Is anyone here a Yuppie brave enough to come out of the closet? (credit card, student loans)

[coldwine]

Originally Posted by Drover

There was also the little matter of cutting long-term capital gains taxes, and that's when the economy really took off again in the 90s.

It's surprising, isn't it, that when the government doesn't take money the economy seems to grow?

Almost like magic. If only history had examples.

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by coldwine

It's surprising, isn't it, that when the government doesn't take money the economy seems to grow?

Almost like magic. If only history had examples.

Since cutting taxes is always is a good idea, why don't we just lower rates to zero?

[Lookout Kid]

Nothing like a bunch of idiotic statements from dime store economists. The idea that lowering taxes automatically generates economic growth is overly simplistic and discounts things like business cycles and, oh, a little 90s technological catalyst called the internet. Sure, cutting taxes can have a positive effect on growth, but there are usually much larger forces at work. Growth and prosperity in the post war period was largely driven by suburban expansion, middle class expansion, and the fact that Western Europe's industrial capacity was largely reduced to rubble, which created some nice competitive advantages for the U.S. Then Europe embraced socialism, and this guaranteed that the U.S. would continue to have a competitive advantage for decades.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by sukwoo

Since cutting taxes is always is a good idea, why don't we just lower rates to zero?

Sure. Why have any public realm at all?

[jdiddy]

Alright, so my earlier post was a little more vitriolic than it should have been. But the discussion is moot, as I don't believe there is any plan to raise income taxes on families making 200K.

However, while 200K isn't wealthy, it is much more than most people make. At my income, unfortunately still below the 200k level (but I'm rooting for my fiancee to make it happen) I budget myself so that each paycheck pays a proportional amount to housing/expenses/savings. I'm due for a couple raises once this salary freeze lifts, and when that happens, I'll buy myself that gold chain with the letter J covered in diamonds that I've been holding out for, but the rest will bump up my savings.

Point being, if a tax increase were to happen, which would be a few percentage points on only part of your salary, if it does anything more than decrease the amount going into a rainy day/retirement fund, these people are probably living wrong. But again, this isn't the group that should see higher taxes. I think we should have a few more tax income brackets at the higher levels, though, and the motherf*cking 'hedgies' should not be paying 15%.

[coldwine]

Originally Posted by sukwoo

Since cutting taxes is always is a good idea, why don't we just lower rates to zero?

Well, with taxes I buy civilization. I believe taxes are necessary for a fully functional society to achieve the maximum level of "civilization".

I just don't like to be taxed to death for no other reason than I'm apparently wealthy. And therefore, for some reason deserve to pay more.

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

Nothing like a bunch of idiotic statements from dime store economists. The idea that lowering taxes automatically generates economic growth is overly simplistic and discounts things like business cycles and, oh, a little 90s technological catalyst called the internet. Sure, cutting taxes can have a positive effect on growth, but there are usually much larger forces at work. Growth and prosperity in the post war period was largely driven by suburban expansion, middle class expansion, and the fact that Western Europe's industrial capacity was largely reduced to rubble, which created some nice competitive advantages for the U.S. Then Europe embraced socialism, and this guaranteed that the U.S. would continue to have a competitive advantage for decades.

Excuse me? I'll refer to you in all things architecture, but as the JD CPA here I feel that my realm is definitely taxation and its effects. When you take money away from people and put it in the hands of the government, the economy does not grow. There's only massive growth in whatever area the government spends, and that isn't "real" growth; it's the effect of people rushing to that area to try and recoup their losses.

Otherwise, we end up with people who have less money to spend. If I take more money away from you, you consume less. You save less. You can afford less. It's so basic as to be nearly idealistic.

Again, I'm not by any means an advocate for the "No tax" movement. I feel very strongly that our federal government is horrifically misguided and grossly out of line with the purpose of this country. This does not mean that I support any movement to completely take away tax, though.

[ajolotl]

How many kids to you have?

My point wasn't that it is impossible to pay extra, but that there is a huge difference between 200K in Chicago or other large metro areas vs. anyplace else. In Chicago 200K with a family can be tight for reasons other than idiocy.

Most people I know live in Hyde Park. Hyde Park is expensive -- even a 3-bedroom townhouse can easily run 450K. Also, given the quality of public schools there and the fact that they have adequate income, they budget much of their money for the Lab school. It's about 2K/month per child. Mortgage and taxes is usually minimum 3K. For two kids that's 7k off the top. 200K isn't much more than 11K/month. That's not rich.

