repeat itself.

[wickerwoman]

161. I think people understand that

and the fact that a two pronged attack is needed.

Yes, income is not wealth. But if your income has been over $250,000 for a while and you have not accumulated any wealth, then there is very probably a serious problem with your priorities. So in that sense, a tax on higher-income people is a tax on the wealthy. If we want to slow down the accumulation of massive wealth concentrated in the hands of a small group of people, then we need to start taxing income at a higher rate for those individuals whose income allows them to accumulate significant wealth.

And we need stricter estate tax and inheritance laws. This is how Britain broke the aristocracy. Allowing individuals to inherit far more than they will ever need a lifetime, even without working, is profoundly anti-democratic. America should be about a level playing field.

[Warren Stupidity]

194. OK - but to be clear about this issue:

People making 250,000/yr can in no possible way accumulate wealth through income that would but them in that near linear curve at the end of the graph that is 'the rich', outside of pure luck. Even if you saved 249,999/yr you wouldn't come close. The British didn't break their aristocracy so much as they replaced landed rich shits with capitalist rich shits. Yes the estate tax is one of the real reforms that addresses this issue, but even then ours - back before the real rich repealed it - allowed the real rich to push their vast wealth into perpetual trusts that created generational long power centers. Even today the wealth from the last gilded era is active in this world. For example:

Richard Mellon Scaife (born July 3, 1932) is an American newspaper publisher.

Scaife owns and publishes the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. With $1.2 billion, Scaife, a principal heir to the Mellon banking, oil, and aluminum fortune, is No. 283 on the 2005 Forbes 400.

These are the the people in the ruling class. They get a real kick over us fighting over is 250k a year rich, or totally rich. John McCain's wife owns seven houses - and she is just minor league rich. Teresa Heinz Kerry is rich. Warren Buffet is rich. All those saudi princelets are rich.

If you have to get up in the morning and go to work you are not rich.

[NC_Nurse]

268. Won't rolling back Bush's tax cuts make the capital gains tax go from 15 to 20%?

I think it's only to go up for those over a certain income, so as not to hit those of us who make less but actually SAVE and INVEST our money of retirement.

That would be a start to targeting those who are indeed "wealthy".

[Warren Stupidity]

274. Estate tax gets to the point.

And it needs to be not only restored but strengthened. You don't pay capital gains tax until you actually realize a gain. So the rich escape taxation on most of their assets, because they don't generally need to do anything with them other than let them sit there and accumulate. Then they croak, and now thanks to one of the absolutely stupidest electorates in any major industrial democracy, their assets and that lifetime of accumulation pass right down to the next generation.

If you want to tax the rich you have to figure out who the rich are, and your OP doesn't, it declares the upper middle class 'rich' when they aren't. This is the game they endlessly play on us: divide us up, pit us one against the other, and laugh all the way to the bank, which of course they own, and which of course they just took 2 trillion dollars or so from us to avoid the hazards they put those banks into so they could accumulate even greater mountains of wealth.

As I said, if you have to get up in the morning and go to work, you aren't rich.

[NC_Nurse]

281. Can't they do both? The deficit is huge enough that we need to adjust the

progressive income tax and the estate tax...right?

[wickerwoman]

288. I agree up to a point.

But I think we need to start progressive taxation reform somewhere and $250,000 sounds like a good place to me. That shouldn't throw you instantly into the top tax bracket but that's about the point where you are no longer spending most of your salary on housing, food, educating your children, taking a few vacations and saving for your own retirement. I would say at about that point, you are generating a surplus which will be invested as a legacy to your children (or other heirs).

I don't think it's a very interesting question to argue the semantics of who's rich and who's simply very, very, very comfortable. The goal should be to slow or even stop massive accumulations of wealth which is passed from generation to generation and the way to do that is to tax income progressively at the point where serious accumulation becomes possible and to tax the shit out of estates above a certain size.

[bread_and_roses]

209. A very important point indeed

It is almost impossible for most of us to wrap our brains around what real "wealth" means. However, as long as we have clerks in convenience stores lucky to break $20,000 living relatively along side wage-earners making $250,000 I support steeply progressive income tax.

