Taxing the rich - what is the cutoff?

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

When I see posts like this which are mainly rhetoric and name-calling I lose all respect for the poster.

Here are some places where people are not allowed to speak; Cuba, Venezula, North Korea, Iraq (pre-2003), Afghanistan (pre-2001), Soviet Union (pre-fall of the Berlin Wall)

Before you call people idiots and suggest they don't read, I would suggest you read the attached links rather than get all your info from the headlines of the NY Times, Washington Post and ABC:

Saddam's Dangerous Friends

The Mother of All Connections

Andrew C. McCarthy on Iraq on National Review Online

Ok, those links are all from the Weekly Standard and National Review -- both pro-Bush, neocon stink tanks if there ever was one. That's exactly the same as leftists getting all their news from the NY Times, Washington Post and ABC.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by That Guy

most people consider it 250k, but i think 500k for a household is a much better figure due to the cost of living around DC.

That seems more reasonable to me. Then again, I don't make $500k/year, so it's hard to speak for that type of household.

You're right though - cost of living is a factor.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Ok, those links are all from the Weekly Standard and National Review -- both pro-Bush, neocon stink tanks if there ever was one. That's exactly the same as leftists getting all their news from the NY Times, Washington Post and ABC.

Well you can find examples from places like ABC News, from as far back as a decade ago (if not longer)

However, that's not what this thread is about

[SC Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Before you call people idiots and suggest they don't read, I would suggest you read the attached links rather than get all your info from the headlines of the NY Times, Washington Post and ABC:

Saddam's Dangerous Friends

The Mother of All Connections

Andrew C. McCarthy on Iraq on National Review Online

How does ABC make the list? Giant corporate owned media outlet that doesn't really provide any worthwhile news (and employs George Will at least one day a week) - no offense to anyone in their employ, hey ESPN still has some good stuff. Could we at least get credit for some decent Trotskyite outlets like The Nation or NPR or even The New Republic?

Originally Posted by saden1

Another Marxian propaganda perpetrator in the house. If you like France so much why don't you move there? It seems to me that you'll be much happier there.

Saden, I think you might have hit upon the best way to respond to this thread ... I might just totally ignore it if not for your wonderful hyperbole.

[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.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by That Guy

wtf are you talking about? i said someone making 25k a year needs the 15% that a flat tax would charge them to live on, since 25k/year is dick money. I don't see what's so sprewell about someone who'd make $1770/month w/ rent or a condo mortgage running $1100 in NoVa needing the 15% extra that a flat tax would take from him.

please read my posts more carefully :P it's not like this is the first or fourth time.

Don't have a cow man, I'm not trying to antagonize you, I'm merely elaborating on what you wrote.

The Sprewell reference is in regards to 250K possibly not being enough.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by saden1

Don't have a cow man, I'm not trying to antagonize you, I'm merely elaborating on what you wrote.

The Sprewell reference is in regards to 250K possibly not being enough.

k, it sounded like you were mis-interpreting what i had written though, and where referencing sprewell to the unfairness of flat taxes for those of low income, which, of course, makes no sense.

250k per household in NoVA would make up too high a percentage to call it rich. two gov/dod contractors in one house can easily hit that mark. at 500k you're either getting stock options, or own a pretty decent business, or have acquired enough cash to live off investing...

it's not that 250k isn't enough to live on, it's just not exactly rich compared to the median income and cost of living near major cities, though it is towards the higher end.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by That Guy

wtf are you talking about? i said someone making 25k a year needs the 15% that a flat tax would charge them to live on, since 25k/year is dick money. I don't see what's so sprewell about someone who'd make $1770/month w/ rent or a condo mortgage running $1100 in NoVa needing the 15% extra that a flat tax would take from him.

please read my posts more carefully :P it's not like this is the first or fourth time.

Under the flat tax plain lower income families would receive a tax credit so low income families would still not pay taxes under the flat tax plan. Some would even receive more credit back then they paid in taxes.

[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).

[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

[RIGGO/NYC]

Dude if you want to ban me go ahead. Unlike some people on this forum, I actually have a life and would lose no sleep over not being able to post, since as you can see from my history I do not post often anyway. Anyway, yeah I might get a little overboard when it comes to political discussions, as I am a political science major and certain subjects are particullarly sensitive to me. Especially when people are speaking about something that is not a debatable subject. There is no justification for this war whatsoever. When I see soldiers on TV without legs (blown off for nothing, but oil) and children that will never know their fathers, it is the people who try to justify this war that I most despise. I wonder if they would give their legs or they're own lives while their wives were pregnant with their baby, so that their child would have never known them. Yeah, but god forbid we cut and run and America looks bad, that is whats really important, America has to show how powerful it is. Maybe America should show it has the ability to admit when it is wrong. Really ask yourself, is this war worth one American life. Answer: NO! Nevertheless, the person whose post I was responding to clearly did not do their research on the Iraq war. There is no debate to be had on the subject. If you support the war, then you clearly have a low IQ and just simply have not weighed the postives versus the negatives. Politicians employ a rhetoric in a time of war that is similar to the appoach they take with the "war on drugs." They try to strike fear in to individuals to gain their support for their approach and those nieve enough to buy this nonsense are just not intellectually worthy of my rebuttle. Therefore, I'd rather just have a little fun with their under-educated minds and insult them. Call it childish, but I act childish when speaking to adults with the intellect of a 7 year-old. No, I do not get my info from the NY Times (the best paper in the world), but I get it from BBC and my classes at school. Go to Europe and see what the citizens in many of the western/central EU countries think of the United States current course in foreign affairs, instead of sitting around your local Irish Pub in D.C. Nooooooo PLEASE DO NOT BANNN MEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! MY LIFE WOULD BE OVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GO REDSKINS!!! (Something we do agree on)
P.S. If any of you knuckle heads really want a debate, then I will gladly accept the challenge. I'll gather the other students on my debate team and we can take this discussion to a public blog. I would love to just humiliate anyone who supports this war.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by RIGGO/NYC

P.S. If any of you knuckle heads really want a debate, then I will gladly accept the challenge. I'll gather the other students on my debate team and we can take this discussion to a public blog. I would love to just humiliate anyone who supports this war.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Under the flat tax plain lower income families would receive a tax credit so low income families would still not pay taxes under the flat tax plan. Some would even receive more credit back then they paid in taxes.

Isn't this just another form of taxing the rich to pay for poor people services? Receive money back? You mean like EIC where these bums get money back even though they didn't pay any taxes?

[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.