Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(CNN)   Applying GOP logic to Obama "taking credit away from the SEALS", how dare Eisenhower take credit for D-Day, Patton for winning the Battle of the Bulge, and that pesky MacArthur for taking back the Philippines   ( edition.cnn.com) divider line
    More: Asinine, obama, Battle of the Bulge, human beings, MacArthur, GOP, D-Day, Eisenhower, Osama bin Laden  
•       •       •

2748 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Apr 2012 at 9:51 AM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



689 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


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

 
2012-04-30 02:03:52 PM  

thomps: i'm fairly certain it would take a constitutional amendment to regionalize federal tax rates.


Actually, the constitution allows taxation proportional to representation in congress. Unfortunately, that really sticks it to people in states with a single representative--but then, I guess they would only be paying for the disproportionate political clout that they have.
 
2012-04-30 02:05:47 PM  

skullkrusher: It doesn't matter whether you think $250,000 a year is a princely sum - uniform nationwide standards for taxation is still an unfair way to raise revenues.


thomps: i'm fairly certain it would take a constitutional amendment to regionalize federal tax rates.


Interesting fact: our national income tax rates have been in set brackets regardless of region SINCE EVER.
 
2012-04-30 02:06:52 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Mrtraveler01: I wouldn't say he had NO impact. I'm just saying his impact was far from the degree that Republicans claim he had.

If a tower is 100ft tall, and someone says "it's like a 1,000 feet tall!", you do not correct it by saying "Nuh-uh, it's like 10 feet tall!".

Putting aside the hypothetical "they" who say the things you disagree with. What impact do you think Regan had on the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union?

Not looking to argue the point, just curious about how much of that was hyperbole and how much was genuine belief.


He did help foster a relationship between Gorbachev as he was opening the USSR to the West and helped keep the arms race going between us and the USSR which eventually lead the USSR to being broke.

Outside of that, I don't know what else he did to contribute to the downfall of East Germany/USSR
 
2012-04-30 02:08:31 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: You can't judge relative wealth by income alone. I know a guy who makes $50K or so and lives like a king becasue his parents left him a nice big house in a great neighborhood. No mortgage is like having an extra 18K a year for him.


Now this is just getting into sad pedantry.
 
2012-04-30 02:08:39 PM  

Lando Lincoln: atomsmoosher: That's fine.

As long as you don't compose bumper stickers for Daily Kos, you'll be fine.

I think I'll make up some arbitrary rules about humans too.

Humans don't drink crappy light beers.

Humans don't put on their pants without putting on their socks first.


Now you're just being racist.
 
2012-04-30 02:09:02 PM  

Bloody William: skullkrusher: It doesn't matter whether you think $250,000 a year is a princely sum - uniform nationwide standards for taxation is still an unfair way to raise revenues.

thomps: i'm fairly certain it would take a constitutional amendment to regionalize federal tax rates.

Interesting fact: our national income tax rates have been in set brackets regardless of region SINCE EVER.


compelling
 
2012-04-30 02:09:58 PM  

Mrtraveler01: He did help foster a relationship between Gorbachev as he was opening the USSR to the West and helped keep the arms race going between us and the USSR which eventually lead the USSR to being broke.

Outside of that, I don't know what else he did to contribute to the downfall of East Germany/USSR


Seriously, I'd happily look at Reagan's contribution if some solid lines could be shown between his actions and the fall of the USSR besides "HE MADE A SPEECH" and "WE SPENT MONEY ON MILITARY STUFF"
 
2012-04-30 02:10:19 PM  

Bloody William: BojanglesPaladin: You can't judge relative wealth by income alone. I know a guy who makes $50K or so and lives like a king becasue his parents left him a nice big house in a great neighborhood. No mortgage is like having an extra 18K a year for him.

Now this is just getting into sad pedantry.


i know a guy who only makes $50k or so but lives like a king because he's sound of spirit and surrounded by a loving family. we should tax him more.
 
