U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-05-2012, 07:53 AM
 
Location: it depends
5,267 posts, read 2,284,684 times
Reputation: 4138
Default The dirty secret about the $225k income family

The Washington Post editorializes that the opening bids of President Obama and John Boehner have one thing in common: they are both too small. Neither gets us where we need to be in terms of long-term deficit and debt management.

That set me to thinking: if the Obama society is so wonderful and deserving of funding, shouldn't more of us be paying for it? Can't the family making $225k or $175k dish up a few more tax dollars, too? When we are all whining about the need for a civil society to protect and care for the downtrodden, how can we permit households making $100k to get off easy? We use the examples of the disabled veterans and the struggling poor and dilapidated inner-city schools to justify higher taxes on the 2%. Don't those same examples apply to the family making $175k or $225k?

To their credit, a left-leaning assortment came up with a grand bargain plan that would increase taxes modestly on incomes of $100-$500k, and have those over $500k paying about 5% more. They recognized that if we want a big government, more of us need to pay for it. But this is a dirty secret as far as Barack "Free Lunch" Obama is concerned.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-05-2012, 08:01 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
74,369 posts, read 34,513,740 times
Reputation: 17814
The rich used to be defined as millionaires.
But now that we've lowered the bar to $200K we can't call them millionaires anymore, can we ?
So, let's just call them "rich" or "wealthy". Don't you notice the MSM isn't using millionaires any more ?

Oh they will get to the people that make 100K per year because their current scheme will only get them $82 billion.
And, as recent history has shown, the next year will get them even less as people shelter their money and move it around.

AMT, that tax on the "rich", will hit people making $30K next year.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2012, 08:27 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
30,957 posts, read 12,513,053 times
Reputation: 10880
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcopolo View Post
The Washington Post editorializes that the opening bids of President Obama and John Boehner have one thing in common: they are both too small. Neither gets us where we need to be in terms of long-term deficit and debt management.

That set me to thinking: if the Obama society is so wonderful and deserving of funding, shouldn't more of us be paying for it? Can't the family making $225k or $175k dish up a few more tax dollars, too? When we are all whining about the need for a civil society to protect and care for the downtrodden, how can we permit households making $100k to get off easy? We use the examples of the disabled veterans and the struggling poor and dilapidated inner-city schools to justify higher taxes on the 2%. Don't those same examples apply to the family making $175k or $225k?

To their credit, a left-leaning assortment came up with a grand bargain plan that would increase taxes modestly on incomes of $100-$500k, and have those over $500k paying about 5% more. They recognized that if we want a big government, more of us need to pay for it. But this is a dirty secret as far as Barack "Free Lunch" Obama is concerned.
On incomes above $250K, that is. They pay the same rates as everybody else, under $250K.

BUT, allow me to suggest that I'm for letting ALL tax cuts expire. Heck, most Americans are completely unaware that they are actually getting a tax cut. But, I'm not in a position to propose and make that decision. Letting it expire for higher incomes now and for everybody else with employment rate dropping below 7% isn't something I would abhor either. In fact, it sounds like a reasonable compromise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2012, 08:31 AM
 
4,690 posts, read 1,897,826 times
Reputation: 1571
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
But now that we've lowered the bar to $200K we can't call them millionaires anymore, can we ?

Difference between assets and income? It's not terribly difficult for someone in middle age who has earned north of 200K for a period to have a million in assets and therefore be a millionaire.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2012, 08:33 AM
 
Location: Monmouth County, NJ
161 posts, read 98,956 times
Reputation: 85
I'm still open to the idea of a flat tax across all income levels and no loopholes.. That'll make it fair.

50k earner taxed at 15% pays $7500 a year.
250k earner taxed at 15% pays $37500 a year.

No loopholes or write offs. Everyone pays. No more of this who pays more or less cr@p. The end.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2012, 08:34 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
74,369 posts, read 34,513,740 times
Reputation: 17814
Quote:
Originally Posted by squarian View Post
Difference between assets and income? It's not terribly difficult for someone in middle age who has earned north of 200K for a period to have a million in assets and therefore be a millionaire.
We're talking income here, not assets.

I'm sure there are many millionaires on paper (folks close to retirement) but that doesn't mean they have money to spend.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2012, 08:38 AM
 
4,690 posts, read 1,897,826 times
Reputation: 1571
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
We're talking income here, not assets.
Fine, it's purely semantics. But by the conventional definition, a "millionaire" is "an individual whose net worth or wealth is equal to or exceeds one million". By that usual understanding of the term, a great many people who have earned $200K or more for a period of years are millionaires.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2012, 08:48 AM
 
Location: it depends
5,267 posts, read 2,284,684 times
Reputation: 4138
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
On incomes above $250K, that is. They pay the same rates as everybody else, under $250K.

BUT, allow me to suggest that I'm for letting ALL tax cuts expire. Heck, most Americans are completely unaware that they are actually getting a tax cut. But, I'm not in a position to propose and make that decision. Letting it expire for higher incomes now and for everybody else with employment rate dropping below 7% isn't something I would abhor either. In fact, it sounds like a reasonable compromise.
Sign me up for the EinsteinGhost Plan! It isn't what I would have preferred, by any means, but it reflects the realities.

After a spell where more people are rowing the boat, and rowing harder, we'll have a lot more people paying attention to government spending. More people would feel like shareholders in this great enterprise. And we would have a better government as a result.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2012, 08:50 AM
 
Location: it depends
5,267 posts, read 2,284,684 times
Reputation: 4138
Quote:
Originally Posted by squarian View Post
Fine, it's purely semantics. But by the conventional definition, a "millionaire" is "an individual whose net worth or wealth is equal to or exceeds one million". By that usual understanding of the term, a great many people who have earned $200K or more for a period of years are millionaires.
And a great number of people who work two lifetimes in a small business never crack that level until the one grand year when they sell out and retire--and then for a shining moment they are part of that dirty rotten 'millionaire and billionaire' class that has its boots on the necks of the poor.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2012, 08:50 AM
 
9,600 posts, read 3,302,439 times
Reputation: 2257
Why are people so sure the government by raising taxes on people will then spend the money wisely.........like paying off debt. Some people's trust in
the government to do what's right is somewhat disturbing, some act like the government would never lie to us.

When our government depletes the money from these people who's next??? Yet to be answered and mostly ignored.........
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 $84,000 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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

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 - Top