If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   Increasing taxes on the very wealthy not only raises tax revenue, but it makes it cheaper for middle-class and poor people to afford basic goods   (yglesias.thinkprogress.org) divider line 685
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

2629 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Feb 2009 at 7:28 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



685 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-02-12 09:27:12 PM
cousin-merle: Lies.

First debate: My definition - here's what I can tell the American people: 95 percent of you will get a tax cut. And if you make less than $250,000, less than a quarter-million dollars a year, then you will not see one dime's worth of tax increase.

Second debate: So let's be clear about my tax plan and Sen. McCain's, because we're not going to be able to deal with entitlements unless we understand the revenues coming in. I want to provide a tax cut for 95 percent of Americans, 95 percent.

Third debate: If I can answer the question. Number one, I want to cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans. Now, it is true that my friend and supporter, Warren Buffett, for example, could afford to pay a little more in taxes in order - in order to give - in order to give additional tax cuts to Joe the plumber before he was at the point where he could make $250,000.


Go here: Link (new window)

Put in single, no kids, and $100k
 
2009-02-12 09:27:28 PM
sarcastrophe: CaptMacMillian: Then I'm going to ahead and tell you to stop farking complaining about bringing in so much income.

It's OK. I'll magically turn into one of you poor schlubs when I get married.


If you are making only a little under 6 figures, you should still be doing fine unless you want gobs of children.
 
2009-02-12 09:27:55 PM
cameroncrazy1984: I bet you believe in the "Pelosi mouse" bullcrap too.


I was not discussing the campaign or Obama at that time, I don't think you have any idea of teh actual context.


As to Pelosi-

What exactly does this $30M figure mean then. Where is is the money going?
 
2009-02-12 09:28:59 PM
TheOther
Hat Madder: Something besides "we say it's the right thing to do so that makes it the right thing to do".

How about 'we won the election, so we get to set policy'?


So what you're saying is that Bush invading Iraq was morally correct because Republicans won the election in 2000.
 
2009-02-12 09:30:14 PM
Smackledorfer: If you are making only a little under 6 figures, you should still be doing fine unless you want gobs of children.

Nah... I'm fine really. I just don't like our tax system. Because these politicians running for office say all kinds of stupid crap like "i'm going to cut taxes for people making under $250k," when then gets parroted all over the place even though it is obviously false.

My problem has never really been the level of taxation, it's with the politics surrounding it.
 
2009-02-12 09:30:23 PM
sarcastrophe:
No. I moved to Washington. Funny thing... I had to leave Colorado because of taxes (state corp tax). Our little company got bought by a really big company and the legal team was afraid it would create Colorado nexus. Since I was the only employee in CO, I had to move.


Hm...I thought about moving to Washington at one point. But I didn't. Seems nice, though. Either way, you're still way too conservative, though. But, I like you. You seem more educated and more interesting than all the other sillies out here in Fark.

So, Good Show, sir. Keep up the good work, and hopefully you're libertarian fantasy will come true one day. (Just not in my country).
 
2009-02-12 09:31:53 PM
Fart_Machine: maxamillion: And to the poster that suggested the wealthy owe the gubment, that's bs. No one in this nation owes the govt anything. Except for those that receive welfare and still find room for an xbox 360, a big screen, drugs, the benzo, rims, cable and Internet.

Ah the Reagan Cadillac Welfare Queen. Will the legend ever die?


Thank you for conviniently excluding the rest of the paragraph. A regular old mike Moore. Or obama.
 
2009-02-12 09:33:04 PM
sarcastrophe: Go here: Link (new window)

Put in single, no kids, and $100k


How does that contradict what I quoted?

helix400: Please do. I'm a big fan of getting to the source using meaningful, actual numbers.

Why are you ignoring the census data then? Could it be because it disproves your claim?
 
2009-02-12 09:33:46 PM
I think I know what Democrats like taxes. They don't pay them.
 
2009-02-12 09:33:59 PM
sarcastrophe: Nah... I'm fine really. I just don't like our tax system. Because these politicians running for office say all kinds of stupid crap like "i'm going to cut taxes for people making under $250k," when then gets parroted all over the place even though it is obviously false.

My problem has never really been the level of taxation, it's with the politics surrounding it.


