Yes, I’m willing to pay the tax for a 250k + job. If you aren’t, then please quit and leave it open for me. We do have an entitlements problem. Bankers feel entitled to be bailed out and then bonused, and then complain that they have to pay taxes to live in a society that allows them to make money by tricking the less educated into buying homes that they clearly can’t afford. “I stole that money fair and square, and now those government bandits are trying to take it from me!” Yes, I know that these words come across as class warfare-ist, and in general, I don’t have a problem with some people making millions while the rest of the country has to make do with a $55k per year median family income. But are these people really entitled to their millions? Did they REALLY create that much value for the economy, or do they just feel that whatever they were able to squeeze by trickery or the luck of being in the right place at the right time ought to be theirs. It’s easy to think that “I’m rich because I’m smart.” But an incredible amount of luck goes into the success of people. It’s not that making good decisions isn’t important and didn’t contribute. But how many of those good decisions were actually made for the right reasons, as opposed to the luck of having something work out? How many were truly ethically clean decisions? People naturally want the option of being able to capitalize on random events that benefit them; and they want society to help soothe random events (natural disasters, unpredictable illnesses, the bad luck of being born in a community with no schools to speak of). That’s fine; that’s civilized. It’s also an option, and it carries a premium. You can think of taxes as your option premium for living in a society that doesn’t say F.U. to individuals the way it does in Congo, or rural Thailand, etc.
iteracom Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I got to say, what I am truly disgusted at is > this: > > When a young irresponsible couple who are > practically living paycheck to paycheck working > odds and ends jobs with no ambition or future > decide to pop out a few kids, and then take free > handouts from the government. > > The parents can’t provide a good environment or > take care of them well in the first place, and > shouldn’t be having kids. Bad environments, bad > parenting makes the kids go bad and grow up and > put more burden on society. > > And then the democrats, with their “everyone > deserves a good life” starts increasing these > handouts more and more. Deficit skyrockets, and > the real hard-working people have to keep paying > for all this. Doesn’t this sound like socialism? > At this rate, that’s where we are headed. Look there are some people who do game the system and I do hate those people but you can’t lump everyone who doesn’t make over 50k into the same bundle. Your statement is actually more socialist/communist. Only the elite should have kids?. Look if these people are working odds and ends jobs to make ends meet they are obviously not lazy, but hard working people who may not have the skill set or oppurtunity to have a good paying job. And who says they will not continue to do this once the child is born. Aside from some medicare assistance during pregnancy most of the people who are doing this don’t get any more government help after the child is born and go back to working wherever they can to support the child, sometimes this can lead to a bad environment sometimes it doesn’t but someone who is working 80 hours a week making 300k can provide just as bad an environment as someone making 13$ an hour at walmart. If it wasn’t for manufacturing jobs a lot of our parents would be in the category that you have laid out and most of them don’t have a sufficient retirement nest egg which is going to put a huge burden on society. (this doesn’t even include their health care costs which no one has saved for)
A lot of interesting points. A 4.6% tax increase isn’t a big deal for people making over 250k in my opinion. mar350, the reason upper middle/rich folk leave NJ is due to crime and poor living conditions. Tax rates have very little to do with it (my guess). Let’s take a look at my hometown, Los Angeles. Why do very few rich people live in South Central LA? There are lower tax property taxes and arguably lower cost of living. Taxes/economics have little to do with it.
This is somewhat relevant and was in the WSJ opinions this morning: “If you think spreading money around by force seems like an odd definition of fairness, you’re not alone. A 2009 survey conducted by the polling firm Ayers-McHenry asked respondents to choose which of the following statements came closer to their views: “Government policies should promote fairness by narrowing the gap between rich and poor, spreading the wealth, and making sure that economic outcomes are more equal”; or “Government policies should promote opportunity by fostering job growth, encouraging entrepreneurs, and allowing people to keep more of what they earn.” Respondents chose the second option over the first, 63% to 31%. Most Americans think tax rates are already unfairly high. A February 2009 Harris poll found that on average, Americans believe the maximum amount anyone should have to pay in total taxes is less than 16% of income. The Tax Policy Center notes that families earning $75,000 and above are paying more than this in federal taxes alone; the highest income earners pay much more. Nor do Americans believe it is fair to expand the pool of people with no income tax liability at all. According to a Tax Foundation poll in April 2009, 66% of Americans agree with the statement that “Everyone should be required to pay some minimum amount of tax to help fund government.” People understand that good citizenship means we all contribute in some way to the national project. Simple facts about our tax system do not support the contention that it is “unfair” in favor of the rich. According to the most recent IRS data, the top 5% of earners bring in 37% of the income but pay 60% of the federal individual income taxes. The bottom half of earners bring home 12% of the income but pay 3% of the taxes. Today, according to the Tax Foundation, 60% of Americans consume more in government services than they pay in taxes. In sum: A large majority disagrees with the current administration’s redistributionist philosophy; believes the rich already face a tax rate that is too high; and disapproves of the fact that more and more Americans pay nothing in federal income taxes.”
