Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-05-2011, 08:24 PM
 
864 posts, read 1,119,090 times
Reputation: 355

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cameron H View Post
Yes! Let's do this. We need more revenue, but that doesn't have to come from higher marginal income tax rates. In fact, some dude with a funny name who lives in the White House has been calling for precisely this kind of tax reform. Unfortunately, the party that controls the House of Representatives has thus far been unwilling to support any tax reform that creates higher revenues. Bummer.



Actually, higher marginal rates on incomes over $250,000 is extremely popular. In fact, it's the single most popular measure to reduce deficits. A majority of even Republican voters like the idea.

The economic rationale for closing loopholes and tax expenditures is stronger, but this is actually very difficult to do politically. Middle-class voters (and Realtors) like their mortgage interest deduction. Voters (and fund managers) like their 401k deductions. Voters (and employers, and insurance companies, and the AMA, and labor unions) like their employer-provided health insurance deductions.

Ideally, both parties sit down and negotiate tax reforms that increase revenue and have the smallest possible impact on the real economy and real families. That's hard to do when one party is intransigent on the issue.
Are you kidding me? How far do you think 200k goes in places like NYC and San Francisco?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-05-2011, 08:27 PM
 
31,995 posts, read 36,572,943 times
Reputation: 13254
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwlawrence View Post
Are you sure 90% of Americans live in the suburbs?
Well, that's a good question and I should really be more specific.

In Atlanta we typically say 90% (or more) of the population lives in the suburbs. But that's defining "suburbs" as everything in the metro area that's not in the city limits of Atlanta.

And that is admittedly pretty vague. If we designate the residents of Mayretta, East Point, Decatur, Johns Creek, Dunwoody, Douglasville, and all the myriad smaller municipalities as city dwellers then obviously the percentage of suburbanites goes down. Likewise, many if not most of the residential areas withing the city limits of Atlanta might be defined as "suburban" as well.

Then you've got lots folks living in medium and small towns outside the Atlanta metro area and a good many folks living out in the country too. So it's probably wrong to call them suburbanites.

I suppose what I actually meant -- and I appreciate you calling attention to its vagueness -- is a high percentage of people live outside the core central cities. I could be way off but I'm going to guess that in most major metropolitan areas that number is around 90%.

But there is no doubt that it depends on how we define the terms city and suburb.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2011, 08:41 PM
 
Location: Home of the Braves
1,164 posts, read 1,259,901 times
Reputation: 1154
Quote:
Originally Posted by muxBuppie View Post
Are you kidding me? How far do you think 200k goes in places like NYC and San Francisco?


What part of NYC and SF? Despite what you may have heard, not everyone earning $250,000+ lives on the Upper East Side or Nob Hill. Of those who do, the ones making $200,000 wouldn't get a tax increase. Of the rest, only the income above $250,000 would be taxed at the higher rate, so these "marginal" cases you're worried about would see little impact.

And finally, none of them are forced to live where they do, and they're fortunate to be among those affluent enough to afford such luxuries. The Manhattanite pauper you're concerned about might consider moving to Brooklyn -- it's very nice, and it's like getting a 20% raise.

And yes, it turns out that people did still live in Manhattan and Nob Hill prior to the tax cuts in 2001. Indeed, I understand they prospered despite the draconian tax regime.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2011, 10:01 PM
 
864 posts, read 1,119,090 times
Reputation: 355
Too all the people thinking we have a revenue problem even after taking in 1 trillion a year in tax; what happens if we tax people more and the government decides to start another costly war because of the extra funds? What then? Where does it end? How does a kids learn his lesson about budgeting if you just raise his allowance when he spends it all?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2011, 12:12 AM
 
906 posts, read 1,740,993 times
Reputation: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by muxBuppie View Post
Too all the people thinking we have a revenue problem even after taking in 1 trillion a year in tax; what happens if we tax people more and the government decides to start another costly war because of the extra funds? What then? Where does it end? How does a kids learn his lesson about budgeting if you just raise his allowance when he spends it all?
I don't think anyone here is arguing that future spending isn't a concern. But I think you're conflating the debt issue with future spending, when it's more properly understood as making up for past expenditures.

In other words, I'm not saying that we need to increase revenues via taxes in order to bolster the possibility of future spending (whether on wars or something else). Rather, I'm saying that we need to raise revenues in order to pay our national credit card on money that's already been spent.