I was once in a workshop sort of presentation on poverty for people working in human service agencies. These workers condidered themselves "middle-class" despite incomes that were pretty low (human service does not pay all that well, and among the worst offenders are the "not-for-profit" agencies). The presenter tried to explain why most people who consider themselves "middle-class" were only a few paychecks away from poverty (they have no wealth). You should have seen the outrage in the room! It was hilarious.

[Warren Stupidity]

275. It is much more fine to gnaw each others limbs off fighting for scraps

than to actually think about, let alone do something about, the actual power structure and class division on this planet.

[bread_and_roses]

293. Well I understand your point - and you are absolutely right about the real power

structure and class division. I would guess that at $250,000 more than likely not a few of them are only a few weeks/months more than most wage-earners from destitution. None the less, they currently bear less burden than those earning far less. Let's equal that out a bit if we can while we keep our eyes on the prize, so to speak. In that bracket, many have quite an exaggerated sense of their own "power and influence" and do not consider themselves among our "each other" of which you speak. As long as they don't, they will not make common cause with us, or in any way work for any sort of equality, or even the common good if they see it as diminishing what they consider their due. And notice I say "most" or "many" - there are always exceptions.

Not, by the way, that I would expect a more progressive rate to open the eyes of very many - more than likely the opposite, and they'll turn their ire on those of us "lesser" valued sanitation workers and kindergarten aids and clerks. Who said something to the effect that "it is hard for a man to see the truth when his paycheck depends on the lie?"

We could probably go on with this for a bit - it's an interesting discussion to me, at least. I am in the interesting position of accepting your premise while disputing the immediate conclusion you seem to be drawing from it. This is probably not the best forum for such a discussion, so I'll let it go, though, of course interested in what else you may feel inclined to say.

I admire your terseness; I obviously can't emulate it - quite often a sign of muddled thinking, of which I may well be guilty in this instance.

[Warren Stupidity]

298. As I said elsewhere I am of course in favor of raising taxes

on upper income levels back to at least where they were with Clinton. What I am against is posturing that doing so is 'taxing the rich'.

[Wednesdays]

247. I agree with your sentiment, but...

while I agree it would be more fair to tax possessions (net wealth), I'm sure the wingnuts will go ape about how we want to "seize their property." And if instead you levy the tax through their paychecks, there could be a situation where 100% of their paychecks go towards paying the tax. You don't want to go there.

Then, if you adjust the tax on the paycheck based on their means to pay, then we've come full circle back to a sort of income tax.

[Warren Stupidity]

279. There is nothing much wrong with a progressive income tax.

I'm all in favor of that. The only objection I have is the idea that we are taxing 'the rich' by raising rates on working families earning 250K or more. We aren't. The billionaires will not be affected. The vast family fortunes will be immune.

The rich only have paychecks as a hobby. Tax their estates. Tax capital gains the same as ordinary income, with an exemption for the sale of a primary residence. Implement a VAT with a substantial and inflation indexed floor that effectively taxes luxury purchases. Tax financial market transactions. Remove mortgage exemptions on second homes. There are a plethora of ways to tax those who own the wealth of this nation.

[lumberjack_jeff]

312. "you're high income, get over it"

Pick a different subject and the point is exactly the same.

I fully agree that wealth should be taxed instead of income, but we don't.

[subterranean]

136. We're talking here about reinstating the tax rates of the 1990s.

I don't recall the top 2 percent suffering a lot of hardship then.

[laughingliberal]

140. +1000

The top 2% didn't suffer much before Reagan when the top rate was almost twice what it is now.

[colsohlibgal]

141. Time For Them To Pony Up

They have been riding the gravy train since the Death Valley Days B actor was in office. Ike had the top rate at 91 or 92% his whole time in office, I don't hear republicans bad mouthing him. Let's rack it back up to 50%.

[gtar100]

145. And let's not let them get away with the tears about paying a higher tax rate.

Everybody pays the same tax rate on the income they earn, dollar for dollar. But those who earn more may pay a higher tax rate on the money they earn above and beyond what others have earned. So those who made $50K paid taxes on that $50K at the same rate as the first $50K of the $250K earner. It's that additional $200K that gets taxed a bit higher.

