U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [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 03-02-2009, 11:24 AM
 
Location: 32°19'03.7"N 106°43'55.9"W
8,117 posts, read 17,344,995 times
Reputation: 7297

Advertisements

I was thinking about this entire debate this weekend, and came to the conclusion that if you confiscated everyone's net worth, and then let the rules of fair play and capitalism be reinstated, within 6 months to 1 year, everyone who was formerly wealthy would once again be so. Similarly, most everyone who was once broke would once again retain their status. Those who were formerly middle class would once again be in the middle. What I am saying is that capitalism works. It's merit-based. Progressive taxation disincentivizes productive behavior and activity. A flat tax is the fairest aribiter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-02-2009, 08:11 PM
 
34,990 posts, read 34,776,027 times
Reputation: 6163
"By allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, the marginal income tax on the highest earners goes back to 39.6 percent (from 35 percent, now), and capital gains rates to 20 percent (from 15, now)."

That's OUTRAGEOUS! How will we ever SURVIVE?!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2009, 06:21 AM
 
Location: Marietta, GA
7,846 posts, read 14,894,637 times
Reputation: 3512
Quote:
Originally Posted by delusianne View Post
"By allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, the marginal income tax on the highest earners goes back to 39.6 percent (from 35 percent, now), and capital gains rates to 20 percent (from 15, now)."

That's OUTRAGEOUS! How will we ever SURVIVE?!
If you're a taker of other people's taxes, you'll survive just fine, as you have for years. If you're one of the 5% of wage earners who pays 60% of the income taxes already, you'll probably pay more in order for the people who take to take more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2009, 08:19 AM
 
29,819 posts, read 34,912,438 times
Reputation: 11735
Seems like the states with the most 200K earners were solidly in the Obama column. Was does that suggest to everyone now?
Where The $200,000+ Crowd Lives - Slideshows - CNBC.com
Here's a look at the states that will be most affected by the tax hike and how they voted in the last presidential election.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2009, 09:20 AM
 
Location: Sacramento
13,784 posts, read 23,827,553 times
Reputation: 6195
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
Seems like the states with the most 200K earners were solidly in the Obama column. Was does that suggest to everyone now?
Where The $200,000+ Crowd Lives - Slideshows - CNBC.com
Here's a look at the states that will be most affected by the tax hike and how they voted in the last presidential election.
It suggest you need to more closely and critically evaluate statistical information. The number of wealthy folks in these states are very small, and states like California and New York have a strong history of voting "D" in national elections.

So, basically you have nothing...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2009, 10:01 AM
 
485 posts, read 1,346,535 times
Reputation: 150
I believe that the title of this thread is incorrect. I believe that in order to pay for his $3+ trillion budget that he will be increasing taxes on the not so rich as well!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2009, 10:01 AM
 
29,819 posts, read 34,912,438 times
Reputation: 11735
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA View Post
It suggest you need to more closely and critically evaluate statistical information. The number of wealthy folks in these states are very small, and states like California and New York have a strong history of voting "D" in national elections.

So, basically you have nothing...
I have and here are the statistical results. A majority of those over 200K voted for Obama in 2008. That statistic has been discussed often so I just posted a link that showed the states. However you raise a valid question so here are the links with the stats to show that Obama won the 200K plus vote.
2008 Presidential Election- Voting by Income
McCain won at the 100K and 150K points but Obama at the 200K point. The link I referenced was about voters over 200K.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2009, 10:06 AM
 
29,819 posts, read 34,912,438 times
Reputation: 11735
For anyone who wants a comparision of 2008 and 2004 at the 200K level I offer the following graphs.

Note the change in performance for Senator McCain at the income levels over 100K. Again you can see the shift over 50% Obama at the 200K point.
Election 2008: what really happened | Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State (http://redbluerichpoor.com/blog/2008/11/election-2008-what-really-happened/ - broken link)

This is a good link to retain to help support or refute future discussions.

My link was about one aspect of the topic but since good questions have been raised I have answered them. The salient reality is that Obama won the 200K plus vote.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2009, 10:19 AM
 
Location: The Great State of Texas, Finally!
5,349 posts, read 10,852,768 times
Reputation: 2442
Tax increases will start with the top 5% of the earners, "the rich." Watch for that definition of rich to change and morph down the income scale, much like spending is now called "investment." The big, whopping $13 per week that the middle class Obama loves so much gets, drops down to $8 after a year. When you take that into account, plus how the cost of EVERYTHING will increase with the implementation of cap and trade, along with the job creators and wealth producers raising their prices of goods and services along with cutting back on hiring in order to pay these extra taxes, well, pretty much everyone is getting shafted. Even the poor. Obama's plan decreases the amount of charitable deductions people making over 250K can claim. ANd for all of you who think that wealth creators are so evil, they DO give alot to charities, and now the people who benefit from charitable services will suffer as well. I've never seen poor people create jobs or hire people, so I don't know how "bringing up the economy from the bottom" is supposed to work when you're really subsidizing it from the top (Govt). What a slap in the face from the "rich people" making 250K or more, and yes, MANY of them are small business owners, those that Obama championed as the life blood of our nation, only to bend them over backwards and ram it up the nations patootie. Lovely. Enjoy the next four years of ramming it to the "rich" all you Subaru driving, granola crunching, leaf-licking, oh-so-sensitive-lefties, making over 250K a year. Enjoy your change. Enjoy your new taxes. Or shall I call you "Comrades" now?? LOL
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2009, 10:36 AM
 
29,819 posts, read 34,912,438 times
Reputation: 11735
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA View Post
It suggest you need to more closely and critically evaluate statistical information. The number of wealthy folks in these states are very small, and states like California and New York have a strong history of voting "D" in national elections.

So, basically you have nothing...
Yes as posted I do have something and your issue is with the link and not me. so you might want to review the statistics and then write the author of the link and challenge them. It is fairly well known that Obama won the 200K plus vote and the article was probably directed at that audience. Also note my link made no conclusions and simply asked what does that suggest to you. Is that such a wild idea in this forum to present something and suggest people contemplate it? Should we all just make assertions and not suggest people think? Of course not so why your response? It was from CNBC so certainly they are a credible source and it was shared with the forum and is on topic. That creates what issue that requires me to more closely and critcally evaluate statistical information when what it presents is supported. No sweeping applications but a simple the top 15 states as measured by 200K plus incomes had the following voting pattern. That is sustained in the article and further developed per your request in subsequent links.
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:

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 > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:20 AM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - 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 - Top