2012-04-30 02:10:58 PM  

pciszek: In which country? In the USA, the median household income was $51,413 at the end of 2011


In the United states. Two incomes at $51,413 would be roughly $100K . But you are right, I goofed and was basing of median incomes that include both single and double incomes. Dual earner households have a higher median income at $67,348. But I take your point. I grabbed a quick number for illustrative purposes to typify a "upper-middle class" income.

Feel free to use your own numbers. My point is that income levels alone do not adequately define "Rich".

(Also, roughly 20% of American households earn between $75 and 100K, and about 16% earn 100K or more, so we aren't exactly talking about the elite at that level.)
 
2012-04-30 02:11:34 PM  

skullkrusher: Bloody William: skullkrusher: It doesn't matter whether you think $250,000 a year is a princely sum - uniform nationwide standards for taxation is still an unfair way to raise revenues.

thomps: i'm fairly certain it would take a constitutional amendment to regionalize federal tax rates.

Interesting fact: our national income tax rates have been in set brackets regardless of region SINCE EVER.

compelling


Historically, it is. You're asking we make new policy adhere to a set of standards to which previous policy has not had to adhere to. You're introducing new requirements to things that have not needed requirements in their context.

Also, if you make $250,000 per year, you can take a farking tax bump. Even if you're in New York. Frankly, it's a farking generous standard offered that actually MAKES THINGS REASONABLE EVEN FOR RESIDENTS OF HIGH COL PLACES.
 
2012-04-30 02:12:19 PM  

Mrtraveler01: He did help foster a relationship between Gorbachev as he was opening the USSR to the West and helped keep the arms race going between us and the USSR which eventually lead the USSR to being broke.


Fair enough. Thanks.
 
2012-04-30 02:12:32 PM  

thomps: Team Obama released a video on Friday, partially narrated by former President Bill Clinton, that praised the president's decision to order the killing of the al Qaeda chief one year from Tuesday and questioned whether Romney would have made the same choice.

i don't know if it's "taking credit away from the SEALS," but questioning whether romney would have made the same choice is cheap election year politics.


FTFY
 
2012-04-30 02:13:07 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Feel free to use your own numbers. My point is that income levels alone do not adequately define "Rich".


No, it defines "income," which, miraculously, is the think we're talking about farking taxing.
 
2012-04-30 02:13:17 PM  

thomps: i know a guy who only makes $50k or so but lives like a king because he's sound of spirit and surrounded by a loving family. we should tax him more.


i call dibs on his refrigerator.
 
2012-04-30 02:13:19 PM  

Bloody William: Mrtraveler01: He did help foster a relationship between Gorbachev as he was opening the USSR to the West and helped keep the arms race going between us and the USSR which eventually lead the USSR to being broke.

Outside of that, I don't know what else he did to contribute to the downfall of East Germany/USSR

Seriously, I'd happily look at Reagan's contribution if some solid lines could be shown between his actions and the fall of the USSR besides "HE MADE A SPEECH" and "WE SPENT MONEY ON MILITARY STUFF"


Yeah, I've never seen a logical argument outside of those two talking points either.
 
2012-04-30 02:13:59 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: (Also, roughly 20% of American households earn between $75 and 100K, and about 16% earn 100K or more, so we aren't exactly talking about the elite at that level.)


You're saying the top 16% of wage-earners in this country aren't "elite"?

My god, it's full of stupid.
 
2012-04-30 02:15:30 PM  

Rwa2play: Cletus C.: Obama showed the guts it took to get bin Laden. Politically, it could have been disastrous. He deserves a ton of credit and praise for that.

Using it as part of his campaign is smart and well-earned.

Starting some narrative on how Romney probably wouldn't have done the same thing is insultingly political. Who the hell could ever know?

Yes, he's using it for political purposes. Yes, he's taken it into the mud.

Pity, that.