Of course they could move to Mokena, buy a small house for 200K, and send their kids to public school. But I wouldn't call them idiots for not doing that (I think it's good for the city that they don't, but that's a different topic), and in any case they budgeted assuming a particularly tax structure, so changing it significantly does make a difference. Not that they can't pay, but it feels odd to be thought of as rich.

Originally Posted by jdiddy

Alright, so my earlier post was a little more vitriolic than it should have been. But the discussion is moot, as I don't believe there is any plan to raise income taxes on families making 200K.

However, while 200K isn't wealthy, it is much more than most people make. At my income, unfortunately still below the 200k level (but I'm rooting for my fiancee to make it happen) I budget myself so that each paycheck pays a proportional amount to housing/expenses/savings. I'm due for a couple raises once this salary freeze lifts, and when that happens, I'll buy myself that gold chain with the letter J covered in diamonds that I've been holding out for, but the rest will bump up my savings.

Point being, if a tax increase were to happen, which would be a few percentage points on only part of your salary, if it does anything more than decrease the amount going into a rainy day/retirement fund, these people are probably living wrong. But again, this isn't the group that should see higher taxes. I think we should have a few more tax income brackets at the higher levels, though, and the motherf*cking 'hedgies' should not be paying 15%.

[jdiddy]

Originally Posted by ajolotl

How many kids to you have?

My point wasn't that it is impossible to pay extra, but that there is a huge difference between 200K in Chicago or other large metro areas vs. anyplace else. In Chicago 200K with a family can be tight for reasons other than idiocy.

Most people I know live in Hyde Park. Hyde Park is expensive -- even a 3-bedroom townhouse can easily run 450K. Also, given the quality of public schools there and the fact that they have adequate income, they budget much of their money for the Lab school. It's about 2K/month per child. Mortgage and taxes is usually minimum 3K. For two kids that's 7k off the top. 200K isn't much more than 11K/month. That's not rich.

Of course they could move to Mokena, buy a small house for 200K, and send their kids to public school. But I wouldn't call them idiots for not doing that (I think it's good for the city that they don't, but that's a different topic), and in any case they budgeted assuming a particularly tax structure, so changing it significantly does make a difference. Not that they can't pay, but it feels odd to be thought of as rich.

Understood.

However, again, these families aren't facing a tax increase, and those that make an extra 50K will be returning to a tax rate seen in the 90's. If they assumed taxes would forever stay at one of the lowest rates in the history of our countries income tax, they didn't make a very wise assumption. Especially considering the Bush tax cuts were set to expire soon anyway. Granted, Republicans never meant to follow through on that and it was simply a cheap ploy to hide the huge costs of the tax cuts, but still.

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by jdiddy

Understood.

However, again, these families aren't facing a tax increase, and those that make an extra 50K will be returning to a tax rate seen in the 90's. If they assumed taxes would forever stay at one of the lowest rates in the history of our countries income tax, they didn't make a very wise assumption. Especially considering the Bush tax cuts were set to expire soon anyway. Granted, Republicans never meant to follow through on that and it was simply a cheap ploy to hide the huge costs of the tax cuts, but still.

If you look at the proposals, we're talking about a few percentage points of increase on the marginal rates of high income earners. Again, these rate increases simply repeal the tax cuts of the last 8 years, so we're not going rolling back the tax structure to some ancient historical rate scale. Anyone making less than 400k will probably see their taxes increase by less than 10k/year. This is nowhere near the highest marginal rates in effect during the 60s, 70s, and 80s. Anti-taxers claiming the return to 90s rates as "socialism" are either disingenuous, in need of remedial history lessons, or both.

PS: I'm not saying anyone in this thread has cried "socialism", but a lot of pundits/politicians have.

[ajolotl]

I guess that's fair. I just thought your initial words were a little strong.

Originally Posted by jdiddy

Understood.

However, again, these families aren't facing a tax increase, and those that make an extra 50K will be returning to a tax rate seen in the 90's. If they assumed taxes would forever stay at one of the lowest rates in the history of our countries income tax, they didn't make a very wise assumption. Especially considering the Bush tax cuts were set to expire soon anyway. Granted, Republicans never meant to follow through on that and it was simply a cheap ploy to hide the huge costs of the tax cuts, but still.