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.
Actually, despite the fact that the $250,000 number is always quoted, it looks like the breaking point is more precisely $247,000 - so technically the new 36% rate would be on BOTH families - but ignoring that fact and changing marcopolos scenario to fit what he was referring to, lets say the first family made $246,000 and the second family made $247,000. In that scenario the 2nd family would pay a whooping $360 more than the 1st family. If the tax changes don't take place then the 2nd family would have paid $330 more than the 1st family - for (drum roll please) a WHOPPING increase (if the tax rates are raised) of .....
$30.
Ken
Ken, you and MTAtech certainly have the math down, which I understood when I wrote the post.
My point is that one group is being castigated as among those who have done swell and ought to do more to "pay their fair share"--and the other is supposed to be the struggling middle class. It is a question of tone and tenor, and a pattern of marginalizing a minority. Yes, it is the minority with the income and wealth, but the pattern is a lousy one.
If everything the president says about our pressing needs to spend money to do the things we need to do, there is no reason on Earth to let the $249k income family off the hook. That $249k family got huge benefits out of the Bush tax cuts, tax cuts that we cannot afford.
In fact, if the truth be known about the government we have been voting for, all of the Bush tax cuts need to be undone. The president is promising a free lunch to 98% of us--and there ain't no free lunch. Let us pay the true bill for the size of government we have.
Close the borders, rid our country of the parasites and we will all live a better life. When you let people trample on you from a third world country, you turn into a third world country. Keep talking about taxes and nothing will change. The change that we need is for everyone to be paying. I don't mind helping American citizens but I am so tired of borrowing money from China to regulate the rest of the world and paying for those that have decided that we owe them a living just because we made a good life for ourselves.
If it prevents any tax increases on the top 2% they damn well will let the rest pay more. Protecting the mega millionairs and billionairs is why the Republican party exists. All the rest of the RW blather is to have a voter base larger than 2%.
If it prevents any tax increases on the top 2% they damn well will let the rest pay more. Protecting the mega millionairs and billionairs is why the Republican party exists. All the rest of the RW blather is to have a voter base larger than 2%.
The news will soon prove you wrong, Greg. The 70% share of all federal income tax dollars, which is paid by the top 10% of earners, is going to go up to an even higher percentage. The Republicans have offered this already, and will end up settling mostly on the president's terms. This will include a rise in the top two marginal rates, and limitations on deductions.
The real battle comes in a few weeks, when Republicans insist that government spending be made to better match the revenues being raised by the President's plan.
If it prevents any tax increases on the top 2% they damn well will let the rest pay more. Protecting the mega millionairs and billionairs is why the Republican party exists. All the rest of the RW blather is to have a voter base larger than 2%.
As I've already mentioned, I agree with Marcopolo on the fact that there WILL be a deal. The GOP will cave on the tax rates (they really have no other choice since there's nothing they can do to stop it - and it would be political suicide to let the cuts expire for everyone else). The only question is - how big a deal?
New from today:
"A deal is in sight -- the question is how big: We said this yesterday, and we’ll say it again: Everything out there suggests that Washington isn’t going off the cliff. The Washington Post reports that Republican centrists and even some conservatives are calling on House Speaker Boehner “to concede on rates now, while he still has some leverage to demand something in return.” And the New York Times observes that Boehner has more support from his rank-and-file than ever before, which gives him more flexibility to cut a deal. So perhaps some of our media brethren should stop with the sky-is-falling headlines. But here’s the big question: Can Washington get a large deal? One option to avoid the fiscal cliff is to simply extend the Bush-era tax cuts for income below $250,000 and punt the rest of the fight until next year, which would produce another political stalemate and a potential battle over raising the debt ceiling. The other option is to construct a big deal to take care of everything now (or at least create the framework for getting it done). The first option is the easy way out, but it only postpones the fight. The second option is harder, but it’s also the opportunity for a legacy. Which option will President Obama and congressional Republicans ultimately pursue? That’s what the next two weeks are about. One thing the next two weeks are NOT about is going over the cliff. If no big deal is achieved, then there will be a middle-class tax rate extension bill passed that allows rates on the top 2% to go up either to 37% or to 39%...."
Ken, you and MTAtech certainly have the math down, which I understood when I wrote the post.
My point is that one group is being castigated as among those who have done swell and ought to do more to "pay their fair share"--and the other is supposed to be the struggling middle class. It is a question of tone and tenor, and a pattern of marginalizing a minority. Yes, it is the minority with the income and wealth, but the pattern is a lousy one.
If everything the president says about our pressing needs to spend money to do the things we need to do, there is no reason on Earth to let the $249k income family off the hook. That $249k family got huge benefits out of the Bush tax cuts, tax cuts that we cannot afford.
In fact, if the truth be known about the government we have been voting for, all of the Bush tax cuts need to be undone. The president is promising a free lunch to 98% of us--and there ain't no free lunch. Let us pay the true bill for the size of government we have.
In the longer term rates MAY go up from everyone (ie back to the Clinton era rates) - and that may indeed be appropriate - but RIGHT NOW the middle class is still hurting too much from the residue of the Great Recession. Until we get average incomes for that group back up to where they were before increasing taxes on them is neither appropriate not likely to happen. After that, I'd be open to it if necessary.
Ken
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.
taxes on 98%
