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 (4 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 03:43:40 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: skullkrusher: Bloody William:
The guy making $250k in Phoenix is living a whole farkload better than I am... well, except for the living in Phoenix part.

William, take note: This is how you gut your own argument and support the opposing argument without realizing it.


that's a pretty piss poor understanding of the discussion. Not that I have any higher expectations from you. Don't you find it strange that he and I are having a cordial and interesting discussion yet you're the one butting in and calling me a troll? Of course you're don't. That would require some self-awareness and you're, how shall I say it... a farking idiot.
 
2012-04-30 03:43:43 PM  

skullkrusher: tax cap gains as ordinary income with exemptions for primary residence sales. Hell, you could even keep the favorable rates on cap gains incomes below a certain point (indexed to CoL of course, ahem)


The sick thing is that we might find agreement on this issue if the GOP didn't block even having a discussion over the Buffett rule and raising the capital gains tax rate a few weeks ago.
 
2012-04-30 03:44:25 PM  

Paul Baumer: 500 posts and nobody's bothered to debunk the 250k tax rate kerfuffle by pointing out that it ONLY APPLIES TO INVESTMENT INCOME. Rugged breadwinners struggling with 5 kids at that level need not be concerned,


It does? I thought it was a proposed threshold of general household (or single earner) income for discussion of raising the tax rate above that point.
 
2012-04-30 03:45:24 PM  

Bloody William: It's a nice idea, but it makes things so much more complicated. No system is perfect, and eventually you're looking at putting too much work into not enough reward for making the system as "fair" as it can be under all variables. I just think realistically it isn't that feasible, beyond a point.


oh, I don't think complexity is a deal breaker when it comes to federal taxes.
We calculate CPI on a national basis. We would just have to calculate it regionally and pick a place to be point X by which all other CPIs are measured. It really shouldn't be all that difficult.
 
2012-04-30 03:45:49 PM  

skullkrusher: We cannot change cost of living with policy, however, we can have policies which account for it. Living in Phoenix would suck but I don't think we should be expected to pay more in real buying power to federal taxes as some sort of fee for living in AwesomeTown, USA. We pay state and city taxes for that.


That's a good point. Federal Income tax is a constant regardless of location. What makes the cost of living higher or lower from one city to the next is the LOCAL income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, tolls, insurance rates, etc.

Trying to adjust a Federal Tax code to account for the variable and capricious vaguaries of a shifting situation on the ground in 50 states and 5 million counties and cities is not only unworkable, but unecceissary.

The problems of high cost of living is a fundamentally local one and cannot be effectively managed at a Federal level.
 
2012-04-30 03:46:20 PM  

skullkrusher: More_Like_A_Stain: skullkrusher: More_Like_A_Stain: B-b-but the guy living in cabin ten miles outside of Buttscratch GA is paying the same rate as the guy living in a penthouse in Atlanta. Even though the guy in Atlanta has far less purchasing power after taxes. A quarter mil only goes so far these days.

huh? What you choose to do with your real buying power is up to you. That probably sounded a lot funnier in your head.

You mean like living in Manhattan instead of Buttscratch?

or ya know, the South Bronx or Bushwick which are a farkload more expensive to live in than idyllic Buttscratch.

I don't find "durr you choose to live there so deal with it" particularly convincing.


And yet it seems to be the cornerstone of your argument. You claim the tax rates are unfair because where you choose to live results in you having less buying power after taxes than if you lived somewhere with a lower COL.
 
2012-04-30 03:46:49 PM  

skullkrusher: The point is you pay more in federal taxes in terms of real buying power than someone making the exact same amount who lives somewhere else.


And... so? You choose to live in an expensive location you pay for it. I live in San Francisco where things cost a lot too, but I chose to live there so I don't whine about it. Part of the "lifestyle" you can buy with an income is an address. You want your money to go further, move to somewhere that it does.

The whole notion of "but $250,000 isn't rich in NY/SF/whatever" is bogus. Yes, it is rich, that why you can afford to live there. Don't biatch about the cost of your rent or mortgage or how little you have left after paying it when you voluntarily chose to take it on. Same goes for costs of goods. You bought your ticket, you knew what you were getting into. You don't have less "real buying power" you have just chosen to spend a lot of it on location.

You're apparently cool with this. I am not.

What do you want? Society to subsidize your choice of city? Preferential treatment for people who choose to live in expensive cities?