Oversimplified, yes. But it's to make the point that their earnings are still tremendously good and they are not suffering over some imaginary burden of having to pay more in taxes on the money they earn. They earned more money, they pay higher taxes on the "more" part that they earned, not on everything they earned. A world of difference.

Of course, Reagan screwed up our progressive tax system and that "more" is now taxed at a *lower* rate after a certain point. So their complaining about taxes truly is nothing more than selfish whining.

[The Animator]

152. Any number crunchers up for a challenge?

I'm no mathematician... definitely not, but I know a number of people who simply cannot fathom how much money we are talking about. So here's an example.

The bonuses that are being handed out to the execs of banks that received bailouts last year. Just the bonuses... not their salaries, and remember, only the banks that received bailout money. How much does that come too?

Now apply the tax rate that is being proposed. How much tax revenue is that?

I'm thinking that's a lot of money. How far would that much money go? What percent of our national debt would that represent? What about the percent of our annual National Budget? The annual budget of our wealthiest State? Wealthiest City?

Like I said I'm not a mathematician, but I'm guessing that the tax revenue that could be generated from just those bonuses alone, would be greater than the total annual budget of any number of small cities.



I know it's all talk coming from someone who doesn't make much money, but I feel that the more someone prospers in this society, the greater their responsibility to society. Whether they want to believe it or not, the civilization in which we are all a part, has contributed to their success. Without the people who buy their products, watch their shows, and use their banks, the prosperous would never have made a dime. It is on the shoulders of those beneath you, upon which you stand. If the society that supports you collapses, you may be the last to fall, but you will fall. The higher you are, the farther the fall will be.

Again, I know it's easy to say since I'm on the bottom, but if I were on top... I'd pay my taxes gladly. I would feel obligated to maintain the government that has granted me the opportunity to succeed. Even more it would be in my own self interest to ensure that the foundation upon which my fortune rests remains secure.

[Divine Discontent]

156. the greater the responsiblity to society - I said the same thing today - at 250K a year that is

ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS A DAY SALARY for a single person who works 50 weeks a year (2 wks vacation) and 5 days a week. That's a lot of money for 250 days of work.... I believe they should pay a very hefty tax on 1 million dollars or more income, and people who make 250-999,000 a year should pay more than they do now.

They get what they get from other people buying their products. Of course the super rich don't want this, but tough CRAP!

[truedelphi]

169. Theupper one percent makes so much, and has such vast holdings, that were their tax rate to go up ev

Ten percent, there would be a lot of money coming into the Federal Coffers.

[Divine Discontent]

154. nearly 1 in 5 households make over $100000.00 a year? I know a couple people out of hundreds who

make 150. (times 2 people) to 300. (single person) a day for their employment, to reach a $100k a year. That's a very good salary.

And those aren't even the people were talking about having their taxes raised!


We're talking about the people who make 250K a year, which is fifty weeks x 5 days of work = 250 days = $1000.00 a DAY!

[inna]

162. KKR, and noting for further reading/reference

[Extend a Hand]

165. I don't think 250,000/year is rich if you have to work to earn it

I'd like to see the size of the income brackets over $250,000 shrink dramatically with progressive tax increases at each level I'd like to see capital gains for top income brackets taxed just like earned income. But I still don't think $250,000 in earned income is "rich", it's upper middle class. (fwiw, I don't make $250,000/year).

[WillyT]

166. Big K & R !!!

:kick:

[Kievan Rus]

170. How about, "You're rich, pay your f*****g taxes"

[Go2Peace]

171. I thought I was doing ok. But now that I see how much some folks on DU complain about making I feel

*dirt poor*. How in the world did I ever survive? And talking about taxes, being single much of my life I have always had to pay plenty in taxes. What the hell is a refund anyway? Man, you know these guys are wealthy just by the way they talk and complain.

Don't the tax rates only apply to the amount of income above each threshold? I mean, if you make 280k a year and they increase 250k and up by 5%, you are only paying 5% more on 30k right? Big freaken deal!

