Americans Favor Letting Tax Cuts for Wealthy Expire

Politics • Views: 2,952

The newest Gallup poll shows that a majority of Americans favor allowing tax cuts for the wealthy to expire.

With about one in three Americans, including a minority of independents and Democrats, in favor of extending the Bush-era tax cuts for all taxpayers, Democrats may not be putting themselves at great political risk by allowing the tax cuts to expire for wealthy Americans. In fact, the middle ground of extending tax cuts for low- and middle-income Americans but allowing them to expire for wealthy Americans — the Democrats’ most likely proposal — is the specific option the public prefers most.

Gallup has typically found Americans unsympathetic to the argument that upper-income Americans are overtaxed. They generally believe upper-income Americans pay too little in taxes and favor higher taxes on wealthy Americans as a means to fund government programs, such as Social Security.

Jump to bottom

322 comments
1 Pythagoras  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:37:04am

What about the AMT?

2 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:37:49am

Oh no, class warfare! Yet somehow it wasn’t class warfare when the cuts were enacted!

3 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:37:57am

Awesome

4 Jeff In Ohio  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:39:18am
GOP, CONSERVATIVE DEMS IGNORE PUBLIC OPINION ON TAXES…. Remember during the debate over health care reform, when Republicans said public opinion polls should dictate public policy? When we were told that ideas with support under 40% nationwide necessarily had to be rejected as a basic principle of American democracy?

- Steve Benen, The Washington Montly

5 jamesfirecat  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:39:53am

You know this reminds me of that survey that found that 19% of people in America think they’re in the top 1% of wage earners…..

(Sorry I just wonder how many of that 37% consider themselves rich…)

6 MichaelJ  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:40:10am

Let ‘em expire. Unless, of course, I win the lottery, that is…

7 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:41:57am

I don’t want them to expire. And, I ain’t rich. I want to be tho…

8 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:42:05am

Is there a link to what those tax cuts are?

9 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:42:28am

re: #7 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I don’t want them to expire. And, I ain’t rich. I want to be tho…

You want them all to just eat cake, don’t you????

10 thedopefishlives  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:42:43am

re: #9 EmmmieG

You want them all to just eat cake, don’t you???

Actually, he’d prefer pie.

11 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:43:04am

re: #10 thedopefishlives

Actually, he’d prefer pie.

Pie, cake, let’s stuff our faces.

12 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:44:34am

I am, in principal, opposed to punishment of success.

I know it won’t be a popular opinion, but it is what it is.

13 spikester  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:44:37am

re: #11 EmmmieG

Pie, cake, let’s stuff our faces.

as long as it’s free!

14 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:45:20am

re: #13 spikester

as long as it’s free!

Costco sample day!

15 MichaelJ  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:45:54am

re: #12 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

How is making the rich pay the same kind of taxes as the rest of us punishing success?

16 thedopefishlives  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:45:59am

re: #12 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I am, in principal, opposed to punishment of success.

I know it won’t be a popular opinion, but it is what it is.

Actually, FBV, I’m right there with you. (Btw, it’s “principle” in this context, to be a grammar nazi.) By all means, let’s punish successful Americans by raising their income tax, instituting windfall taxes, and basically enforcing redistribution of wealth from the haves to the have-nots. Let’s see how many haves we wind up with when people realize they don’t get to keep what they’ve worked so hard to earn.

17 spikester  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:46:09am

re: #14 EmmmieG

Costco sample day!

favo_rite lunch spot!

18 What, me worry?  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:46:21am

re: #12 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I am, in principal, opposed to punishment of success.

I know it won’t be a popular opinion, but it is what it is.

And I’m opposed to punishment of poverty.

Someone has to be “punished.”

19 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:46:52am

I’m guessing that Michael Moore has a tax attorney and a CPA who keep his taxes to a minimum.

I could be wrong… but I doubt it.

20 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:47:25am

re: #16 thedopefishlives

principle… dammit… English sucks!

21 spikester  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:48:17am

re: #18 marjoriemoon

And I’m opposed to punishment of poverty.

Someone has to be “punished.”

punish the ones who are successful at stamping out poverty!

22 jamesfirecat  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:48:49am

re: #16 thedopefishlives

Actually, FBV, I’m right there with you. (Btw, it’s “principle” in this context, to be a grammar nazi.) By all means, let’s punish successful Americans by raising their income tax, instituting windfall taxes, and basically enforcing redistribution of wealth from the haves to the have-nots. Let’s see how many haves we wind up with when people realize they don’t get to keep what they’ve worked so hard to earn.

How about we promise only to raise the Income Tax back to what it was when Ronald Reagen was elected?

23 thedopefishlives  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:49:20am

re: #18 marjoriemoon

And I’m opposed to punishment of poverty.

Someone has to be “punished.”

That statement isn’t quite true. It’s not necessary that the tax burden has to be unfair on either end of the spectrum. The fact is, though, that people by and large are in favor of trying to “take down the man” largely out of spite - he has, I want, I can’t get, therefore take it away from him so that we’re both equal.

24 karmic_inquisitor  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:49:26am

Meh.

Income tax was put in place to pave the way for prohibition. It was only intended for the wealthy. It was to make up for the huge chunk of revenue that came from taxing liquor, wine and beer.

Prior to that, the only way to raise funds outside of trade oriented taxes was a capitation. A tax on each person (man, woman, child).

There exists a set of tax policies that will yield the maximum revenue for the government. It is one that will also yield the broadest economic expansion. I for one would like to see taxation as a fiscal matter rather than a moral/social one. My suspicion is that the optimal tax policy will have about 30% of the income earners off of the tax rolls (it is 40% now due to Bush’s child tax credits) and where high income earners would foot most of the bill (which they do now anyway). You’d have fewer deductions, cut the marginal rates and eliminate refundable credits (something that would eliminate some bizarre distortions that I have now witnessed as a restaurant owner).

Corporate rates have to be competitive with other industrialized countries so that high revenue, high margin (and therefore tax revenue rich) information based service companies stay here rather than go off shore (there is no law that can force them to stay here - they have plenty of attorneys who now how to avoid them).

A consistent set of tax policies that are morally/socially neutral would go a long way towards creating a sustained environment for entrepreneural activity and high income job growth - things we need.

25 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:49:43am

re: #15 MichaelJ

How is making the rich pay the same kind of taxes as the rest of us punishing success?

Giving them a higher rate is not the same kind of taxes, it’s more.

I, for one, think that all charitable giving should be fully deductible by everyone. If the rich want to contribute, let them take it off their taxes.*

*Obvious caveat about legitimate charities.

26 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:49:50am

re: #12 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I am, in principal, opposed to punishment of success.

I know it won’t be a popular opinion, but it is what it is.

So you’re for a flat tax then?

because progressive taxation by its nature will always “punish success” in some way

Personally, I think that anyone in America who is making seven or eight figures owes a lot more to the country that gave them the infrastructure and the safety and the markets and the tools and the legal mechanisms to make that money, and thus they pay a lot more, because their life and their income is more beholden to what the government has provided for them

27 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:50:04am

re: #22 jamesfirecat

How about the tax rate when he left office?

28 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:50:13am

Nope…

29 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:50:41am

re: #22 jamesfirecat

How about we promise only to raise the Income Tax back to what it was when Ronald Reagen was elected?

no that’s nazi hyper crazy insanoid talk, we’re punishing the poor poor hedge fund managers

WON’T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE HEDGE FUND MANAGERS?!?!?! THEY HAVE IT SO HARD

30 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:50:46am

re: #26 WindUpBird

If that is the case, why isn’t everybody there?

31 What, me worry?  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:51:15am

re: #23 thedopefishlives

That statement isn’t quite true. It’s not necessary that the tax burden has to be unfair on either end of the spectrum. The fact is, though, that people by and large are in favor of trying to “take down the man” largely out of spite - he has, I want, I can’t get, therefore take it away from him so that we’re both equal.

Spite? I think it’s about balancing the budget. And it certainly shouldn’t be on the backs of who can least afford it.

32 Mikethemoderatedemocrat  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:52:05am

Except the dems do a HORRIBLE HORRIBLE job of successfully framing this argument, and republicans doa brilliant job of shifting the tax argument, every single time, from the Reagan years onward.

33 jamesfirecat  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:52:10am

re: #27 EmmmieG

How about the tax rate when he left office?

Well played captain 28%

34 karmic_inquisitor  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:52:22am

re: #15 MichaelJ

How is making the rich pay the same kind of taxes as the rest of us punishing success?

They pay more.

They always have.

They have higher marginal rates.

They have deduction exclusions.

They have AMT (more and more of us have AMT)

The rich would LOVE to pay the same taxes as everyone else. That is what the “flat tax” nonsense was all about. If they did pay the same as everyone else the country wuld be bankrupt in about 90 days.

35 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:52:43am

re: #31 marjoriemoon

I can afford very little… But, I would take a five percent increase if I knew it would go toward reducing the national debt.

I make sixty thousand dollars less a year than I did four years ago.

36 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:53:28am

A great thing I love around here when there’s TAX RAGE!!1 is the often perpetuated fiction that when you move into a new tax bracket, 100% of your income is taxed at that new bracket and that someone would intentionally make less money to avoid the higher breacket

I don’t know where people get this, or how anyone who isn’t just not paying their taxes can believe this, it’s obviously some talking point, but only a fool would fall four it

37 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:54:01am

re: #30 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

If that is the case, why isn’t everybody there?

why isn’t everyone where

38 thedopefishlives  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:54:40am

re: #31 marjoriemoon

Spite? I think it’s about balancing the budget. And it certainly shouldn’t be on the backs of who can least afford it.

If it’s about balancing the budget, then the fair thing to do would be to raise taxes more or less across the board - everyone above a certain cutoff gets a tax increase. But that’s not what this is about - this poll says specifically that they want to take it out of the hides of “The Rich (tm)” and avoid having to pay for it themselves. That’s not fair, that’s taking advantage of the successful people who have the means to pay more than their share.

39 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:55:33am

*stands on soapbox*

In Oregon, we favor progressive taxes. States have three main taxes they use: property, income, and sales. Most states have property and one of the others. A few miserable states have all three.

Property is progressive in the sense that the rich do pay more, but not so much in the sense that they don’t pay at a higher rate. (It can be made more progressive by giving an exemption for some basement amount, and taxing what’s on top of that.)

Income is obviously progressive.

Sales is regressive, because the poor still have to buy stuff. It can be made less regressive by exempting certain necessities (food, medicine, etc.)

Why are we discussing this? Because the nature of a progressive tax is that it brings in less in a recession, so that just at the moment when more is needed, less is coming in. Oregon is in a bind right now, although I’m grateful they’ve taken school cuts off the table for obvious reasons.

I understand the appeal of progressive taxes, but stability is needed as well.

40 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:55:53am

re: #36 WindUpBird

I don’t have tax rage (at least, I don’t think I do)… But, the idea of taking 40% of someone’s earnings (I don’t care how much they have) (and that’s only the beginning) is something I just can’t wrap my head around.

41 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:55:58am

re: #23 thedopefishlives

That statement isn’t quite true. It’s not necessary that the tax burden has to be unfair on either end of the spectrum. The fact is, though, that people by and large are in favor of trying to “take down the man” largely out of spite - he has, I want, I can’t get, therefore take it away from him so that we’re both equal.

Nobody here is saying this

If we’re going to play with straw men here, then I’m getting out my bowling ball and I’m gonna start rolling some spares

42 thedopefishlives  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:56:24am

re: #41 WindUpBird

Nobody here is saying this

If we’re going to play with straw men here, then I’m getting out my bowling ball and I’m gonna start rolling some spares

I’m not saying anyone here is saying it. I’ll bet a large number of the people in the poll would if they were asked, though.

43 researchok  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:56:33am

The real problem is that many small businesses file taxes as individuals- many.

A guy whose business makes more 250k and employs more 2 employees (paid out of that income) is going to get screwed, big time.

Irrespective of what you believe re tax cuts, until and unless small business owners are exempted these tax cuts are going to prove to be a disaster.

No small business will hire. The numbers just won’t work.

This is not a good idea in this economic climate.

44 karmic_inquisitor  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:57:23am

re: #26 WindUpBird

So you’re for a flat tax then?

because progressive taxation by its nature will always “punish success” in some way

Personally, I think that anyone in America who is making seven or eight figures owes a lot more to the country that gave them the infrastructure and the safety and the markets and the tools and the legal mechanisms to make that money, and thus they pay a lot more, because their life and their income is more beholden to what the government has provided for them

Look - isn’t it best to incentivize rich bastards to get richer so that you get more taxes out of them?

There is a false set of tradeoffs that both Republicans and Democrats like to present us with that simply don’t exist.

Tax policy is not zero sum. There are a long list of Nobel winners for research on tax policy. There are strategies that can yield more income to the government (a good thing) and a bigger more vibrant economy that employs lots of people (another good thing). we should pursue those policies rather than follwing the “rich deserve to pay” vs. “punish success” false narrative.

Tax policy should be the most uncontroversial aspect of government.

45 MichaelJ  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:57:24am

Warren Buffett seems to think that the rich aren’t paying enough taxes…

46 Mikethemoderatedemocrat  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:57:31am

re: #4 Jeff In Ohio

Once the central rebub. machine is done with this issue, they WILL have the polls swing their way. A majority (or plurality) of americans WILL support repeals of estate taxes that they will never ever ever come close o paying,

47 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:57:32am

re: #36 WindUpBird

A great thing I love around here when there’s TAX RAGE!!1 is the often perpetuated fiction that when you move into a new tax bracket, 100% of your income is taxed at that new bracket and that someone would intentionally make less money to avoid the higher breacket

I don’t know where people get this, or how anyone who isn’t just not paying their taxes can believe this, it’s obviously some talking point, but only a fool would fall four it

Uh, actually my sister listened to some doctors her husband worked with discuss how they would just stop working at $249,999, if everything over that was going to be taxed highly. Why bother?

48 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:57:38am

re: #37 WindUpBird

why isn’t everyone where

successful… if the country makes it so easy…

Now, WUB? I ain’t picking a fight. I know you relish a good fight… I tend to just run away… I’m just stating my feelings.

49 jamesfirecat  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:58:22am

re: #40 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I don’t have tax rage (at least, I don’t think I do)… But, the idea of taking 40% of someone’s earnings (I don’t care how much they have) (and that’s only the beginning) is something I just can’t wrap my head around.

The top tax bracket was 70% or higher between the start of WW2 and when Reagen got elected. Somehow the greatest generation managed to put up with it…

50 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:58:49am

re: #49 jamesfirecat

The top tax bracket was 70% or higher between the start of WW2 and when Reagen got elected. Somehow the greatest generation managed to put up with it…

Dude, “tax shelter.” Nobody paid 70%.

51 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:59:06am

re: #49 jamesfirecat

So, that makes it okay?

52 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:59:18am

re: #40 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I don’t have tax rage (at least, I don’t think I do)… But, the idea of taking 40% of someone’s earnings (I don’t care how much they have) (and that’s only the beginning) is something I just can’t wrap my head around.

Well, you and I will just have to disagree on that

You know that if they invest that money in a business, then they’re not actually taking that 40%, right?

You know that low tax rates for the rich create incentive for rich people to hoard, thus wounding the economy, right?

You can weep for the rich people, I think the fair share of someone who is only making eight figures because of what this government has given them owes a lot more than that.

Rich people have a duty to invest their money and create strength for America through business

Low tax rates for very rich people do exactly the opposite, they foster a hoard mentality, they keep wealth illiquidm, in the hands of fewer and fewer and fewer people, because why risk it? Just sit on it

And America suffers because of that

53 _RememberTonyC  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:59:44am

250k for a couple is no longer “rich.” Especially with kids in college. If you’re talking $500k for a couple, that’s closer to “rich.”

I do know some families making $250k who will vote for a Democrat if they are on the right side of this issue. And if they can’t find one, that’s the Dems’ problem.

54 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 9:59:57am

re: #42 thedopefishlives

I’m not saying anyone here is saying it. I’ll bet a large number of the people in the poll would if they were asked, though.