He never said that. You're the one making stuff up.
 
2009-02-12 09:34:36 PM
Hat Madder: TheOther
Hat Madder: Something besides "we say it's the right thing to do so that makes it the right thing to do".

How about 'we won the election, so we get to set policy'?

So what you're saying is that Bush invading Iraq was morally correct because Republicans won the election in 2000.


Sorry, didn't read your post closely enough. I don't think taxes are a moral issue; just practical (people with more money can pay more) and political (office holders make policy).

I'm not the Liberal you are looking for...
 
2009-02-12 09:34:40 PM
cousin-merle: I gave you the census link for individuals after you complained about households. The guy in the blog is taking the data and manipulating it to get it to agree with him.

No, his data breaks it down by decile, to show trends that median income alone can't show.

That decile data went back to 1994. My statement is that over the past two decades wages have gone up. Both are true. Again, I was arguing against this zero sum economic pie concept, as it is clearly incorrect, as ALL income groups have seen wage increases after inflation.

If you want to narrow it down to this decade and say wages have flatlined, I'm fine with that too. Because they have. At least for deciles 1 through 9. The top 10% and top 1% are harder to calculate. From other numbers I've seen those rich groups wages have gone up, that's for sure. But most calculations I've seen have shown these rich groups got richer in the 1990s than they did this decade. Which again argues against the zero sum idea.
 
2009-02-12 09:34:43 PM
sarcastrophe: Nah... I'm fine really. I just don't like our tax system. Because these politicians running for office say all kinds of stupid crap like "i'm going to cut taxes for people making under $250k," when then gets parroted all over the place even though it is obviously false.

My problem has never really been the level of taxation, it's with the politics surrounding it.


Actually, for single people under $150,000 he said he was going to cut or keep the same taxes. If you look at the tax policy center's numbers, you'll see that $125,000 and $100,000 got no tax break, while $150,000 did for single, no kids.

That, of course, would still only be an average.

However, if we simply made the tax system more progressive and fair, so that we could pay for things, then it would be such. Part of the political problem with taxes is you have a whole party dedicated to whining non-stop about the issue, even for people who don't need a tax cut.
 
2009-02-12 09:35:43 PM
cousin-merle: He never said that. You're the one making stuff up.

I see. So I'm just in the top 5% along with Warren Buffet.

/gotta call my butler to fuel my jet in 26 minutes
 
2009-02-12 09:36:50 PM
Softens_hands_while_you_do_the_dishes: I think I know what Democrats like taxes. They don't pay them.

Cletus, no one told you to take the donkey's cock from your mouth. Shut up and keep sucking till we think your warmed up.

/seriously, no one is biting troll
//this is a good conversation
///don't ruin my lurk
 
2009-02-12 09:37:46 PM
cousin-merle: sarcastrophe: Nah... I'm fine really. I just don't like our tax system. Because these politicians running for office say all kinds of stupid crap like "i'm going to cut taxes for people making under $250k," when then gets parroted all over the place even though it is obviously false.

My problem has never really been the level of taxation, it's with the politics surrounding it.

He never said that. You're the one making stuff up.


Actually, it was a giant part of the Obama campaign. It was part of door hangers, leaflets, and a bunch of speeches by Obama and Biden. I believe Biden even stated it during the VP debates.

Full disclosure:
/volunteered for the Obama Campaign.
//still think Sarcastrophe is a moron.
///but still do you your own damn research
 
2009-02-12 09:38:13 PM
bartink: /seriously, no one is biting troll/i>

Yeah, I have him on ignore.
 
2009-02-12 09:38:41 PM
sloppy shoes: Actually, for single people under $150,000 he said he was going to cut or keep the same taxes. If you look at the tax policy center's numbers, you'll see that $125,000 and $100,000 got no tax break, while $150,000 did for single, no kids.

Yeah... I never did figure that one out. If I'm in the top 5% that doesn't deserve a tax cut, how is someone making $50k more than me in the 95%?
 
2009-02-12 09:39:22 PM
sarcastrophe: Smackledorfer: If you are making only a little under 6 figures, you should still be doing fine unless you want gobs of children.