So wait, when a Republican does the same thing to a Democrat it's fine. But if the tables were turned it's "IT'S NOT FAIR!" right?


Sure, Poindexter. It's all about that. Always is, right?
 
2012-04-30 02:15:52 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: BojanglesPaladin: (Also, roughly 20% of American households earn between $75 and 100K, and about 16% earn 100K or more, so we aren't exactly talking about the elite at that level.)

You're saying the top 16% of wage-earners in this country aren't "elite"?

My god, it's full of stupid.


Look, if you're talking about the super-wealthy, you're talking about the rich, you're talking about the well-off, you're talking about them all being the same thing and oh look the water's muddied now we can't reasonably raise taxes on people making over $250,000 per year.
 
2012-04-30 02:20:26 PM  

Bloody William: Now this is just getting into sad pedantry.


Could be.

My point is that since we usually understand "Rich" to mean people with an excess of disposable income, you have to factor in overall expenses when looking a families and tax burden.

Just as a company that take sin 6 Million in revenue, but has 5.95 Million in expenses is not making millions in profit, a family that earns $250 before taxes (more like $180K take home after taxes) and then property taxes, additional food, clothing, etc and then throw in some tuition (say 40K a year with no assistance), and before you know it, they're not really "better off" than someone making much less.

I'm just saying that $250 is an arbitrary threshold that is a bit low if the intent is only to apply tax increases to the truly "rich". It would still catch small business owners, large families, etc, and more of the "upper" middle class than the truly "wealthy".
 
2012-04-30 02:22:09 PM  

Il Douchey: SealTeam6: "Mr. President, we have located BinLaden, should we kill him or let him go?"
Obama: "Uh, kill him"

Oh yeah, that ranks right up there with Operation Overlord. Never again can we doubt Barry's military prowess. This man has been in the trenches, confronted Hell straight on, and he did not flinch. Yes, he will flaunt this hard earned military gravitas -can you blame him?


Considering that during the campaign, when Obama said that he would act unilaterally if he believed Pakistan could not or would not act, and the Republicans called him naive for not wanting to sit down and talk with Pakistan about it... I'd say that at the very least it demonstrates a clear difference between his mentality and those who the GOP would have had in office... Bush said Bin Laden wasn't a priority... how many times do you think he got 50/50 information and took the "safe" way of giving terrorists more time to plan and plot attacks?
 
2012-04-30 02:23:04 PM  

Bloody William: Historically, it is. You're asking we make new policy adhere to a set of standards to which previous policy has not had to adhere to. You're introducing new requirements to things that have not needed requirements in their context.


no, it's meaningless. "We've done it this way for a long time" is not a compelling argument for pretty much anything

Bloody William: Also, if you make $250,000 per year, you can take a farking tax bump. Even if you're in New York. Frankly, it's a farking generous standard offered that actually MAKES THINGS REASONABLE EVEN FOR RESIDENTS OF HIGH COL PLACES.


It's wonderful that you feel this way - your emotional appeals do not make it any more fair, however. There is no just reason why a person in NY should have his standard of living reduced by a far greater amount than someone who earns the exact same amount but lives in Nebraska as the result of our blanket income brackets and calculations.

generous?
 
2012-04-30 02:24:25 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Bloody William:
a family that earns $250K before taxes (more like $180K take home after taxes) and then property taxes, additional food, clothing, etc and then throw in some tuition (say 40K a year with no assistance), and before you know it, they're not really "better off" than someone making much less.


0.I live with my mom Fark. Off.

/Back under the bridge.
//Now.
 
2012-04-30 02:25:58 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: then throw in some tuition (say 40K a year with no assistance), and before you know it, they're not really "better off" than someone making much less.


the ability to spend near the national average wage per year in tuition isn't 'better off'?

stuff like this is why people are arching an eyebrow at you.
 
2012-04-30 02:25:59 PM  

Bloody William: Look, if you're talking about the super-wealthy, you're talking about the rich, you're talking about the well-off, you're talking about them all being the same thing and oh look the water's muddied now we can't reasonably raise taxes on people making over $250,000 per year.


