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.
My point is the government shouldn't take away the American Dream. Think about it...If you make $200,000 a year after taxes with Obama's plan you make around $120,000 - your expenses. How many years will it take for you to save a million dollars???? The American Dream is being stripped away. I have no problem taxing existing millionaires or billionaires. But someone who makes $200,000 per year is TRYING TO BECOME a millionaire! That's the difference and with this new tax plan, it will make it even harder for the average middle class American to achieve wealth. I don't make anywhere near $200,000, but I hope to one day and I don't want my hard work being stripped right from under me and put into wasteful government programs. I'd rather give to charity or give no interest loans to the needy on Kiva etc.
Boo hoo hoo. The American dream is going down the toilet if the American public doesn't get a grip and return to a revenue stream that helps finance our way of life in this country.
I don't understand how anybody can cry about this after seeing what a total failure it was under the Bush administration. It didn't trickle down, it created huge deficits, and doubled the debt. It isn't creating jobs now, firms are hoarding cash after the largest profits in recorded history. Bush's cuts were artificially low, were a failure for us fiscally and that needs to end, period.
The responsible thing would be for all taxes to go up actually. But no politician in their right mind would ever suggest that.
Boo hoo hoo. The American dream is going down the toilet if the American public doesn't get a grip and return to a revenue stream that helps finance our way of life in this country.
I don't understand how anybody can cry about this after seeing what a total failure it was under the Bush administration. It didn't trickle down, it created huge deficits, and doubled the debt. It isn't creating jobs now, firms are hoarding cash after the largest profits in recorded history. Bush's cuts were artificially low, were a failure for us fiscally and that needs to end, period.
The responsible thing would be for all taxes to go up actually. But no politician in their right mind would ever suggest that.
This is true. But now after this miserable failure of the Bush administration, we are blessed with this new miserable failure of the Obama administration.
I already responded to this claim...read a page or two back.
Do the math and please tell me how many years it would take to accumulate just $1 million making $200k...roughly $120k after taxes. You now use that $120k to pay for your cost of living. If you make $200k, you're working your butt off in a position that doesn't allow you to shut off after your shift is over. Say, you are able to save 50k a year...so in 20 years you will become an entry level millionaire.
Oh, for pity's sake! It's $200k (or $250k for households) of ADJUSTED gross income. Can we please get that straight?
As for the ridiculousness in the quoted portion of the previous post (i.e., two decades to become an entry-level millionaire saving $50k/yr.), your ignorance of the power of investing horrifies me.
Last edited by formercalifornian; 11-25-2010 at 12:23 PM..
I happily pay for my usage of trains and such many ways. This argument is flawed because NJ specifically, received less funds and spending from the federal government than hat is collected from income taxes from NJ residents and businesses.
What I meant to say was that I don't have a Mercedes E Series, pets, an iPhone or a boat like one might expect a wealthier person to have. Heck, I never eat out unless it's related to work. I cannot afford those things... and it's not because I'm bad at managing money like some people are trying to say.
Well, the OP has a Beemer. S/he can afford it, apparently, but not if his taxes go up $50 or so. Might have to sell it, LOL!
I happily pay for my usage of trains and such many ways. This argument is flawed because NJ specifically, received less funds and spending from the federal government than hat is collected from income taxes from NJ residents and businesses.
What I meant to say was that I don't have a Mercedes E Series, pets, an iPhone or a boat like one might expect a wealthier person to have. Heck, I never eat out unless it's related to work. I cannot afford those things... and it's not because I'm bad at managing money like some people are trying to say.
Even in high COL areas such as New Jersey or where I am (Long Island) those around $250,000 are making more than TWICE the median household income. If you can't afford to eat out I do think its a bid of a managing money issue. You can live in NJ without living in a McMansion if you must.
Its an issue of paying enough taxes....why must those with higher incomes pay for other peoples govt services. An answer because we can afford it is not acceptible.
Its an issue of paying enough taxes....why must those with higher incomes pay for other peoples govt services. An answer because we can afford it is not acceptible.
Who benefits more from the existence of government: the poor or the rich? I submit it is the rich. Someone who is poor owns little to no property but his own life. In a state of anarchy (i.e. no government in place), the worst thing that can happen to this person is death. He loses his life through violence (accidental or intentional), or from disease/malnutrition. He cannot possibly lose property since he doesn't own any.
Meanwhile, the wealthy person can lose 2 things in a state of anarchy: his life and his property. Government protects the lives of both the poor and the rich. But the government also protects the property of the rich. Therefore, the rich derive more benefit from the existence of government than the poor do. This justifies higher tax rates levied on rich people.
Even in high COL areas such as New Jersey or where I am (Long Island) those around $250,000 are making more than TWICE the median household income. If you can't afford to eat out I do think its a bid of a managing money issue. You can live in NJ without living in a McMansion if you must.
I don't live in a McMansion. And $250k is less than twice the median income in this town. I don't have money issues. I'm not saying that I do. I get by just fine and comfortably... but I cannot afford a lavish lifestyle.
I don't live in a McMansion. And $250k is less than twice the median income in this town. I don't have money issues. I'm not saying that I do. I get by just fine and comfortably... but I cannot afford a lavish lifestyle.
Ok not double, 1.7 times higher (the median income in West Windsor is $148,000).
Regardless, even in high cost of living upper middle class communities such as West Windsor, the median household income is still about $100,000 LESS than $250,000.
On top of that as mentioned earlier the increase is only on the portions of income above $250,000. So those who are at the $250,000 will see no increase, those who aren't far above it will see little increase or perhaps no increase. Things such as the 28% bracket being pushed upward, mortgage interest and property tax deductions, deductions for kids, etc and it gets to around $300,000 before any increase starts for some.
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.
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.