I don’t believe a large number of anything would say let’s “take down the man out of spite”

there’s no argument here, just an assertion that OH MAN THOSE MEANIE POOR PEOPLE

55 What, me worry?  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:00:38am

re: #38 thedopefishlives

If it’s about balancing the budget, then the fair thing to do would be to raise taxes more or less across the board - everyone above a certain cutoff gets a tax increase. But that’s not what this is about - this poll says specifically that they want to take it out of the hides of “The Rich (tm)” and avoid having to pay for it themselves. That’s not fair, that’s taking advantage of the successful people who have the means to pay more than their share.

My heart bleeds for them.

I work with people who make 7 figures a year. I haven’t had a raise or bonus in 3 years, and yet everything has gone up, particularly home and property insurance. I don’t live in a million dollar home, drive luxury cars, have a summer home in the Hamptons, own boats and airplanes… like my bosses. I’m just robbing Peter to pay Paul so I can have enough for my electric and mortgage. They can sell the summer house or the boat for a cool 1/2 mill and be honky dory.

Tax the rich? I have no problem.

56 jamesfirecat  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:00:47am

re: #45 MichaelJ

Warren Buffett seems to think that the rich aren’t paying enough taxes…

Inter-Class Warfare!

57 Stanghazi  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:01:30am
The curious may want to know why the Bush tax cuts are set to expire in the first place. After all, if then-President George W. Bush and Congress thought they were a good idea when they passed them in the early 2000s, why make them temporary?

The answer is that President Bush and a complicit Congress didn’t want to show the magnitude of the deficits that would result from their tax cuts. To hide those deficits as they were pushing them through they used a variety of accounting tricks. One of those tricks was attaching expiration dates so that, on paper, there wouldn’t be any long-term costs. This made the long-term deficit picture look fairly rosy on paper even as it doomed Bush’s successor and the current Congress to cleaning up the mess.

You cannot talk out of one side of the mouth about the deficit and our grandchildren etc., while out the other side defending these tax cuts. No can do.

58 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:02:02am

re: #52 WindUpBird

Low tax rates for the rich create an incentive for them to hoard? What?

Could you explain this, please?

We don’t have a wealth tax. The tax gets taken as it comes in.

59 jamesfirecat  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:02:07am

re: #47 EmmmieG

Uh, actually my sister listened to some doctors her husband worked with discuss how they would just stop working at $249,999, if everything over that was going to be taxed highly. Why bother?

Because the money up to 249,999 is going to be taxed also….


I’m reminded of a saying I saw here to shake a finger at unions…

A piece of a larger pie is better than nothing at all….

60 Varek Raith  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:02:12am

TAX CUTS PAY FOR THEMSELVES!11!
Lol.

61 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:02:47am

re: #53 _RememberTonyC

250k for a couple is no longer “rich.” Especially with kids in college. If you’re talking $500k for a couple, that’s closer to “rich.”

I do know some families making $250k who will vote for a Democrat if they are on the right side of this issue. And if they can’t find one, that’s the Dems’ problem.

Basically what, a Democrat who will lower their taxes? hahaha

And kids in what college? A public college is seven thousand a year or so.

You don’t think someone pushing $300K a year can easily afford seven grand a year?

62 karmic_inquisitor  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:02:50am

re: #36 WindUpBird

A great thing I love around here when there’s TAX RAGE!!1 is the often perpetuated fiction that when you move into a new tax bracket, 100% of your income is taxed at that new bracket and that someone would intentionally make less money to avoid the higher breacket

I don’t know where people get this, or how anyone who isn’t just not paying their taxes can believe this, it’s obviously some talking point, but only a fool would fall four it

The distortion that I spoke of on refundable credits …

Earned Income Credit is a strange one - as a restaurant owner I have had servers request from management each fall that they get more/fewer hours before the end of the year so they can hit the “sweet spot” and optimize their credit from the government.

What is outrageous about this behavior is that these are people who are likely to get $50K a year in tips. They are defrauding the government.

Punish the rich? Because they are amoral? Tax cheats?

I think someone not reporting $50K in cash income and claiming poverty to get 10K more (and not pay a dime in income tax) is just as bad. I posted that in a memo last year and we haven’t had any such requests since (although we had a few servers quit).

63 dwells38  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:04:05am

Raising taxes on the rich won’t be enough anyway and not a good idea during this stubborn recession. Whether you think the rich have it too good or not we need them to be spending on themselves and expanding and investing in their businesses.

64 researchok  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:04:08am

re: #57 Stanley Sea

You cannot talk out of one side of the mouth about the deficit and our grandchildren etc., while out the other side defending these tax cuts. No can do.

Tax cuts have always yielded higher revenue for government coffers. Always.

65 First As Tragedy, Then As Farce  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:04:22am

re: #24 karmic_inquisitor

Meh.

Income tax was put in place to pave the way for prohibition. It was only intended for the wealthy. It was to make up for the huge chunk of revenue that came from taxing liquor, wine and beer.

If by “pave the way for prohibition” you mean “fund the Civil War”, then sure.

66 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:04:24am

re: #53 _RememberTonyC

What percentage of US households have income at or above $250,000?

67 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:04:40am

re: #61 WindUpBird

Well… if they can afford it, take it from them.

That’s what I can’t wrap my head around.

This is one thing we will never see eye to eye on, and … that’s okay.

As long as you understand you are wrong.

68 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:04:43am

re: #64 researchok

Tax cuts have always yielded higher revenue for government coffers. Always.

Untrue. Bush’s didn’t.

69 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:04:48am

re: #59 jamesfirecat

Because the money up to 249,999 is going to be taxed also…

I’m reminded of a saying I saw here to shake a finger at unions…

A piece of a larger pie is better than nothing at all…

There’s a point at which baking the darn pie isn’t worth it.

If I’m baking a pie, and I know that the government will take 1/4 of my pie, maybe I can live with that.

But if I’m baking two pies, and the government takes 1/4 of the first pie, and 1/2 of the second pie, maybe I don’t bake that second pie.

That’s what those doctors were talking about. If you’re making 240,000, and after that your hours are worth a lot less, go on vacation. Spend the money you’ve earned, and enjoy yourself.

70 webevintage  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:05:00am

re: #63 dwells38

Whether you think the rich have it too good or not we need them to be spending on themselves and expanding and investing in their businesses.

If only that was what they do.

71 thedopefishlives  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:05:14am

re: #67 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Well… if they can afford it, take it from them.

That’s what I can’t wrap my head around.

This is one thing we will never see eye to eye on, and … that’s okay.

As long as you understand you are wrong.

This is what I’ve been trying to say.

72 jamesfirecat  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:05:36am

re: #51 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

So, that makes it okay?

No I’m simply saying a historical fact, our income taxes for the high brackets took a major nose dive and its foolish to say that taxing the highest tax bracket at 40 or 50 is ZOOH MY GOD SOCIALISM!

73 BigPapa  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:05:54am

Taxation has somehow become a social issue which is regrettable. It’s already complex and nobody thinks it’s ‘fair’ although everybody has their own idea of what ‘fair’ is.

74 Varek Raith  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:05:57am

re: #68 Obdicut

Untrue. Bush’s didn’t.

You’re contradicting a widely believed untruth!

75 jamesfirecat  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:06:06am

re: #63 dwells38

Raising taxes on the rich won’t be enough anyway and not a good idea during this stubborn recession. Whether you think the rich have it too good or not we need them to be spending on themselves and expanding and investing in their businesses.

Yeah we do.

Does anybody know when they plan to start?

76 _RememberTonyC  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:06:07am

re: #61 WindUpBird

Basically what, a Democrat who will lower their taxes? hahaha

And kids in what college? A public college is seven thousand a year or so.

You don’t think someone pushing $300K a year can easily afford seven grand a year?

you are not allowed to ration other kids’ education. who made you and the govt their boss? maybe their kid has Ivy league potential and the hard working parents have sacrificed a lot to be able to afford it. send your own kid wherever you want, but don’t hold someone else’s kid down so you can spend their money. Any Dem who shows they “get” that will also get lots of votes.

77 darthstar  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:06:16am

Republicans shouldn’t worry about tax increases…they still have tax fraud

AUGUSTA — Ann LePage, the wife of the Republican gubernatorial candidate Paul LePage of Waterville, received permanent resident tax exemptions in 2009 on homes in both Maine and Florida, a violation of statutes in each state.

The LePage campaign admitted the violation on Thursday, calling it a paperwork error. A spokesman said Ann LePage had been unaware of the discrepancy and would remedy it. Per Florida law, she could be fined and levied back property taxes if deemed in violation.

78 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:06:35am

re: #72 jamesfirecat

We also shouldn’t confuse income tax with capital gains tax.

People with high working incomes get affected by high income taxes.

People who make money through unearned income get affected by capital gains taxes.

They are very, very different groups.

79 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:06:44am

re: #55 marjoriemoon

My heart bleeds for them.

I work with people who make 7 figures a year. I haven’t had a raise or bonus in 3 years, and yet everything has gone up, particularly home and property insurance. I don’t live in a million dollar home, drive luxury cars, have a summer home in the Hamptons, own boats and airplanes… like my bosses. I’m just robbing Peter to pay Paul so I can have enough for my electric and mortgage. They can sell the summer house or the boat for a cool 1/2 mill and be honky dory.

Tax the rich? I have no problem.


Create strength by compelling these people to invest. That’s how it’s done. That’s how to strengthen the economy. I guarantee you if the top tax rate went up to 60% and only hit people above a couple million a year, you’d see a ton more investing. You’d see some MOTIVATED BUSINESSPEOPLE a;ll of a sudden, and the country would get out of this vicious recession a lot faster

But you got some people here who are so up with their ideology that they’ll just get around that whole discouraging hoarding thing and go OH THEY HATE THE MAN

Without taxes to create and maintain and police the infrastruture of this country those people making seven figures would not exist.

But you know, they worked for all that money, it’s ALL THEIRS they did it themselves without the help of the government. What madness to think such things

80 _RememberTonyC  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:07:14am

re: #66 Obdicut

What percentage of US households have income at or above $250,000?


Just a guess ….. 2-5% ?

81 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:07:36am

re: #78 Obdicut

Another term I have a big problem with… “Unearned Income”.

82 What, me worry?  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:07:38am

re: #63 dwells38

Raising taxes on the rich won’t be enough anyway and not a good idea during this stubborn recession. Whether you think the rich have it too good or not we need them to be spending on themselves and expanding and investing in their businesses.

Gotta love the trickle down theory. Because we know how well it works! oof

83 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:07:39am

re: #62 karmic_inquisitor

The distortion that I spoke of on refundable credits …

Earned Income Credit is a strange one - as a restaurant owner I have had servers request from management each fall that they get more/fewer hours before the end of the year so they can hit the “sweet spot” and optimize their credit from the government.

What is outrageous about this behavior is that these are people who are likely to get $50K a year in tips. They are defrauding the government.

Punish the rich? Because they are amoral? Tax cheats?

I think someone not reporting $50K in cash income and claiming poverty to get 10K more (and not pay a dime in income tax) is just as bad. I posted that in a memo last year and we haven’t had any such requests since (although we had a few servers quit).

If you’re not reporting fifty thousand dollars in income, that’s pretty much illegal, I thought! :D

84 jamesfirecat  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:07:45am

re: #69 EmmmieG

There’s a point at which baking the darn pie isn’t worth it.

If I’m baking a pie, and I know that the government will take 1/4 of my pie, maybe I can live with that.

But if I’m baking two pies, and the government takes 1/4 of the first pie, and 1/2 of the second pie, maybe I don’t bake that second pie.

That’s what those doctors were talking about. If you’re making 240,000, and after that your hours are worth a lot less, go on vacation. Spend the money you’ve earned, and enjoy yourself.

///People who refuse to make more money are Unamerican!

85 thedopefishlives  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:07:46am

re: #79 WindUpBird

I don’t get where you think raising taxes is going to encourage these people to invest in anything rather than just taking every tax dodge they can find and socking their money away offshore somewhere.

86 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:08:08am

re: #84 jamesfirecat

///People who refuse to make more money are Unamerican!

In this case, they are people who did not fail math.

87 researchok  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:08:13am

re: #68 Obdicut

Untrue. Bush’s didn’t.

See this:

But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”
88 Varek Raith  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:08:37am

Lol.
Washington Times.

89 Cato the Elder  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:08:46am

Palin/Beck 2012: “Enrichez nous!”

90 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:08:53am

re: #80 _RememberTonyC

Just a guess … 2-5% ?


As of four years ago it was 1.50%.

How is that not ‘rich’, when you’re in that high a percentile?

Income is comparative.

91 researchok  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:09:25am

re: #88 Varek Raith

Lol.
Washington Times.

So what? The sources are the Treasury Department and the NYT.

92 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:09:51am

re: #81 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Another term I have a big problem with… “Unearned Income”.

Why do you have a problem with it?

If you basically have property or investments that just bring in money while you sit on your butt, is that exactly the same as someone who is working a 9/5 job and taking everything they make from that job and butting it right back in the economy?

Poor people invest all they have in the economy. They have no choice, everything goes to rent, and food and if they’re lucky, medicine. I’d like for rich people to follow suit a little more.

I’m happy with rich people building business empires

Not happy with them sitting on their money as the country crumbles, it’s actually pretty loathsome

93 Varek Raith  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:09:55am

re: #91 researchok

I trust the Washington Times as much as I trust the Daily Fail.

94 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:10:03am

re: #81 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Another term I have a big problem with… “Unearned Income”.

Oh boy. Okay, whatever you want to call it. Money that isn’t earned through working at a job, but from investments or sales of capital.

That can be someone busting his ass figuring out the best investments to make, doing due diligence, etc.

Or it can be someone who owns property, hires an apartment manager to take care of it, and cashes the checks.

95 Tigger2  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:10:03am

re: #74 Varek Raith

You’re contradicting a widely believed untruth!

re: #85 thedopefishlives

I don’t get where you think raising taxes is going to encourage these people to invest in anything rather than just taking every tax dodge they can find and socking their money away offshore somewhere.

As if they’re not doing that allready.

96 Cato the Elder  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:10:44am

re: #56 jamesfirecat

Inter-Class Warfare!

You mean “intra”.

97 researchok  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:11:13am

re: #92 WindUpBird

Why do you have a problem with it?

If you basically have property or investments that just bring in money while you sit on your butt, is that exactly the same as someone who is working a 9/5 job and taking everything they make from that job and butting it right back in the economy?

Poor people invest all they have in the economy. They have no choice, everything goes to rent, and food and if they’re lucky, medicine. I’d like for rich people to follow suit a little more.

I’m happy with rich people building business empires

Not happy with them sitting on their money as the country crumbles, it’s actually pretty loathsome

A lot of unearned income goes to pensions, widows and orphans.

It’s not just the fat cats.

98 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:11:14am

re: #83 WindUpBird

Nah… I think it is …
numbers are hypothetical

you have three kids/husband.
you’re a waitress
You make 50K, no EIC
You make 49K, $9,000.00 EIC
PROFIT!

Stopping at 49 is a no-brainer.

I think that’s what Karmic was talking about…

99 _RememberTonyC  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:11:16am

re: #90 Obdicut

As of four years ago it was 1.50%.

How is that not ‘rich’, when you’re in that high a percentile?

Income is comparative.

250k in Arkansas is rich …. 250k in NY or SF is not. There is a sliding scale here and calling everyone at 250k rich is just not true. Especially when the local tax burdens in places like NYC are so high.

100 dwells38  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:11:35am

re: #70 webevintage

According to this AP article they apparently account for 14% of spending so when they cut back it hurts immediately in the overall economy.

101 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:12:05am

re: #85 thedopefishlives

I don’t get where you think raising taxes is going to encourage these people to invest in anything rather than just taking every tax dodge they can find and socking their money away offshore somewhere.

you’re not being intellectually honest, sorry

Basically I make the point and then you go WELL WHO CARES THEY’LL JUST BREAK THE LAW WHY BOTHER?!?

What kind of argument is that? Okay dude! Let’s apply this wack logic to street crime. Fewer laws! Let ‘em run wild in the streets! Take the cops off the beat! HAY MAN THEY’LL JUST BREAK THE LAW ANYWAY MEH SHRUG

102 researchok  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:12:25am

re: #93 Varek Raith

I trust the Washington Times as much as I trust the Daily Fail.