Oh and the argument that “a 4% tax increase is not going to have much of an effect” doesn’t hold at all. Hypothetically, every 5 years you can make the same argument and raise taxes another 4% into perpuity. At some point, taxes will be 96%, and the argument can be made that a 4% increase to 100% won’t make much of an effect. Of course that an an over exagerated example, but it still shows the flaw in that argument. Everyone makes decisions on the margin and even a slight increase will have some effect.
topher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >> mar350, the reason upper middle/rich folk leave NJ > is due to crime and poor living conditions. Tax rates have very little to do with it (my guess). Let’s take a look at my hometown, Los Angeles. Why do very few rich people live in South Central LA? There are lower tax property taxes and arguably lower cost of living. Taxes/economics have little to do with it. Have you ever been to NJ?? This is a ridiculous statement.
djpetway Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > iteracom Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I got to say, what I am truly disgusted at is > > this: > > > > When a young irresponsible couple who are > > practically living paycheck to paycheck working > > odds and ends jobs with no ambition or future > > decide to pop out a few kids, and then take > free > > handouts from the government. > > > > The parents can’t provide a good environment or > > take care of them well in the first place, and > > shouldn’t be having kids. Bad environments, bad > > parenting makes the kids go bad and grow up and > > put more burden on society. > > > > And then the democrats, with their “everyone > > deserves a good life” starts increasing these > > handouts more and more. Deficit skyrockets, and > > the real hard-working people have to keep > paying > > for all this. Doesn’t this sound like > socialism? > > At this rate, that’s where we are headed. > > Look there are some people who do game the system > and I do hate those people but you can’t lump > everyone who doesn’t make over 50k into the same > bundle. > > Your statement is actually more > socialist/communist. Only the elite should have > kids?. Look if these people are working odds and > ends jobs to make ends meet they are obviously not > lazy, but hard working people who may not have the > skill set or oppurtunity to have a good paying > job. And who says they will not continue to do > this once the child is born. Aside from some > medicare assistance during pregnancy most of the > people who are doing this don’t get any more > government help after the child is born and go > back to working wherever they can to support the > child, sometimes this can lead to a bad > environment sometimes it doesn’t but someone who > is working 80 hours a week making 300k can provide > just as bad an environment as someone making 13$ > an hour at walmart. > > If it wasn’t for manufacturing jobs a lot of our > parents would be in the category that you have > laid out and most of them don’t have a sufficient > retirement nest egg which is going to put a huge > burden on society. (this doesn’t even include > their health care costs which no one has saved > for) Ok, there’s just a ton of things wrong with your reply. I’ll list them as “FAILS” FAIL 1. I did NOT lump in EVERYONE as you said “you can’t lump everyone who doesn’t make over 50k into the same bundle.” reading skills would be useful FAIL 2. You said, “Look if these people are working odds and ends jobs to make ends meet they are obviously not lazy” Are you kidding? have you seen the sheer retarded-ness of the people who work in government offices??? You clearly have never seen what is it like. I have. Again, I’m not saying “everyone”. FAIL 3… tax deductions… you know what, this is so not worth my time. forget it. our society is F’ed anyway. I’ll just make sure to bail before it hits the fan.
BValGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > topher Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > >> mar350, the reason upper middle/rich folk leave > NJ > > is due to crime and poor living conditions. Tax > rates have very little to do with it (my guess). > Let’s take a look at my hometown, Los Angeles. Why > do very few rich people live in South Central LA? > There are lower tax property taxes and arguably > lower cost of living. Taxes/economics have little > to do with it. > > > Have you ever been to NJ?? This is a ridiculous > statement. No I haven’t. But NJ as a state is consistently in the top 3 states with the highest murder rates. Newark, NJ is notorious for having the longest-running (recently broken) string of murders in consecutive months.
iteracom Wrote: > you know what, this is so not worth my time. > forget it. our society is F’ed anyway. I’ll just > make sure to bail before it hits the fan. Name the utopia you are planning to go to. Is it China? Saudi Arabi?
topher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BValGuy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > topher Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > >> mar350, the reason upper middle/rich folk > leave > > NJ > > > is due to crime and poor living conditions. > Tax > > rates have very little to do with it (my > guess). > > Let’s take a look at my hometown, Los Angeles. > Why > > do very few rich people live in South Central > LA? > > There are lower tax property taxes and arguably > > lower cost of living. Taxes/economics have > little > > to do with it. > > > > > > Have you ever been to NJ?? This is a > ridiculous > > statement. > > > No I haven’t. But NJ as a state is consistently in > the top 3 states with the highest murder rates. > Newark, NJ is notorious for having the > longest-running (recently broken) string of > murders in consecutive months. Agreed. Newark is not a place I’d want to find myself alone at night. But since you have never been there, Newark is not even close to being a fair representation of the entire state. This would be similar to me using your prior example of South Central as a measuring stick to the crime in the state of California. 90% of NJ is filled with McMansions and people driving luxury cars. Crime is by no means a major problem state wide.
