Taxing the rich - what is the cutoff?

[onlydarksets]

Interesting article about what constitutes "rich" from a practical standpoint as opposed to the political rhetoric about top percentiles.
Taxing the 'Not-So-Rich' Rich

The gist is that many people who fall in the top 2% of household incomes (projected to be about $250k/year for married couples) aren't basking in luxury. Often they live in areas with high costs of living and some are repaying school debts, which were required to allow them to get to the higher salary. These people would feel the squeeze of an extra 3-4% in taxes.

I don't have a feel for whether those in this situation are a significant percentage of that "top 2%" population or not. I do think that $250k/year puts most married couples in their 30s with 2 kids and a mortgage living in a top 20 metro area in the "comfortable but not secure" range.

[SC Skins Fan]

I wonder what these people would do if they actually had to go live the life of someone who is actually working class? I think they might just shrivel up and die, the strain would be just too much for them. "I can't put 15% in my 401k and Junior might have to go to a state school. Whoas me!"

Notice also that among the costs that are putting the 'squeeze' on these poor folks are health care and education. Let's think about that one for a second.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by SC Skins Fan

I wonder what these people would do if they actually had to go live the life of someone who is actually working class? I think they might just shrivel up and die, the strain would be just too much for them. "I can't put 15% in my 401k and Junior might have to go to a state school. Whoas me!"

Notice also that among the costs that are putting the 'squeeze' on these poor folks are health care and education. Let's think about that one for a second.

I'm pretty sure the folks making this type of income will survive. Contrary to popular belief, most families making that type of money did not get it handed to them through trust funds or Mommy & Daddy paying all their bills until they were in their 30s. I would argue that their good judgement in putting 15% in their 401K and sending their children to private schools is also, in the long run, much better for the economy.

A majority of them worked their hind-quarters off to try to make a better life than what they came up in, even if it meant making sacrifices like studying in high school so they could get into a good college while their friends were at parties and getting drunk/high, studying and working internships while in college rather than blowing off class and partying, or spending years in the military to attend or pay for college at night, working 50-60 hour weeks, spending time on the road away from their families, answering pages, texts and cell phones in the middle of the night to deal with business responsibilities.

I've posted the numbers before, the top 10% of earners pay approximately 67% of the taxes in this country, the bottom 50% pay about 3%. The rates for income earned vs. tax rate is disproportionate.

WTF right does the government have to increase the tax rates on the "wealthy". It's flat out wealth confiscation and redistribution. The money earned by the American people is THEIRS it is NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S. Unfortunately, so many people have the attitude of "well they can afford it".....until they move into a higher tax bracket and their tax rate goes up. It doesn't matter if the "wealthy" can afford it, why should they? The "raise taxes on the rich" argument is class warfare at its worst. How does the "top 2%" fight this? They can't because the folks voting in November outnumber them by a vast majority and don't recognize or don't care that what is being proposed is wrong.

Not only is this approach flat out wrong, it will stiffle the economy. It has been proven time and again, when the government raises taxes the economy slows down. Like it or not, that "top 2%" is not just ambulance- chasing lawyers, professional athletes, and overpaid CEOs of major corporations. It is mostly your local doctor, dentist, salesperson, or small business person who owns the local restaurant or store at the mall. Most of these folks go to the same stores, drive on the same roads, go to the same churches and work their asses off like everyone else. And they almost never qualify for or take advantage of any government entitlement programs.

And I don't want to hear the "Warren Buffett paid 15% or 17%" argument. Buffett is in the crowd that can live off investments and has a team of accoutants/tax attorneys making sure he pays the least amount of taxes he can. Most of the people in the $ 250-300K range make a vast majority of their income through salaries and business income that isn't taxed at the lower capital gains rate.

[hesscl34]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

I'm pretty sure the folks making this type of income will survive. Contrary to popular belief, most families making that type of money did not get it handed to them through trust funds or Mommy & Daddy paying all their bills until they were in their 30s. I would argue that their good judgement in putting 15% in their 401K and sending their children to private schools is also, in the long run, much better for the economy.