I have just as much buying power as a guy in bumfark nowhere making the same money as I do, I have just chosen to spend a lot of it on a San Francisco address. Of course, they'd never pay as much in bumfark in the first place, a factor you are not taking into consideration in your poor me diatribe.
 
2012-04-30 03:48:03 PM  

Bloody William: skullkrusher: tax cap gains as ordinary income with exemptions for primary residence sales. Hell, you could even keep the favorable rates on cap gains incomes below a certain point (indexed to CoL of course, ahem)

The sick thing is that we might find agreement on this issue if the GOP didn't block even having a discussion over the Buffett rule and raising the capital gains tax rate a few weeks ago.


I have absolutely no issue whatsoever with the Buffett rule. Doesn't go far enough IMO. Of course, I am the the start of the income demographic that bears the largest brunt of our bullshiat tax policies - not rich enough to get my income primarily from low taxed divs and cap gains but making enough wage income that our nominal national standards put me in the higher bracket while taking away deductions that others get despite having the same buying power or even more than I do.
 
2012-04-30 03:48:23 PM  

CapnBlues: yeah, but Eisenhower, Patton, and MacArthur weren't blah people.


C'mon, Eisenhower was a little blah. Even his supporters could only muster halfhearted enthusiasm.
encrypted-tbn1.google.com
 
2012-04-30 03:49:49 PM  

skullkrusher: it is a completely subjective term and entirely besides the point since the national brackets apply to everyone, not just people who make5x more than heap.


again, for you, it's all about the regional. for somebody else, it would all be relative to their own perspective. that's kinda what a subjective term implies - to you, it means one thing, and that's the part you're talking about. that's nice.

that doesn't change the fact it's worthless to the conversation - define 'rich' however you like - the tax brackets were fiddled, results were promised based on those alterations. should that, or should that not be addressed? i don't even care if your regional taxation requirement is in there, it's just a discussion that could be had entirely without the word 'rich' even entering the picture.

skullkrusher: heap: so if we can sidestep the subjective term 'rich', we can slide right into the mudpit of an even more subjective term 'fair'.

you asserted something. It didn't become true. Let that be a lesson.


erm...you asserted it. ctrl+F "Rich is a pretty subjective term". i was agreeing with you - and if you honestly think trying to define 'fair' is going to be a singularly objective practice where-as defining 'rich' is admittedly subjective, i've got a slice of dickpizza to sell you.

BojanglesPaladin:
So can you identify specific preferential tax reforms that would apply to a family of 5 earning $250K a year in salary?


the hypothetical family that i want to base my entire taxation policy around looks different. sorry. if you want to add that the dog has 3 legs and is having an affair with the milkman's leg, that would help.
 
2012-04-30 03:50:04 PM  

Foundling: Wow, that's amazing.
Claiming the above is farking dishonest; you should be ashamed. Stay away from computers and microphones. In fact, this might be a good day to take up a vow of silence until you find out what the hell is going on around you.



I can't tell if you're mad at me or the forward, so I'm going to assume both.
 
2012-04-30 03:52:36 PM  

skullkrusher: Of course, I am the the start of the income demographic that bears the largest brunt of our bullshiat tax policies - not rich enough to get my income primarily from low taxed divs and cap gains but making enough wage income that our nominal national standards put me in the higher bracket while taking away deductions that others get despite having the same buying power or even more than I do.


There's always that sweet, sweet welfare. And luckily for you, apparently New York is one of the best places for it. Why, I hear they even have free valet parking for your Cadillac down at the welfare office.
 
2012-04-30 03:54:45 PM  

Bloody William: Paul Baumer: 500 posts and nobody's bothered to debunk the 250k tax rate kerfuffle by pointing out that it ONLY APPLIES TO INVESTMENT INCOME. Rugged breadwinners struggling with 5 kids at that level need not be concerned,

It does? I thought it was a proposed threshold of general household (or single earner) income for discussion of raising the tax rate above that point.


Link

Plan for High Income Surtaxes in 2013
The 2010 health care legislation brings a tax increase into play in 2013 that includes a 3.8 percent tax on net investment income, and a 0.9 percent Medicare tax on earned income. Generally, if your income exceeds $200,000 (single filing), or $250,000 (joint filing), you are at risk for these new taxes.