[hyphenate]

172. Try bringing in about $15,000 a year

and being told by the government that we wouldn't be getting a "cost of living" increase in our checks for 2010, despite all the increases in price of food, and the downsizing of food packaging. A "1/2 gallon" of ice cream is now only 1.5 quarts, a 6 oz. can of tuna (at one time it was a 7 oz can) now 5.5 oz., etc.

and yet, we had to fucking bail out AIG which is today handing out over $100 million dollars in bonuses, and you can imagine how those of us poorer than poor feel about that shit. i tell ya, if I ever meet that asshole Paulson, I will make a few impressions on his head with a baseball bat....

[Paper Roses]

175. When I read long posts of this nature, I cringe.

So many of us live with incomes that amount to a days pay for lots of people. Between Social Security and what I get from unemployment, I live at about $22,000 a year. At my age and with the few health problems I have, I have been limited in the jobs for which I can apply. There are also skill levels I do not have.

I know I will be paying taxes this year because I did not have any deductions taken from my SS or unemployment. I needed every cent to survive. Now I face the prospect of digging funds from wherever to pay the government my share.

Burns me up when the wealthy complain that they can not live on huge yearly incomes and so many of us have to live on what would amount to a days pay for some.

My savings is shot. Funeral and burial expenses for my husband, clearing up his estate(legal and filing fees), paying over $4000 a year for house taxes..things like that have me reduced to levels that I have not been since the 1960's when I first entered the workforce as a young kid. I manage to pay my monthly bills but there are no extras me.

The years in the middle we chugged along like most of America. Paid our bills, raised and educated our kids, saved for a couple of trips. Generally had no complaints.

Now the world in upside down and I'm frightened.

Should I have to move from my little house so that the wealthy can keep up a un unbelievable standard of living while we, at the lowest income level struggle to keep things together?

Hardly seems fair to me.
Good for you if you are rich but please don't complain to me about your plight. There are some who will have no sympathy, including me.

[Wednesdays]

251. Bah, leave 'em alone

If they make 50 times your income it's because they work 50 times harder, don'tcha know?

[Greyhound]

285. Bravo!

The willful ignorance that pervades even this place is simply infuriating.

The reality seems to be that Americans simply will not look at any of these systemic issues until it directly effects them.

[Naturyl]

185. Yeah, I know how that is.

Except I dream of 15k as the life of Riley, since I get about 8k. And indeed, we did not get cost of living increases this year. The letter said there had been no inflation (LOL), so we didn't need them. Tell that to Kroger. I spent over $100 for groceries there the other day - that's almost 1/6 of my monthly income and the crap will be gone by the 10th of the month. Hello food bank.

[hyphenate]

314. Have you looked into food stamps?

You should be eligible for them, and they would help enormously. Also, depending on where you are located, you are eligible for fuel assistance as well. Medicaid (here it's Mass Health) is another thing you should be able to get.

I pay about $500 a month for my bills, and food often runs $200 for the month. The first week or so, I enjoy produce and some healthy meals; after that, I rely on packaged goods, except for milk, which I run through about 1.5 gallons a week. I pay for a friend's meal when we go out--he takes me shopping and some appointments, so it's the least I can do. This same friend allows me to live in the apartment above him (a two family home) without rent, so I have to say I'm very grateful to him. The only "luxuries" I have are my cellphone, TIVO and my DSL--without them, I wouldn't care about anything at all. This month, I had to budget money for the vet for the cat, and a small expense for myself.

I am hoping we will hear from fuel assistance soon, that Congress budgeted some more for heating oil.

Then, when all those CEOs were being arrested a couple of years ago, I remember Koslowski from Tyco paid $17,000 for a shower curtain. How ridiculous it all is.

[1awake]

176. When its all said and done,

I make approx. $30,000 a year by choice. I consciously made that choice because this job allowed for a very flexible schedule where I could be with my children more (single father of three). And while things at times are tight, we get by ok. Where I live, $250,000 a year would put you in the upper class... maybe not "rich", but still. I don't see where the qualifier for an increase in taxes has to fall on whether your completely rich. I also am unaware of anywhere in the U.S. where $250,000 puts you in the "just making it" crowd.