A majority of them worked their hind-quarters off to try to make a better life than what they came up in, even if it meant making sacrifices like studying in high school so they could get into a good college while their friends were at parties and getting drunk/high, studying and working internships while in college rather than blowing off class and partying, or spending years in the military to attend or pay for college at night, working 50-60 hour weeks, spending time on the road away from their families, answering pages, texts and cell phones in the middle of the night to deal with business responsibilities.

I've posted the numbers before, the top 10% of earners pay approximately 67% of the taxes in this country, the bottom 50% pay about 3%. The rates for income earned vs. tax rate is disproportionate.

WTF right does the government have to increase the tax rates on the "wealthy". It's flat out wealth confiscation and redistribution. The money earned by the American people is THEIRS it is NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S. Unfortunately, so many people have the attitude of "well they can afford it".....until they move into a higher tax bracket and their tax rate goes up. It doesn't matter if the "wealthy" can afford it, why should they? The "raise taxes on the rich" argument is class warfare at its worst. How does the "top 2%" fight this? They can't because the folks voting in November outnumber them by a vast majority and don't recognize or don't care that what is being proposed is wrong.

Not only is this approach flat out wrong, it will stiffle the economy. It has been proven time and again, when the government raises taxes the economy slows down. Like it or not, that "top 2%" is not just ambulance- chasing lawyers, professional athletes, and overpaid CEOs of major corporations. It is mostly your local doctor, dentist, salesperson, or small business person who owns the local restaurant or store at the mall. Most of these folks go to the same stores, drive on the same roads, go to the same churches and work their asses off like everyone else. And they almost never qualify for or take advantage of any government entitlement programs.

And I don't want to hear the "Warren Buffett paid 15% or 17%" argument. Buffett is in the crowd that can live off investments and has a team of accoutants/tax attorneys making sure he pays the least amount of taxes he can. Most of the people in the $ 250-300K range make a vast majority of their income through salaries and business income that isn't taxed at the lower capital gains rate.

You are my hero... great post.

[SC Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

I'm pretty sure the folks making this type of income will survive. Contrary to popular belief, most families making that type of money did not get it handed to them through trust funds or Mommy & Daddy paying all their bills until they were in their 30s. I would argue that their good judgement in putting 15% in their 401K and sending their children to private schools is also, in the long run, much better for the economy.

A majority of them worked their hind-quarters off to try to make a better life than what they came up in, even if it meant making sacrifices like [b]studying in high school so they could get into a good college while their friends were at parties and getting drunk/high, studying and working internships while in college rather than blowing off class and partying[b], or spending years in the military to attend or pay for college at night, working 50-60 hour weeks, spending time on the road away from their families, answering pages, texts and cell phones in the middle of the night to deal with business responsibilities.

I've posted the numbers before, the top 10% of earners pay approximately 67% of the taxes in this country, the bottom 50% pay about 3%. The rates for income earned vs. tax rate is disproportionate.

WTF right does the government have to increase the tax rates on the "wealthy". It's flat out wealth confiscation and redistribution. The money earned by the American people is THEIRS it is NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S. Unfortunately, so many people have the attitude of "well they can afford it".....until they move into a higher tax bracket and their tax rate goes up. It doesn't matter if the "wealthy" can afford it, why should they? The "raise taxes on the rich" argument is class warfare at its worst. How does the "top 2%" fight this? They can't because the folks voting in November outnumber them by a vast majority and don't recognize or don't care that what is being proposed is wrong.

Not only is this approach flat out wrong, it will stiffle the economy. It has been proven time and again, when the government raises taxes the economy slows down. Like it or not, that "top 2%" is not just ambulance- chasing lawyers, professional athletes, and overpaid CEOs of major corporations. It is mostly your local doctor, dentist, salesperson, or small business person who owns the local restaurant or store at the mall. Most of these folks go to the same stores, drive on the same roads, go to the same churches and work their asses off like everyone else. And they almost never qualify for or take advantage of any government entitlement programs.