3.8 percent net investment income tax
Beginning in 2013, higher income individuals with net investment income will be subject to a 3.8 percent tax of the lesser of two amounts:

Your net investment income, or
the excess of the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income over a $200,000 (single) or $250,000 (joint filers) threshold amount.
If the taxpayer's adjusted gross income is greater than the $200,000/$250,000 threshold, the excess becomes a limitation on the amount of net investment income exposed to the surtax. For example, if a joint return has a modified adjusted gross income of $260,000, the $10,000 excess becomes the limitation.

http://www.cliftonlarsonallen.com/inside.aspx?id=364
 
2012-04-30 03:56:51 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: For instance, with 5 kids and a house in a decent school district the cost of day care, college tuition, food, etc. are significantly higher becasue when you make that much, you do not get ANY student loan assistance, any school lunch assistance,etc. Property taxes are higher, food costs, fuel costs, health insurance, etc. are all higher.



don't have 'em if you can't afford 'em.

works for poor people, will work for you too.


/amidoinitrite?
 
2012-04-30 03:57:27 PM  

Thrag: You don't have less "real buying power" you have just chosen to spend a lot of it on location.

Thrag: Part of the "lifestyle" you can buy with an income is an address.


That is very well said. It is a much better argument than "just move to avoi a higher cost of living". It also highlights that many people pay for the VALUE of more expensive areas. Whether it's good school districts, better city services, quality mesuems and arts, proximity to work or family or even just to be near a better night life or music scene. That has value and you pay for that one way or another.

heap: the hypothetical family that i want to base my entire taxation policy around looks different. sorry. if you want to add that the dog has 3 legs and is having an affair with the milkman's leg, that would help.


That's fine. As you will note, I was reffering to actual families I know who have not seen these "preferential tax cuts" that you speak of, presumably because they earn their income in salary and not stock dividends or investments. Now I don't do their taxes, so I don;t know the ins and outs of their deductions and tax breaks, but I DO know that despite all the talk of "the Bush tax cuts", they haven't seen them yet. You seemed very certain that they were benefiting from "preferential tax cuts", so I was hoping you had a specific example of one or more of these breaks that would apply to a family of 5 earning salary.

But if you don't have any specifics, that's OK. Just say so.
 
2012-04-30 03:58:44 PM  
I would just like to say that I'm really enjoying the weapons-grade butthurt today by the so-called Fark Independents and RW air breathers today. It's politics equivalent of a wrestling heel flipping the hell out when the face does to him what the heel normally does to his opponents.

Fascinating to see the RW-ers completely lose their composure when somebody decides to play by their rules and beats them over the head with it. XD
 
2012-04-30 03:59:20 PM  

Thrag: And... so? You choose to live in an expensive location you pay for it. I live in San Francisco where things cost a lot too, but I chose to live there so I don't whine about it. Part of the "lifestyle" you can buy with an income is an address. You want your money to go further, move to somewhere that it does.


yeah, you live in an expensive location. You pay for it. You probably earn more for the exact same job as someone who lives in a less expensive location and wind up with comparable buying power. Yet you pay more of that real buying power in federal taxes than your analog in a cheaper area. I have to pay more money to the federal government as my fee for living in NY? That sounds pretty stupid. I pay state and city taxes for that.

Thrag: The whole notion of "but $250,000 isn't rich in NY/SF/whatever" is bogus. Yes, it is rich, that why you can afford to live there. Don't biatch about the cost of your rent or mortgage or how little you have left after paying it when you voluntarily chose to take it on. Same goes for costs of goods. You bought your ticket, you knew what you were getting into. You don't have less "real buying power" you have just chosen to spend a lot of it on location.


no, you do have less "real buying power". That's pretty much exactly what the difference in CoL is all about. I am not complaining about the high cost of NYC. If I moved somewhere else, I'd probably make less money. However, I'd wind up being able to buy more shiat because of our national tax standards.

Manhattan: $250,000
Phoenix: $110,260

That's $140k more someone living in NYC would pay taxes on than a person with the exact same pre-tax buying power living in Phoenix would have.

Manhattan tax bill: ~$59,407
Phoenix tax bill: ~$19,625

After tax income Manhattan: $190593
After tax income Phoenix: $90635

To have a comparable after tax buying power, you'd have to have $205,501 after taxes in Manhattan. A $15,000 difference.
Nothing to see here though, I know. It's the tax you pay to live somewhere aside from the taxes that you actually pay to live there. Or something.