[liberal N proud]

179. Unfortunately for the rest of us...

With the recent decision by the SCOTUS, the rich can now afford to buy a Senator. All they need to do is incorporate themselves.

And they will.


What ever happened to the rich of this nation taking responsibility and being philanthropist?

[DCBob]

187. The love of money still drives everything doesn't it?

The root of all...

[pattmarty]

196. And yet another "fact", that 75% of people in the US make............

...........LESS THAN $50,000 PER YEAR. So fuck all these pricks that are crying the blues, let THEM eat fucking cake.

[leveymg]

197. As someone who lives in the DC area, I'll tell you. 250K a year is chickenfeed.

This is an area where even tiny one-floor tract houses built in the 1950s on quarter-acre lots were going for $500,000 a couple years ago. Everything from food to movie tickets to violin classes for the kids are extremely expensive. It's hard to get out of the grocery store without paying $100 for four or five bags of stuff, and that's skipping the imported cheese and salad bar. Forget about having much of anything left after you pay all the bills.

However, once you get into a $500K-$1 million a year bracket, now that's where you start getting into the beginnings of real wealth and investments. That's where the progressive tax rate should start to get really steep.

[DCBob]

206. I am in DC area and 250,000 is plenty.. I live on much less than that, much less..

There are houses/townhouses in less trendy areas in the $300,000 range. Learn how to cook -- rice and soup and veggies are cheap. Do the kids need fancy music lessons? Isn't school band good enough? We need to downsize/slowdown our lifestyles. You will have more free-time and feel better in the long run. The planet will be happier too! :)

[leveymg]

212. We live on way less than that, too. We also eat lots of rice and beans.

Drive cars that are old enough to be legally served alcohol - and I don't mean reformulated 10% ethanol. We're broke, and barely hanging on to the small house that has a huge mortgage. Not much room to downsize. As for the kid, there's no . . . let's not go there.

If we made $250K, life would be better and way less stressful, but not fundamentally different. I'm just saying that $250K isn't really rich, these days.

[DCBob]

217. Yeah, it's not "really rich" because we spend too much on things we really dont need.

Rice and beans are great actually! Good luck! BTW, I live in Rockville. :hi:

[vadawg]

220. :) do they still call parts of rockville upper potomac or some other such nonsense

i used to live in silver spring but made the jump to VA, i miss the silver diner though.

[DCBob]

222. North Bethesda.. HA!!

But its still plain ole Rockville to me. I used to live in SS too.

[vadawg]

231. lol yup that was it, always had e wondering where the hell the person lived

i still got a house in SS but i couldnt take living in such a crowded area any more, the traffic etc just depressed me to all ends.

[leveymg]

214. Posting glitch. Delete.

[YOY]

235. and I bought a 2 BR 2 Bath house in Arlington for 320K.

Small place. Single car driveway with no garage for my family of 3. We could use a little more space but it's nice. We have room for everything and for my mini orchard in the back yard. Close to the city for low time low cost commute. In an area that's up and coming to boot with everything we need (save a grocery story but that one is coming soon) within walking distance including Doctor and Dentist.

Yes, 250K would be nice. But I'm making due on a little more than a third of that.

You can live VERY WELL on 250K in the DC area if you don't buy rediculously overpriced crap.

[Wednesdays]

254. Yeah, the people in D.C.'s neighborhoods are all raking in at least $250 thou

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_nWpwm6lhWUs/SXJQmc1EQ6I/AAAAAAAAG34/U_SD6HAnxis/s400/Homeless+People+Washington+DC.jpg

[vadawg]

255. not only in DC, but the suburbs have a lot of people making good money

the counties surrounding DC have a lot of money in them, ie fairfax, alexandria, arlington, louden, montgomery etc etc etc. $250,000 probuably isnt even an extremely high wage throughout the area..

[callous taoboy]

204. If I can make 43 K per year and be comfortable, then 250 K IS rich. n/t

[bread_and_roses]

211. Do whiners mewling about the cost of living ever look at the clerk serving them coffee

on their way to work and wonder about the effective tax rate s/he pays and how all those service people get by living in the same city/environs?

