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.
Uh, yes it is. You make more than virtually everybody. According to the Rich-O-Meter, at $250K, you are in the top one-thousandth of one percent of people in the world. Or you can check with the NY Times and see what class you end up in nationally based on income, wealth, education, and professional variables.
This isn't about the world, it's about the USA; the Rich-O-Meter is apples and oranges, unless we institute a global income tax.
Quote:
Try getting by on $50K. The people who do get by on $50K pay most taxes at the same rates you do and confront the very same cost-of-living patterns and life-cycle demands as you. They just have a much, much harder time dealing with them than you do.
People living in my area of NY can not afford to live here on $50K if they have a family. As I had written in an earlier post, they need at least $100K which sounds rich in the backwoods, but is poor here.
Quote:
Obama chose that number because the pool of income shared by those making $250K and more is large enough to provide the needed levels of new federal funding without causing any of the pool-sharing people to suffer any actual hardship at all.
That number was selected because many of the voters Obama sought to appeal to view $250K as rich. Some of what you've written may apply, but Obama is a smart politician. He was able to elicit a visceral response from the people by tossing out that magic number. Divide and conquer.
This isn't about the world, it's about the USA; the Rich-O-Meter is apples and oranges, unless we institute a global income tax.
People living in my area of NY can not afford to live here on $50K if they have a family. As I had written in an earlier post, they need at least $100K which sounds rich in the backwoods, but is poor here.
That number was selected because many of the voters Obama sought to appeal to view $250K as rich. Some of what you've written may apply, but Obama is a smart politician. He was able to elicit a visceral response from the people by tossing out that magic number. Divide and conquer.
If your household is earning $250K+, year in and year out -- that's $1 million every four years -- and you cant afford to hire an accountant to help you cheat on your taxes and avoid helping your country, you're in worse trouble than the cruel Obama could ever get you into.
I was wondering what your opinions are on the rich and if you think they should pay more taxes?
Personally, I think they should the rich have a very high share of dividens and capital gains which are taxed at 15%.
On the other hand the poor the income tax is 10% and the middle-class are in the 25% tax brackets and most of the middle-class dont have as heavily amount of dollars from dividens and capital gains like the rich so the middle-class are being taxed at a higher rate then the rich in alot of cases.
Another thing is since interest on housing payments, charity (churches) and property taxes are tax-deductible these generally benefit the rich much more then the poor and middle-class.
I think that they raise the income tax rate on the wealthy to 40% like during the Clinton years and go from 15% to 20ish% on capital gains and dividens taxes.
Agreed. But I would make the top tax rate at least 45%.
Agreed. But I would make the top tax rate at least 45%.
I'm at 43% now, combined federal, state and county income taxes. In my case an increase in federal income tax will automatically raise my state tax and that state increase will trigger a county increase. How much higher should my wife and I, both teachers, have to pay? And we're not even close to the seemingly magic $250K.
My income tax proposal would shift the burden of the tasxe from the working class to the leisure class. (remember T. Velben?)
BTW - I am doing quite well in one of the most expensive areas of the country on a small fraction of $250K. I would be doing better if I was not liable for state and federal income tax. I would pay very little tax under my proposal.
This is entirely backwards. As an example, food stamp benefits are 90% spent within two weeks and 97% spent with a month. That rapid expenditure moves money on to where it can be spent again, thus generating a second round of spending and a second wave of economic activity. Rich people sit on their money. They don't have any needs or even wants that cry out for satisfaction. They think about it before they spend on anything. In fact, the average dollar's worth of food stamp benefits will generate about four times the economic activity that a dollar's worth of tax cuts for the rich will.
You omit the government's propensity to spend. In April, the government took in $266 billion. But it spent $287 billion. That all went right back into the private sector, creating jobs and payrolls and stimulating second wave demand. Even with a balanced budget, where receipts and outlays were equal each month, there would be approximately no net loss of funds to the private sector from the operation of taxes.
All else being equal, tax cuts stimulate the economy by increasing the gap between government receipts and outlays, a gap which is funded by borrowing. We have a very large such gap right now, and you call it a recipe for disaster. It seems to me that either you don't understand what you are saying, or you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.
That is interesting. That is exactly the opposite of anything I have ever read regarding economics. Facts and history show what you are saying to be completely false.
1. Single expenditure consumer essentials DO NOTHING for the economy. Why? People do not change food consumption volume relative to income and food demand is relatively stable in developed countries regardless of the economy. About the only thing that declines is meat consumption.
So in your world, that single purchase of groceries is better than job creation, and the impact of those grocery purchases lasts for years? That is literally one of the most misguided things I have ever heard. Food stamps stimulate the economy and is what makes the world go round, not hard work and jobs. That is good to know.
2. Tax increases reduce governement revenue. Again, this has been shown historically many times. When you have more personal expenditures circulating in the economy, you can tax that thousands of times. Tax increases allows that tax once and reduces revenue. The optimum level is 18% to maximize federal revenues.
3. The wealthy don't hide money under a mattress. They invest it. Investment is what makes the world go around and increases economic growth.
This stuff is just basic high school economics. Are they not teaching economics in high school anymore?
If your household is earning $250K+, year in and year out -- that's $1 million every four years -- and you cant afford to hire an accountant to help you cheat on your taxes and avoid helping your country, you're in worse trouble than the cruel Obama could ever get you into.
My household isn't grossing $250K but does fall into the AMT. My accountant follows the law as do I. It would be great to 'forget' part of the taxes as some of Obama's nominees have, but that is not my style.
Do you use your accountant to cheat on your taxes as you would insinuate others do?
The federal government is largely funded by a diversity of different taxes on income and commerce. instead of fighting over which group needs to pay more, wouldn't it just be simpler to shrink the government????
Fundamentally I agree but it's just not going to happen. Successful governments, people, and companies, and computer operating systems are very much like animals. Each generation gets a little bigger than the last until it gets so big it can no longer feed itself. When that happens, it's invariably replaced by something smaller and more efficient. The animals that last are the ones like crocs and sharks who can manage to keep their size fairly stable; Big enough to be taken seriously but not so big they deplete their own available resources. These are the critters that watch others come and go.
I'm afraid our government has gotten so big and bloated that it's no longer effective. Sort of like Linux. Unlike a bloated OS, it's just not so easy to start deleting extra garbage since the various "programs" are so interdependent. Sometimes you just have to go for a fresh install.
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.
Unlike a bloated OS, it's just not so easy to start deleting extra garbage since the various "programs" are so interdependent. Sometimes you just have to go for a fresh install.