Thrag: What do you want? Society to subsidize your choice of city? Preferential treatment for people who choose to live in expensive cities?


actually, the opposite. I'd prefer not to subsidize the low cost of living areas through our unfair national benchmarks. is that too much to ask? It's not preferential treatment at all. Everyone would have their taxes indexed to CoL. Not just people in higher CoL areas.
 
2012-04-30 04:00:39 PM  

heap: erm...you asserted it. ctrl+F "Rich is a pretty subjective term". i was agreeing with you - and if you honestly think trying to define 'fair' is going to be a singularly objective practice where-as defining 'rich' is admittedly subjective, i've got a slice of dickpizza to sell you.


"rich" is a subjective term. Fairness is not.
 
2012-04-30 04:01:33 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: As you will note, I was reffering to actual families I know who have not seen these "preferential tax cuts" that you speak of, presumably because they earn their income in salary and not stock dividends or investments.


and yet if we let the recent tax cuts expire, that's punishing them. by removing the preferential tax treatment they didn't receive.

if somebody is making 250k a year and not investing large swaths of it, they are a begoddamned moron who is determined to make sure their bills keep pace with their income - and ya know what, i'm fine with not basing my tax policy around them.
 
2012-04-30 04:02:03 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: That is very well said. It is a much better argument than "just move to avoi a higher cost of living". It also highlights that many people pay for the VALUE of more expensive areas. Whether it's good school districts, better city services, quality mesuems and arts, proximity to work or family or even just to be near a better night life or music scene. That has value and you pay for that one way or another.


it misses the point. It's not a complaint that NYC costs more - you earn more here too so it works out on balance, more or less.
 
2012-04-30 04:02:41 PM  

mcwehrle: don't have 'em if you can't afford 'em.

works for poor people, will work for you too.


Well to be fair, a family of 5 making less than $53K a year qualifies for more subsidies and assistance, so I'm not sure where you are going with this.

I sometimes wonder if in affect we have a policy that (in the extreme) discourages above-median income earners from having large families, but dis-incentivises lower earning households from limiting the number of children.
 
2012-04-30 04:02:41 PM  

skullkrusher: heap: erm...you asserted it. ctrl+F "Rich is a pretty subjective term". i was agreeing with you - and if you honestly think trying to define 'fair' is going to be a singularly objective practice where-as defining 'rich' is admittedly subjective, i've got a slice of dickpizza to sell you.

"rich" is a subjective term. Fairness is not.


hey, you asserted something and it didn't make it so. let that be a lesson.
 
2012-04-30 04:05:25 PM  

Jake Havechek:
A bunch of points. I read them all.

-- From Breitbart


You had me until here.
 
2012-04-30 04:06:54 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: heap: 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.

Curiously, can you identify specific preferential tax reforms that would apply to a family of 5 earning $250K a year?

I ask, becasue I actually know a couple of these families, and their taxes have not gone down in the last 8-10 years, neither in dollars or effective tax rate. At least not to a tangible extent.

But maybe they missed it or didn;t notice when they were writing checks on April. What specific provisions are you thinking of?


The marginal top tax rate has declined during this time, The capital gains tax rate has declined during this time. Your friends either have a crappy tax preparer or are relying on you for information.
 
2012-04-30 04:06:56 PM  

heap: if somebody is making 250k a year and not investing large swaths of it, they are a begoddamned moron who.....


Yeah. Only farking morons would pay for their children's college and healthcare issues when they could be taking that money and playing day-trader on e-Trade like any rational person would. And saving for retirement? That's for morons too!

heap: and yet if we let the recent tax cuts expire, that's punishing them. by removing the preferential tax treatment they didn't receive.


Is that an argument YOU are making? It's not one I am making.
 
2012-04-30 04:10:33 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Yeah. Only farking morons would pay for their children's college and healthcare issues when they could be taking that


again, these are people that 'aren't better off' - yet they spend college tuition out of yearly income rather than having had to save up for it for decades like the rest of us.

this hypothetical family you're describing seems more and more like jackoffs the more you describe them.
 
2012-04-30 04:11:25 PM  

skullkrusher: heap: erm...you asserted it. ctrl+F "Rich is a pretty subjective term". i was agreeing with you - and if you honestly think trying to define 'fair' is going to be a singularly objective practice where-as defining 'rich' is admittedly subjective, i've got a slice of dickpizza to sell you.

"rich" is a subjective term. Fairness is not.


