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.
Someone making $250k has a lifestyle MUCH MORE SIMILAR to someone making $60k than they do with someone making $5 million a year.
You keep saying, "2%! 2%!" like some maniacal parrot, but you haven't told my why 2% is so important. Why not the top 5%? Why not the top 0.4%? Why 2%?
NO they don't. Because the person I was talking with makes 250k a year. Keep it in context. I suggest you stop calling me a parrot due to your inability to follow along with the conversation. Sorry, but your ineptitude and lack of reading comprehension is not my problem.
Owning a yacht is not a requisite of being rich or not. My friend's family is quite well off (they have a winter house in the Alps, a summer home in Tanzania, and various other properties) they don't own a yacht. We can stop using owning a yacht as criteria. They don't own an airplane either.
Let me get this straight. You make more than 98% of the US population and claim to be "middle class". That's absurd. You are rich. There is nothing wrong. You make more, even after your debts, than the average family. A considerable amount more. You probably have a house that costs more. Why is this SO hard to understand?
Regardless of debt, the person making 250k is rich. Debt is not really part of the equation. First off, debt is easily paid off at 250k. I can vouch that debt is not easily paid off at closer to the median level.
Most millionaires are not self made in the sense of a strict meritocracy. That's a great nostalgic view that even wrong in its day. They may not have inherited their wealth, however there are a lot of social factors that they have in common. Most came from above average households (Gates, Zuckerberg), thus had more opportunities available.
Warren Buffet: "I personally think that society is responsible for a very significant percentage of what I've earned."
Warren Buffet even acknowledges social differences.
Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google: "Lots of people who are smart and work hard and play by the rules don't have a fraction of what I have. I realize that I don't have my wealth because I'm so brilliant."
The CEO of Google acknowledges social differences.
One way to rectify social differences is to properly fund schools, health, after school activities.
There is no coincidence that Scandinavia and France have more social mobility than we do and yet they have more public services.
It's because they quality of public services doesn't diminish as quickly as one goes down the economic hierarchy.
We saw that largest increase in the wealth gap occurred in the 1980s, with the HUGE tax reduction of the rich. That led to social services being cut and the poor actually becoming poorer. We saw this again, well, today. Measures to cut social welfare programs that would affect the poor disproportionately in order for the rich (yes, those making above 250k) to have a massive tax break. We know that taxes supporting infrastructure, social services, and education helped our nation.
Of course we don't want, or need, a tax rate like the 1950s, but increasing it slightly would help. Sadly the poverty rate in the 1950s was due primarily to the fact that we had racial inequalities in this nation. Economically speaking, however, the middle class and poor had a MUCH larger share of national wealth during the 1950s all the way up to the 1980s.
If you truly think that all the sudden you will find a job because of your education and experience in this recession, then it might be a tough road ahead of you. It's not that easy.
If you truly believe that "private" help is adequate in its current state, then I can tell you've never really seen the trenches. Is that why Los Angeles's skid row has people from private hospitals who were unable to pay. They dump people onto skid row. I've seen it with my own eyes. I thought it was a rare occurrence, but apparently it's not that rare.
I'm not addressing all of your points to be perfectly honest. The main reason is because it's because they're a little ridiculous. Michael Moore was not from the ghetto, he had a middle income lifestyle that allowed him to pursue his dream. Yes it is rare to meet NY college kids from gangs. That's why the VAST majority of college kids are from middle income households. And nobody is advocating that the poor pay NO taxes. BTW, I did move to a socialist country...South Korea.
The reason I use yachts and planes is because when people including the president call for taxing those making over $250k, they say millionaires and billionaires, yacths and private jets. It is a very good way to use those we all "hate" the billionaire elite but it helps to get to the goal of the high income wage earner.
What you and others keep ignoring is it is rare to have people make over $25ok year after year, many times it is a one or two year event.
A one year high income earner is not the same as a wealthy person who does not need to work. The problem is as I show there is no way to fund the government budget on the "millionaires and billionaires", so they know they need to high income earners.
Buffet is not harmed by high taxes, he is helped, it keeps down his competition.
You use a lot of rhetoric such as tax cuts fueled the wealth discrepancy. What those cuts did was fuel the speed of the tech revolution that in turn fueled the wealth of those who created it.
Most of the top tech giants were all born between the years 1953-1956, so it is not because of tax cuts it is being in the right place, with the right technology and at the right time.
Taxing productivity will not help you achieve your goals, it will make things worse.
Regardless of debt, the person making 250k is rich. Debt is not really part of the equation. First off, debt is easily paid off at 250k. I can vouch that debt is not easily paid off at closer to the median level.
.
wrong
we tax based on household...and a household making 250k is not rich
are you calling a teacher married to a cop (both what is considered workingclass professions) .. rich???
the top bracket in the 1950's was 400k PLUS..that was considered rich in the 1950's...in todays dollars that would be 3 million plus...yes that would be considered rich..saying 250k is rich is being a sheeple of the liberals...next they will say anyone with a job is rich
Should our goal as a nation be one that does away with wiggle room for all? Or do we want to bring about abundance and wiggle room for as many as possible. The Progressive tax does a great job at reducing wiggle room for all.
One of my overriding points has been that it is disingenuous to claim that a family earning $250k a year (maybe only for a year or two) is the equivalent of the millionaires and billionaires in their yachts and jets. You can't point to Bill Gates in order to tax Ma & Pa Hard worker.
What?! Really? That is your argument? That raising taxes on the wealthy would eliminate their ability to live? Give me a break...
I assure you that there is plenty of wiggle room for those that make higher incomes. There was back during the Clinton Administration. Hell, there were rich people when the tax rate was at 50%.