Again, they are citing the Treasury Dept and the NYT.

I just linked to them because they were the first that came up in a search.

103 karmic_inquisitor  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:12:30am

re: #45 MichaelJ

Warren Buffett seems to think that the rich aren’t paying enough taxes…

Warren Buffet is the largest writer of Life Insurance policies on the planet. Buffet loves life insurance.

Why would Warren Buffet oppose death taxes? Because he is a stand up, moral, bleeding heart kind of guy?

No. It is because life insurance is a product that you buy to wipe out the tax bill for the kids when you die. The mega rich could not care one iota if there is a death tax. Not one bit. With life insurance and the stepped up basis rule, they completely avoid it (if they hire the right estate planning attorneys).

Death tax hits people who are too stupid to hire lawyers to protect their asset rich family businesses. You know - farmers. construction firms. dry cleaners.

Buffet can’t wait for death taxes to come back. Life insurance premiums have dropped considerably in the last few years but will be going back up next year. buy berkshire shares now while they are still cheap.

104 _RememberTonyC  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:12:41am

gonna take a walk …. will check back later.

105 What, me worry?  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:12:45am

re: #85 thedopefishlives

I don’t get where you think raising taxes is going to encourage these people to invest in anything rather than just taking every tax dodge they can find and socking their money away offshore somewhere.

That’s what they’re doing.

106 elizajane  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:12:49am

re: #53 _RememberTonyC

250k for a couple is no longer “rich.” Especially with kids in college. If you’re talking $500k for a couple, that’s closer to “rich.”

I do know some families making $250k who will vote for a Democrat if they are on the right side of this issue. And if they can’t find one, that’s the Dems’ problem.

I’m sorry, but that is baloney. Those people want to have their cake and eat it too.

I am in exactly the situation you describe. I feel that I live an absurdly privileged life. That I can even worry about saving to send my three kids to college, and how this balances with our vacations, our retirement accounts, the enormous grocery bills for all fresh, organic foods; the kids’ summer camps, nice clothing, the second home (and the third one), the dog’s hip replacement… Oh agony! I mean, come on.

Yes, we give to charity. Just yesterday we gave our (public) elementary school a 4-figure check to support ESL programs for all those illegal immigrant kids who the other parents want to stiff. So, indeed, we have the privilege of making that leftie decision because the government hasn’t taken our money in taxes to pay for wars.

But I feel like we should be paying our fair share. I have zero problem with raising taxes on our income. I feel like $250,000 is a heck of a lot. Sure, we worked to get here, but we had advantages along the way and now we should help others to have those same advantages.

Just had to rant. I’ll stop now.

107 webevintage  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:12:51am

I like Graphs.
Here’s a good one:
voices.washingtonpost.com
Think about that for a minute: 64 percent of all income growth since 1979 has gone to the top 10 percent.

108 jamesfirecat  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:13:06am

re: #86 EmmmieG

In this case, they are people who did not fail math.

//No they’re lazy good for nothings who would rather avoid taxes rather than pulling themselves up into a higher tax bracket by their own boot strings!

Seriously they’re already getting taxed 33% below 250K, above it it’ll only be 39.6% if it goes back to what it was before Bush.

We’re being taxed 6% more, oh the horror!

109 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:13:32am

re: #103 karmic_inquisitor

That’s sharp. Nice.

110 thedopefishlives  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:13:34am

re: #107 webevintage

I like Graphs.
Here’s a good one:
[Link: voices.washingtonpost.com…]
Think about that for a minute: 64 percent of all income growth since 1979 has gone to the top 10 percent.

The rich getting richer… And the poor getting richer, too!

111 Cannadian Club Akbar  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:13:51am

Whoa. People who don’t pay taxes want people to pay taxes to pay more? Say it ain’t so.

112 Varek Raith  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:14:28am

re: #111 Cannadian Club Akbar

Whoa. People who don’t pay taxes want people to pay taxes to pay more? Say it ain’t so.

Gah!
That is so BULLSHIT.
I pay taxes. Lots of taxes. Don’t say that I don’t!

113 karmic_inquisitor  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:14:32am

re: #65 negativ

If by “pave the way for prohibition” you mean “fund the Civil War”, then sure.

Income tax was the result of a constitutional amendment in 1913.

The act you refer to was a capitation.

114 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:14:35am

re: #106 elizajane

So when they raise your tax… I’m guessing the 4 figure donation checks may back off a bit?

115 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:14:44am

re: #99 _RememberTonyC

250k in Arkansas is rich … 250k in NY or SF is not. There is a sliding scale here and calling everyone at 250k rich is just not true. Especially when the local tax burdens in places like NYC are so high.

Everyone at $250K is in the rare air in the US of being extremely secure. EXTREMELY secure. No, they won’t have a mcmansion because land’s too expensive in the bay. It’s also reap spendy in Tokyo and Moscow!

Why don’t you ask some random people in Russia whether they think $250K a year in Moscow is rich or not, hah

Basically, you seem to be telling me that rich is all about how big your house is, which is ludicrous

This hairsplitting about what’s rich, I love it

116 Cannadian Club Akbar  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:15:32am

re: #112 Varek Raith

Gah!
That is so BULLSHIT.
I pay taxes. Lots of taxes. Don’t say that I don’t!

I’m sure being a Sith pays well.
/

117 _RememberTonyC  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:15:44am

re: #106 elizajane

I’m sorry, but that is baloney. Those people want to have their cake and eat it too.

I am in exactly the situation you describe. I feel that I live an absurdly privileged life. That I can even worry about saving to send my three kids to college, and how this balances with our vacations, our retirement accounts, the enormous grocery bills for all fresh, organic foods; the kids’ summer camps, nice clothing, the second home (and the third one), the dog’s hip replacement… Oh agony! I mean, come on.

Yes, we give to charity. Just yesterday we gave our (public) elementary school a 4-figure check to support ESL programs for all those illegal immigrant kids who the other parents want to stiff. So, indeed, we have the privilege of making that leftie decision because the government hasn’t taken our money in taxes to pay for wars.

But I feel like we should be paying our fair share. I have zero problem with raising taxes on our income. I feel like $250,000 is a heck of a lot. Sure, we worked to get here, but we had advantages along the way and now we should help others to have those same advantages.

Just had to rant. I’ll stop now.


you sound like a solid person and you deserve praise. but what i said is NOT baloney. The life you describe is NOT what others at 250k are all doing.

118 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:17:11am

re: #90 Obdicut

As of four years ago it was 1.50%.

How is that not ‘rich’, when you’re in that high a percentile?

Income is comparative.

yes yes yes

If I was at $250K a year, I would IMMEDIATELY start at least two companies, I literally have the business plans mapped out in my head, the opportunities are right there

And you know a lot of people at that income bracket, their idea of investing is putting a new kitchen in

119 thedopefishlives  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:17:23am

re: #101 WindUpBird

you’re not being intellectually honest, sorry

Basically I make the point and then you go WELL WHO CARES THEY’LL JUST BREAK THE LAW WHY BOTHER?!?

What kind of argument is that? Okay dude! Let’s apply this wack logic to street crime. Fewer laws! Let ‘em run wild in the streets! Take the cops off the beat! HAY MAN THEY’LL JUST BREAK THE LAW ANYWAY MEH SHRUG

I’m more asking why you think raising taxes is going to spur investment. I’m honestly curious, because I just don’t see it.

120 Curt  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:17:25am

re: #85 thedopefishlives

I don’t get where you think raising taxes is going to encourage these people to invest in anything rather than just taking every tax dodge they can find and socking their money away offshore somewhere.

Otherwise know as “unintended consequences,” like the lack of tax revenue flowing now, after throwing billions and trillions to “stimulate” the economy.

121 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:17:26am

Gosh… I’d rather argue about abortion.. —->>>>

122 Varek Raith  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:17:35am

Being in a higher tax bracket is horrible!
I’d rather just live pay check to pay check!

123 _RememberTonyC  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:17:38am

re: #115 WindUpBird

Everyone at $250K is in the rare air in the US of being extremely secure. EXTREMELY secure. No, they won’t have a mcmansion because land’s too expensive in the bay. It’s also reap spendy in Tokyo and Moscow!

Why don’t you ask some random people in Russia whether they think $250K a year in Moscow is rich or not, hah

Basically, you seem to be telling me that rich is all about how big your house is, which is ludicrous

This hairsplitting about what’s rich, I love it

that response makes no sense at all. you have projected lots of things that are not there onto me. moscow? WTF does that have to do with anything?

124 dwells38  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:17:54am

re: #111 Cannadian Club Akbar


Those who rob Peter to pay Paul will always have Paul’s vote! LOL!

125 webevintage  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:18:14am

re: #99 _RememberTonyC

250k in Arkansas is rich … 250k in NY or SF is not. There is a sliding scale here and calling everyone at 250k rich is just not true. Especially when the local tax burdens in places like NYC are so high.

Actually that is a bit of “conventional wisdom” bullshit.
$250,000 is still well off and it has a pretty graph too:
voices.washingtonpost.com


“Now, it’s true that those people might not “feel” rich. There’s lots of stuff to buy in New York City. It’s pretty easy to construct a lifestyle where you spend $250,000 a year. In Columbus, Ohio, only 1.3 percent of households make more than $200,000, so there’s less stuff for them to buy and fewer rich people for them to try to keep up with. But what you buy and whether you try to keep up with the people in the penthouse is a personal decision, not an objective economic necessity. The fact of the matter is that a household making $250,000 in New York City is making more than pretty much anyone else in the city. Being rich is more than just a feeling.”
126 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:18:16am

re: #108 jamesfirecat

//No they’re lazy good for nothings who would rather avoid taxes rather than pulling themselves up into a higher tax bracket by their own boot strings!

Seriously they’re already getting taxed 33% below 250K, above it it’ll only be 39.6% if it goes back to what it was before Bush.

We’re being taxed 6% more, oh the horror!

EVERYONE PANIC

HOW WILL I AFFORD THE MASERATI QUATTROPORTE NOW?!?!?!?!

127 What, me worry?  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:18:20am

re: #99 _RememberTonyC

250k in Arkansas is rich … 250k in NY or SF is not. There is a sliding scale here and calling everyone at 250k rich is just not true. Especially when the local tax burdens in places like NYC are so high.

I don’t know if this is helpful. It was from the 2008 election.

How many people make $250,000 or more?

factcheck.org

Roughly one in 50 households will take in more than $250,000 next year.

For simplicity, we’ll just focus on the over-$250,000 group. Those reporting adjusted gross income of more than $250,000 to the IRS are projected to make up 2 percent of households next year, when the new president will take office. Those folks will earn 24.1 percent of all income, and pay 43.6 percent of all personal federal income taxes, the Tax Policy Center figures. Under either Obama or Clinton, they might pay even more.

Joint returns with more than $250,000 adjusted gross income and single returns with more than $125,000 adjusted gross income together are estimated to make up 3.1 percent of households next year. That group is projected to earn 27 percent of all personal income and pay 47.9 percent of all personal federal income taxes in 2009, according to the TPC’s calculations.

128 Cannadian Club Akbar  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:18:41am

re: #122 Varek Raith

Being in a higher tax bracket is horrible!
I’d rather just live pay check to pay check!

I’d rather have one that would cash!!

129 karmic_inquisitor  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:18:52am

re: #83 WindUpBird

If you’re not reporting fifty thousand dollars in income, that’s pretty much illegal, I thought! :D

My point. And the tax code encourages them to. And a variety of complex labor laws and civil trial outcomes make it difficult/perilous for an employer to try to force them to be honest. Posting that memo did the trick at my place. the same people who will steal from the government will steal from the employer.

130 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:19:12am

re: #122 Varek Raith

Being in a higher tax bracket is horrible!
I’d rather just live pay check to pay check!

ahahahahahahahah

Oh man I know rite?!?!

Take this Porsche 911 GT2 from me

TAKE IT I CAN’T HANDLE THE TAXES OH GOD I’M GONNA GROW MY BEARD LONG LIKE GANDALF AND LIVE IN A HUT

131 What, me worry?  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:19:43am

re: #106 elizajane

Nice to hear :)

132 researchok  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:19:44am

One more time:

The real problem is that many small businesses file taxes as individuals- many.

A guy whose business makes more 250k and employs more 2 employees (paid out of that income) is going to get screwed, big time.

Irrespective of what you believe re tax cuts, until and unless small business owners are exempted these tax cuts are going to prove to be a disaster.

No small business will hire. The numbers just won’t work.

This is not a good idea in this economic climate.

133 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:20:09am

re: #129 karmic_inquisitor

My point. And the tax code encourages them to. And a variety of complex labor laws and civil trial outcomes make it difficult/perilous for an employer to try to force them to be honest. Posting that memo did the trick at my place. the same people who will steal from the government will steal from the employer.

So basically taxing people at a higher rate encourages them to break the law so we can’t do it hahahaha

You know how stupid and fatalistic this sounds?

134 webevintage  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:20:44am

re: #110 thedopefishlives

The rich getting richer… And the poor getting richer, too!

Really?
That’s what you got from that….

135 jamesfirecat  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:21:09am

re: #121 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Gosh… I’d rather argue about abortion.. —->>>>

F*** it so would I.

Abortion is easy to argue once you point out how its all about the sanctity of someone’s organs.

136 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:21:20am

re: #126 WindUpBird

EVERYONE PANIC

HOW WILL I AFFORD THE MASERATI QUATTROPORTE NOW?!?!?!?!

No. It’s not that at all.

It’s the kitchen remodel.
The new pool.
The charity donations.
The cutsie handmade crafts.

In each case you are giving money to people who make considerably less than you do, and except for the donation, they earn that money. If you don’t buy, they don’t work.

In a choice between college for the kids and the new boat (boats are built by people who make less than $250,000 a year)* the boat goes.

*full disclosure: my father is a consulting electrical engineer, and one of his clients is a yacht builder.

137 Cannadian Club Akbar  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:21:30am

re: #132 researchok

One more time:

The real problem is that many small businesses file taxes as individuals- many.

A guy whose business makes more 250k and employs more 2 employees (paid out of that income) is going to get screwed, big time.

Irrespective of what you believe re tax cuts, until and unless small business owners are exempted these tax cuts are going to prove to be a disaster.

No small business will hire. The numbers just won’t work.

This is not a good idea in this economic climate.

Dude. President Obama is a lawyer. He knows what he is doing.
//

138 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:22:13am

re: #132 researchok

One more time:

The real problem is that many small businesses file taxes as individuals- many.

A guy whose business makes more 250k and employs more 2 employees (paid out of that income) is going to get screwed, big time.

Irrespective of what you believe re tax cuts, until and unless small business owners are exempted these tax cuts are going to prove to be a disaster.

No small business will hire. The numbers just won’t work.

This is not a good idea in this economic climate.

You know that if a business is “making $250K” that they’re actually making far more than that, because you’re

139 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:22:48am

re: #132 researchok

One more time:

The real problem is that many small businesses file taxes as individuals- many.

A guy whose business makes more 250k and employs more 2 employees (paid out of that income) is going to get screwed, big time.

Irrespective of what you believe re tax cuts, until and unless small business owners are exempted these tax cuts are going to prove to be a disaster.

No small business will hire. The numbers just won’t work.

This is not a good idea in this economic climate.

You know that if a business is “making $250K” that they’re actually making far more than that, because you’re NOT TAXED ON YOUR BUSINESS EXPENSES AND THAT INCLUDES YOUR LABOR COSTS, RIGHT?

140 elizajane  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:22:57am

re: #114 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

So when they raise your tax… I’m guessing the 4 figure donation checks may back off a bit?

Yes, that’s what I was implying. I mean, they’d go down to 3 figures! But that’s the argument, isn’t it? Between people deciding individually how they should help those less fortunate (the “Americans give more to charity” argument) and the government doing it. I’m not against the government interfereing here.

Frankly, if our schools were decently funded, we wouldn’t have needed to give this money. Their “supplies” budget this year is $0. Yes, no paper, no pencils, no chalk, no erasers, nothing. Who gets smacked from that? The kids whose parents can’t afford to buy them paper. The kids of the migrant workers, the low wage-earners, the unemployed, the homeless. It just burns me up. And the bloody parents at this school, the rich ones, are only worried about preserving services for “gifted and talented” children (ie., theirs). That’s where almost all the private donations go.