And I don't want to hear the "Warren Buffett paid 15% or 17%" argument. Buffett is in the crowd that can live off investments and has a team of accoutants/tax attorneys making sure he pays the least amount of taxes he can. Most of the people in the $ 250-300K range make a vast majority of their income through salaries and business income that isn't taxed at the lower capital gains rate.

Well, you've certainly got the talking points down. Obviously I have sharp ideological differences with you and I just cannot help thinking about late 19th century politics when I start hearing buzzwords like "confiscation and wealth redistribution" since those were the same arguments that helped topple the Reconstruction project (cf. Heather Cox Richardson, The Death of Reconstruction). Like those Gilded Age politicians you ignore structural inequality and effectively say that the wealthy have money because they are worthy and the poor do not because they are lazy and unworthy. More importantly, I think you oversimplify the argument by setting up the strawman of the 'tax and spend' liberal boogyman.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by SC Skins Fan

Well, you've certainly got the talking points down. Obviously I have sharp ideological differences with you and I just cannot help thinking about late 19th century politics when I start hearing buzzwords like "confiscation and wealth redistribution" since those were the same arguments that helped topple the Reconstruction project (cf. Heather Cox Richardson, The Death of Reconstruction). Like those Gilded Age politicians you ignore structural inequality and effectively say that the wealthy have money because they are worthy and the poor do not because they are lazy and unworthy. More importantly, I think you oversimplify the argument by setting up the strawman of the 'tax and spend' liberal boogyman.

"structual inequality"?
"strawman of the 'tax and spend' liberal boogeyman"?

I'd you have to talking points down too. Nothing wrong with that in my opinion. Maybe one set of the talking points are right.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by SC Skins Fan

Well, you've certainly got the talking points down. Obviously I have sharp ideological differences with you and I just cannot help thinking about late 19th century politics when I start hearing buzzwords like "confiscation and wealth redistribution" since those were the same arguments that helped topple the Reconstruction project (cf. Heather Cox Richardson, The Death of Reconstruction). Like those Gilded Age politicians you ignore structural inequality and effectively say that the wealthy have money because they are worthy and the poor do not because they are lazy and unworthy. More importantly, I think you oversimplify the argument by setting up the strawman of the 'tax and spend' liberal boogyman.

First, I agree with you, we do have sharp ideological differences. However, IMO even though we have these differences it is important to have the discussion even though neither of our minds will be changed.

My post has nothing to do with "talking points", I didn't search Hannity or Rush's websites, the RNC or anyone else's. Other than accuse me of using "talking points", then throw out the "buzz-word" implication, you haven't put forward any accurate or logical dispute to what I said.

I understand structural inequalities and I would argue that we are not in 1888, but 2008 and while not perfect, I think our government has done a better job than most in putting programs in place to address that. Our tax structure is already progressive, it certainly doesn't need to become confiscatory.

Let me be clear. I don't consider $ 250-300K yr. for a family "wealthy". If one spouse or the primary breadwinner in a family with this level of income lost his/her job that family would be in trouble. If a person puts in the work, makes good decisions, and the necessary sacrifices, and that person is rewarded with material wealth they should not feel guilty or be the object of ridicule (as the "greedy" or "wealthy"). If people are poor because they didn't take advantage of educational opportunities, or government programs available, or repeatedly made bad decisons regarding having children or with drugs/alcohol, their situation is their own fault.

I'm also not setting up any "tax and spend boogeyman". I didn't mention the appropriations of tax dollars only the principles behind their collection. As far as I'm concerned, the Bush Administration has been as bad or worse than any Democrat or Democrat controlled Congress when it comes to increasing the scope and size of government.

Here's some interesting info:
Where do these two points come from?
1) Establish a heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
2) Abolish all rights of inheritance (Death Tax)
Answer: Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto, 1848.