... actually, it is. Both are entirely subjective terms.
 
2012-04-30 04:11:43 PM  

heap: skullkrusher: heap: erm...you asserted it. ctrl+F "Rich is a pretty subjective term". i was agreeing with you - and if you honestly think trying to define 'fair' is going to be a singularly objective practice where-as defining 'rich' is admittedly subjective, i've got a slice of dickpizza to sell you.

"rich" is a subjective term. Fairness is not.

hey, you asserted something and it didn't make it so. let that be a lesson.


2+2=4

don't be an asshat
 
2012-04-30 04:12:13 PM  

Bloody William: skullkrusher: heap: erm...you asserted it. ctrl+F "Rich is a pretty subjective term". i was agreeing with you - and if you honestly think trying to define 'fair' is going to be a singularly objective practice where-as defining 'rich' is admittedly subjective, i've got a slice of dickpizza to sell you.

"rich" is a subjective term. Fairness is not.

... actually, it is. Both are entirely subjective terms.


maybe the dickpizza can be deep dish new york crust, and have the worst of both worlds.
 
2012-04-30 04:12:54 PM  

skullkrusher: 2+2=4

don't be an asshat


the baffling part is that this somehow made sense to you as a response.
 
2012-04-30 04:13:54 PM  

Paul Baumer: The marginal top tax rate has declined during this time, The capital gains tax rate has declined during this time.


Sure. And what other changes in deductions have ALSO happened that could offset this? No longer being able to deduct student loan interest? Earned income credits no longer apply. Families with three or more children receive the same EITC benefit-40 percent of initial earnings-as families with two children.

Again, I am talking about families that earn this income in salary, not investments and stock dividends.

Which is precisely the point I am making. Taxable Income level is not a reliable measure of "rich". Certainly, even with 5 kids, someone making $250 is not living in poverty, but they may not have a standard of living greatly in excess of the average middle class family.
 
2012-04-30 04:14:16 PM  

Bloody William: skullkrusher: heap: erm...you asserted it. ctrl+F "Rich is a pretty subjective term". i was agreeing with you - and if you honestly think trying to define 'fair' is going to be a singularly objective practice where-as defining 'rich' is admittedly subjective, i've got a slice of dickpizza to sell you.

"rich" is a subjective term. Fairness is not.

... actually, it is. Both are entirely subjective terms.


jeez dude, if I charged you more to get into my club because you were under 6' tall despite the fact that your height has no bearing on anything and I am just capricious, is that fair or not?

Why do we have a progressive income tax system? Because we deem it fair that people who make more money are better able to afford higher rates and are therefore responsible for bearing more of the load, no? Now when you see places like Phoenix with less than 1/2 the cost of living of NYC yet charge people living in both places those same rates, it flies in the face of that justification, does it not?
 
2012-04-30 04:15:06 PM  
Great threadjack.
 
2012-04-30 04:15:17 PM  

heap: skullkrusher: 2+2=4

don't be an asshat

the baffling part is that this somehow made sense to you as a response.


2+2=4 not because of my assertion, just because it is.
 
2012-04-30 04:16:42 PM  

mcwehrle: BojanglesPaladin: For instance, with 5 kids and a house in a decent school district the cost of day care, college tuition, food, etc. are significantly higher becasue when you make that much, you do not get ANY student loan assistance, any school lunch assistance,etc. Property taxes are higher, food costs, fuel costs, health insurance, etc. are all higher.

don't have 'em if you can't afford 'em.

works for poor people, will work for you too.


/amidoinitrite?


Also, Hannity says eat beans and rice. And the Catholic League says get a different job if you don't like your current health insurance.
 
2012-04-30 04:17:35 PM  

skullkrusher: heap: skullkrusher: 2+2=4

don't be an asshat

the baffling part is that this somehow made sense to you as a response.

2+2=4 not because of my assertion, just because it is.


and yet somehow, you've not made any case for the objectivity of defining 'fair' that could not also be made for 'rich' - which you yourself have stated is a subjective term.

you have asserted something, and that didn't make it so - again, these are your words. if you think it's asshat-ish to hear them, perhaps you shouldn't type them.
 
2012-04-30 04:19:17 PM  

skullkrusher: After tax income Manhattan: $190593
After tax income Phoenix: $90635


[quizzical_dog.jpg]
Yeah, $90K after taxes buys the same amount of stuff as $190K after taxes.
(Must be a New York US dollar vs. Phoenix US dollar exchange rate thing.)
Hint: That COLA calculator is a gimmick.