Ok. I stand corrected. My whole point is that taxes/economics aren’t the whole reason people leave a state. And if there are mansions everywhere, how does a 5% increase in taxes make people making 250k+ leave the state?
marcus phoenix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > iteracom Wrote: > > > you know what, this is so not worth my time. > > forget it. our society is F’ed anyway. I’ll > just > > make sure to bail before it hits the fan. > > > Name the utopia you are planning to go to. Is it > China? Saudi Arabi? +1, Actually, you know what, dont tell us - just leave. We will solve our problems ourselves.
Yes people are going to leave the country, capital is going to flee, there will be no jobs. All this can be seen in the largest non-war expansion this country has ever seen. And having a tax bracket of 200k mean that it hits you when you make 200k right everyone? Or have you ever done your taxes? They are called deductions and people in the upper tax brackets have good CPAs who make use of them. Lets apply the theory our conservative economics professors taught us. All taxes are bad, government is bad unless it is there to protect you, poor people are bad even though they keep the cost of your dry cleaning and meals down, people with money create all jobs and are the most altruistic stewards of the economy. So I will expect to bid my rich friends a fond farewell and perhaps they can go live in the offshore tax havens in the Caymans like Exxon and pay absolutely no American taxes. Bon voyage!
BizBanker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes people are going to leave the country, capital > is going to flee, there will be no jobs. All this > can be seen in the largest non-war expansion this > country has ever seen. And having a tax bracket of > 200k mean that it hits you when you make 200k > right everyone? Or have you ever done your taxes? > They are called deductions and people in the upper > tax brackets have good CPAs who make use of them. > Lets apply the theory our conservative economics > professors taught us. All taxes are bad, > government is bad unless it is there to protect > you, poor people are bad even though they keep the > cost of your dry cleaning and meals down, people > with money create all jobs and are the most > altruistic stewards of the economy. So I will > expect to bid my rich friends a fond farewell and > perhaps they can go live in the offshore tax > havens in the Caymans like Exxon and pay > absolutely no American taxes. Bon voyage! +1000
Agree with BizBanker. I am all for illegal immigration. It’s necessary for the economy. No one else would really want to do their jobs. The shadow economy, although it goes under-taxed, is vital.
BizBanker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes people are going to leave the country, capital > is going to flee, there will be no jobs. All this > can be seen in the largest non-war expansion this > country has ever seen. And having a tax bracket of > 200k mean that it hits you when you make 200k > right everyone? Or have you ever done your taxes? > They are called deductions and people in the upper > tax brackets have good CPAs who make use of them. > Lets apply the theory our conservative economics > professors taught us. All taxes are bad, > government is bad unless it is there to protect > you, poor people are bad even though they keep the > cost of your dry cleaning and meals down, people > with money create all jobs and are the most > altruistic stewards of the economy. So I will > expect to bid my rich friends a fond farewell and > perhaps they can go live in the offshore tax > havens in the Caymans like Exxon and pay > absolutely no American taxes. Bon voyage! They’ll get so bored 0ut of their mind after living in places like the Caymans for a few years that they will plead to be let back in. I say they should be made to renounce their citizenship as well. “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country”-- John F. Kennedy
If you don’t like Ameruika, well you can git the hell out!
Can we please stop calling it a 4.9% raise in the tax for those people who make more than $250k and call it the 13% increase that it really is? The increase shouldn’t be measured by the aggregate change in percentages.
Analyze_This Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Can we please stop calling it a 4.9% raise in the > tax for those people who make more than $250k and > call it the 13% increase that it really is? The > increase shouldn’t be measured by the aggregate > change in percentages. Then are we going to include sales, property, excise and capital gains taxes as well? It’s a change in marginal rates, so it’s not like someone making 300k is going to see a 13% increase in their tax bill. Your methodology is grossly misleading.
The Administration needs to hire David Frum to sell this to the public now that he is unemployed for criticizing the Republicans for their Just Say No campaign. He did a great job selling the public on how tax cuts and increased deficits would somehow be a great idea for the economy.