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.

(NPR)   If you thought pigs would fly before you saw a well-written article about how tax increases will impact the wealthy, then get ready for airborne bacon   (npr.org) divider line 153
    More: Interesting, progressive taxes, personal income taxes, Palm Beach Gardens, Tax Foundation, media proprietor, land trust, Boehner  
•       •       •

4395 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Dec 2012 at 12:42 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-12-14 10:27:36 AM  
I was hoping that NPR would have this article link to a plain white page with the words "IT WON'T AFFECT THEM" written in giant letters right in the center.

Alas, I find myself disappointed once again.
 
2012-12-14 10:35:33 AM  
But he adds that he thinks Obama and other Democrats make being rich "sound like a bad thing," which he says is a mistake.

Spot the FOX viewer in this sentence.
 
2012-12-14 10:45:52 AM  
Let me sum up the entire article:

"It won't effect me at all, but gosh I hate that President Ovronsky"
 
2012-12-14 10:51:48 AM  
it's just a little airborne! it's still good! it's still good!
 
2012-12-14 11:03:50 AM  
That's not well written subby. It's a bunch of rich farks crying that they don't have much left at all after teh 2 mansions and 2 kids in college. Why they can't even afford a Jaguar after that and have to drive Subaru's.
 
2012-12-14 11:05:41 AM  
Also in that article: a man claiming that > $250K per year is not a lot of money because he has 3 kids. Maybe it's your penis's fault and not Oblomov's.
 
2012-12-14 11:11:49 AM  
I love threads where I can pretend to be Daddy Warbucks.
 
*lights cigar with $100 bill*
 
*claps*
 
Fetch my slippers and give me a backrub Punjab!  The media has asked me to do some opinining later today, and I want to be at my comfiest! 
 
2012-12-14 11:19:45 AM  
I'm certainly not extravagant- why, my maid doesn't even live in my house.
 
2012-12-14 11:29:37 AM  

ManateeGag: it's just a little airborne! it's still good! it's still good!


gifsoup.com

/Maybe I'm amazed at the way you love me all the time...
 
2012-12-14 11:37:45 AM  

sweetmelissa31: Also in that article: a man claiming that > $250K per year is not a lot of money because he has 3 kids. Maybe it's your penis's fault and not Oblomov's.


But you don't get it, poors don't understand the burden of having several kids and sending them to college
 
2012-12-14 11:40:02 AM  
"Without willingness to support our central government, we're going down a dark path," Prince says. The conditions that create wealth - including an educated workforce and a broad customer base - are at risk if the rich are too "greedy" to pay more in taxes, he argues.

I spent more than a year in Nashville, and I never heard anyone say anything remotely as reasonable as this.
I think NPR made this up.
 
2012-12-14 11:45:07 AM  
I like the bit about how the top 1% pay 37.4% of the income taxes. GOSH!! But, that's low - they take in what like 54%* of the national yearly income or something? And control 90+% of the wealth?

I think their tax rate should be equivalent to their share of income adjusted nationally. If the top 1% get 54% of the income, or whatever, they should be providing 54% of the income taxes.

* probably wrong
 
2012-12-14 11:52:46 AM  

sweetmelissa31: Also in that article: a man claiming that > $250K per year is not a lot of money because he has 3 kids. Maybe it's your penis's fault and not Oblomov's.


if my parents can raise two sons on $40-$50k but he cannot raise three on $250k+ .. it's his fault.

now, he's paying for his kids education, which my parents were unable to do. how much you want to bet they're going to $50k/year+ private schools?
 
2012-12-14 12:01:02 PM  

sweetmelissa31: Also in that article: a man claiming that > $250K per year is not a lot of money because he has 3 kids. Maybe it's your penis's fault and not Oblomov's.


Agreed. $250K in a 5 person household is not a fortune but is not bad. In the context of tax it is $250K a person which is quite a bit of money by any standard.
 
2012-12-14 12:39:12 PM  
"I worked hard and I had some success, and I think that's how it's supposed to be in this country," says Edward Kfoury, a 74-year-old former IBM director who now owns "a couple of businesses" in Maine. "I don't like being called a name and being called a bastard and all these other things."

Unlike, say Poor. Lazy. Stupid. Welfare Queen. Unmotivated. Undesirable. Union lacky/thug. Trailer trash. Minimum wage monkey. Pathetic.

Right?
 
2012-12-14 12:44:42 PM  
That's right liberal America go ahead and tax rich people until there are no rich people any more and then you will wonder why everybody is poor.
 
2012-12-14 12:47:08 PM  
"There are a lot of people in my income category who are living paycheck to paycheck," says Mark Anderson, a 29-year-old mortgage broker in St. Louis.