You pay income taxes based on your income. You pay property and other local taxes based on your address.
You chose your address.
You expect people who chose other addresses to subsidize your chosen lifestyle because your chosen lifestyle is more expensive than theirs.

/Poor, poor, New Yorker. A "tear" of sympathy is rolling down my leg.
//Go on: Talk about a "culture of entitlement" now.
 
2012-04-30 04:20:01 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Slaves2Darkness: The scariest thing in the world right now is we have one political party, the Republicans, and almost 50% of the US that is pushing our markets to pure free market and to hell with the consumer.

I am not aware of a single Republican (aside from maybe Ron Paul) who is calling for ALL federal market regulations to be removed. I believe they want all the BAD regulations that interfere with businesses and the economy as THEY see it removed. And while you and I may not agree with which regulations they want removed, I don't see anyone calling for a completely unfettered free market devoid of ANY federal regualtions. (Although I see a LOT of people saying that they say that.)

But I may have missed some. Any high ranking Republicans you can point to who have taken the position you describe?


Republican candidates for president calling for the ending of the EPA, complete deregulation of energy and financial markets not enough for your?

How about the Republican candidate for President Mitt Romney campaigning on imposing a cost cap of zero dollars on all regulatory federal agencies, effectively destroying their ability to regulate anything. The idea behind this is that if a regulation costs a company, any company, any money at all then it can not be enforced.

The call by this candidate for tort reform to prevent "spurious" legal action even though that cost has proven to be less then 3% of all liability law suits. His legal reforms are direct attack on the consumers right to seek redress for products that cause damages. If this gets passed victims of products that cause harm will no longer be able to get adequate compensation for that harm, damages will be capped at ridiculously small amounts.

How about old Mitt's idea of repealing the moderate financial reform we actually managed to get passed the odd-Frank act? Thereby gutting the few and mild banking and finance protections we have under the law?

None of that is enough for you? Or did you really not realize that the Republican Presidential candidate is promising such a massive assault on regulation, consumer rights, and the protection of the individual under commercial law?

Republics are not a friend to the common man, Mitt Romeny is not a man of the people and he is promising to gut legal and financial regulation that protects us in order to "reduce costs" for large corporations.
 
2012-04-30 04:20:56 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Paul Baumer: The marginal top tax rate has declined during this time, The capital gains tax rate has declined during this time.

Sure. And what other changes in deductions have ALSO happened that could offset this? No longer being able to deduct student loan interest? Earned income credits no longer apply. Families with three or more children receive the same EITC benefit-40 percent of initial earnings-as families with two children.

Again, I am talking about families that earn this income in salary, not investments and stock dividends.

Which is precisely the point I am making. Taxable Income level is not a reliable measure of "rich". Certainly, even with 5 kids, someone making $250 is not living in poverty, but they may not have a standard of living greatly in excess of the average middle class family.


EITC has never been available to someone making 250k, so that's a red herring right there. Student loan interest too. Combined with reduced tax rates, I am really not sure how you are coming up with the idea that there have been ANY de facto tax hikes on the 250k class of folks.
 
2012-04-30 04:21:56 PM  

heap: again, these are people that 'aren't better off' - yet they spend college tuition out of yearly income rather than having had to save up for it for decades like the rest of us.


Do you think that people who have college age kids today have been making $250K a year since their first child? I don't know how old you are, but one of the things you realize as you get older is that parents tend to make more twenty years later than they did when they started out. Not many people leave college making 6 figures. But after a decade or two, a lot of people can and do.

It's comments like these that make me wonder just how well some of you understand the real world. I know a guy who retired making 160K a year. Rich, right?

But he worked at a refinery for 38 years, and for almost 30 of those years, he only made about 60K with 3 kids. In the last decade thanks to the refinery being bought and some re-shifting of personell, he got a big fat promotion and made more than 6 figures. Just in time for the LAST year of his youngest son's college.

On average, older people make more money than younger people, becasue they have been doing it longer.
 
2012-04-30 04:23:41 PM  
Doesn't the "he was only the commander in chief" and did not perform the mission itself, also cut into the Rmoney narrative about how much job creation Bain caused (or job destruction). Most of the "work" at Bain was done by underlings not by Mitt wasn't it?
 