In 1894 a 2% tax on those making over $ 4,000 / yr. was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. In 1896 and 1908 the Democratic Party was pushing for a constitutional ammendment to add the income tax, Republicans were against it. Even in the early 1900s, it was touted as a "tax on the rich" that wouldn't affect most Americans (OOOOPS!). Adjusted for todays dollars the income tax in 1913 was 1% on those making over $ 250K and 7% on those making over $ 6M. How far we've come. I'll get down now.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

I'm pretty sure the folks making this type of income will survive. Contrary to popular belief, most families making that type of money did not get it handed to them through trust funds or Mommy & Daddy paying all their bills until they were in their 30s. I would argue that their good judgement in putting 15% in their 401K and sending their children to private schools is also, in the long run, much better for the economy.

A majority of them worked their hind-quarters off to try to make a better life than what they came up in, even if it meant making sacrifices like studying in high school so they could get into a good college while their friends were at parties and getting drunk/high, studying and working internships while in college rather than blowing off class and partying, or spending years in the military to attend or pay for college at night, working 50-60 hour weeks, spending time on the road away from their families, answering pages, texts and cell phones in the middle of the night to deal with business responsibilities.

I've posted the numbers before, the top 10% of earners pay approximately 67% of the taxes in this country, the bottom 50% pay about 3%. The rates for income earned vs. tax rate is disproportionate.

WTF right does the government have to increase the tax rates on the "wealthy". It's flat out wealth confiscation and redistribution. The money earned by the American people is THEIRS it is NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S. Unfortunately, so many people have the attitude of "well they can afford it".....until they move into a higher tax bracket and their tax rate goes up. It doesn't matter if the "wealthy" can afford it, why should they? The "raise taxes on the rich" argument is class warfare at its worst. How does the "top 2%" fight this? They can't because the folks voting in November outnumber them by a vast majority and don't recognize or don't care that what is being proposed is wrong.

Not only is this approach flat out wrong, it will stiffle the economy. It has been proven time and again, when the government raises taxes the economy slows down. Like it or not, that "top 2%" is not just ambulance- chasing lawyers, professional athletes, and overpaid CEOs of major corporations. It is mostly your local doctor, dentist, salesperson, or small business person who owns the local restaurant or store at the mall. Most of these folks go to the same stores, drive on the same roads, go to the same churches and work their asses off like everyone else. And they almost never qualify for or take advantage of any government entitlement programs.

And I don't want to hear the "Warren Buffett paid 15% or 17%" argument. Buffett is in the crowd that can live off investments and has a team of accoutants/tax attorneys making sure he pays the least amount of taxes he can. Most of the people in the $ 250-300K range make a vast majority of their income through salaries and business income that isn't taxed at the lower capital gains rate.

Philosophically, I'm right there with you. From a practical standpoint, a flat tax just won't work. Either our government would experience a drastic reduction in revenues, or way too many people would be thrust into poverty.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Philosophically, I'm right there with you. From a practical standpoint, a flat tax just won't work. Either our government would experience a drastic reduction in revenues, or way too many people would be thrust into poverty.

I agree. I would like to see us move to the Fair Tax. The Fair Tax would still be progressive in that those making more will spend more dollars, therefore paying the same or very close to the same percentage of the federal tax bill that they are paying now. I know there are some disagreements in the details of rate and who will actually be paying what portion of the federal tax bill, but the disagreements can be overcome (ref. to the FactCheck.org article). A new method of collecting federal taxes that reduces our tax code to something manageable, cuts the IRS to a fraction of its current size, taxes the underground economy, brings more businesses & jobs back to the U.S., and shuts down half of "K St." has my support.