[Ishoutandscream2]

229. +1

[redqueen]

264. Good question. (nt)

[Odin2005]

213. K&R

[patrice]

218. It's not about whether they can afford it or not. It's about their DIVINE "right" to "their" money.

Do not underestimate the power of the Prosperity Gospel.

[tomp]

221. daniel gross is working for the super rich.

it is insanity to compare people making $250,000 with people making $10-100 million or people with huge stockpiles of wealth.

this article deflects the understandable ire of the poor from the insanely mega-rich to the relatively well-off.

i consider that a disservice to reasonable discussion. it matters very little if 250K is 5 times the median, if the median is abysmally low.

sure, people can get by on less, but that is just a diversion from the monster capitalists who are really in control of the wealth of this country, people who are making 500+ times the median.

[YOY]

236. There it is. The truth. The wealthy versus the rich look the same when you're at 35K.

But when you really see them...the differences between the two are astronomical.

I am neither but have been around both...I told my wife once the dividing line.

When you are knee deep in shit in your own life and cannot make ends meet if you can call your dad and make it all go away then you are wealthy.

[Warren Stupidity]

280. thank you.

[lonestarnot]

232. Boofuckinghoo richies. Cry me a fucking river.

[YOY]

233. I'd prefer more of a hit on the "weathy" and not the "rich" but I'm not complaning.

You know the difference when you see them. It's as obvious as night and day...but when you've been at 35K for most years (as I once was) it blurs very easily.

[sui generis]

234. I regret to inform you that income right at 250K is not rich

no matter which way you slice it.

If you want American manufacturing to provide jobs then you have to sell to people who buy American products - aimed at every budget.

So, granted high earners can and should pay more taxes - no argument there, if the maximum EFT for earners over 100K is 28.8% and one flips to 39.5% right at 200K for individuals and 250K for joint filers you effectively build those exact same tax valleys that inspired so many people to vote for whichever party could promise to lower taxes, regardless of any other political ideology.

Under the president's plan, somebody who makes $200K has 40,000 less take-home than somebody who makes 190K.

To bring it all the way around the circle, that's 40,000 dollars a year less spent in the American economy, and spent ON our ridiculous wars.

I think it's best not to be all black or all white on this issue. A lot of the "stick it to the evil rich" attitude that happens on DU is counterproductive to fixing real problems, and I'd even go so far as to say it's vindictive.

[DFW]

250. I refuse to let others define if I'm miserable or not. I don't go by others' labels

I make less than $3 million a year and I'm not miserable. I make more than $30,000 a year and I'm not rich.
Get over that.

If taxes go up, then they go up. If the government spends the additional income wisely, I'm for it. If not (and
Cheneybush proved in spades that they are adept at not spending it wisely), then I'll be pissed.

My country is capable of providing health care for all its citizens, and so far refuses to do so.

Now, THAT'S poverty.

[unblock]

252. it's the WORD "rich" that gets you in trouble

i agree completely that couples with an adjusted gross income of over $250,000 are in at least a reasonable, if not comfortable, position to be able to handle a slightly higher marginal tax rate increase.

this is in no small part because the one thing we know about them is that a year ago, they didn't have that $250,000, so slicing away a few more percent on their newly-generated money is something they should be able to spare.


the word "rich", however, lumps one specific financial metric -- income -- in with a whole lotta other stuff and comes to a conclusion that is emotionally laden and an unnecessary sidetrack from the argument that these people should have their tax rates reset back to where they were before shrub messed everything up.


"rich" couples have accumulated wealth, significant incomes from their wealth, and have their retirements fully funded or can easily do so simply by continuing to do what they have already been doing. you can't determine all that from just income. age matters, as does georgraphy (cost of living).

a couple aged 65 living in manhattan earning $250,000 but having no wealth, no retirement plan, and mountains of debt is not rich. in fact, looks like they're bankrupt, or should be.



just call them "high-earners". that's what they are, there's no question about it, and it avoids the issue entirely.