2012-04-30 04:24:46 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Do you think that people who have college age kids today have been making $250K a year since their first child?


do i think they're forced to pay the national average in wages per year in tuition out of their salary, again, per year as you described it, for any reason shy of their own piss poor planning?

again, the more you describe this hypothetical family of yours, the less i can really gather gumption to give a shiat. it's like 'first world problems' without the witty picture.
 
2012-04-30 04:25:48 PM  

skullkrusher: jeez dude, if I charged you more to get into my club because you were under 6' tall despite the fact that your height has no bearing on anything and I am just capricious, is that fair or not?

Why do we have a progressive income tax system? Because we deem it fair that people who make more money are better able to afford higher rates and are therefore responsible for bearing more of the load, no? Now when you see places like Phoenix with less than 1/2 the cost of living of NYC yet charge people living in both places those same rates, it flies in the face of that justification, does it not?


I'm just saying the "fairness" is something that can be disputed as easily as "rich." It's a value that is not objective.
 
2012-04-30 04:27:24 PM  
As has been pointed out many times before, when your platform is "We're against everything" and your opponent does something GOOD, you have a problem.

Ask Mittens a simple question: would he have given the same order, given the same circumstances?

Now he has a problem. If he says "Yes," he's agreeing with the President, which gets him in trouble with his own party. If he says "No," he's advocating letting a mass-murderer walk because it's politically inconvenient. If he tries to finesse it, saying, "Well, I might have gone in with the Predator drones," you have him going against a risky strategy that worked in favor of the one Obama rejected.

There are two ways to put this behind us and make it a non-issue. One is to agree with the President: Bin Laden is dead and the world is a better place for it. That effectively neutralizes it as a political issue. If Mitt would just say "The President was right to do what he did and I would have done the same thing," this would be over. Neither side could use it to beef up their political cred.

The other way to do it? Let the Swiftboating begin.

The goal of Swiftboating isn't to be right or to take the moral high ground - it's to make the Other Side SHUT UP about an accomplishment. Whatever it takes, no matter how cruel (John McCain fathered an illegitimate black baby!) or inaccurate (John Kerry shot a retreating soldier in the back!) It doesn't matter. All that matters is to make the other side stop talking about something good they did so they can't use it against you. It's a lot more difficult than taking the moral high ground, it impoverishes the national debate and damages both campaigns, sometimes irreparably, but hey, that's the path they want to take.

I guarantee you that the Republicans have an entire staff of operatives whose specific goal is to make Obama stop talking about his various accomplishments, from the GM bailout to the end of Osama bin Laden to the winding down of troop presences in Iraq and Afghanistan to whatever signs of life the moribund economy might be showing. They've already gotten him to stop talking about HCR, and there are attempts to revive the whole birth-certificate thing. If they can't find a way to make him stop talking about OBL, they'll make something up. It'll hurt them as much as it hurts Obama, but it'll hurt Obama, and that's all they care about.
 
2012-04-30 04:27:33 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: [quizzical_dog.jpg]
Yeah, $90K after taxes buys the same amount of stuff as $190K after taxes.
(Must be a New York US dollar vs. Phoenix US dollar exchange rate thing.)
Hint: That COLA calculator is a gimmick.


no, we have the same currency in New York as they do in Arizona. You see, things in New York City are more expensive than things in Phoenix, AZ. It's really a very simple concept and if you ever hopped into the Hoverround and gone traveling, you would see this.

demaL-demaL-yeH: You pay income taxes based on your income. You pay property and other local taxes based on your address.


yes, this has not been questioned. Just looking for stupid shiat to fill your post out and make it seem substantial, huh?

demaL-demaL-yeH: You chose your address.


well, I was born here but I did choose to move back after college so yes, I chose my address.

demaL-demaL-yeH: You expect people who chose other addresses to subsidize your chosen lifestyle because your chosen lifestyle is more expensive than theirs.


no, that's not what I expect at all. I do not want my lifestyle subsidized. I do expect fair treatment from the IRS, however, and anyone who lives in an area with a higher CoL than 1 does not receive this.

demaL-demaL-yeH: /Poor, poor, New Yorker. A "tear" of sympathy is rolling down my leg.


I am not looking for sympathy. I know you're a selfish putz.

demaL-demaL-yeH: //Go on: Talk about a "culture of entitlement" now.


no idea what you're talking about. Are you confusing me with skinnyhead by chance? I sometimes see his name in threads and at first glance think it is a post of mine - you don't seem terribly bright. Perhaps you do this all the time?
 
