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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.........
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.