It burns me up. It really does.

141 thedopefishlives  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:23:21am

re: #134 webevintage

Really?
That’s what you got from that…

Yes, that’s exactly what I got from that. The disparity may be growing, but notice that doesn’t mean rich people are taking money out of poor peoples’ pockets, because economics is not a zero-sum game.

142 webevintage  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:23:48am

re: #132 researchok

One more time:

The real problem is that many small businesses file taxes as individuals- many.

A guy whose business makes more 250k and employs more 2 employees (paid out of that income) is going to get screwed, big time.

Irrespective of what you believe re tax cuts, until and unless small business owners are exempted these tax cuts are going to prove to be a disaster.

No small business will hire. The numbers just won’t work.

This is not a good idea in this economic climate.

He is going to pay 3% more on his personal income that is over 250K.
That is “getting screwed big time”?
and there are no tax breaks and deductions and nothing for people like this who pay their employees out of their personal income?

143 What, me worry?  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:24:03am

re: #135 jamesfirecat

F*** it so would I.

Abortion is easy to argue once you point out how its all about the sanctity of someone’s organs.

Or the sanctity of someone’s wallet. Same thing, I’m thinkin.

144 Curt  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:24:05am

re: #133 WindUpBird

So basically taxing people at a higher rate encourages them to break the law so we can’t do it hahahaha

You know how stupid and fatalistic this sounds?

Stupid just like the money that has gone to offshore accounts over the years, rather than go to the IRS, in all sorts of economic climates. It’s like real reality.

Not a new thing, for tax payers to figure out how to make the numbers and specific words work in their favor, courtesy of tax lawyers, who get a piece of the action that the IRS isn’t getting by finely dividing the texts of the Tax Code.

145 Cato the Elder  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:24:11am

“No taxation without lamentation.”

I just have to laugh when people think they need to help the rich with their weeping.

146 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:25:06am

re: #136 EmmmieG

No. It’s not that at all.

It’s the kitchen remodel.
The new pool.
The charity donations.
The cutsie handmade crafts.

In each case you are giving money to people who make considerably less than you do, and except for the donation, they earn that money. If you don’t buy, they don’t work.

In a choice between college for the kids and the new boat (boats are built by people who make less than $250,000 a year)* the boat goes.

*full disclosure: my father is a consulting electrical engineer, and one of his clients is a yacht builder.

You know we’re not talking just about people who make $251,000 a year, we’re also talking people who make $700,000 a year, who make a million five a year

And they’d have a LOT more room to invest than someone making $100,000 a year

but if you tax them at a low rate, no incentive to invest, they’ll just sit on it

Are you seriously telling me that someone making a million or more a year spends it all as fast as they get it?

Spending money on stuff stimulates the economy

spending money creating a business STIMULATES IT FAR FAR MORE

147 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:25:10am

re: #140 elizajane

Yes, that’s what I was implying. I mean, they’d go down to 3 figures! But that’s the argument, isn’t it? Between people deciding individually how they should help those less fortunate (the “Americans give more to charity” argument) and the government doing it. I’m not against the government interfereing here.

Frankly, if our schools were decently funded, we wouldn’t have needed to give this money. Their “supplies” budget this year is $0. Yes, no paper, no pencils, no chalk, no erasers, nothing. Who gets smacked from that? The kids whose parents can’t afford to buy them paper. The kids of the migrant workers, the low wage-earners, the unemployed, the homeless. It just burns me up. And the bloody parents at this school, the rich ones, are only worried about preserving services for “gifted and talented” children (ie., theirs). That’s where almost all the private donations go.

It burns me up. It really does.

In our local schools the g&t gets defunded but the special needs can’t be touched.

We had to pay an extra “fee” for paper ($10. You think my daughter will use $10 worth of paper in one year?) yet the school district could find enough paper for the superintendent to send us all a vapid, pointless letter welcoming us back to school.

148 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:25:28am

re: #141 thedopefishlives

Yes, that’s exactly what I got from that. The disparity may be growing, but notice that doesn’t mean rich people are taking money out of poor peoples’ pockets, because economics is not a zero-sum game.

Are you okay with the disparity growing?

Is this an effect you prefer?

149 researchok  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:25:41am

re: #138 WindUpBird

You know that if a business is “making $250K” that they’re actually making far more than that, because you’re

How are they making so much more?

He can claim only so much in expenses before an audit is triggered. If he’s a small manufacturer, he has no cash income and even a business that does a cash business can be audited to make sure purchases yield so mo much in income, etc.

I’m telling you, take away these breaks and small businesses can’t afford to grow (unless that growth is very large, an unlikely scenario.).

150 jamesfirecat  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:25:42am

re: #144 Curt

Stupid just like the money that has gone to offshore accounts over the years, rather than go to the IRS, in all sorts of economic climates. It’s like real reality.

Not a new thing, for tax payers to figure out how to make the numbers and specific words work in their favor, courtesy of tax lawyers, who get a piece of the action that the IRS isn’t getting by finely dividing the texts of the Tax Code.

So what you’re saying is we need to fund more money to the IRS so they can hire more competent people who would do a better job of hunting down tax shelters, and thus get us more money when they pry the hidden money from these people’s greedy clutches, it’s self financing and brilliant!

151 thedopefishlives  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:25:44am

re: #146 WindUpBird

You still never made the connection between taxing people and investment. I’m waiting.

152 karmic_inquisitor  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:25:55am

re: #133 WindUpBird

So basically taxing people at a higher rate encourages them to break the law so we can’t do it hahahaha

You know how stupid and fatalistic this sounds?

Gee. I guess I am stupid then.

Nice way to dismiss someone outright. On other matters that would be called “dehumanizing”.

Please reread what I have posted. I am referring specifically to the cheating indulged by many who file for the Earned Income Credit. The distortions are profound, troubling and far reaching. Ascribing morality to the “poor” and amorality to the “rich” is unfortunate. You have both the dutiful and the opportunistic at both ends. A morally neutral tax policy would be good. A morally neutral debate would not only be better - people might just learn something in the process.

Good day.

153 Cannadian Club Akbar  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:25:55am

Teenagers and people who live in DC shouldn’t pays taxes. No representation.

154 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:26:50am

re: #132 researchok

One more time:

The real problem is that many small businesses file taxes as individuals- many.

A guy whose business makes more 250k and employs more 2 employees (paid out of that income) is going to get screwed, big time.

Irrespective of what you believe re tax cuts, until and unless small business owners are exempted these tax cuts are going to prove to be a disaster.

No small business will hire. The numbers just won’t work.

This is not a good idea in this economic climate.

You’re supposed to be someone with an advanced degree, and yet you don’t seem to understand

HOW TAX BRACKETS WORK


I am calling bullshit on your advanced degree if you seriously believe this

155 karmic_inquisitor  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:27:10am

Simplisme.

Sad. Very sad.

We are screwing ourselves by indulging in narrative fed to us by PR experts in DC.

156 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:28:36am

re: #146 WindUpBird

You know we’re not talking just about people who make $251,000 a year, we’re also talking people who make $700,000 a year, who make a million five a year

And they’d have a LOT more room to invest than someone making $100,000 a year

but if you tax them at a low rate, no incentive to invest, they’ll just sit on it

Are you seriously telling me that someone making a million or more a year spends it all as fast as they get it?

Spending money on stuff stimulates the economy

spending money creating a business STIMULATES IT FAR FAR MORE

Do you remember the luxury taxes of 1991? (I actually don’t, because I was not reading the news then, but that’s a much longer story.)

nytimes.com

The sales of luxury items went way down because of an extra 10% tax.

So, small differences in taxes can make a difference. Who would have thought that someone who could afford an expensive boat couldn’t afford the extra tax?

Too bad for you, Mr. Tile Installer, and Ms. Handmade-Bag Maker.

Too bad for you

157 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:28:49am

re: #152 karmic_inquisitor

Gee. I guess I am stupid then.

Nice way to dismiss someone outright. On other matters that would be called “dehumanizing”.

Please reread what I have posted. I am referring specifically to the cheating indulged by many who file for the Earned Income Credit. The distortions are profound, troubling and far reaching. Ascribing morality to the “poor” and amorality to the “rich” is unfortunate. You have both the dutiful and the opportunistic at both ends. A morally neutral tax policy would be good. A morally neutral debate would not only be better - people might just learn something in the process.

Good day.

I don’t ascribe amorality to the rich at all…unless they hoard money. Then i acribe amorality to them. Yes, I absolutely do that. because hoarders hurt america.

People who create business help America. That’s the moral way. And business investment is promoted by a high top rate, it means they have to do things with that money.


Nobody seems to want to engage with me on the hoarding subject. I bet that’s because nobody can!

158 researchok  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:29:21am

re: #139 WindUpBird

You know that if a business is “making $250K” that they’re actually making far more than that, because you’re NOT TAXED ON YOUR BUSINESS EXPENSES AND THAT INCLUDES YOUR LABOR COSTS, RIGHT?

Labor costs are not all the costs borne by employers.

There are other costs that make hiring an expensive proposition- and that’s why small businesses are not hiring full time employees.

Part time workers mean unemployment ins and health ins costs are stable. If a guy knows he’s going to be hit with more taxes, he just won’t hire.

159 Cato the Elder  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:30:29am

I suggest we start the revolution by taxing churches. Saving souls is a business, and often a scam. Why should I subsidize Pat Robertson or Feisal Rauf?

160 jamesfirecat  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:30:32am

re: #158 researchok

Labor costs are not all the costs borne by employers.

There are other costs that make hiring an expensive proposition- and that’s why small businesses are not hiring full time employees.

Part time workers mean unemployment ins and health ins costs are stable. If a guy knows he’s going to be hit with more taxes, he just won’t hire.

Maybe they should realize that a slightly smaller piece of a bigger pie is a preferable to a larger piece of a smaller pie.

///Just like those greedy unions!

161 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:32:02am

re: #156 EmmmieG

Do you remember the luxury taxes of 1991? (I actually don’t, because I was not reading the news then, but that’s a much longer story.)

[Link: www.nytimes.com…]

The sales of luxury items went way down because of an extra 10% tax.

So, small differences in taxes can make a difference. Who would have thought that someone who could afford an expensive boat couldn’t afford the extra tax?

Too bad for you, Mr. Tile Installer, and Ms. Handmade-Bag Maker.

Too bad for you

I would rather people with means invest in businesses that create strength and wealth and advance culture rather than buy luxury goods and hoard. Ever wonder what it would be like if there were fewer luxury goods made here and more people starting small agile businesses that create real changes in peoples’ lives?

Or is that how you think america stays strong? making BAGS for rich people? Really?

Save the heartstring pulling for someone else, I’d like it if there were less of a market for geegaws for the ultra wealthy and that energy went elsewhere

162 lostlakehiker  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:32:06am

re: #31 marjoriemoon

Spite? I think it’s about balancing the budget. And it certainly shouldn’t be on the backs of who can least afford it.

Thinking about taxes has to be broad spectrum thinking. Otherwise, no matter what the current tax law may be, you can make it sound like a good idea to shift more of the tax burden to the rich. Somewhere, there’s a practical limit to that.

Wise tax policy is consistent and predictable. Wise tax law is written with one eye on simplicity. It should be part of the basic social contract that everybody outside the poor pays at least a little, that nobody ever faces confiscatory tax rates, but nobody can get out of paying quite a bit if they make a lot.

Rates shouldn’t change by much, or change often.

163 researchok  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:32:29am

re: #160 jamesfirecat

Maybe they should realize that a slightly smaller piece of a bigger pie is a preferable to a larger piece of a smaller pie.

///Just like those greedy unions!

Well, speaking of unions and wages and benefits, see this:

164 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:33:19am

re: #158 researchok

Labor costs are not all the costs borne by employers.

There are other costs that make hiring an expensive proposition- and that’s why small businesses are not hiring full time employees.

Part time workers mean unemployment ins and health ins costs are stable. If a guy knows he’s going to be hit with more taxes, he just won’t hire.

You still seem to be ignoring the fact that tax brackets do not work the way you described

the idea of a small business getting screwed because they hit that top bracket and a few grand of their money was taxed at a hugher rate

is

simply

not

at

all

true.

So please stop insulting my intelligence on this matter with your mindless talking points.

165 Interesting Times  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:33:37am

re: #141 thedopefishlives

Yes, that’s exactly what I got from that. The disparity may be growing, but notice that doesn’t mean rich people are taking money out of poor peoples’ pockets, because economics is not a zero-sum game.

That last bit is a Rush Limbaugh talking point, and makes absolutely no sense - of course money is a zero-sum game. Money spent on one thing is money that can’t be spent on something else. Money that incompetent, corrupt CEOs suck up for themselves is money not reinvested in their company or their workers:

In 2007, the average ratio between salaries for a chief executive and American worker was 344 to one. That figure dipped to 319 in 2008, but is likely to rise this year, which is “really worrisome,” says John Cavanagh, the Institute’s director.
…
The gap is “still very, very high, still much higher than most other countries in the world would consider decent and in sync with democracy,” Cavanagh says. “If you go back a generation in this country, on average it was about 30-to-1.”

So, if they want to avoid the higher tax bracket, let them reinvest that money in their companies and their workers instead of paying themselves so much more for so much less in terms of value added.

166 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:33:52am

re: #160 jamesfirecat

Maybe they should realize that a slightly smaller piece of a bigger pie is a preferable to a larger piece of a smaller pie.

///Just like those greedy unions!

The question is, I suppose, whose pie is it in the first place?

I understand that some would argue that because of infrastructure, etc, it isn’t entirely the piemaker’s pie.

I would point out that as the Soviet Union proved exquisitely, piemakers don’t have to bake.

167 researchok  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:33:54am

I gotta go- Nazi dentist just about did me in this AM.

Time to take meds and get little men with tiny pick axes out of my mouth.

168 jamesfirecat  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:34:28am

re: #163 researchok

Well, speaking of unions and wages and benefits, see this:

Sadly I can’t, lunch break is over and the machines here don’t have the right plug ins to load youtube videos anyway later lizards

169 researchok  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:34:43am

re: #166 EmmmieG

The question is, I suppose, whose pie is it in the first place?

I understand that some would argue that because of infrastructure, etc, it isn’t entirely the piemaker’s pie.

I would point out that as the Soviet Union proved exquisitely, piemakers don’t have to bake.

That made me laugh.

More pain.

170 Surabaya Stew  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:35:58am

re: #159 Cato the Elder

I suggest we start the revolution by taxing churches. Saving souls is a business, and often a scam. Why should I subsidize Pat Robertson or Feisal Rauf?

Totally agree; there’s no reason why my taxes should pay for a gay-basher and supporter of terrorism.

(I wasn’t talking about Feisal Rauf, BTW.)

171 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:36:09am

re: #158 researchok

Labor costs are not all the costs borne by employers.

There are other costs that make hiring an expensive proposition- and that’s why small businesses are not hiring full time employees.

Part time workers mean unemployment ins and health ins costs are stable. If a guy knows he’s going to be hit with more taxes, he just won’t hire.

None of these are arguments with any basis, they’re just assertions

Small businesses aren’t hiring full time employees because they DON’T KNOW WHAT THEIR MARKET’S GOING TO DO. Hiring a whole bunch of people in a down economy is a risk, its not because of their freaking top marginal tax rate being nudged up

OH HELL NAW I GOTS TO PAY ANOTHER 2 GRAND OUT OF MY POCKET THAT TOTALLY MEANS I GOTTA FIRE EVERYONE AND WEAR A BARREL

Your arguments agaianst taxation are stunningly detached from reality

I have no idea what to say to people like you after a point, this is insipid drivel

172 thedopefishlives  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:36:19am

re: #165 publicityStunted

That last bit is a Rush Limbaugh talking point, and makes absolutely no sense - of course money is a zero-sum game. Money spent on one thing is money that can’t be spent on something else.

No. The pot of money is not finite (largely because “money” is mostly electronic records these days). One group increasing their earnings by an above-average amount does not automatically mean that another group must somehow lose earnings in order for the economic pie to balance.