Nah... I'm fine really. I just don't like our tax system. Because these politicians running for office say all kinds of stupid crap like "i'm going to cut taxes for people making under $250k," when then gets parroted all over the place even though it is obviously false.

My problem has never really been the level of taxation, it's with the politics surrounding it.

I dislike much of politics as well.

Still, as cousin-merle pointed out, he said '95% of people will see their taxes go down', and 'people making under 250k won't see their taxes go up'.

Note that the first clause there doesn't mean that the 95% is the bottom 95%.
 
2009-02-12 09:39:29 PM
cousin-merle: Why are you ignoring the census data then? Could it be because it disproves your claim?

Because my argument is against a zero-sum economic pie concept.

A single median income number over time does not and cannot disprove that. That is precisely why I turned to data that breaks it down by decile.
 
2009-02-12 09:39:39 PM
Phil Herup: Hat Madder:

So what you're saying is that Bush invading Iraq was morally correct because Republicans won the election in 2000.



"He tried to kill my father, man."


God I love that sketch. "We're goin to Mars!"
 
2009-02-12 09:39:56 PM
Sym_pathetic: //still think Sarcastrophe is a moron.

I love you too brother!
 
2009-02-12 09:40:04 PM
helix400: My statement is that over the past two decades wages have gone up. Both are true.

Something a simple Googling disproves.

Why are you still hanging on to this?
 
2009-02-12 09:40:08 PM
helix400: Because my argument is against a zero-sum economic pie concept.

Its also not an infinite sum game.
 
2009-02-12 09:41:50 PM
And of course, making 100k for oneself is probably close to the same thing as making 250k for a family of 4. So treating families different seems perfectly fair to me (and I don't ever plan on having kids. Maybe adopting one of those poor youngsters who never got adopted when they were young when I'm in my early 40s)
 
2009-02-12 09:43:10 PM
Smackledorfer: And of course, making 100k for oneself is probably close to the same thing as making 250k for a family of 4. So treating families different seems perfectly fair to me (and I don't ever plan on having kids. Maybe adopting one of those poor youngsters who never got adopted when they were young when I'm in my early 40s)

Yeah, but I do have a girlfriend and we live as if we were married (although she's still in CO finishing up school). So the only difference is a piece of paper... then I'll be poor like the rest of you!
 
2009-02-12 09:45:00 PM
good ol' wealth envy, stay classy.
 
2009-02-12 09:45:30 PM
DamnYankees: EatHam: Or we could lower it for everyone... I mean, I would never suggest that your money should be stolen, and I wouldn't want mine stolen, and I wouldn't suggest that just because someone has more of it that it should be mine instead of theirs. That's just wrong.

Good thing no one wants to steal your money, then.


I just want them to pay the percentage I pay Gary! How is that victimization?
 
2009-02-12 09:46:03 PM
sarcastrophe: Smackledorfer: And of course, making 100k for oneself is probably close to the same thing as making 250k for a family of 4. So treating families different seems perfectly fair to me (and I don't ever plan on having kids. Maybe adopting one of those poor youngsters who never got adopted when they were young when I'm in my early 40s)

Yeah, but I do have a girlfriend and we live as if we were married (although she's still in CO finishing up school). So the only difference is a piece of paper... then I'll be poor like the rest of you!


Just to throw one more wrinkle in the whole mess, I'm on the other side of the same state making roughly what sarcastrophe is (I'm guessing he's near Seattle, it's only a guess). But I can bet my discressionary income is much greater than his and I have a family of 4. Given that, what's fair?
 
2009-02-12 09:46:26 PM
whidbey: Something a simple Googling disproves.

*yawn*
 
2009-02-12 09:47:08 PM
pwhp_67: It looks like the Dems are trying to lower taxes for the middle class while the GOP, as usual, wants to lower them for the top 5% only...

The problem is that some one making $250,000 is doing very well, but it not a social elite. We need to realize that there is a difference between someone that has done really well and someone that is farking rich.
 
2009-02-12 09:47:14 PM
helix400: whidbey: Something a simple Googling disproves.

*yawn*


Facts bore you?
 
2009-02-12 09:48:03 PM
whidbey: helix400: whidbey: Something a simple Googling disproves.

*yawn*

Facts bore you?


No, your tin-foil hat universe does.
 