And BTW, if y'all haven't heard already, Standard and Poor just downgraded our national bond rating tonight. And guess why? Because they're worried that some of our politicians in Congress were playing chicken with the debt ceiling and because Republicans absolutely refuse to consider tax increases or loophole closing in their negotiations:

Quote:
Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues
In that quote, they're specifically worried that Republicans will force another extension of the Bush tax cuts, which will further plunge this country into debt. To their mind, this makes us a riskier proposition in terms of making good on our interest payments on bonds in the future.

To get this back to ATL and GA: Let's hope that this downgrade doesn't affect state and municipal bonds or local mortgage rates. Because there's a real possibility all of us at a local level are going to lose more money if we continue to get downgraded.

More context from S&P here: http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2011...press-release/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2011, 04:35 AM
 
222 posts, read 586,158 times
Reputation: 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by muxBuppie View Post
how is the pay?
Depends on the job
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2011, 05:41 AM
 
Location: Ono Island, Orange Beach, AL
10,736 posts, read 13,291,570 times
Reputation: 7166
Quote:
Originally Posted by K-SawDude View Post
I don't think anyone here is arguing that future spending isn't a concern. But I think you're conflating the debt issue with future spending, when it's more properly understood as making up for past expenditures.

In other words, I'm not saying that we need to increase revenues via taxes in order to bolster the possibility of future spending (whether on wars or something else). Rather, I'm saying that we need to raise revenues in order to pay our national credit card on money that's already been spent.

And BTW, if y'all haven't heard already, Standard and Poor just downgraded our national bond rating tonight. And guess why? Because they're worried that some of our politicians in Congress were playing chicken with the debt ceiling and because Republicans absolutely refuse to consider tax increases or loophole closing in their negotiations:

In that quote, they're specifically worried that Republicans will force another extension of the Bush tax cuts, which will further plunge this country into debt. To their mind, this makes us a riskier proposition in terms of making good on our interest payments on bonds in the future.

To get this back to ATL and GA: Let's hope that this downgrade doesn't affect state and municipal bonds or local mortgage rates. Because there's a real possibility all of us at a local level are going to lose more money if we continue to get downgraded.

More context from S&P here: S&P Downgrades U.S. Debt Rating — Press Release - MarketBeat - WSJ
Well, said, K-Saw.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2011, 06:36 AM
 
Location: International Spacestation
5,185 posts, read 7,533,986 times
Reputation: 1415
Quote:
Originally Posted by aries4118 View Post
I am usually an optimist about things, but I am wary about this.


My fear is that this will just be a "trading places"--instead of true socioeconomic integration and urban enrichment.


Wealthy, affluent urban core vs. Poor suburbs--and with way less services than one would find in the urban core/city.
I like this. This is how it should have always been.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2011, 06:42 AM
 
864 posts, read 1,119,090 times
Reputation: 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by K-SawDude View Post
I don't think anyone here is arguing that future spending isn't a concern. But I think you're conflating the debt issue with future spending, when it's more properly understood as making up for past expenditures.

In other words, I'm not saying that we need to increase revenues via taxes in order to bolster the possibility of future spending (whether on wars or something else). Rather, I'm saying that we need to raise revenues in order to pay our national credit card on money that's already been spent.

And BTW, if y'all haven't heard already, Standard and Poor just downgraded our national bond rating tonight. And guess why? Because they're worried that some of our politicians in Congress were playing chicken with the debt ceiling and because Republicans absolutely refuse to consider tax increases or loophole closing in their negotiations:

In that quote, they're specifically worried that Republicans will force another extension of the Bush tax cuts, which will further plunge this country into debt. To their mind, this makes us a riskier proposition in terms of making good on our interest payments on bonds in the future.

To get this back to ATL and GA: Let's hope that this downgrade doesn't affect state and municipal bonds or local mortgage rates. Because there's a real possibility all of us at a local level are going to lose more money if we continue to get downgraded.

More context from S&P here: S&P Downgrades U.S. Debt Rating — Press Release - MarketBeat - WSJ
My question is how would you prevent it? You have a person with a budgeting problem and rather give him more money. What makes you think they will budget now? Where is the incentive for politicians to do right if they can just Nicole and dime people during a recession?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2011, 06:44 AM
 
864 posts, read 1,119,090 times
Reputation: 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwlawrence View Post
Depends on the job
You win. Most people in third world countries have great salaries and great middle class standard of living.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top