I'm saying that *IF* the intent is to raise taxes on "the super rich" , then the line needs to be drawn arbitrarily at a higher level.

My opinion? Above 500K insalary income.

Also note that no real accounting is being made for the fact that many of the hyper wealthy don;t earn a "salary", and derive income from other sources which do not get taxed the same way anyway,
 
2012-04-30 02:27:56 PM  

skullkrusher: Bloody William: Historically, it is. You're asking we make new policy adhere to a set of standards to which previous policy has not had to adhere to. You're introducing new requirements to things that have not needed requirements in their context.

no, it's meaningless. "We've done it this way for a long time" is not a compelling argument for pretty much anything

Bloody William: Also, if you make $250,000 per year, you can take a farking tax bump. Even if you're in New York. Frankly, it's a farking generous standard offered that actually MAKES THINGS REASONABLE EVEN FOR RESIDENTS OF HIGH COL PLACES.

It's wonderful that you feel this way - your emotional appeals do not make it any more fair, however. There is no just reason why a person in NY should have his standard of living reduced by a far greater amount than someone who earns the exact same amount but lives in Nebraska as the result of our blanket income brackets and calculations.

generous?


0.I live with my mom You, too.
Fark.
Off.

/Back under the bridge with you.
//A Boehner-like tear of sympathy is rolling down my leg.
 
2012-04-30 02:28:04 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: I'm just saying that $250 is an arbitrary threshold that is a bit low if the intent is only to apply tax increases to the truly "rich". It would still catch small business owners, large families, etc, and more of the "upper" middle class than the truly "wealthy".


Small business owners can take enough deductions that, if they're still $250,000 in the black for a year after accounting for expenses, they're doing pretty well. Parents can take tax credits and deductions for their kids and the expenses of supporting them and their education. If you're still making over a quarter million after those modifiers, YOU ARE DOING PRETTY WELL EVEN IF YOU ARE IN NEW YORK CITY.

skullkrusher: no, it's meaningless. "We've done it this way for a long time" is not a compelling argument for pretty much anything


No, but "It's worked so far, and the standard offered is, in my eyes, generous even for areas with high cost of living" is.
 
2012-04-30 02:28:40 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: and derive income from other sources which do not get taxed the same way anyway,


of course not - somehow it makes sense that income derived from labor should be taxed higher than income derived from having spare money to invest.

somehow...
 
2012-04-30 02:29:34 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: I'm saying that *IF* the intent is to raise taxes on "the super rich" , then the line needs to be drawn arbitrarily at a higher level.

My opinion? Above 500K insalary income.


I don't know, I think that seems every bit as arbitrary. I think five times the national median income is a pretty good way to describe the threshold of "rich." Not super-rich. Not extremely wealthy. But rich, by all standards of "Can you afford all your shiat and do you still have enough left over to cover luxuries and savings?"

That's far more than most Americans have.
 
2012-04-30 02:31:32 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: skullkrusher: Bloody William: Historically, it is. You're asking we make new policy adhere to a set of standards to which previous policy has not had to adhere to. You're introducing new requirements to things that have not needed requirements in their context.

no, it's meaningless. "We've done it this way for a long time" is not a compelling argument for pretty much anything

Bloody William: Also, if you make $250,000 per year, you can take a farking tax bump. Even if you're in New York. Frankly, it's a farking generous standard offered that actually MAKES THINGS REASONABLE EVEN FOR RESIDENTS OF HIGH COL PLACES.

It's wonderful that you feel this way - your emotional appeals do not make it any more fair, however. There is no just reason why a person in NY should have his standard of living reduced by a far greater amount than someone who earns the exact same amount but lives in Nebraska as the result of our blanket income brackets and calculations.

generous?

0.I live with my mom You, too.
Fark.
Off.