[bergie321]

258. I am sorry

But if someone in the top 2.1% is considered "middle class" than we have bigger problems in this country than letting tax cuts expire.

[redqueen]

265. Yep...

*sigh*

[JuniperLea]

270. Well said...

I could keep five families alive on $250k a year, easy, with money for Starbucks and movies.

[leftstreet]

277. +1

[NC_Nurse]

283. If a higher progressive tax rate is so bad for the economy, why is it that the

post-WWII folks made the biggest gains financially? People who are now retired managed to save enough money to retire and send their
kids to college and have health insurance and got a pension....weren't the tax rates even higher for the upper middle income folks back then?

I don't understand how people can sit on their high horse and act like they don't need to give something back. What so they can have a huge McMansion
with all the trimmings like private schools and ivy league colleges for their kids? Yikes. And in the case of Repubs, they even scoff at "elites" while they fight to stay in
that league.

Whatever.

[FLDCVADem]

286. As I said earlier, we're several thousand away

from the $250,000 AGI, so this won't hit us, but I do take issue with part of your post.

We don't have a McMansion by any stretch, but it's a nice house in a nice neighborhood, kids (two) are in Catholic school, we give to charity, save for retirement, college, and take a nice vacation every couple of years. You seem to be implying that we should be happy to give part of that up just for the honor of paying higher taxes. Why? I believe in progressive taxation, but at the same time, I don't agree that one group should have to surrender their standard of living for another group.

[NC_Nurse]

291. You just said this wouldn't apply to you. So what's the problem? Even those who are just at

or above the limit would probably not be paying so much more that they would have to give up ANY of those things. The amount more that you made would probably make up for the extra taxes. From what I understand, the income up to 250,000 would be taxed at exactly the same.

That said, it's amazing what you could do without if you needed to. And if the country keeps going in the direction it's heading in now you may very well find out.

[FLDCVADem]

295. Yes, you're right, it doesn't apply to us right now

And depending on what category the President is applying that $250,000 to (AGI or taxble income), it might never apply to us. And you're also correct that up to the increased brackets, the income will be taxed the same as it is now.

My point is that I won't go over that threshold, period. We'll just increase 401(k) contributions because why would we want to work for basically 60% of our pay? I'd much rather forego the money at that point, and have it at retirement time.

I'm just generally opposed to the notion that people should have to lower their standard of living (not talking about me in particular, just in general) in order to conform to someone else's idea of economic justice. This idea that "Well, if it means they have to give something up, tough, they don't deserve it anyway" is ludicrous to me.

[bread_and_roses]

299. So you oppose the concept of progressive taxation?

If you can afford to "forgo the money" then it's not about "lowering your standarrd of living"now is it? So forgo it. Don't work the time or make the sales or whatever that pushes you above that level - create space for a job for someone else. Americans work far too many hours anyway.

But your statement: "I'm just generally opposed to the notion that people should have to lower their standard of living ... in order to conform to someone else's idea of economic justice," means that you oppose the idea of progressive taxation altogether. Is it OK with you that those earning less than you do pay what they do? You don't think those earning more than you should pay more?

[FLDCVADem]

304. No, I don't oppose progressive taxation

I do however oppose the notion that my family somehow owes it to the rest of society to happily accept a tax increase that *could* have a negative impact on our standard of living. As I said, I don't see that it will, but I'm not a fan of the point of view that seeks to determine what other people do and don't deserve simply because they have a high income.

[bread_and_roses]

308. It's nothing to do with "deserve." It's to do with fair - or at least fairer - share n/t

[FLDCVADem]

309. OK

Then I'll say that I don't think it's fair to expect people to work for 60 cents on the dollar for every dollar they make over $250,000. That figure includes state income taxes, which I realize aren't in every state, so I'm speaking only of Virginia.

[NC_Nurse]

310. It's not fair that most of us make WAY less than that no matter how hard we

work or how important our job is to the welfare of others. Life isn't fair and many of the factors that determine income have NOTHING to do with
DESERVING to be paid that much. Look at the bankers who busted the system, they make more in a bonus for ONE YEAR than most of us will make in a lifetime.