Anderson says he and his wife, a pathologist, fall into the 2 percent category but not by much. He indulges himself in "the latest and greatest that Apple has to offer" and lives in a sizable house in a good neighborhood. Beyond that, he says, he and his wife aren't extravagant - they drive Subarus rather than Jaguars.


Now normally, I would be the first to pile on this guy for being a dipshiat liar, saying he lives paycheck to paycheck on $250,000. But I see room for compromise here.

My good sir, that is startling, you can barely afford to scrape by on $250,000? Clearly no one could get by with less, so what say we get together and make $250,000/year the minimum wage. Because as you said, you live paycheck to paycheck in a non-extravagant lifestyle.
 
2012-12-14 12:47:16 PM  

Brian Ryanberger: That's right liberal America go ahead and tax rich people until there are no rich people any more and then you will wonder why everybody is poor.


Yeah, that's how I saw the world when I was 18. Then I opened a history book and saw tax rates double and triple what they are now for the wealthy, and America was said to be the most prosperous nation in the world at the time.
 
2012-12-14 12:50:14 PM  
archiearchive.files.wordpress.com

this came to mind.
 
2012-12-14 12:50:54 PM  

Brian Ryanberger: That's right liberal America go ahead and tax rich people until there are no rich people any more and then you will wonder why everybody is poor.


If we take away 2/3 of the wealth from the top 1%, we can completely solve the $16 trillion debt. And all of those people would remain multi-millionaires.

If we return the top tax rate to the levels that we had in 1950, we would have a budget surplus.

But good point, taxing the rich will make everyone poor.
 
2012-12-14 12:51:53 PM  
Drive Subaraus instead of Jaguars? LOL. It is TOUGH being wealthy.

How about you drive a Hyundai?

And your two kids in college... let me guess, some private Liberal Arts school charging $30K a year? Oh boo freakin hoo.
 
2012-12-14 12:52:27 PM  
for the love of god democrats, start using their own Frank Luntz/Karl Rove tricks against them and learn to control the narrative!

Start referring to it as the "Rich's extra tax cut"

They still get the Bush tax cut on the first quart of a million they make, they just don't get an extra tax cut on the money they make above that. Maybe then you'll get the mouth breathers who are too stupid to understand progressive taxation to stop attacking each other and lionizing the wealthy as their more deserving betters.
 
2012-12-14 12:52:48 PM  
Brian Ryanberger: That's right liberal America go ahead and tax rich people until there are no rich people any more and then you will wonder why everybody is poor.

Nadie_AZ : Yeah, that's how I saw the world when I was 18. Then I opened a history book and saw tax rates double and triple what they are now for the wealthy, and America was said to be the most prosperous nation in the world at the time.

Dude, he's 12.
 
2012-12-14 12:52:49 PM  

lennavan: Now normally, I would be the first to pile on this guy for being a dipshiat liar, saying he lives paycheck to paycheck on $250,000. But I see room for compromise here.

My good sir, that is startling, you can barely afford to scrape by on $250,000? Clearly no one could get by with less, so what say we get together and make $250,000/year the minimum wage. Because as you said, you live paycheck to paycheck in a non-extravagant lifestyle.


Let me summarize the Republican response to that: you're a socialist nazi maoist obummer lover.

And now, the Fox News version of the response: wharrrrrrrrrrrrgarrrrrrrble.
 
2012-12-14 12:54:00 PM  
fta "There are a lot of people in my income category who are living paycheck to paycheck," says Mark Anderson, a 29-year-old mortgage broker in St. Louis. "It's just a different level of credit card debt."

See, libtards? Mark is doing his part to keep the economy moving. He's a Real American. How much is your average poor person contributing to the economy? Hardly anything at all! But you libtards want to punish Mark and reward the poor.
 
2012-12-14 12:54:49 PM  
"My wife and I collectively make over that," says Bernie Grimm, an attorney in Washington, D.C., "but with three kids and two in college, that's not a lot of money." ~FTFA


You can actually afford to send your kids to college. And I'm guessing that they aren't going to NOVA, you sanctimonious douchebag.
Other, lower income, groups can go to college... with loans, lots of loans. Your kids will come away debt free.

Now, we don't dislike your relative wealth. Far from it. We do, however, get pissy when you somehow think that your paying the same rate as the dirt poor is a 'bad' thing.
 
2012-12-14 12:56:00 PM  
1. When the tax rates were previously lowered, the economy benefited.
2. The raising of the taxes will add a negligent amount of money to the coffers.
3. Obama has admitted that even if raising taxes on the wealthy hurts the economy, he is still all for it, because "fairness."