[Dogtag]

Well stated. You are not alone in your views. The salary I earn for my family does not belong to the Government. If the Government wants to stick their hands deeper into my bank account and call it change, then I'm not on-board. While I'm definitely not in the 'rich' tax bracket, I object to tax burden that the folks in this tax bracket endure.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

I'm pretty sure the folks making this type of income will survive. Contrary to popular belief, most families making that type of money did not get it handed to them through trust funds or Mommy & Daddy paying all their bills until they were in their 30s. I would argue that their good judgement in putting 15% in their 401K and sending their children to private schools is also, in the long run, much better for the economy.

A majority of them worked their hind-quarters off to try to make a better life than what they came up in, even if it meant making sacrifices like studying in high school so they could get into a good college while their friends were at parties and getting drunk/high, studying and working internships while in college rather than blowing off class and partying, or spending years in the military to attend or pay for college at night, working 50-60 hour weeks, spending time on the road away from their families, answering pages, texts and cell phones in the middle of the night to deal with business responsibilities.

I've posted the numbers before, the top 10% of earners pay approximately 67% of the taxes in this country, the bottom 50% pay about 3%. The rates for income earned vs. tax rate is disproportionate.

WTF right does the government have to increase the tax rates on the "wealthy". It's flat out wealth confiscation and redistribution. The money earned by the American people is THEIRS it is NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S. Unfortunately, so many people have the attitude of "well they can afford it".....until they move into a higher tax bracket and their tax rate goes up. It doesn't matter if the "wealthy" can afford it, why should they? The "raise taxes on the rich" argument is class warfare at its worst. How does the "top 2%" fight this? They can't because the folks voting in November outnumber them by a vast majority and don't recognize or don't care that what is being proposed is wrong.

Not only is this approach flat out wrong, it will stiffle the economy. It has been proven time and again, when the government raises taxes the economy slows down. Like it or not, that "top 2%" is not just ambulance- chasing lawyers, professional athletes, and overpaid CEOs of major corporations. It is mostly your local doctor, dentist, salesperson, or small business person who owns the local restaurant or store at the mall. Most of these folks go to the same stores, drive on the same roads, go to the same churches and work their asses off like everyone else. And they almost never qualify for or take advantage of any government entitlement programs.

And I don't want to hear the "Warren Buffett paid 15% or 17%" argument. Buffett is in the crowd that can live off investments and has a team of accoutants/tax attorneys making sure he pays the least amount of taxes he can. Most of the people in the $ 250-300K range make a vast majority of their income through salaries and business income that isn't taxed at the lower capital gains rate.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by SC Skins Fan

I wonder what these people would do if they actually had to go live the life of someone who is actually working class? I think they might just shrivel up and die, the strain would be just too much for them. "I can't put 15% in my 401k and Junior might have to go to a state school. Whoas me!"

Notice also that among the costs that are putting the 'squeeze' on these poor folks are health care and education. Let's think about that one for a second.

Well the people I know who makes that kind of money started from the bottom. Some worked their way to the top and some took tons in loans so to become doctors. These guys work harder then anyone I know and thats why they have the incomes they do today. They are the working class as much as anyone of us. If they went back to what you call the working class they would just work their way up as they did the first time. I just do not get your way of thinking or maybe you just have not been around and seen how hard people work to make that kind of money. I guess you could point out some who had it handed to them. You could also find some not working that hard today but it was the hard work they put in when younger to enjoy life a little more from the top.

[SC Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Well the people I know who makes that kind of money started from the bottom. Some worked their way to the top and some took tons in loans so to become doctors. These guys work harder then anyone I know and thats why they have the incomes they do today. They are the working class as much as anyone of us. If they went back to what you call the working class they would just work their way up as they did the first time. I just do not get your way of thinking or maybe you just have not been around and seen how hard people work to make that kind of money. I guess you could point out some who had it handed to them. You could also find some not working that hard today but it was the hard work they put in when younger to enjoy life a little more from the top.

My simple point was that I wonder what these people would do if they found themselves having to support a family of four on a household income of $40,000-45,000. But maybe you haven't been around and seen how hard people work to make that kind of money (my dad was a carpenter, my wife's father a fire fighter - obviously if they possessed more personal virtue they would have attained greater things and made more money). I have a tough shedding tears for folks who are crying poor because they make $300,000 and their taxes might go up 3%.