I call bullshit on this whole argument.

Nevermind.

[FLDCVADem]

311. Fair enough

You don't like that other people make more money than you, and you want them to be punished.

At least you're honest about your goals.

[NC_Nurse]

313. That is not what I said. You're argument is based on thinking you "deserve" to

be paid more and not have to pay more taxes even though your income is 5 times that of the median.
Excuse me for calling that arrogant bullshit.

So paying a little more taxes is punishment? Perhaps you're on the wrong board.

[NC_Nurse]

302. Perhaps you could look at it as choosing to help someone else rather than you

"giving something up". I mean, it sounds like you are pretty happy with your situation now. If you didn't end up making as much money on top of that - what's the big deal? Does one
have to up one's lifestyle every time income goes up slightly?

I guess I'm just not understanding where you'd be so hurt by this. I have had a serious downshift in income this last 2 years due to family illness, yet I still feel lucky to be able to live fairly comfortably. I don't understand why you think you would be punished having to pay a bit more out of your increased earnings - should that even happen...

In fact, I have to wonder why you chose to be offended by the post in the first place, when you apparently aren't in the bracket, and supposedly don't live the lifestyle (i.e. McMansion) that I was
referring to. Are you one of the many Americans that is always worries about those with more because you are worried about having to pay more should you ever BE one of them? That's how many Americans decide to vote against their own interests.

What if something bad were to happen to your family? Like a job loss or major illness? Wouldn't you want the govt to have services in place for folks that are hit by those sorts of life crises? If nobody is willing to pay more, then nobody will be there when they need a hand. The line has to be drawn somewhere and at the top 2% sounds very reasonable to me.

[FLDCVADem]

305. As I've said already

I don't see that it will impact us - if we are going to get to the threshold, we'll simply move money to a 401(k). Nothing will change, and we'll have the delayed gratification of having the money at retirement time. What I'm not willing to do is work for 60 cents on the dollar above the threshold.

I don't have as big a problem with the tax increase in general as I do with the attitude of so many that seem to believe they have a right to determine how someone else should live with money they earned. So what if someone wants to buy a McMansion? If they can afford it, who cares?

[NC_Nurse]

307. I guess that sort of lifestyle screams overconsumption to me. Why live in a huge,

energy-sucking home when you would be comfortable in something half as big. There are plenty of
reasons to think that those sorts of choices are what led to this economy we are dealing with now, as well as
the depletion of resources here and elsewhere in the world.

I know what it's like to be on that trajectory, I just got off of the train a long time ago. I find a much simpler life more fulfilling
and I wish more people thought that way. I think we'd all be a lot better off if people weren't afraid of losing something all the time.

I still believe that drawing the line at 250,000 is perfectly reasonable. If it was 300,000, there would be people saying exactly the same
thing you are because they make that much. Most people see what they spend money on as justified, even if 98% of people have less.

[Statistical]

284. Just a heads up $250,000 is married filing jointly.

Got to pay attention to the details. The magic $250,000 doesn't correspond to any tax bracket in the tax code. Obama specific words are "no family making less than $250,000 will see their tax bill go up".

Family = codeword for married filing jointly.

So for singles the cut would be >$125,000.

Strange this is even $125,000 isn't a tax bracket for single filers.
Tax brackets for single start at
$0 = 10%
$8,3750 = 15%
$34,000 = 25%
$82,400 = 28%
$171,850 = 33%
$373,650 = 35%

So maybe this means the top 2 brackets will rise? By default they rise to 35% and 39.6% when Bush tax cuts expire?

If so why not say $171,650? Maybe because $250,000 sounds better?

[cbdo2007]

289. Pretty much the only thing that IS fair is a progressive tax rate because capitalism requires it.

Look at all of the other non-progressive essential services that we have to pay for on a daily basis - natural gas, power, water, fuel, food, health care, clothing, housing, etc. which are all made cheaper for rich people because they need the 95% of non-rich people buying it also.

Taxes should work the same way. There is really nothing in our society that rich people could afford if it wasn't for the 95% of non-rich people buying those services.

[ShortnFiery]

290. Yes. Agreed. eom