If it were to truly be a help or if based on a simple mathematical formula we needed it to be done for the good of everyone, then I'd be all for it. But it's not that at all, it's class warfare nonsense and Obama simply doesn't think that it's fair that the successful have accumulated more wealth than others and he's going to rectify that by taking some of it away.
 
2012-12-14 12:56:16 PM  
relevant:

www.ticketliquidator.com
 
2012-12-14 12:56:59 PM  

Dr. Whoof: lennavan: Now normally, I would be the first to pile on this guy for being a dipshiat liar, saying he lives paycheck to paycheck on $250,000. But I see room for compromise here.

My good sir, that is startling, you can barely afford to scrape by on $250,000? Clearly no one could get by with less, so what say we get together and make $250,000/year the minimum wage. Because as you said, you live paycheck to paycheck in a non-extravagant lifestyle.

Let me summarize the Republican response to that: you're a socialist nazi maoist obummer lover.

And now, the Fox News version of the response: wharrrrrrrrrrrrgarrrrrrrble.



I know. But what I wouldn't give for a "journalist" to ask something akin to that in a follow-up. There was a congressman from WI (Sean Duffy if you want to google it) who said he was struggling to get by on his $174,000 per year plus his wife's teacher salary. Poor guy. How the fark does he think the rest of us making less than that get by? Like those families with one person a teacher and the other anything that makes less than $174,000 a year?
 
2012-12-14 12:57:54 PM  

Silly Jesus: 1. When the tax rates were previously lowered, the economy benefited.
2. The raising of the taxes will add a negligent amount of money to the coffers.
3. Obama has admitted that even if raising taxes on the wealthy hurts the economy, he is still all for it, because "fairness."

If it were to truly be a help or if based on a simple mathematical formula we needed it to be done for the good of everyone, then I'd be all for it. But it's not that at all, it's class warfare nonsense and Obama simply doesn't think that it's fair that the successful have accumulated more wealth than others and he's going to rectify that by taking some of it away.


Citataion needed on "point 1"

I love the second point too from the GOPers. Hey, the tax increase won't pay for ALL of the defecit... might as well do nothing, am i right?

But hey, go on thinking people paying 15% on dividends whilst I work and pay 40% in taxes in to Feds, SSDI, and Medicare is fair.
 
2012-12-14 12:57:58 PM  
"they drive Subarus rather than Jaguars"

I was talking to a local teacher the other day, he works in a not so great district. Some of the kids were going on a field trip to a "restaurant" I think it was Applebee's or some other franchise. They were trying to teach the kids how to act in a restaurant setting since many of them had never been to one.

There are kids in my city, that have never been in a restaurant, any restaurant. My guess is mom and dad don't even own a car even though mass transit here is pathetic.

There is a divide, hell even between lower middle class, and the poor. We simply do not know what their world is like...
 
2012-12-14 12:58:19 PM  
Rich people crying about taxes and not having their ass kissed the President of the United States makes me feel stabby. Makes me want to make musical instruments out of their body parts, and compose a symphony dedicated to the poor poor rich people.
 
2012-12-14 12:59:11 PM  
"My wife and I collectively make over that," says Bernie Grimm, an attorney in Washington, D.C., "but with three kids and two in college, that's not a lot of money."

What is your after-deductions taxable income? If it is still over $250K, then yea, that IS a lot of money. How much over $250K is your taxable income? 10K? 50k? An extra 4% on 50K is $2000. If your TAXABLE income is $300K, even in Washington, DC with 3 kids and 2 in college, yea that IS a lot of farking money and even so, your taxes would go up $2000... about $165 a MONTH!

The more tax someone would pay as a result of the tax increase, the less it will hurt them because it means they are making a farking shiat-ton of money!
 
2012-12-14 01:01:41 PM  

pacified: Silly Jesus: 1. When the tax rates were previously lowered, the economy benefited.
2. The raising of the taxes will add a negligent amount of money to the coffers.
3. Obama has admitted that even if raising taxes on the wealthy hurts the economy, he is still all for it, because "fairness."

If it were to truly be a help or if based on a simple mathematical formula we needed it to be done for the good of everyone, then I'd be all for it. But it's not that at all, it's class warfare nonsense and Obama simply doesn't think that it's fair that the successful have accumulated more wealth than others and he's going to rectify that by taking some of it away.

Citataion needed on "point 1"

I love the second point too from the GOPers. Hey, the tax increase won't pay for ALL of the defecit... might as well do nothing, am i right?

But hey, go on thinking people paying 15% on dividends whilst I work and pay 40% in taxes in to Feds, SSDI, and Medicare is fair.