/Back under the bridge with you.
//A Boehner-like tear of sympathy is rolling down my leg.


you were purposefully going for the "look at me, I'm a douchebag" angle, right? Ya see, because suggesting that national benchmarks for income should take into account costs of living for a particular area isn't a particularly trollish position. You remain an astounding idiot.
 
2012-04-30 02:33:36 PM  

skullkrusher: you were purposefully going for the "look at me, I'm a douchebag" angle, right? Ya see, because suggesting that national benchmarks for income should take into account costs of living for a particular area isn't a particularly trollish position. You remain an astounding idiot.


If we were to grant your premise, the argument could easily be made that the threshold could be significantly lower, not higher, for many parts of America. In my hometown, $100,000 per year would certainly be considered rich.
 
2012-04-30 02:34:49 PM  

Dog Welder: Super subtle troll, or is he really coming into the light?

Check my posts from the last several months. I can admit that I've voted Republican most of my adult life. I firmly believe in Republican ideals of pro-business, lower taxes, smaller government, etc. However, the religious fundies running the GOP now are farking nuts.

Not trolling -- I'll admit someone does a good job when they do a good job. Obama was 100% correct on this call of violating another country's sovereignty (people in the Pakistani government were probably helping Bin Laden ... so fark 'em) and taking Bin Laden out.

The problem with this country is that the division between the two sides has become so filled with vitriol that our government can't get anything accomplished. The Dems don't have their hands 100% clean in this, either.

However, I'm looking at a pattern of the GOP:

1) GOP -- "We want this one thing to happen!"
2) The President responds with -- "Okay, let's make this one thing happen!"
3) GOP -- "That's the worst farking idea ever! Why would we do that? Obama's an idiot!"

It's happening over and over and over and over again. It's not good government. It's just being a bunch of obstructionist douchebags for the sake of being obstructionist douchebags.



Apologies and thank you sir. Maybe there are sane Republicans after all.

Did I just say that?
 
2012-04-30 02:35:48 PM  

Bloody William: No, but "It's worked so far, and the standard offered is, in my eyes, generous even for areas with high cost of living" is.


and it is a testament to your broken sense of justice that people should feel the impact of a national standards of income in far different ways based on where they live. Oh, did I not mention that you making a "fraction" of $250k but living in NYC would also benefit from taking cost of living into account? You don't see the inherent equity in having the guy making $25k a year in Biloxi having to feel as much pain when tax time comes as you do making $50k? See, you and he can afford the same amount of stuff before taxes. He can afford a decent bit more than you can afterwards. LOL just move, right?
 
2012-04-30 02:38:53 PM  

Bloody William: skullkrusher: you were purposefully going for the "look at me, I'm a douchebag" angle, right? Ya see, because suggesting that national benchmarks for income should take into account costs of living for a particular area isn't a particularly trollish position. You remain an astounding idiot.

If we were to grant your premise, the argument could easily be made that the threshold could be significantly lower, not higher, for many parts of America. In my hometown, $100,000 per year would certainly be considered rich.


the threshold could be $10k. Doesn't mean that it should be. The government isn't doing us any favors by not taxing us into poverty as a cost of living here. It's a bit disturbing that you view it in those terms of "generosity".

We view GDP numbers in real terms in order to have any sort of understanding of what they say - controlling for inflation over the years - but controlling for different costs of living across geographies is crazytalk...
 
2012-04-30 02:43:28 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: My opinion? Above 500K insalary income.

Also note that no real accounting is being made for the fact that many of the hyper wealthy don;t earn a "salary", and derive income from other sources which do not get taxed the same way anyway,


Which would be the other problem with setting the definition of "rich" at $500,000 salary. You will quickly find out that no one is earning more than that as a salary--just $499,999 with various dividends, stock options, profit-sharing plans, etc.
 
2012-04-30 02:44:20 PM  

skullkrusher: demaL-demaL-yeH: skullkrusher: Bloody William:
you were purposefully going for the "look at me, I'm a douchebag" angle, right?