173 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:36:40am

re: #165 publicityStunted

Rush Limbaugh

That guy can really eat a full bag

what a rotten human being

174 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:36:45am

re: #161 WindUpBird

I would rather people with means invest in businesses that create strength and wealth and advance culture rather than buy luxury goods and hoard. Ever wonder what it would be like if there were fewer luxury goods made here and more people starting small agile businesses that create real changes in peoples’ lives?

Or is that how you think america stays strong? making BAGS for rich people? Really?

Save the heartstring pulling for someone else, I’d like it if there were less of a market for geegaws for the ultra wealthy and that energy went elsewhere

I have a friend who is wealthy. She and her husband are building a new big expensive house.

They are employing carpenters, craftsmen, landscapers, etc.

If they can’t build their home, who employs the builders?

I’ll be honest: I wouldn’t like to be that wealthy. I wouldn’t want to be a theft target, and I would probably be afraid to live in my own house. (I could handle the luxury trips to Disneyland and Hawaii, I think.)

175 Dad O' Blondes  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:37:42am

re: #34 karmic_inquisitor

They pay more.

They always have.

They have higher marginal rates.

They have deduction exclusions.

They have AMT (more and more of us have AMT)

The rich would LOVE to pay the same taxes as everyone else. That is what the “flat tax” nonsense was all about. If they did pay the same as everyone else the country wuld be bankrupt in about 90 days.

Some clarity, finally.

Thank you for stating what is so obviously true.

The top 5% of earners in the US, already pay over 60% of income tax receipts collected every year.

Nearly 50% of American “taxpayers” pay NO income tax — at all.

.

176 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:38:52am

re: #172 thedopefishlives

No. The pot of money is not finite (largely because “money” is mostly electronic records these days). One group increasing their earnings by an above-average amount does not automatically mean that another group must somehow lose earnings in order for the economic pie to balance.

If resources are spent shoring up the lives of rich people and allowing them to stack tall paper in the bank to protect and keep in the hands of only other rich people (like say, their children) who will likewise hard, instead of being put into agile business?

that weakens america. That weakens our place in the world. Rich people who take their money and hold onto it makes the country worse.

This is simply fact

Take the fat man talking points elsewhere, I am so tired of hearing this shit

177 Varek Raith  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:38:57am

re: #175 Dad O’ Blondes

Sigh. This talking point pisses me off to no end.
Yes, I do pay taxes.

178 Curt  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:39:17am

re: #150 jamesfirecat

So what you’re saying is we need to fund more money to the IRS so they can hire more competent people who would do a better job of hunting down tax shelters, and thus get us more money when they pry the hidden money from these people’s greedy clutches, it’s self financing and brilliant!

Nope…just stating that is something that happens. It seems to be there is a cultutral desire to make sure Uncle gets as little as possible, that being different from not paying in an illegal way, but making sure every little advantage is used. In many cases, like all written regulation, in any venue, the “end users” figure out how to read the words on paper and leverage that in their favor, true?

Years ago, I also heard it commented upon, that if one actually takes the time to read some of the tax code, you will likely find “The residents of (fill in legal description of an address here) location are exempted from estate tax (or other types of taxation).” If you take the time to “reverse engineer” the legal land description, it seems you’ll likely find a wealthy donor to the “cause” of the representative who had said language inserted. Name ans “real” street addresses aren’t used.

Not long ago, here at LGF, someone linked to a story where a lady CEO “added” a non-profit to her commercial corporation, and like magic, all of a sudden, taxation shifted in favor of the owner. By the letter of the law it was all within the limits, but….the reveune counted on by the Feds (and other governments below), all of a sudden decereased dramtically as a result. That’s the type of thing I’m commenting on.

It’s not about how smart/capable the IRS is, it’s about how others manage to find a way to “legally” avoid taxes by maneuvers like that.

When that happens, then the tax code gets amended to “close the loophole,” so the planned revenues actually happen and the tide is stemmed from flowing out, not in, before the next organization can pull such a manuever off. Then what happens is someone else reads another part of the code and all of a sudden, everyone is has a peice of paper saying their are are the head of a church, and therefore a non-profit entity….That used to be a good way to hide your income…

179 What, me worry?  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:39:51am

re: #161 WindUpBird

I would rather people with means invest in businesses that create strength and wealth and advance culture rather than buy luxury goods and hoard. Ever wonder what it would be like if there were fewer luxury goods made here and more people starting small agile businesses that create real changes in peoples’ lives?

Or is that how you think america stays strong? making BAGS for rich people? Really?

Save the heartstring pulling for someone else, I’d like it if there were less of a market for geegaws for the ultra wealthy and that energy went elsewhere

And with the search for alternate fuels, the conditions of our national roadways, bridges, etc., there’s a lot to invest in.

180 thedopefishlives  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:39:53am

re: #176 WindUpBird

If resources are spent shoring up the lives of rich people and allowing them to stack tall paper in the bank to protect and keep in the hands of only other rich people (like say, their children) who will likewise hard, instead of being put into agile business?

that weakens america. That weakens our place in the world. Rich people who take their money and hold onto it makes the country worse.

This is simply fact

Take the fat man talking points elsewhere, I am so tired of hearing this shit

You still have yet to demonstrate to me how raising taxes will spur investment.

181 dwells38  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:40:20am

re: #157 WindUpBird

I don’t ascribe amorality to the rich at all…unless they hoard money. Then i acribe amorality to them. Yes, I absolutely do that. because hoarders hurt america.

People who create business help America. That’s the moral way. And business investment is promoted by a high top rate, it means they have to do things with that money.


Nobody seems to want to engage with me on the hoarding subject. I bet that’s because nobody can!

I don’t know exactly what you mean by hoarding. Many people have money that someone else worked hard to build up. I’m thinking of the elderly wife or family of a wealthy businessman. If the man’s goal was to make a comfortable life for his family who are you to say it should be and to what extent redistributed to total strangers?

182 Dad O' Blondes  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:43:10am

re: #177 Varek Raith

Sigh. This talking point pisses me off to no end.
Yes, I do pay taxes.

Facts are facts, kiddo.

You can be pissed off that it rains on your day at the beach, too.

Won’t help much, however.

.

183 BigPapa  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:43:29am

re: #157 WindUpBird

Nobody seems to want to engage with me on the hoarding subject. I bet that’s because nobody can!

What, is this a contest?

So is it morally reprehensible to save money?

184 Cato the Elder  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:43:43am

re: #175 Dad O’ Blondes

Your daughters may be blonde, but if they inherited your brains they are much to be pitied.

185 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:43:50am

re: #174 EmmmieG

I have a friend who is wealthy. She and her husband are building a new big expensive house.

They are employing carpenters, craftsmen, landscapers, etc.

If they can’t build their home, who employs the builders?

I’ll be honest: I wouldn’t like to be that wealthy. I wouldn’t want to be a theft target, and I would probably be afraid to live in my own house. (I could handle the luxury trips to Disneyland and Hawaii, I think.)

Is every single piece of their income tied up in that house?


Do you even understand what I’m saying to you?

If a guy takes X hundred grand and spends it on a fancy mcmansion and a sleek BMW, there, he bought that STUFF.

He’s got some STUFF now.

And that STUFF isn’t making him any more money and it ain’t employing anyone.


Now.

If that same guy looks at his seven figure income, notices that there’s money that the government won’t take if he INVESTS IT?

Then we’re talking. he takes that money, puts that money in a business. Hires people. Builds stuff. Gets office equipment, couple interns, creates some corporate culture, fosters teamwork, gets people working and learning and invested in their lives and working together for a common purpose

But you don’t seem to like that very much, to you, its enough that your wealthy friends, they sure got a contractor to hop to it for them, make them a fancy new bedroom and a fancy driveway and a fancy everything that does nothing for anyone after its done.


What stupidity people exhibit, just collecting stuff, just buying crap, just having more crap to show off for their friends, instead of creating things

What poor values, what lack of humanity, what lack of imagination.

186 Varek Raith  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:44:10am

People who do their damnedest not to pay their taxes are unAmerican. They used America to enrich themselves and then throw it away when it comes to paying their taxes.
Bastards.

187 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:44:20am

re: #157 WindUpBird

I don’t ascribe amorality to the rich at all…unless they hoard money. Then i acribe amorality to them. Yes, I absolutely do that. because hoarders hurt america.

People who create business help America. That’s the moral way. And business investment is promoted by a high top rate, it means they have to do things with that money.

Nobody seems to want to engage with me on the hoarding subject. I bet that’s because nobody can!

I am waiting for you to explain why having the government take your money makes you want to not hoard it. You haven’t explained anything yet.

188 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:45:26am

re: #179 marjoriemoon

And with the search for alternate fuels, the conditions of our national roadways, bridges, etc., there’s a lot to invest in.

There sure is

But some wealthy friends, man they got a house!

That only they will use, them and their rich friends

And we should alll be grateful that those rich people deign to have us MAKE THEM HANDBAGS

I seriously am blown away by the rhetorical spirals in that one

189 Varek Raith  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:45:37am

re: #182 Dad O’ Blondes

Facts are facts, kiddo.

You can be pissed off that it rains on your day at the beach, too.

Won’t help much, however.

.

Since you used “taxpayer” in quotes I take it you mean I’m not a taxpayer?
Gee, could’ve fooled me.

190 thedopefishlives  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:45:53am

re: #187 EmmmieG

I am waiting for you to explain why having the government take your money makes you want to not hoard it. You haven’t explained anything yet.

Actually, he just did in re: #185 WindUpBird. Interestingly enough, the theory actually makes a bizarre sort of sense, but it would require quite a bit of modification to the standing tax laws.

191 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:46:51am

re: #185 WindUpBird

People are employed in the construction industries. They have to work.

A lot of that investment you are talking about goes into funding businesses that make stuff.

192 Cato the Elder  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:48:56am

“Dad O’Blondes” always seems to have an extra period. I suggest it be taxed and given to WUB.

Full stop.

.

193 Curt  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:49:06am

re: #161 WindUpBird

Save the heartstring pulling for someone else, I’d like it if there were less of a market for geegaws for the ultra wealthy and that energy went elsewhere

Like it or not, the reality is it decimated the boat building industry in the North East, putting entire companies (and all their trades people) out of work.

If someone wanted a ChrisCraft boat that cost over $100K, which was a lot of what the fine boat builders work was costing, they took their money and spent it on things that could be purchased, with out “triggering” the extra tax. The option was for the builders to cut their prices, to get below that, but then, you have a trickle down to the work force, or have the owners take it out of their pockets. Now you have owners, looking at making less, if they choose to keep paying the workforce as before wondering if it’s worth it, so they close the doors. Is that greed, or soomeone doing a careful study of their financials and making a decision they are fully empowered to make?

Only when the Government has the power to require owners/stock holders to continue in business, and set the wages to be paid will this be corrected and force those with money to, by mandate, put it back into the economy, and not “hoard” it (maybe to pay for college, or retirement).

194 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:49:08am

re: #187 EmmmieG

I am waiting for you to explain why having the government take your money makes you want to not hoard it. You haven’t explained anything yet.

Are you kidding me?

If you invest in a business, you’re not taxed on that investment. So say theres X money that’s going to the government. You take some of that money, you invest it, it doesn’t count towards your taxes. It’s no longer taxed as income if you’re putting it into a business. If there’s a top marginal rate that’s high, rich people will look at that and go “well, I better put this money in the economy, because that creates something, otherwise it just goes to the government”

And thus they invest

and thus the country strengthens.


You don’t understand this?

I’m some little weirdo artist sole-porprietorship who has a nice man in the suburbs do my taxes and figure out how much of my art supplies and trips to conventions I can deduct, I am real small potatoes businesswise

AND I KNOW THIS

195 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:49:47am

re: #182 Dad O’ Blondes

Facts are facts, kiddo.

You can be pissed off that it rains on your day at the beach, too.

Won’t help much, however.

.

Hey it’s period asshole!

Hey period asshole! What’s shaking! Gonna give us more right-wing haikus for our amusement this fine morning?

196 thedopefishlives  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:50:29am

re: #194 WindUpBird

Are you kidding me?

If you invest in a business, you’re not taxed on that investment. So say theres X money that’s going to the government. You take some of that money, you invest it, it doesn’t count towards your taxes. It’s no longer taxed as income if you’re putting it into a business. If there’s a top marginal rate that’s high, rich people will look at that and go “well, I better put this money in the economy, because that creates something, otherwise it just goes to the government”

Mind if I ask where in the tax code that is? You’re the expert, after all.

197 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:51:50am

re: #191 EmmmieG

People are employed in the construction industries. They have to work.

A lot of that investment you are talking about goes into funding businesses that make stuff.

this is all you have to say to me on that, huh?

Well okay then!

198 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:52:04am

re: #194 WindUpBird

My father is also a small-business owner. If you haven’t figured this out, he’s in a construction-related field.

Do you remember the recession of the 80’s? I do. Nobody built. Do you know what that did to our family?

It took my parents a long time to recover from that recession. As for me, it’s left me with a depression-era mentality to my own spending.

There are very real people who are hurt in these kinds of recessions.

199 Cato the Elder  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:52:28am

Hiring “interns” is not hiring.

Just sayin’.

200 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:53:38am

re: #196 thedopefishlives

Mind if I ask where in the tax code that is? You’re the expert, after all.

What the balls? It’s a fundamental dude, it’s a philosophy of government.

God damn the Rush Limbaugh is strong here

blurblrblruhHELLO MY FRIENDS

201 Surabaya Stew  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:54:21am

re: #199 Cato the Elder

Hiring “interns” is not hiring.

Just sayin’.

But messing around with one of them is worthy of Impeachment in the House of Representatives!
/

202 Cato the Elder  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:54:46am

re: #198 EmmmieG

So you’re not buying handcrafted handbags yourself, just expecting other people to buy yours?

203 thedopefishlives  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:55:18am

re: #200 WindUpBird

What the balls? It’s a fundamental dude, it’s a philosophy of government.

God damn the Rush Limbaugh is strong here

blurblrblruhHELLO MY FRIENDS

No, I’m serious. If I get paid $250k a year, I get taxed on that income. What you’re telling me is that if I instead redirect some of that $250k into investment in business, it goes completely tax-free. I want to know how that works in the current legal code.

204 Interesting Times  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:56:06am

re: #198 EmmmieG

There are very real people who are hurt in these kinds of recessions.

If we got serious about energy efficiency (e.g. building retrofits, green roofs, etc) and infrastructure improvements (e.g. better mass transit), those people would have jobs galore. I suggest funding it with Carly Failorina’s golden parachute, among other things :P

205 Varek Raith  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:57:42am

re: #204 publicityStunted

If we got serious about energy efficiency (e.g. building retrofits, green roofs, etc) and infrastructure improvements (e.g. better mass transit), those people would have jobs galore. I suggest funding it with Carly Failorina’s golden parachute, among other things :P

What’s up with corporations and rewarding failure CEO’s?
/rhetorical

206 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:58:00am

re: #198 EmmmieG

My father is also a small-business owner. If you haven’t figured this out, he’s in a construction-related field.

Do you remember the recession of the 80’s? I do. Nobody built. Do you know what that did to our family?

It took my parents a long time to recover from that recession. As for me, it’s left me with a depression-era mentality to my own spending.

There are very real people who are hurt in these kinds of recessions.

You know how high mortgage rates were in the 80’s?

Do you have any idea?

Are you just throwing everything in the kitchen at me, hoping it’ll stick? I mean, what the hell here?

if everyone behaves as if it were the depression and hoards, you know that’s AWFUL for the economy, right? You know that;s the way TO a depression is everyone behaving like it’s a depression, right?

And government and tax codes are the way we prevent that mentality from spreading


Markets operate not on reality, but on perceptions of reality. If a bank is seen to be unstable by enough people, people will pull their money out and it will BECOME unstable.

Enough people behaving with their money as if it were a depression, and make no mistake:

We’ll have a depression.

207 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:58:08am

re: #202 Cato the Elder

So you’re not buying handcrafted handbags yourself, just expecting other people to buy yours?

I don’t make those handbags, but I have a cousin who is this type of home-based small artsy business. They’re apartment dwellers scraping by.