2009-02-12 09:48:04 PM
helix400: No, his data breaks it down by decile, to show trends that median income alone can't show.

That decile data went back to 1994. My statement is that over the past two decades wages have gone up. Both are true. Again, I was arguing against this zero sum economic pie concept, as it is clearly incorrect, as ALL income groups have seen wage increases after inflation.

If you want to narrow it down to this decade and say wages have flatlined, I'm fine with that too. Because they have. At least for deciles 1 through 9. The top 10% and top 1% are harder to calculate. From other numbers I've seen those rich groups wages have gone up, that's for sure. But most calculations I've seen have shown these rich groups got richer in the 1990s than they did this decade. Which again argues against the zero sum idea.


If the census data shows a downward trend, and your blog buddy has all deciles improving, you can probably infer that he is making shiat up. Here is the census site PER QUINTILE PER PERSON in 2007 dollars.

1 2 3 4 5
1992: $18,244 $34,953 $54,877 $ 83,990 $143,374
2000: $21,576 $39,733 $62,819 $ 98,449 $174,850
2007: $20,291 $39,100 $62,000 $100,000 $177,000

Honestly, all this data is on census.gov. You can look for yourself. Too bad you're too ideologically blind.

Sym_pathetic: Actually, it was a giant part of the Obama campaign. It was part of door hangers, leaflets, and a bunch of speeches by Obama and Biden. I believe Biden even stated it during the VP debates.

Full disclosure:
/volunteered for the Obama Campaign.
//still think Sarcastrophe is a moron.
///but still do you your own damn research


No, sarcastrophe is making the false claim that all Americans making under $250k would receive a tax cut while Obama said that those Americans would not receive a tax increase. He is lying.
 
2009-02-12 09:49:51 PM
gimpmonkey: good ol' wealth envy, stay classy.


They do not like to even think that anyone could do better than them.
 
2009-02-12 09:51:03 PM
cousin-merle: No, sarcastrophe is making the false claim that all Americans making under $250k would receive a tax cut while Obama said that those Americans would not receive a tax increase. He is lying.

Then perhaps you can explain why someone making $50k more than me does get a tax cut.
 
2009-02-12 09:52:20 PM
helix400: If you want to narrow it down to this decade and say wages have flatlined, I'm fine with that too. Because they have. At least for deciles 1 through 9. The top 10% and top 1% are harder to calculate. From other numbers I've seen those rich groups wages have gone up, that's for sure. But most calculations I've seen have shown these rich groups got richer in the 1990s than they did this decade. Which again argues against the zero sum idea.

The top 10% and top 1% have gone up. Kind of what you'd expect when 90% of wages have flatlined, but the mean income has grown substantially.

The problem comes when there *are* things that are zero-sum. Say, houses, less than a two-hour-commute from certain California cities, with not-entirely-ghetto schools. Those things, people get entirely priced out of.

Which I'm sorta okay with (California is highly overrated), but it also translates to a pretty substantial squeeze on the non-top-10%

Also, when social services that don't show up as "paycheck" income are cut from the lower/middle classes, their standard of living decreases.
 
2009-02-12 09:52:47 PM
sarcastrophe: Then perhaps you can explain why someone making $50k more than me does get a tax cut.

It's very possible that God hates you. Are your taxes going up? No? OK then. It wasn't a lie.
 
2009-02-12 09:53:13 PM
cchris_39: DamnYankees: I don't really understand why our highest tax bracket is so low.

Alot of people DO make a living in the tourism industry, building mega-luxury homes, making and selling designer clothes, shoes, bag, etc., building luxury cars and yachts, private planes, and the chauffeurs, pilots, mechanics, etc that support them. The list goes on and on.

The toys for their wretched overindulgence do not materialize out of the thin air. You can take away some of their wealth and they might not be quite as pampered, but think about how many jobs and lives you wreck downstream in the process. I promise they will notice it alot more than the rich who have to miss one extra ski week in Switzerland.

/Yeah yeah, I know the board hates trickle down, but not everybody has a firm grasp on reality.


Trickle down is horseshiat. The items you mention above are purchased form foreign sources. The jobs mentioned are insignificant.

You fail.
 