2012-04-30 04:27:55 PM  

Paul Baumer: Combined with reduced tax rates, I am really not sure how you are coming up with the idea that there have been ANY de facto tax hikes on the 250k class of folks.


That's the question I am asking. I know a number of people in this bracket, and not a one of them has seen a reduction in their taxes. (and have been very vocal about it - even those who voted Obama if that matters to any of you).

I know everyone SAYS that taxes have gone down for this bracket, and I believe that is true for people who derive income from investments, capital gains, stock dividends, etc. But I've not seen it out here in the real world amongst the clock punchers. I'm not saying it hasn't occured, just looking for some specifics on exactly how it would affect a salaried family making that.
 
2012-04-30 04:28:39 PM  

BojanglesPaladin:

Do you think that people who have college age kids today have been making $250K a year since their first child? I don't know how old you are, but one of the things you realize as you get older is that parents tend to make more twenty years later than they did when they started out. Not many people leave college making 6 figures. But after a decade or two, a lot of people can and do.

It's comments like these that make me wonder just how well some of you understand the real world. I know a guy who retired making 160K a year. Rich, right?

But he worked at a refinery for 38 years, and for almost 30 of those years, he only made about 60K with 3 kids. In the last decade thanks to the refinery being bought and some re-shifting of personell, he got a big fat promotion and made more than 6 figures. Just in time for the LAST year of his youngest son's college.

On average, older people make more money than younger people, becasue they have been doing it longer.


But they haven't been paying the top rate all that time either then, and had access to other programs for folks that made less than that mythical $250k figure, and furthermore, none of which adds up to a rationale that this family has somehow been unfairly singled out, tax-wise. You are really not making sense now.
 
2012-04-30 04:28:50 PM  
Median family income in San Francisco is around $82 K, so yeah $250 K still isn't middle class. How the fark did we get on this subject anyway?
 
2012-04-30 04:28:59 PM  

Bloody William: skullkrusher: jeez dude, if I charged you more to get into my club because you were under 6' tall despite the fact that your height has no bearing on anything and I am just capricious, is that fair or not?

Why do we have a progressive income tax system? Because we deem it fair that people who make more money are better able to afford higher rates and are therefore responsible for bearing more of the load, no? Now when you see places like Phoenix with less than 1/2 the cost of living of NYC yet charge people living in both places those same rates, it flies in the face of that justification, does it not?

I'm just saying the "fairness" is something that can be disputed as easily as "rich." It's a value that is not objective.


fine - I think you understand the point regardless. "Fair" is letting wealthier people shoulder more of the load yet viewing "wealthier" without consideration of real buying power is a pretty shiatty measuring stick
 
2012-04-30 04:30:39 PM  

skullkrusher: yeah, you live in an expensive location. You pay for it. You probably earn more for the exact same job as someone who lives in a less expensive location and wind up with comparable buying power. Yet you pay more of that real buying power in federal taxes than your analog in a cheaper area.


You entire argument is based on the notion that "buying power" is somehow a totally separate thing from the decision to live in an expensive area. You have chosen to expend your "buying power" to live in an upscale area of one of the most expensive cities in America.

I have to pay more money to the federal government as my fee for living in NY?

Huh? You don't pay one cent more to the federal government than someone living in a different city. In real dollars the taxes are the same. I can only imagine you mean "more money" with money meaning this silly notion of "buying power" you are trying to push that does not include what one chooses to spend on location.

That sounds pretty stupid. I pay state and city taxes for that.

Your city and state taxes have nothing to do with this. Market conditions have made NYC very expensive. You have chosen to spend your income to live in NYC (and in an expensive area of NYC). The high cost of living in an area is not a tax. It's a market reality. Nobody forces you to choose to live in an expensive area.

actually, the opposite. I'd prefer not to subsidize the low cost of living areas through our unfair national benchmarks. is that too much to ask? It's not preferential treatment at all. Everyone would have their taxes indexed to CoL. Not just people in higher CoL areas.

Amazing. That's not the opposite, that's exactly what I said. You want your choice to live in an expensive city subsidized at the expense of people who live in less expensive areas. You want people with a lower cost of living to pay more in taxes so you can pay less due to your choice to live in an area with a higher cost of living. The fact that you seem to be in denial of this doesn't change the fact.
 
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
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  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