It is a basic question about the role of government in society, which is the core of the ideological divide between what we refer to as liberalism and conservatism. George Will calls it the difference between 'freedom' and 'equality' (as well as the difference between truth and fantasy, but I'll avoid such a dichotomy), which contains some truth perhaps. I'd say that only those at the top can experience true freedom because at the bottom economic necessity greatly constrains choice, so I'd disagree with Will, but I do think equity - if not equality - should be a core American value. I also think that people who 'succeed' do so not only by their virtue but with the help of a social infrastructure (roads, police enforcement, the rule of law, government policy, etc.) that supports the attainment and aggregation of wealth. That they therefore have an obligation to to contribute to the maintenance of that infrastructure. It strikes me that rolling back parts of the Bush tax cuts is not particularly onerous and that those cuts were a bad idea in the first place, especially given the apparent imperative of fighting a war that has cost exponentially more than what we were told by the administration in 2003. You can disagree, certainly, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't treat me like I am just some idiot who 'hasn't been around'. Maybe, rather than being a simpleton, I disagree ideologically.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by SC Skins Fan

I also think that people who 'succeed' do so not only by their virtue but with the help of a social infrastructure (roads, police enforcement, the rule of law, government policy, etc.) that supports the attainment and aggregation of wealth.

I think that few wealthy individuals have a problem paying for roads, police, the military, etc. Some government programs, however, are not so vital to our society or economy and I think some people have a problem paying for them.

Originally Posted by SC Skins Fan

It strikes me that rolling back parts of the Bush tax cuts is not particularly onerous and that those cuts were a bad idea in the first place, especially given the apparent imperative of fighting a war that has cost exponentially more than what we were told by the administration in 2003.

Some of his tax cuts, however, actually increased tax revenue. Reducing the capital gains tax, for example, actually increased capital gains tax revenue. Moreover, capital gains tax cuts were not aimed squarely at the upper echelons of society. More than 50% of the American households report capital gains/losses. Moreover, the notion that we should increase taxes on people who have gained money by pumping money into the economy sounds somewhat counterproductive to me, especially in light of the fallout of the subprime market and its aftershocks (e.g., limited credit availability for M&A and capital expenditures).

[SC Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Some of his tax cuts, however, actually increased tax revenue. Reducing the capital gains tax, for example, actually increased capital gains tax revenue. Moreover, capital gains tax cuts were not aimed squarely at the upper echelons of society. More than 50% of the American households report capital gains/losses. Moreover, the notion that we should increase taxes on people who have gained money by pumping money into the economy sounds somewhat counterproductive to me, especially in light of the fallout of the subprime market and its aftershocks (e.g., limited credit availability for M&A and capital expenditures).

I don't claim to understand the in's and out's of tax policy, but the 'tax revenue increases with decreased rates of taxation' is apparently a questionable assertion.

FactCheck.org: The Budget According to McCain: Part II

But if we want to cut taxes then we have to cut spending (which is what McCain said way back in 2001/2003) because the effects of the current administration's policies have been to enlarge the deficit enormously. It is the 'no sacrifice required' ethos that infuses so much of contemporary American culture. And with McCain's current rhethoric that means cutting domestic spending, which has consequences. So then you have to ask who is being asked to sacrifice and who gains most from that sacrifice.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by SC Skins Fan

My simple point was that I wonder what these people would do if they found themselves having to support a family of four on a household income of $40,000-45,000. But maybe you haven't been around and seen how hard people work to make that kind of money (my dad was a carpenter, my wife's father a fire fighter - obviously if they possessed more personal virtue they would have attained greater things and made more money). I have a tough shedding tears for folks who are crying poor because they make $300,000 and their taxes might go up 3%.

Why stop there? $40-50k/year is excess. You can live off of $12k a year:
How to retire on $12,000 a year - MSN Money