I know that some of the expensive stuff is big business, but a lot of it is the individual crafter trying to put a little more in the account. Check out etsy sometime.

208 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:59:07am

re: #203 thedopefishlives

No, I’m serious. If I get paid $250k a year, I get taxed on that income. What you’re telling me is that if I instead redirect some of that $250k into investment in business, it goes completely tax-free. I want to know how that works in the current legal code.

No I’m actually not specifically telling you that

Set up some more straw men champ, I’ll just walk right around them

209 thedopefishlives  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:00:11am

re: #208 WindUpBird

No I’m actually not specifically telling you that

Set up some more straw men champ, I’ll just walk right around them

I’m sorry, then let’s cut to the heart of the matter. How, EXACTLY, will raising taxes cause rich people to invest in business? What mechanism is going to cause that to occur that exists in today’s legal infrastructure?

210 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:01:02am

re: #207 EmmmieG

I don’t make those handbags, but I have a cousin who is this type of home-based small artsy business. They’re apartment dwellers scraping by.

I know that some of the expensive stuff is big business, but a lot of it is the individual crafter trying to put a little more in the account. Check out etsy sometime.


You have completely missed the point:

If our economy is emphasizing serving rich peoples’ needs

then

that is a very very weak America. That’s a calcified America where very few people hold tremendous monetary power. That’s a very bad thing for a country.

211 BigPapa  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:01:41am

Expiration of Bush Tax Cuts will hurt my industry.

212 What, me worry?  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:02:19am

re: #181 dwells38

I don’t know exactly what you mean by hoarding. Many people have money that someone else worked hard to build up. I’m thinking of the elderly wife or family of a wealthy businessman. If the man’s goal was to make a comfortable life for his family who are you to say it should be and to what extent redistributed to total strangers?

Total strangers? I like to refer to them as “my community.” The ones with whom I share the same neighborhood concerns that effect us all. Money to build and maintain sidewalks, roads, green areas, schools etc.

213 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:03:22am

re: #206 WindUpBird

I’m not throwing anything at you. I’m trying to get you to see that spending money on things made by people who make things for a living is not hoarding.

I think the only thing we can agree on is that the great depression was caused as much by the fearful collective state of mind as by anything.

214 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:03:33am

re: #209 thedopefishlives

I’m sorry, then let’s cut to the heart of the matter. How, EXACTLY, will raising taxes cause rich people to invest in business? What mechanism is going to cause that to occur that exists in today’s legal infrastructure?

Because if you make millions a year and theres a high top rate:

1) you do nothing and the government takes some of it

or

2) you reduce your income by investing some of it

either way, you can end up with the same amount net


this is so blindingly obvious I wonder if you people do anything except listen to Limbaugh

215 Dad O' Blondes  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:03:34am

re: #195 WindUpBird

Hey it’s period asshole!

Hey period asshole! What’s shaking! Gonna give us more right-wing haikus for our amusement this fine morning?

Not today, WindUp. You wouldn’t understand them so it wouldn’t be fair.

Instead, today, I “invested” in 2 facts. Real facts. Those facts were:

1. The top 5% of earners in the US pay about 60% of all income tax receipts collected very year, and,

2. About 50% of US earners pay no income tax — at all.

There’s nothing right-wing, or left-wing, about these facts. They’re just facts.

But they seem to make some posters here unhappy, or angry, or even more confused than they already are.

.

216 thedopefishlives  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:04:05am

re: #214 WindUpBird

Because if you make millions a year and theres a high top rate:

1) you do nothing and the government takes some of it

or

2) you reduce your income by investing some of it

either way, you can end up with the same amount net

this is so blindingly obvious I wonder if you people do anything except listen to Limbaugh

Reducing your income by investing some of it? What in the hell? You’re still making the money. It’s still getting taxed.

217 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:06:33am

re: #213 EmmmieG

I’m not throwing anything at you. I’m trying to get you to see that spending money on things made by people who make things for a living is not hoarding.

I think the only thing we can agree on is that the great depression was caused as much by the fearful collective state of mind as by anything.

I understand that it’s not hoarding. But what you seem to be completely avoiding is the fact that buying luxury goods is a poorer way to stimulate the economy compared to starting a business.

Once you spend money on a business, that business has potential. It can create. It can strengthen this turd of an economy. The money you spend on the business can create.

After rich lady buys her handbag, does it have potential to make more handbags? Do they breed? Do they have legs? Can the handbag walk into Chase and get a loan and start buying office furniture?

218 KingKenrod  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:07:40am

re: #214 WindUpBird

Because if you make millions a year and theres a high top rate:

1) you do nothing and the government takes some of it

or

2) you reduce your income by investing some of it

either way, you can end up with the same amount net

this is so blindingly obvious I wonder if you people do anything except listen to Limbaugh

Currently, you can’t reduce your income by investing it. You can only reduce your taxable income through valid deductions. Mortgage interest and health care costs, for instance. There is no deduction for investment - unless you lose money on an investment, then you are allowed $3,000 deduction/year.

219 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:07:55am

True story about the depression: (Might have already told this story)

My great-grandfather was a dentist (in Portland) at the time.

Dental work was one of the first things people eliminated.

So, he would buy a lot, and then go to a framer, a cement worker, a roofer, etc. etc. and say, “You’re just sitting around. You do X amount of work for me, and I’ll do dental work on your family.”

Why not? He would build a house bartering dental work for their work, and then sell or rent the house.

That’s how he survived the depression.

220 thedopefishlives  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:07:59am

re: #217 WindUpBird

Actually, I’ll agree with your premise. Investing in starting a business is a better way to stimulate the economy than spending money on purchasing products. Where we disagree is your idea that raising taxes will spur corporate investment, which I still can’t wrap my head around.

221 dmon  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:09:05am

The myth that businesses wont hire doesn’t stand up to logic.

If I own a business and each employee earns me $10000 in profits…..I am currently taxed $3600 leaving $6400 for my pocket…….. If the tax increases 3.6% as propose my taxes would go up to $3960. Leaving me with $6040

Are they honestly trying tell us that a business would just forgo that $6040 to avoid paying $360 in taxes?

Even if they did someone else would start a business to scoop up those unserved customers.

222 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:09:37am

re: #216 thedopefishlives

Reducing your income by investing some of it? What in the hell? You’re still making the money. It’s still getting taxed.

I made say…$90,000 last year ( I didn’t but this is hypothetical)

I spent about $25,000 on a new Wacom tablet, a process camera, a drum scanner, a couple backup drives, a new workstation, a bunch of trips to cons, some entertaining of clients at those cons

I was taxed at…wait for it

$65,000. That was my taxable income.

The rest? Was investment in my business. I wasn’t taxed on that. it didn;t count as income to the government. It was deductible.

Get it yet?

Are you a sock? I have a hard time believeing you’re this ignorant.

223 Dad O' Blondes  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:10:06am

re: #203 thedopefishlives

No, I’m serious. If I get paid $250k a year, I get taxed on that income. What you’re telling me is that if I instead redirect some of that $250k into investment in business, it goes completely tax-free. I want to know how that works in the current legal code.

Dopefish —

There are plenty here who probably just ignored the post you responded to. We all know it’s taxed, on the other end of the deal. Everyone knows that.

It’s called “capital gains tax.”

How do the vast majority of Americans “invest” in business: they buy a few shares of stock. There are only 2 outcomes here: the investor either loses money, or they make money and they pay capital gains tax on their profit.

Some people even have the nerve to call this “double taxation.”

Can you imagine?

.

224 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:10:22am

re: #221 dmon

The myth that businesses wont hire doesn’t stand up to logic.

If I own a business and each employee earns me $10000 in profits…I am currently taxed $3600 leaving $6400 for my pocket… If the tax increases 3.6% as propose my taxes would go up to $3960. Leaving me with $6040

Are they honestly trying tell us that a business would just forgo that $6040 to avoid paying $360 in taxes?

Even if they did someone else would start a business to scoop up those unserved customers.

exactly

225 celticdragon  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:10:40am

re: #12 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I am, in principal, opposed to punishment of success.

I know it won’t be a popular opinion, but it is what it is.

What you call punishment, some others call pulling your weight.

226 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:11:11am

re: #220 thedopefishlives

Actually, I’ll agree with your premise. Investing in starting a business is a better way to stimulate the economy than spending money on purchasing products. Where we disagree is your idea that raising taxes will spur corporate investment, which I still can’t wrap my head around.

so basically you agree that I’m correct, you just don’t want anyone in government to actually take any steps to make that happen.

227 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:11:27am

re: #225 celticdragon

What you call punishment, some others call pulling your weight.

yeah

228 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:11:29am

re: #217 WindUpBird

I understand that it’s not hoarding. But what you seem to be completely avoiding is the fact that buying luxury goods is a poorer way to stimulate the economy compared to starting a business.

Once you spend money on a business, that business has potential. It can create. It can strengthen this turd of an economy. The money you spend on the business can create.

After rich lady buys her handbag, does it have potential to make more handbags? Do they breed? Do they have legs? Can the handbag walk into Chase and get a loan and start buying office furniture?

????A tile installer doesn’t have a business? The last one I talked to seemed to think he had a business.

What are these imaginary businesses of yours creating? I’m trying to figure this out, because you keep stressing that “stuff” doesn’t help.

Let’s try this: If my cousin made handbags (she actually makes artsy cards), and some rich lady bought her handbag, my cousin would then take the money and buy something else, maybe a pair of shoes for her daughter. Somebody is employed to sell her the shoes (I’m not kidding myself that shoes are made in the US anymore). That person can pay their rent, or maybe buy food.

Money has to move around. It has to be spent. Why does it only help the economy if it is moving in certain places?

229 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:12:26am

re: #218 KingKenrod

Currently, you can’t reduce your income by investing it. You can only reduce your taxable income through valid deductions. Mortgage interest and health care costs, for instance. There is no deduction for investment - unless you lose money on an investment, then you are allowed $3,000 deduction/year.

I’m talking about investing in your own business.

me. Starting my own business. Because I make a bunch of money and I have an incentive to put it back into play and create something rather than sit on it.

230 thedopefishlives  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:13:53am

re: #229 WindUpBird

I’m talking about investing in your own business.

me. Starting my own business. Because I make a bunch of money and I have an incentive to put it back into play and create something rather than sit on it.

Okay, that’s where you lost me. Because not every rich person is willing or able to start their own business that they can invest in. You personally might want to do that if you had their money, but not everybody does, or can (businesses have to actually do something besides just exist, after all).

231 Jeff In Ohio  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:14:47am

re: #87 researchok

See this:

cbpp.org

and this

economistsview.typepad.com

and this

blogs.wsj.com

232 Cato the Elder  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:14:59am

The whole problem would go away if everyone were a proper capitalist. (Except the illegals who would then do all the “work”.)

233 Surabaya Stew  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:15:35am

re: #228 EmmmieG

(I’m not kidding myself that shoes are made in the US anymore).

At $225 a pair, they still are, actually. Brought a pair of orthodic kicks made Rhode Island last week.

Just sayin’….

234 Cato the Elder  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:16:57am

If everybody started their own business, 99% would fail.

235 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:17:16am

re: #233 Surabaya Stew

At $225 a pair, they still are, actually. Brought a pair of orthodic kicks made Rhode Island last week.

Just sayin’…

Oof. $225 a pair? I, personally, could only spend that much for medically necessary shoes.

236 iossarian  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:18:10am

re: #234 Cato the Elder

If everybody started their own business, 99% would fail.

But how else to identify the 1% of truly deserving Americans, amidst the dross?
///

237 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:20:41am

re: #228 EmmmieG

???A tile installer doesn’t have a business? The last one I talked to seemed to think he had a business.

What are these imaginary businesses of yours creating? I’m trying to figure this out, because you keep stressing that “stuff” doesn’t help.

Let’s try this: If my cousin made handbags (she actually makes artsy cards), and some rich lady bought her handbag, my cousin would then take the money and buy something else, maybe a pair of shoes for her daughter. Somebody is employed to sell her the shoes (I’m not kidding myself that shoes are made in the US anymore). That person can pay their rent, or maybe buy food.

Money has to move around. It has to be spent. Why does it only help the economy if it is moving in certain places?

What helps the economy more?

Someone who starts a business selling handbags and custom geegaws?

or someone who starts an internet startup with a clever concept that actually helps people?

Crafts destined for the closets of rich people < agile businesses that make many peopls’ lives better and advance the state of the art


My business is in between. I am a craft business that is advancing the state of the art, because I’m essentially at the point where I’m hiring people on contract to make experimental crafts that are part of an emerging medium

And they’re not for rich people at all, they’re functional things that are often for businesses who sell products and services to people of normal means, who also advance the state of the art. That’s what I mean. Hyopthetical handbag person makes a thing, it goes around the shoulder of some rich person, that;s it, end.

I make a thing and it winds itself through other businesses, other products, it creates ideas by its existence, it advances what is possible through collaborating with other businesses that are at the state of the art.


You really do not seem to want to let go of this notion that making inert luxury items for rich people is the shining way to a powerful economy

it is not, it’s a valid business of course, and hey, if tha’s what someone wants to do is make bags or $500 pairs of pants, follow your dream, awesome.

but if we have massive haves and massive have nots and the have nots are just basically servants of the haves, scraping by, then our country is failing.

238 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:21:52am

re: #234 Cato the Elder

If everybody started their own business, 99% would fail.

Everyone doesn’t have the means to, or the means to learn

It took me a couple failed businesses (with years of work put into them for no reward, man I don’t even want to talk about it) before I had a successful one. I kept at it, eventually I found an angle that worked.

239 Surabaya Stew  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:22:05am

re: #235 EmmmieG

Oof. $225 a pair? I, personally, could only spend that much for medically necessary shoes.

That’s why I got them! (Crooked walker that I am….) The only “affordable” USA made shoes that I know of are $100-$150 New Balances made up in Maine. (All cheaper NB’s are made in Asia.)

240 Jeff In Ohio  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:22:08am

re: #87 researchok

and this

washingtonpost.com

and this

krugman.blogs.nytimes.com

and this

capitalgainsandgames.com

241 Jeff In Ohio  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:23:38am

re: #64 researchok

Tax cuts have always yielded higher revenue for government coffers. Always.

This statement is indefensible.

242 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:25:29am

re: #230 thedopefishlives

Okay, that’s where you lost me. Because not every rich person is willing or able to start their own business that they can invest in. You personally might want to do that if you had their money, but not everybody does, or can (businesses have to actually do something besides just exist, after all).

More would be willing if top tax rates were higher.

That;s the operative word there:

WILLING.

You create a climate where that becomes more attractive. You create the will. You make it harder for people to sit on their money.

off the top of my head, I can think of about a dozen different businesses that are in markets I am intimately familiar I could probably start and run with serious authority if I had $200,000 to play with, and they’re not businesses I’d have to run full time, I could run them in addition to what I already do.

I have a hard time believing that someone is so uncreative that they couldn’t figure out ONE interesting business to start that tickles their interests.

243 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:26:08am

re: #241 Jeff In Ohio

This statement is indefensible.

And stupid, and clueless and myopic and a talking point fed by radio jocks

244 Cato the Elder  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:26:58am

re: #241 Jeff In Ohio

This statement is indefensible.

If it were true, a tax rate of zero would create budget surplus = infinity.

245 dmon  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:26:59am
Tax cuts have always yielded higher revenue for government coffers. Always.

Then how do you explain this chart?

usgovernmentrevenue.com

246 iossarian  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:27:40am

re: #245 dmon

Then how do you explain this chart?

[Link: www.usgovernmentrevenue.com…]

Ummm… the US economy has grown over time?

247 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:28:11am

Some people smoke weed to get high, and some people get high off Ronald Reagan

248 researchok  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:28:16am

re: #241 Jeff In Ohio

This statement is indefensible.

Ten Myths about the Bush tax cuts

Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low.
Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.

Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.

Myth #3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.
Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues.

Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.

Myth #5: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits.
Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases.

Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.
Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.

Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.
Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.

Myth #8: Tax cuts help the economy by “putting money in people’s pockets.”
Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.

Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.

Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.

249 dmon  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:28:47am

re: #246 iossarian

Ummm… the US economy has grown over time?