2009-02-12 09:53:14 PM
cousin-merle:
If the census data shows a downward trend, and your blog buddy has all deciles improving


Yes, since 1994. I'm thinking you didn't read my post or his post, and both covered that.

Here is the census site PER QUINTILE PER PERSON in 2007 dollars.

And why have you gone back to using household data again?
 
2009-02-12 09:53:26 PM
DaSwankOne: pwhp_67: It looks like the Dems are trying to lower taxes for the middle class while the GOP, as usual, wants to lower them for the top 5% only...

The problem is that some one making $250,000 is doing very well, but it not a social elite. We need to realize that there is a difference between someone that has done really well and someone that is farking rich.


Debt and assets... and one might argue, relative to the locality if those assets are difficult to move.

Somebody who joined the dot-com boom and has been working as a software engineer since then might nominally be wealthier than somebody who just started as a cardiac surgeon... in so far as the latter probably has more debt to pay off and has fewer years of being paid. On the other hand, some of the wealthiest people don't need any income at all to remain wealthy for the near future (or in extreme cases, the rest of their lives).
 
2009-02-12 09:53:40 PM
helix400: Because my argument is against a zero-sum economic pie concept.

A single median income number over time does not and cannot disprove that. That is precisely why I turned to data that breaks it down by decile.


Try the census.gov quintile data, Slappy. Or continue ignoring it. It's up to you. Personally, I enjoy reality.
 
2009-02-12 09:53:55 PM
helix400: No, your tin-foil hat universe does.

So, let me get this straight:

You made a claim (new window)claim that is found to be easily disproven, you continue to believe said debunked point nonetheless, and I'm the one in the "tin-foil hat universe?"
 
2009-02-12 09:54:22 PM
cousin-merle: It's very possible that God hates you. Are your taxes going up? No? OK then. It wasn't a lie.

See... this is why I'm an atheist.
 
2009-02-12 09:54:51 PM
NittLion78: if you think 90k is a lot of money, you should move out of Arkansas and get some perspective

$90K HOUSEHOLD income puts you in the top 20% in this country.

What country are you living in?

And none of that "But but if you live in one or two of the most wealthy counties in the country, 90K won't buy you anything" crap. Live within your means, retard.

/"Top 20% Pay 20%"
//intrigued and would like to subscribe
///Maybe "Top 25% Pay 25%"
 
2009-02-12 09:56:22 PM
Damnit... I missed a perfect opportunity

cousin-merle: It's very possible that God hates you. Are your taxes going up? No? OK then. It wasn't a lie.

So you're saying Obama is god?
 
2009-02-12 09:59:12 PM
Lawnchair: The top 10% and top 1% have gone up. Kind of what you'd expect when 90% of wages have flatlined,

Not at all. In the 90s, these groups got richer at a faster rate than they are now. What is expected is that when the rate that the rich get richer declines, then the bottom 9 deciles will also see a decline in their rate of growth.

In fact, I probably should have stuck with the 1990s as a better refutation of the zero sum concept. It highlights it MUCH better than this decade does.

The problem comes when there *are* things that are zero-sum. Say, houses, less than a two-hour-commute from certain California cities, with not-entirely-ghetto schools. Those things, people get entirely priced out of.

Definitely. It'll be interesting to see which wins out over the next century. The quality of living due to more demand for fewer resources, or productivity and technological advances which make life better for all.
 
2009-02-12 09:59:14 PM
DamnYankees: I don't really understand why our highest tax bracket is so low.

If you were in that bracket and working 6 months out of the year essentially for free I would think you'd have a different opinion.
 
2009-02-12 09:59:27 PM
whidbey: You made a claim (new window)claim that is found to be easily disproven, you continue to believe said debunked point nonetheless, and I'm the one in the "tin-foil hat universe?"

He is always coming in here and breathlessly repeating the same old Reagan mantras and then sticking his fingers in his ears when he hears anything contradictory.
 
2009-02-12 09:59:29 PM
nugz4lunch: Are you telling me that you "wouldn't notice" $400,000 missing from your salary, as the intellectually inept author of this piss-poor article suggests?

I'd notice I was better off than about 99.99% of the people in this world and be grateful for it.

Perspective - get some.
 
Displayed 50 of 685 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report