Don't you understand that dividends income is superior to income derived through labor? Labor is for the lazy poors, and should therefore be punished. So that maybe, in the future, you'll learn to be rich, and make your money through dividends, instead of a lazy poor who works 60+ hours a week.
 
2012-12-14 01:02:27 PM  

pacified: Silly Jesus: 1. When the tax rates were previously lowered, the economy benefited.
2. The raising of the taxes will add a negligent amount of money to the coffers.
3. Obama has admitted that even if raising taxes on the wealthy hurts the economy, he is still all for it, because "fairness."

If it were to truly be a help or if based on a simple mathematical formula we needed it to be done for the good of everyone, then I'd be all for it. But it's not that at all, it's class warfare nonsense and Obama simply doesn't think that it's fair that the successful have accumulated more wealth than others and he's going to rectify that by taking some of it away.

Citataion needed on "point 1"

I love the second point too from the GOPers. Hey, the tax increase won't pay for ALL of the defecit... might as well do nothing, am i right?

But hey, go on thinking people paying 15% on dividends whilst I work and pay 40% in taxes in to Feds, SSDI, and Medicare is fair.


You're dividend tax rate is also 15% and their income tax rate is also 40%.
 
2012-12-14 01:02:30 PM  
he thinks Obama and other Democrats make being rich "sound like a bad thing,"

"Instead, you're made to feel like you're a bad guy," Krall says.


When and how has this happened?

*crickets*
 
2012-12-14 01:03:27 PM  

LectertheChef: pacified: Silly Jesus: 1. When the tax rates were previously lowered, the economy benefited.
2. The raising of the taxes will add a negligent amount of money to the coffers.
3. Obama has admitted that even if raising taxes on the wealthy hurts the economy, he is still all for it, because "fairness."

If it were to truly be a help or if based on a simple mathematical formula we needed it to be done for the good of everyone, then I'd be all for it. But it's not that at all, it's class warfare nonsense and Obama simply doesn't think that it's fair that the successful have accumulated more wealth than others and he's going to rectify that by taking some of it away.

Citataion needed on "point 1"

I love the second point too from the GOPers. Hey, the tax increase won't pay for ALL of the defecit... might as well do nothing, am i right?

But hey, go on thinking people paying 15% on dividends whilst I work and pay 40% in taxes in to Feds, SSDI, and Medicare is fair.

Don't you understand that dividends income is superior to income derived through labor? Labor is for the lazy poors, and should therefore be punished. So that maybe, in the future, you'll learn to be rich, and make your money through dividends, instead of a lazy poor who works 60+ hours a week.


Incentive for investment, how does it work?

You mean that higher risk = greater reward? Strange concept. Durr.
 
2012-12-14 01:03:30 PM  

pacified: Silly Jesus: 1. When the tax rates were previously lowered, the economy benefited.
2. The raising of the taxes will add a negligent amount of money to the coffers.
3. Obama has admitted that even if raising taxes on the wealthy hurts the economy, he is still all for it, because "fairness."

If it were to truly be a help or if based on a simple mathematical formula we needed it to be done for the good of everyone, then I'd be all for it. But it's not that at all, it's class warfare nonsense and Obama simply doesn't think that it's fair that the successful have accumulated more wealth than others and he's going to rectify that by taking some of it away.

Citataion needed on "point 1"

I love the second point too from the GOPers. Hey, the tax increase won't pay for ALL of the defecit... might as well do nothing, am i right?

But hey, go on thinking people paying 15% on dividends whilst I work and pay 40% in taxes in to Feds, SSDI, and Medicare is fair.


If you're arguing that raising taxes on the wealthy won't reduce the deficit enough, how do you justify cutting entitlements when that will reduce the deficit by a much smaller amount?
 
2012-12-14 01:03:35 PM  

Brian Ryanberger: That's right liberal America go ahead and tax rich people until there are no rich people any more and then you will wonder why everybody is poor.


Hey Brian, oh wow account made yesterday and you are already trolling new threads.

Tell us how you love America now.
 
2012-12-14 01:04:20 PM  
Since 1944, the United States has only raised taxes on the rich twice-in 1992 and 1994. What followed those tax increases was one of the greatest economic booms in American history.

The two tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that heavily favored the wealthy resulted in the worst job and GDP growth of any administration since Eisenhower.
 
2012-12-14 01:04:52 PM  

DarwiOdrade: If you're arguing that raising taxes on the wealthy won't reduce the deficit enough, how do you justify cutting entitlements when that will reduce the deficit by a much smaller amount?


And by "you" I mean the idiot pacified replied to.
 