I was pointing the five years of reduced revenue after the Bush tax cuts

250 researchok  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:30:20am

The Bush Tax Cuts and the Deficit Myth

President Obama and congressional Democrats are blaming their trillion-dollar budget deficits on the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Letting these tax cuts expire is their answer. Yet the data flatly contradict this “tax cuts caused the deficits” narrative. Consider the three most persistent myths:

251 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:30:20am

re: #237 WindUpBird

You do realize that neither one of us is an economist. We are both seeing the part of the economy we interact with.

You want money to go to the start-up internet types of business through business loans.

I want money to go to people who build and make stuff.

I would rather the government created incentives to get the rich to put their money where they think it would do the most good, not force them into putting it where they have to.

252 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:30:26am

re: #248 researchok

ahahaha heritage foundation lol


Wow, talking points! Holy shit! Never seen those before! Ten whole assertions unsupported by anything? Awesome!

253 iossarian  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:30:41am

re: #249 dmon

I was pointing the five years of reduced revenue after the Bush tax cuts

Gotcha! Hard to keep the sides of the argument straight when you’ve enjoyed a “back to school pot-luck lunch”.

254 researchok  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:32:09am

re: #252 WindUpBird

ahahaha heritage foundation lol

Wow, talking points! Holy shit! Never seen those before! Ten whole assertions unsupported by anything? Awesome!

I’m sorry, but where EXACTLY are the numbers wrong, given that hey are government issued?

Simply criticizing the messenger isn’t an argument.

255 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:33:18am

re: #251 EmmmieG

You do realize that neither one of us is an economist. We are both seeing the part of the economy we interact with.

You want money to go to the start-up internet types of business through business loans.

I want money to go to people who build and make stuff.

I would rather the government created incentives to get the rich to put their money where they think it would do the most good, not force them into putting it where they have to.

I am not an economist but I am quite aware of economics and business, being a business owner in an extremely competitive field.

You’re missing the point. It’s not about internet startups, that’s simply one example. I want a coutnry that doesn’t have a gigantic wage gap and wildly wealthy haves and destitute have-nots, I want a country with a thriving middle class because that’s how that country becomes strong.

it becomes strong when there are many many many people in the middle class..

You know the income disparity in America is skyrocketing, right?

How does that make our country strong? How can it possibly?

256 researchok  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:33:21am

The case for keeping the Bush tax cuts

….The Department of the Treasury recently released a paper studying the impact of letting tax relief expire: “A four-person, one-earner family with wage income each year of $40,000 in 2007 dollars would see a tax increase of $2,345; a four-person, one-earner family with wage income each year of $80,000 in 2007 dollars would see a tax increase of $2,000; a three-person, one-earner family with wage income each year of $40,000 in 2007 dollars would see a tax increase of $1,655; and a head of household with two children and wage income each year of $30,000 in 2007 dollars would see a tax increase of $1,615.”

More than 116 million Americans would see their taxes go up. And small businesses that pay their taxes based on individual rates (which is most of them) could see their effective rate rise to more than 44 percent.

257 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:34:18am

re: #254 researchok

I’m sorry, but where EXACTLY are the numbers wrong, given that hey are government issued?

Simply criticizing the messenger isn’t an argument.

Assertions are not facts.

I’m not going to wast my time playing tennis with assertions you repeated from a think tank. That’s weak.

258 Jeff In Ohio  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:37:17am

re: #64 researchok

Tax cuts have always yielded higher revenue for government coffers. Always.

re: #248 researchok

Myth #3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.
Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues

These statements seem contradictory to me. I’m missing something.

259 researchok  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:38:19am

Martin Regalia is the Vice President for Economic and Tax Policy and Chief Economist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

He notes that

Since 2000, when President Bush entered office, the share of federal tax liabilities borne by the lowest and middle quintiles has decreased, while the share borne by the highest quintile has increased.

Are you questioning his credibility? Are your qualifications equal to his own? On what evidence and published material do you base your assertions?

Are your assertions- and indictment of him based on no discernible evidence- more credible?

260 iossarian  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:39:05am

re: #254 researchok

The case for keeping the Bush tax cuts

Isn’t that assuming that ALL the tax cuts expire? The article at the top of the thread is about letting the tax cuts expire for incomes over $250,000.

261 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:39:46am

re: #258 Jeff In Ohio

re: #248 researchok

These statements seem contradictory to me. I’m missing something.


Heritage Foundation gibberish, lets call this what it is

This Martin Regalia guy does not seem impartial at all: thehill.com

262 Cato the Elder  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:40:28am

War is the answer. Full employment, population reductions, innovation galore.

I wish I was joking.

263 researchok  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:40:33am

re: #258 Jeff In Ohio

re: #248 researchok

These statements seem contradictory to me. I’m missing something.

Read the article. I do not claim to be an economist.

I am pointing out that credible people with relevant reputations, resumes and sufficient experience may have something worthwhile to add to the conversation.

264 Jeff In Ohio  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:41:29am

re: #254 researchok

I’m sorry, but where EXACTLY are the numbers wrong, given that hey are government issued?

Simply criticizing the messenger isn’t an argument.

THe numbers are not wrong. I think your assumption of causation is, at least that is what I am gathering from some of the links I posted. I’d like to get in to it with you a bit more, but I need to go pick my kids up, go to the library and then fish the chimney broom out of the chimney when I get home.

I’ll definitely look over the links your link posted.

265 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:41:38am

re: #259 researchok

Martin Regalia is the Vice President for Economic and Tax Policy and Chief Economist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

He notes that

Are you questioning his credibility? Are your qualifications equal to his own? On what evidence and published material do you base your assertions?

Are your assertions- and indictment of him based on no discernible evidence- more credible?

yes, I am questioning his credibility, I am absolutely doing that, I see a ton of doomsday rhetoric coming from him, a bunch of sky is falling nonsense which I can counter with many many other economists.

You want to play pick the economist? We can do that. it’s stupid, but we can do that. I can find you an equally qualified economist that is saying the opposite of this guy

My qualifications aren’t equal to any politician, but yet politicians lie and make shit up. :)

266 iossarian  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:42:01am

re: #259 researchok

Martin Regalia is the Vice President for Economic and Tax Policy and Chief Economist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

He notes that

Since 2000, when President Bush entered office, the share of federal tax liabilities borne by the lowest and middle quintiles has decreased, while the share borne by the highest quintile has increased.


Yes, but that’s because top earner income has actually increased since 2000, whereas lower incomes have stagnated. So, net, the top quintile has increased its share of total income, in part due to the tax cuts.

Without the tax cuts (and assuming that the income share had changed in the same way) their share of the tax burden would have been even greater.

267 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:42:13am

re: #263 researchok

Read the article. I do not claim to be an economist.

I am pointing out that credible people with relevant reputations, resumes and sufficient experience may have something worthwhile to add to the conversation.

Chamber of Commerce economist.

That’s where his loyalties lie.

Not impartial.

268 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:42:17am

re: #262 Cato the Elder

War is the answer. Full employment, population reductions, innovation galore.

I wish I was joking.

I would argue with you that reducing populations randomly is not a particularly good way to go.

You could easily take out the genius who is going to start up WUB’s brilliant, wage-evening business when she’s a little older.

This is NOT to say that I am for selectively reducing populations.

269 dmon  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:42:45am

re: #259 researchok

Considering the Median income has not increased in ten years while the income of the top 5% has grown by leaps and bounds…….. it would make perfect sense that the segment of the population whose wages haven’t increased would pay a lower portion of taxes than those who have.

270 researchok  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:43:16am

Income Inequality and Financial Crises

…In 1928, the top 10 percent of earners received 49.29 percent of total income. In 2007, the top 10 percent earned a strikingly similar percentage: 49.74 percent. In 1928, the top 1 percent received 23.94 percent of income. In 2007, those earners received 23.5 percent.

271 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:44:08am

re: #263 researchok

By the way, Krugman just totally thinks your heritage foundation copypasta is full of crap: krugman.blogs.nytimes.com

Link wars!
Whoopdedoo!

EGTRRA arrived in the middle of a recession, but that was an accident. It was devised in 1999, when the economy was booming, to defend Bush’s right flank against Steve Forbes. During the 2000 campaign, Bush sold it as a way of returning budget surpluses to the people, with not a hint that it had something to do with fighting recession. The recession story was an after-the-fact reinvention.

And EGTRRA didn’t seem to help all that much. Formally, the recession ended in late 2001, but most labor-market indicators continued to worsen into mid-2003.

JGTRRA, which mainly cut tax rates on capital gains and dividends, was followed by a real recovery. And the Bushies naturally claimed the credit. But the real source of the expansion was the housing boom, which had very little to do with the tax cut.

This is today’s history lesson.

272 Interesting Times  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:44:13am

re: #259 researchok

Martin Regalia is the Vice President for Economic and Tax Policy and Chief Economist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Yup, they’ve got tons of credibility:

PG&E Quits U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Nike Fed Up Too

Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) announced today that the utility giant is dumping its membership with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, citing the business group’s “extreme position on climate change.”

Announcing the pull-out in a company blog titled “Irreconcilable Differences,” PG&E says that its Chairman and Chief Executive Peter Darbee told the Chamber in a letter today that:

“We find it dismaying that the Chamber neglects the indisputable fact that a decisive majority of experts have said the data on global warming are compelling and point to a threat that cannot be ignored. In our opinion, an intellectually honest argument over the best policy response to the challenges of climate change is one thing; disingenuous attempts to diminish or distort the reality of these challenges are quite another.”

Bravo to PG&E for taking a stand.

And piss on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for being Saudi-Arabia-Iran-Theocrat-enabling AGW-denying douchebags.

273 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:44:32am

re: #269 dmon

Considering the Median income has not increased in ten years while the income of the top 5% has grown by leaps and bounds… it would make perfect sense that the segment of the population whose wages haven’t increased would pay a lower portion of taxes than those who have.

Logic is fun :D

274 webevintage  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:44:45am

I would always question the credibility of anyone with the Chamber of Commerce.

275 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:45:01am

re: #272 publicityStunted

Yup, they’ve got tons of credibility:

PG&E Quits U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Nike Fed Up Too

And piss on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for being Saudi-Arabia-Iran-Theocrat-enabling AGW-denying douchebags.

No, we gotta listen to them!

Researchok said so! I mean, he’s on the internet and everything!

276 researchok  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:45:03am

re: #267 WindUpBird

Chamber of Commerce economist.

That’s where his loyalties lie.

Not impartial.

Why would say that? Where has he fudged the numbers?

They are after all, government numbers.

277 dmon  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:45:43am

re: #270 researchok

And what happened right after 1928????

You are correct the numbers are very similar, but 1928 an the present are the only two times in the hundred years the top 10% earned nearly 50% of the income……. and both times the economy collapsed

278 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:46:25am

You know who I trust to protect the interests of the average person

THE US CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.

lolololololololololololololololololololololololo

279 webevintage  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:46:34am

re: #269 dmon

Considering the Median income has not increased in ten years while the income of the top 5% has grown by leaps and bounds… it would make perfect sense that the segment of the population whose wages haven’t increased would pay a lower portion of taxes than those who have.

Here’s that pretty graph again:
voices.washingtonpost.com

280 researchok  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:46:35am

re: #272 publicityStunted

Yup, they’ve got tons of credibility:

PG&E Quits U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Nike Fed Up Too

And piss on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for being Saudi-Arabia-Iran-Theocrat-enabling AGW-denying douchebags.

I’m sorry, but their position on climate change isn’t germane to this conversation.

(and I for one think that position is asinine.)

281 researchok  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:47:25am

re: #275 WindUpBird

No, we gotta listen to them!

Researchok said so! I mean, he’s on the internet and everything!

Why are your opinions more credible?

282 Cato the Elder  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:47:34am

It’s going to be a fun day when people wake up and see that paper and pixels are not really worth squat.

283 researchok  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:47:58am

re: #278 WindUpBird

You know who I trust to protect the interests of the average person

THE US CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.

lolololololololololololololololololololololololo

Why is the COC not credible on Economic policies?

284 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:49:27am

re: #282 Cato the Elder

It’s going to be a fun day when people wake up and see that paper and pixels are not really worth squat.

We have an extra femur you can use to help my kids plow up the ravaged land and plant our non-hybrid seeds so that we can survive in our bomb shelter.

All a dollar bill really is is scrip to barter your labor for another’s labor.

285 dmon  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:49:41am

re: #283 researchok

Because of the article you cited…..they cherry picked 1928…….. look at the years before and after 1928. The rich controlled no where near that percentage of wealth…. and both times it’s happened the economy collapsed

286 researchok  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:49:57am

re: #282 Cato the Elder

It’s going to be a fun day when people wake up and see that paper and pixels are not really worth squat.

EXACTLY- The economy is a living and breathing enterprise.

The best economics can do is give you a snapshot of what has already occurred.

If it were otherwise, every President’s economic policies would work like a charm.

287 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:50:02am

re: #276 researchok

Why would say that? Where has he fudged the numbers?

They are after all, government numbers.

Yes, because everyone who uses statistics in politics uses them properly and honestrly, ahahahahaha


The USCoC is the LARGEST LOBBYING GROUP ON EARTH.

IT SPENDS MORE MONEY THAN ANY OTHER LOBBYING GROUP.

just bow down before them, just nod obsequiously, you’ll just swallow it all

Pavlovian talking points. Do you salivate before the Rush Limbaugh show starts each morning?

288 researchok  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:50:50am

re: #285 dmon

Because of the article you cited…they cherry picked 1928… look at the years before and after 1928. The rich controlled no where near that percentage of wealth… and both times it’s happened the economy collapsed

The rich today control less. So why punish them now?

289 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:51:13am

re: #283 researchok

Why is the COC not credible on Economic policies?

they’re the largest lobbying group on earth

they

are

not

impartial

and

not

credible.


Also, they deny established science when it doesn’t agree with their interests. We call those people scum. Or at least I do.

290 Interesting Times  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:51:13am

re: #283 researchok

Why is the COC not credible on Economic policies?

Given their propensity for shameless lies and distortions, if they told me the sky was blue, I’d look out the window and check (after all, it could be pitch black from their air-polluting coal buddies)

291 researchok  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:51:37am

re: #287 WindUpBird

Yes, because everyone who uses statistics in politics uses them properly and honestrly, ahahahahaha

The USCoC is the LARGEST LOBBYING GROUP ON EARTH.

IT SPENDS MORE MONEY THAN ANY OTHER LOBBYING GROUP.

just bow down before them, just nod obsequiously, you’ll just swallow it all

Pavlovian talking points. Do you salivate before the Rush Limbaugh show starts each morning?

That’s nice.

Now where can point to the fallacies in their analysis of government issued numbers?

292 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:52:38am

re: #282 Cato the Elder

It’s going to be a fun day when people wake up and see that paper and pixels are not really worth squat.

What does this even mean

293 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:53:12am

re: #291 researchok

That’s nice.

Now where can point to the fallacies in their analysis of government issued numbers?

You just swallow it all, enjoy :)

Enjoy being a shill, sorry, I’m through arguing with human talking points for today

294 researchok  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:53:20am

re: #290 publicityStunted

Given their propensity for shameless lies and distortions, if they told me the sky was blue, I’d look out the window and check (after all, it could be pitch black from their air-polluting coal buddies)

Yes, I don’t like their climate change and energy policies either.

Where exactly is the evidence they are deliberately adopting general bad economic policy?

295 researchok  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:54:28am

re: #293 WindUpBird

You just swallow it all, enjoy :)

Enjoy being a shill, sorry, I’m through arguing with human talking points for today

I’m sorry, but you have yet to point out where they are factually wrong or are being deliberately dishonest.

296 I Am Kreniigh!  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:56:24am

re: #47 EmmmieG

Uh, actually my sister listened to some doctors her husband worked with discuss how they would just stop working at $249,999, if everything over that was going to be taxed highly. Why bother?

“Dammit Jim, I’m a DOCTOR, not a MATHEMATICIAN!”

297 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 11:57:45am

re: #281 researchok

Why are your opinions more credible?


I am honest. They ar enot.

I have interests, I lay out exactly what my interests are, I tell you why I believe what I believe.