Yes, funding social services for the poorest echelon of our population reduces wiggle room for all.
One of the main arguments when discussing unemployment benefits was that we couldn't pay for them. Well that naturally led to a discussion of finally raising taxes to help gap the deficit in order to help pay for things like unemployment benefits. People were upset. In fact, I lost my unemployment benefits for about two weeks and saw myself unable to pay my student loans (I could only get a part time job before moving overseas).
Obama had to make ridiculous concessions for unemployment benefits. Those concessions, keeping the tax cuts, is really fiscally irresponsible.
A hallmark of a first world nation is collective wealth (public schools, welfare services, etc.) Why dismantle those things?
Again, taxes pay for those things. We need to increase taxes in order to bridge the wealth gap and to aid those Americans that were hit by the recession.
It's DISINGENUOUS to imply that people making $250k is the same as Joe six pack.
You can point to McMansion Ma and claim that she is better off than Joe Blow
What?! Really? That is your argument? That raising taxes on the wealthy would eliminate their ability to live? Give me a break...
I assure you that there is plenty of wiggle room for those that make higher incomes. There was back during the Clinton Administration. Hell, there were rich people when the tax rate was at 50%.
Yes, funding social services for the poorest echelon of our population reduces wiggle room for all.
One of the main arguments when discussing unemployment benefits was that we couldn't pay for them. Well that naturally led to a discussion of finally raising taxes to help gap the deficit in order to help pay for things like unemployment benefits. People were upset. In fact, I lost my unemployment benefits for about two weeks and saw myself unable to pay my student loans (I could only get a part time job before moving overseas).
Obama had to make ridiculous concessions for unemployment benefits. Those concessions, keeping the tax cuts, is really fiscally irresponsible.
A hallmark of a first world nation is collective wealth (public schools, welfare services, etc.) Why dismantle those things?
Again, taxes pay for those things. We need to increase taxes in order to bridge the wealth gap and to aid those Americans that were hit by the recession.
It's DISINGENUOUS to imply that people making $250k is the same as Joe six pack.
You can point to McMansion Ma and claim that she is better off than Joe Blow
Ok, I can see what I am dealing with, you put words in my mouth. You want to bring everyone down to the lowest in order to take care of the poor. Sorry, you can’t ever force equal results especially when you promote an elitist ruling class.
I want to pay for the poor from those who receive government protection and benefits for resources that should be for everyone. I want everyone to have abundance and raise people up to create and produce as much as they want, without government taking the fruits of their labor.
The worst part is the elite of done such a good job on you that you actually fight their battles for them.
we tax based on household...and a household making 250k is not rich
are you calling a teacher married to a cop (both what is considered workingclass professions) .. rich???
the top bracket in the 1950's was 400k PLUS..that was considered rich in the 1950's...in todays dollars that would be 3 million plus...yes that would be considered rich..saying 250k is rich is being a sheeple of the liberals...next they will say anyone with a job is rich
Wrong. A household making 250k is rich. Yes the top bracket was $400,000 at 90% tax rate. That's the equivalent of the top .1% or so. Making the equiv. of $250k in the 1950s, you would have seen higher taxes than today.
I guess if you truly think that the top 99.9% is rich and not the top 98% you're splitting hairs.
A teacher makes about 98k at the TIP TOP level. A cop makes about the SAME at the TIP TOP level. That's about 50k short a year. (my dad made the district's highest salary grade at 89k...some districts paid more. Meanwhile my friend's dad is a cop and made about the same as my dad, some places pay slightly more).
I would say two lawyers marrying each other would be rich. Two doctors. A doctor and a principal. A doctor and a dean. A CEO marrying a teacher.
Look you're libertarian fantasies of not getting any support and bootstraps is more harmful than good.
Should our goal as a nation be one that does away with wiggle room for all? Or do we want to bring about abundance and wiggle room for as many as possible. The Progressive tax does a great job at reducing wiggle room for all.
One of my overriding points has been that it is disingenuous to claim that a family earning $250k a year (maybe only for a year or two) is the equivalent of the millionaires and billionaires in their yachts and jets. You can't point to Bill Gates in order to tax Ma & Pa Hard worker.
Wiggle room, for people making less than 250k, means the ability to have something left over at the end of the month. You outright stated that "Should our goal as a nation be one that does away with wiggle room for all?" To which I replied that nobody is trying to do away with the ability for the rich to live.
That's not putting words in your mouth. If anyone is promoting an elite group, it's you.
No, I do not want to bring everyone. How would raising taxes accomplish that even? That's absurd. It's beyond absurd. It shows a fundamental inability to grasp economic concepts and sociological constructs.
Clinton era had higher tax rates and yet the rich were doing pretty well. You remember that?
Government isn't taking the fruits of your labor, it is going towards services that help the poor.
One of those services helped me pay, albeit in loans, for college (government subsidized loans). My dad was a teacher in an inner city school (Cajon High School San Bernardino). The government helped pay for a grant that allowed for IB to be placed at that school. I lost my job EARLY in my career, right out of college. I was fortunate to even have a job straight out of college. However, the government helped me through that rough patch. Taxes paid by my family (we pay A LOT in taxes) directly helped me and my generation...so that we can contribute.
You're the one who doesn't want to fund services for the poor. Not me. Yet, I'M fighting for the elite?
True, but the top 10% own 99% of land, property, natural resources, power, and have 99% of the money.
If you are talking the top 10% of wealth, yes you are correct, if you are talking income, they are not necessarily the same 10% of the population.
The income earners pay all of those taxes, the monopolistic wealthy do not.
True, but the top 10% own 99% of land, property, natural resources, power, and have 99% of the money.
According to some, that's fine and if you disagree, you're fighting FOR the elite.
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.