No, I would never steal your act, troll.

You're trying to sell the line that a quarter million dollars a year isn't comfortable and then some. Because people can't choose their zip codes? That isn't even up to the count to potato level of stupid assertions.
 
2012-04-30 02:44:27 PM  

skullkrusher: and it is a testament to your broken sense of justice that people should feel the impact of a national standards of income in far different ways based on where they live. Oh, did I not mention that you making a "fraction" of $250k but living in NYC would also benefit from taking cost of living into account? You don't see the inherent equity in having the guy making $25k a year in Biloxi having to feel as much pain when tax time comes as you do making $50k? See, you and he can afford the same amount of stuff before taxes. He can afford a decent bit more than you can afterwards. LOL just move, right?


skullkrusher: the threshold could be $10k. Doesn't mean that it should be. The government isn't doing us any favors by not taxing us into poverty as a cost of living here. It's a bit disturbing that you view it in those terms of "generosity".

We view GDP numbers in real terms in order to have any sort of understanding of what they say - controlling for inflation over the years - but controlling for different costs of living across geographies is crazytalk...


scranton.mylittlefacewhen.comView Full Size


You keep saying the threshold should be different for different regions, then why I grant that premise and talk about what the thresholds should be, you go to extremes to make it look bad. Taking cost of living into account is fine, but $250,000 for New York is still a good threshold. That's the thing. You're assuming it should only be higher. Cost of living is much lower in other parts of the country, like my hometown, and $100,000 per year could easily be a threshold for being rich, or at least well enough to be able to take a farking tax hike without having to deal with hardship.

Again, I'll say that you might be right, but based on what I know living in this area, one of the highest costs of living in the country, and being able to make due on a fraction (literally a fraction, I'm not hiding a $200,000 salary and saying I'm "just getting by," $250,000 per year for places like this and SQF and $100,000 per year for places like central PA would be very reasonable.

Also, keep in mind this isn't a freaking cutoff for money. It's a threshold at which tax could reasonably increased without hurting the household being taxed.
 
2012-04-30 02:46:04 PM  

heap: the ability to spend near the national average wage per year in tuition isn't 'better off'?


...

OK., For those people who have gone to college or padi for it recently, you can generally apply for financial assistance to help with tuition, housing, books and whatnot. However, if your parents earn above a certain amount (I think it's around 95K or something) you are disqualified from almost all assistance, including a lot of federal money.

The logic (rightly) is that if your parents make enough, you don't really NEED assistance.

But that means that a family with "too high" an income will end up with a substantial extra expense that a family with a lower income would not. (if they choose to pay for their children's college).

So in our hypothetical family that makes good money, but has two kids hitting college, it could mean an additional $64, 368 (average college tuition x 2) BEFORE travel, dorms, books, etc. I threw out 40K as a low-ball illustrative number just to have one.

No need to quibble over the specifics here, my point is that because families earning above a certain point are (rightly) exempted from a lot of tax breaks and other breaks, their effective disposable income can be less, especially if their are children.

This is not to suggest that such a family is poverty stricken. Just that they aren't likely to be taking vacations on the riviera or owning a summer mansion.
 
2012-04-30 02:46:39 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: You're trying to sell the line that a quarter million dollars a year isn't comfortable and then some


awww, aren't you darling. No, you stupid fark, that has not been the point and you bring shame on your family with your internet dishonesty.
 
2012-04-30 02:46:56 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: The logic (rightly) is that if your parents make enough, you don't really NEED assistance.

But that means that a family with "too high" an income will end up with a substantial extra expense that a family with a lower income would not. (if they choose to pay for their children's college).


So... maybe we should raise the threshold of household income to qualify for assistance to, I don't know, $250,000? Would that seem fair?
 