The USCoC is not honest. They’re pushing economic policy because it serves their interests, but they’re not honest about why.

it’s much more than just what is credible, it’s about honesty and reality. and gigantic lobbying firms that will twist science into a pretzel and just lie through their teeth

Well, we see what they’re made of. We see what behavior these people are capable of.

this is pretty hilarious:

The board of directors is composed of more than 100 senior executives, mostly from large companies, including Alcoa, Dow Chemical, Charles Schwab, AT&T, and Pfizer and of a few smaller firms. In contrast, the Chamber claims that 96% of its members are small businesses.[10]

You are just so gullible, I can’t believe you would believe a word these people say

It’s your life, if you like being lied to, have fun with that

298 Interesting Times  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 12:00:09pm

re: #294 researchok

Yes, I don’t like their climate change and energy policies either.

Where exactly is the evidence they are deliberately adopting general bad economic policy?

Consider the following:

“I don’t like this organization’s anti-vax and germ-theory-denying policies either.

Where exactly is the evidence they are deliberately adopting general bad health care policy?”

Bad climate/energy policy = steaming pile of crap economic policy.

299 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 12:01:56pm

okay, I’m out but just one more great nugget from the USCoC:

The U. S. Chamber of Commerce was reported in the November 16, 2009 Washington Post as seeking to spend $50,000 dollars to hire a “respected economist” to produce a study that could be used to portray health-care legislation as a job killer and threat to the nation’s economy. James P. Gelfand, the author of the e-mail detailing this project, assumes ahead of time that the study will reach such a conclusion


I’m going to go now, and make some actual real economy happen with my own two hands and be safe in the warm glow of not being a willing dupe of giant lobbying machines

You go have fun being part of the lie! Must be very comforting to you

300 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 12:02:19pm

re: #298 publicityStunted

Consider the following:

“I don’t like this organization’s anti-vax and germ-theory-denying policies either.

Where exactly is the evidence they are deliberately adopting general bad health care policy?”

Bad climate/energy policy = steaming pile of crap economic policy.

Seems pretty damn simple to me

301 researchok  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 12:05:07pm

re: #297 WindUpBird

I am honest. They ar enot.

I have interests, I lay out exactly what my interests are, I tell you why I believe what I believe.

The USCoC is not honest. They’re pushing economic policy because it serves their interests, but they’re not honest about why.

it’s much more than just what is credible, it’s about honesty and reality. and gigantic lobbying firms that will twist science into a pretzel and just lie through their teeth

Well, we see what they’re made of. We see what behavior these people are capable of.

this is pretty hilarious:

You are just so gullible, I can’t believe you would believe a word these people say

It’s your life, if you like being lied to, have fun with that

I have never said you were being dishonest.

I have seen no evidence that they- and others- who have a different POV that yourself are dishonest. One would imagine that teh COC were so dishonest and so deliberately deceitful as it relates to economic policies, there would be thousands of pages testifying to that fact. There is a reason every president consults them when crafting their own policies.

Unless and until I see evidence that they are out of line that have deliberately misconstrued past events, I will not discard their analysis. There are varying opinions about the future to be sure, but so what? They are all just opinions. There are no crystal balls.

Any look at past economic policy can do is provide a snapshot of the past, a moment in time. There are no hard and fast sure answers- just ask Mr Obama and every president before him.

302 researchok  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 12:06:56pm

re: #300 WindUpBird

Seems pretty damn simple to me

Again? Show me where the numbers have been wrongly or deliberately represented.

Al Gore stands t6o cash in big time on carbon credits- does that negate the whole AGW notion?

303 researchok  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 12:08:46pm

I’m headed back to the couch- little men with ice picks in my mouth.

Later.

(I’m developing a huge hatred fro dentists with sharp instruments)

304 Cato the Elder  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 12:10:50pm

re: #292 WindUpBird

What does this even mean

One day people are going to see that their dollars are a shared illusion. Whee!

305 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 12:13:32pm

re: #304 Cato the Elder

One day people are going to see that their dollars are a shared illusion. Whee!

I disagree. The dollars represent a form of scrip. Some much of my labor for so much of yours.

Where we are in trouble is if our government plays games with the currency, or if there’s a sudden problem with either the labor supply or the supply of people willing to pay for labor.

306 dmon  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 12:14:45pm

another nice chart

Image: largeextremeinequalitychart-1-1.jpg

307 blueraven  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 12:17:56pm

re: #301 researchok

I have never said you were being dishonest.

I have seen no evidence that they- and others- who have a different POV that yourself are dishonest. One would imagine that teh COC were so dishonest and so deliberately deceitful as it relates to economic policies, there would be thousands of pages testifying to that fact. There is a reason every president consults them when crafting their own policies.

Unless and until I see evidence that they are out of line that have deliberately misconstrued past events, I will not discard their analysis. There are varying opinions about the future to be sure, but so what? They are all just opinions. There are no crystal balls.

Any look at past economic policy can do is provide a snapshot of the past, a moment in time. There are no hard and fast sure answers- just ask Mr Obama and every president before him.

The chamber is not a non-partisan organization. It supports republican candidates almost exclusively.

online.wsj.com

308 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 12:19:29pm

Have just been reminded my labor is needed elsewhere. Bye.

309 Sam N  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 12:28:05pm

re: #304 Cato the Elder

One day people are going to see that their dollars are a shared illusion. Whee!

Doesn’t make them any less valuable. You could say the same thing about laws.

310 Thin blue line  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 12:35:21pm

Another great idea. “Spread the poverty” That should work!

311 researchok  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 12:41:52pm

re: #307 blueraven

The chamber is not a non-partisan organization. It supports republican candidates almost exclusively.

[Link: online.wsj.com…]

So what?

Just because they are partisan doesn’t mean their analysis is wrong.

If that were true, Republicans ought to immediately reject Democrat policy and vice versa.

By the way, it isn’t just Republicans who are against allowing the tax cuts to die- there are Democrats on board as well.

For the record, I am against allowing the tax cuts to die now, in the immediate future. Long term, I thing cutting them is a good idea. However, I believe that doing so now, in a piss poor economy, is a bad idea.

312 lostlakehiker  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 12:55:19pm

re: #52 WindUpBird

Well, you and I will just have to disagree on that

You know that if they invest that money in a business, then they’re not actually taking that 40%, right?

You know that low tax rates for the rich create incentive for rich people to hoard, thus wounding the economy, right?

You can weep for the rich people, I think the fair share of someone who is only making eight figures because of what this government has given them owes a lot more than that.

Rich people have a duty to invest their money and create strength for America through business

Low tax rates for very rich people do exactly the opposite, they foster a hoard mentality, they keep wealth illiquidm, in the hands of fewer and fewer and fewer people, because why risk it? Just sit on it

And America suffers because of that

Huh? Ultra-high tax rates on high earnings encourage those who might earn a lot to NOT BOTHER AND TRY.

Let’s say, just to suppose, that I have a choice. I can work really hard and have a nice home with a great view, a big lot, etc, if I and spouse earn 400K and we get to keep 250 K of it.

Or, we can work half as much, make 200K, and keep 150K of it, say. The extra 100K is maybe worth the extra work.

Now, let’s say we have a different choice. Same work effort, but out of 400K, what if we only keep 200K of it? [But 200K now keeps 140K, say.] Now, all that extra work nets only an extra 60K after taxes. Not enough for the home, view, lot, etc. Considering the extra expenses that go with having too little time to keep up with home chores, day care, etc. on our own, maybe there’s literally NOTHING to show for all that extra work.

The choice becomes obvious. Instead of making 400K and paying 150K taxes, which we chose before the higher tax rate kicked in, we now choose 200K and 60K taxes, instead of 400K and 200K taxes.

The people writing the tax law think, sweet deal, we’ll get an extra 50K. But when the 1040 and the check arrive at the IRS, what they actually see is that instead of getting 150K, they now get 60K.

Every increase in tax rates provokes some decisions in this vein. To a point, most high-earning couples will shoulder the extra taxes and carry on, while only a few despair. Beyond that point, an ever increasing fraction of potential high earners will decide against the life of a high-earner, high-payer, high-stress, nothing left after taxes to show for it.

313 palomino  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 1:25:30pm

re: #312 lostlakehiker

First off, the top effective tax rates are nowhere near 50%, even if the Bush cuts are allowed to expire.

Second, moving the top rates from 35% to 39% is hardly oppressive. During the 90s, it did not have the effect you describe, as the economy hummed along and the top 10% did as well as at any time in our history.

Finally, your scenario is unconvincing. You suggest that a couple wouldn’t be willing to work harder for 200k net take home pay than they would for 140k net. Do you really know people who aren’t willing to work harder when they can increase their income by 42%? I don’t.

314 dmon  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 1:42:38pm

re: #313 palomino

First off, the top effective tax rates are nowhere near 50%, even if the Bush cuts are allowed to expire.

Second, moving the top rates from 35% to 39% is hardly oppressive. During the 90s, it did not have the effect you describe, as the economy hummed along and the top 10% did as well as at any time in our history.

Finally, your scenario is unconvincing. You suggest that a couple wouldn’t be willing to work harder for 200k net take home pay than they would for 140k net. Do you really know people who aren’t willing to work harder when they can increase their income by 42%? I don’t.

Yep…… I know of no one that would turn that 10k raise cause they would be taxed at the higher rate…… likewise I would love for anyone to show me a single example of someone turning down work or turning away additional business because of a higher tax rate….. if that were the case, are they doing it now???? …..I mean its currently a 3 percent increase of taxes when they hit the highest rate…….. I’ll believe it when I see an example of it. Truth of the matter, it doesn’t happen.

315 dmon  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 1:47:06pm

how do these people convince someone making 8 dollars an hour, having their benefits cut, income that hasn’t increased in ten years, that the biggest threat to their exisance is how much we tax someone making 20 million a year?….it astounds me

316 lostlakehiker  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 1:54:43pm

re: #313 palomino

First off, the top effective tax rates are nowhere near 50%, even if the Bush cuts are allowed to expire.

Second, moving the top rates from 35% to 39% is hardly oppressive. During the 90s, it did not have the effect you describe, as the economy hummed along and the top 10% did as well as at any time in our history.

Finally, your scenario is unconvincing. You suggest that a couple wouldn’t be willing to work harder for 200k net take home pay than they would for 140k net. Do you really know people who aren’t willing to work harder when they can increase their income by 42%? I don’t.

The point is that this scenario kicks in for different people at different tax rates. Any tax increase is going to prompt some amount of rethinking whether it’s worth it. A big tax increase is going to prompt more of that.

The problem with your analysis of the couple’s decision is that you pass it off as a matter of merely being willing to work “harder”. How much harder? For twice the before-tax income, you have to put in twice the hours. The body has its limits.

I didn’t make this up, by the way. In rough numbers, it reflects a situation involving people I know. Not me, I decided early on in life that the big house with the big view wasn’t any big deal to me. I make more than average but much less than even the low end of the scenario I posted.

You must keep in mind that federal income taxes are just one of the bites that taxing authorities put on income. It also helps to keep in mind that these new and higher rates are hardly the end of the story. Unless they prove completely counterproductive, or maybe even if they do, there will be agitation for yet higher rates next time Congress meets.

You also didn’t seem to catch that the higher work effort, higher income scenario is simply not possible without substitution of money for labor in the home economy. Only money that remains after those expenses is available for big house big yard aspirations. Effective tax rates don’t have to approach 100% to choke off the kind of effort I’m talking about. A 50% marginal rate, combined federal income tax, medicare tax, state income tax, etc. etc. is hardly an unrealistic threshold, and it’s hardly an unrealistic scenario for where the administration is going.

317 palomino  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 2:00:19pm

re: #314 dmon

Yep… I know of no one that would turn that 10k raise cause they would be taxed at the higher rate… likewise I would love for anyone to show me a single example of someone turning down work or turning away additional business because of a higher tax rate… if that were the case, are they doing it now??? …I mean its currently a 3 percent increase of taxes when they hit the highest rate… I’ll believe it when I see an example of it. Truth of the matter, it doesn’t happen.

Good points. And the increased tax rates (39% up from 35%) only apply to the money one makes in excess of 250k. In other words, if you make 255,000, you’d pay the lower rate on the first 250k, and the higher rate only on the 5,000 above 250k.

Also the scenario sketched out by lostlake above isn’t at all accurate. A family making 400,000 isn’t going to see their tax burden jump from 150k to 200k. That would represent a jump from 37% to 50% in effective tax rate, which is way above any increases contemplated by Congress.

318 lostlakehiker  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 2:03:17pm

re: #255 WindUpBird

I am not an economist but I am quite aware of economics and business, being a business owner in an extremely competitive field.

You’re missing the point. It’s not about internet startups, that’s simply one example. I want a coutnry that doesn’t have a gigantic wage gap and wildly wealthy haves and destitute have-nots, I want a country with a thriving middle class because that’s how that country becomes strong.

it becomes strong when there are many many many people in the middle class..

You know the income disparity in America is skyrocketing, right?

How does that make our country strong? How can it possibly?

Income disparity flows out of skill disparity. Nations such as Japan with modest income disparity are the way they are because most of the people share a culture of hard work and savings and self discipline and respect for education.

Most Japanese get a pretty good education. While differences in earning power remain, they are smaller than what is typical of nations where different subcultures have wildly different attitudes toward education and work.

On top of this, in Japan, schools that do not teach reading are not tolerated, teachers who rank in the bottom few percent are not protected by union contracts from having to choose between shaping up or shipping out, and as to math, well, by 9th grade they know more than our 12th graders.

How come they’re not rich? Amber waves of grain do count for something, and Japan’s got an aging population and her own corruption problems.

319 palomino  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 2:14:18pm

re: #316 lostlakehiker

Most earners in the 200-400k range don’t really face the situation where working twice the hours leads to twice the pay. These are generally salaried earners, not people getting extra pay for overtime. So the calculus regarding work vs. leisure doesn’t really hold.

I live in L.A., so I realize that other taxes take a big bite. But that’s not the issue here; what we’re talking about is the appropriate federal tax rate for raising the revenue to pay for the govt. behemoth. Even many conservative economists agree that some portion of our deficit shortfall must be made up for with higher taxes. Spending cuts alone won’t do it.

The only balanced budgets we’ve had in the last 35 years were in the 90s when taxes went up a little. Of course there were spending cuts as well. This is the only recipe that seems to work.

And that couple making 400,000? They would only get taxed at the higher rate for income over 250k. By my calculation, their overall burden would only increase by about $9000. I have a hard time believing they’d lose their faith in capitalism over this.

320 dmon  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 2:17:56pm

re: #318 lostlakehiker

Its not skill disparity, its disparity between how skills are valued,an auto body guy has incredible skills, the guy that pours concrete, brick masons, but our society values their skills at 30k per year.

The guy that is an investment banker, produces nothing, just moves money from one place to another, is valued at millions. Thats the problem.

The income disparity isnt because of a lack of skills, nor a lack of work ethics, we place way too much value on professions that produce nothing……. while the people who do “build” things, get payed a pittance

321 dmon  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 2:21:43pm

re: #318 lostlakehiker

Income disparity flows out of skill disparity. Nations such as Japan with modest income disparity are the way they are because most of the people share a culture of hard work and savings and self discipline and respect for education.

Most Japanese get a pretty good education. While differences in earning power remain, they are smaller than what is typical of nations where different subcultures have wildly different attitudes toward education and work.

On top of this, in Japan, schools that do not teach reading are not tolerated, teachers who rank in the bottom few percent are not protected by union contracts from having to choose between shaping up or shipping out, and as to math, well, by 9th grade they know more than our 12th graders.

How come they’re not rich? Amber waves of grain do count for something, and Japan’s got an aging population and her own corruption problems.

According to IPS, American CEOs make 263 times the average compensation for American workers, up from the 30 to 1 ratio in the 1970s. For comparison, the average compensation of a Japanese CEO is less than one-sixth that of their American counterpart and 16 times more than the average Japanese worker.

322 ClaudeMonet  Fri, Sep 10, 2010 10:50:17pm

re: #1 Pythagoras

What about the AMT?

As regular taxes increase, the amount of AMT collected will decrease, as will the number of people subject to AMT. However, the indexation of AMT will also expire, so a few folks may be in for less of a decrease in AMT than they expected.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
3 weeks ago
Views: 427 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1