2012-04-30 02:49:17 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: No need to quibble over the specifics here


naw, i think some specifics quibbling is exactly what's called for.

again, nothing you said alters the fact that spending near the national wage in college tuition is 'better off'. and acting like it somehow doesn't is almost 'Lucky Ducky'-ish in it's devotion to turning the world upside down.
 
2012-04-30 02:52:30 PM  
Are people really trying to paint the $250k income level as not being rich? Seriously? Are they suddenly middle class because they can buy so much more expensive stuff and higher class goods?

Here is a bit of a clue, they can afford such luxury because they are rich. People who are middle class don't get that choice, they have to pick and choose very carefully, and save for years for any of the major things.

As for OBL? yeah, it took major guts to pull that off for Obama. Failure would have been an international disaster, and most certainly cost him his political career. Placing a renewed priority on intel leading to OBL was also sound policy, and a far cry from the GOP, who wanted OBL as the eternal boogieman, whom they could refer too to keep people fearful and voting for them.

What's really going on is the GOP cannot stand that Obama has robbed them of their 'strong on defense' meme. Time and time again, he's achieved some major defense victories, and it will be hard for them to paint him as some hippy peacenik who can't keep us safe as a nation.
 
2012-04-30 02:52:46 PM  

Bloody William: You keep saying the threshold should be different for different regions, then why I grant that premise and talk about what the thresholds should be, you go to extremes to make it look bad. Taking cost of living into account is fine, but $250,000 for New York is still a good threshold. That's the thing. You're assuming it should only be higher. Cost of living is much lower in other parts of the country, like my hometown, and $100,000 per year could easily be a threshold for being rich, or at least well enough to be able to take a farking tax hike without having to deal with hardship.


sure - but you have to accept the premise before you go there. However, since the national benchmark is at this $250,000, it seems to stand to reason that that was not meant to target people in geographically small but very high cost of living areas but rather to pick a level that nationally would seem like a high income. As a result, I think the threshold in NY would have to go up (or an equal credit given) and it would have to come down in other areas.

You only want to claim that it could go up because you are cool with people of all income classes paying vary different tax in terms of real buying power compared to the same brackets in other areas. That's what I find confusing. Why do you want to fark some people over? It is not only about "rich" people, you realize?

Bloody William: Again, I'll say that you might be right, but based on what I know living in this area, one of the highest costs of living in the country, and being able to make due on a fraction (literally a fraction, I'm not hiding a $200,000 salary and saying I'm "just getting by," $250,000 per year for places like this and SQF and $100,000 per year for places like central PA would be very reasonable.


no one has said that $250k a year is "barely getting by" except for dishonest, hysterical ninnies like DDY.
However $250k in Atlanta is getting by a farkload better than $250k in Manhattan, yet they pay the same federal income tax rates. To extrapolate, $25k in NYC is just barely getting by (if at all depending on situation) while the exact same amount in Tulsa is doing ok... yet the guy making $25k in NY pays more in federal income taxes and you are totally cool with that.
 
2012-04-30 02:53:10 PM  

EWreckedSean: Did we really just compare Eisenhower and D-Day to Obama and Bin laden? Really?


No. Just like saying a goat is to a kid as a chicken is to a chick doesn't mean one is saying goats and chickens are the same.

There are remedial reading comprehension courses for adults that can help you understand things like this.
 
2012-04-30 02:55:03 PM  

Antimatter: Are people really trying to paint the $250k income level as not being rich?


Rich is a pretty subjective term and if we start calling a family earning $250k "rich" it kinda waters down the term for those who make $25,000,000 no?

Upper middle class depending on location. Could probably squeak into lower upper class in some areas depending.
I wouldn't call it "rich" though because "rich" implies no concerns about paying for college, no clipping coupons, etc.
 
2012-04-30 02:56:40 PM  

pciszek: Which would be the other problem with setting the definition of "rich" at $500,000 salary. You will quickly find out that no one is earning more than that as a salary--just $499,999 with various dividends, stock options, profit-sharing plans, etc.


And that is a valid point. Although you should note that that is rarely done for personal income, but is rather assigned as income for trusts, LLPs, corporations, etc.

Too much of the discussion about "taxing the rich" is centered around salary levels. The hyper rich don't get paychecks except for tax purposes. I read an article today that said that Apple only paid 3.3 Billion on profits of $34 Billion. Less than 10%? And they say GE managed to effectively skip taxes. That is much more of a concern than family ioncome tax levels.

I think the focus on HOUSEHOLD income taxes is entirely mis-directed.

Bloody William: Parents can take tax credits and deductions for their kids and the expenses of supporting them and their education.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that tax credit only applies below a certain income level, well below $250K.?
 
2012-04-30 02:58:20 PM  

skullkrusher: no one has said that $250k a year is "barely getting by" except for dishonest, hysterical ninnies like DDY.
However $250k in Atlanta is getting by a farkload better than $250k in Manhattan, yet they pay the same federal income tax rates. To extrapolate, $25k in NYC is just barely getting by (if at all depending on situation) while the exact same amount in Tulsa is doing ok... yet the guy making $25k in NY pays more in federal income taxes and you are totally cool with that.


I seriously don't see what you're arguing. Is cost of living and buying power different in different areas? Yes. How does that change the fact that $250,000 per year is a lot of farking money by all standards, over five times the median household income and is enough for a household to be very comfortable even in New York.

Seriously, do you live here? You keep making the point about this city, but you don't seem to really get what things cost here, or how $250,000 is still a lot of farking money here. What are you arguing? We're differeing about standards, but the $250,000 seems pretty reasonable to me as someone who lives in one of the highest cost of living areas in the country.

I really don't like swinging my "I'm a New Yorker" dick when it's not a pizza thread, but I don't see your points here.
 
2012-04-30 02:59:18 PM  

skullkrusher: Rich is a pretty subjective term and if we start calling a family earning $250k "rich" it kinda waters down the term for those who make $25,000,000 no?


if it's a subjective term, then it's already watered down. it's pre-watered. it's over-hydrated.

to cut to the chase, it's already an ex-parrot.

"rich" implies no concerns about paying for college, no clipping coupons, etc.

again, to you that's what it implies. to me, 'rich' implies making 5 times as much as i do and having received preferential tax reforms in recent years.

we aren't looking at a blank slate here - there has been tax code fiddling recently. did it work as intended? how about we eschew words like 'rich' and the subjective implications and just deal with the tax brackets as we have them. there have been alterations that promised results - have those results been inline with expectations?

if they haven't, why shouldn't they be addressed?
 
2012-04-30 02:59:54 PM  

skullkrusher: Antimatter: Are people really trying to paint the $250k income level as not being rich?

Rich is a pretty subjective term and if we start calling a family earning $250k "rich" it kinda waters down the term for those who make $25,000,000 no?

Upper middle class depending on location. Could probably squeak into lower upper class in some areas depending.
I wouldn't call it "rich" though because "rich" implies no concerns about paying for college, no clipping coupons, etc.


Exactly.

$250K with 5 kids in Manhatten is not nearly as "rich" as $100K for a single man in Houston.
 
2012-04-30 03:00:26 PM  

skullkrusher: Rich is a pretty subjective term and if we start calling a family earning $250k "rich" it kinda waters down the term for those who make $25,000,000 no?

Upper middle class depending on location. Could probably squeak into lower upper class in some areas depending.
I wouldn't call it "rich" though because "rich" implies no concerns about paying for college, no clipping coupons, etc.


It is rich. It's not super-wealthy. It's not superlative. It's still farking rich. Five times the national median household income is rich. There are different levels of rich, but $250,000 per year is a pretty good low end of the spectrum.
 
2012-04-30 03:00:36 PM  
mental note: if BW offers me pizza, check for pecker tracks.
 
Displayed 50 of 689 comments


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


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report