2012-12-14 01:07:27 PM  

LectertheChef: Makes me want to make musical instruments out of their body parts


what like a flute
 
2012-12-14 01:08:54 PM  

mrshowrules: sweetmelissa31: Also in that article: a man claiming that > $250K per year is not a lot of money because he has 3 kids. Maybe it's your penis's fault and not Oblomov's.

Agreed. $250K in a 5 person household is not a fortune but is not bad. In the context of tax it is $250K a person which is quite a bit of money by any standard.


I make half that, have 2 kids, and I think everyone in my bracket and above should pay a little more. I am by no means rich (mostly because I am fairly new to this level of income and I have debt from mistakes I made in the past) but if effective tax rate went up 2% it would make a difference but I would have the ability to adjust.

Back when I was making 30k I would have adjusted just the same, because would have had to, but it would have been by making much tougher choices and it would have made a noticeable impact in the quality of life my family was enjoying at the time.

We ran up a huge bar tab, we need to pay it back by cutting spending AND increasing revenue. I have a pretty kick ass life, I can kick in a little more than most.
 
2012-12-14 01:09:41 PM  
"What would make me feel a lot better is if I heard the president say, 'I want to thank the rich people who, because of our progressive tax system, pay the most - but we don't have enough money, so we're asking the wealthy people to help the country out by paying more than their fair share,' " says Martin Krall, a 71-year-old "semi-retired" attorney and media executive who lives in Palm Beach Gardens, Fla.

"Instead, you're made to feel like you're a bad guy," Krall says. "People resent the notion that somehow they've done something wrong by becoming successful."


THIS
 
2012-12-14 01:11:20 PM  

sweetmelissa31: Also in that article: a man claiming that > $250K per year is not a lot of money because he has 3 kids. Maybe it's your penis's fault and not Oblomov's.


On the one hand, $300K for a family of five isn't super-rich. On the other hand, if they take the standard deductions and nothing else, they'll pay only a grand more on taxes with the increase. More likely, with health care plans and 401(k)s and a home mortgage, they won't be affected by this tax increase at all.

We're talking what, 150K a year in take home pay? If you can't live on that, you've got issues. And you have to make more than that to be affected AT ALL by the tax increase.
 
2012-12-14 01:12:17 PM  

Silly Jesus: 1. When the tax rates were previously lowered, the economy benefited.


Liar.

Link

graphics8.nytimes.com
 
2012-12-14 01:15:37 PM  

Silly Jesus: pacified: Silly Jesus: 1. When the tax rates were previously lowered, the economy benefited.
2. The raising of the taxes will add a negligent amount of money to the coffers.
3. Obama has admitted that even if raising taxes on the wealthy hurts the economy, he is still all for it, because "fairness."

If it were to truly be a help or if based on a simple mathematical formula we needed it to be done for the good of everyone, then I'd be all for it. But it's not that at all, it's class warfare nonsense and Obama simply doesn't think that it's fair that the successful have accumulated more wealth than others and he's going to rectify that by taking some of it away.

Citataion needed on "point 1"

I love the second point too from the GOPers. Hey, the tax increase won't pay for ALL of the defecit... might as well do nothing, am i right?

But hey, go on thinking people paying 15% on dividends whilst I work and pay 40% in taxes in to Feds, SSDI, and Medicare is fair.

You're dividend tax rate is also 15% and their income tax rate is also 40%.


Yes, but I didn't inherit millions of shares of stock, nor is my primary income from dividends.

And "risk of investing"? Ha! Investing is a choice. You don't have to. You don't want to risk losing your money, put it in a CD. Why should you get special benefits?

Income is income is income is income is income. There is nothing more special about a dividend v. labor. None. Just because some rich people paid some nerds to come up with word salad to justify it doesn't make it true.
 
2012-12-14 01:15:45 PM  

Silly Jesus: Durr.


Yo, mod alt. Question for you:

As a percentage of your income, how much are you, personally, willing to pay in additional taxes if it means:

1) Everybody gets health care.
2) The economy gets stronger.
3) The federal budget gets under control.

I'm willing to spend 4% on that. Are you?
 
2012-12-14 01:15:51 PM  

Silly Jesus: LectertheChef: pacified: Silly Jesus: 1. When the tax rates were previously lowered, the economy benefited.
2. The raising of the taxes will add a negligent amount of money to the coffers.
3. Obama has admitted that even if raising taxes on the wealthy hurts the economy, he is still all for it, because "fairness."

If it were to truly be a help or if based on a simple mathematical formula we needed it to be done for the good of everyone, then I'd be all for it. But it's not that at all, it's class warfare nonsense and Obama simply doesn't think that it's fair that the successful have accumulated more wealth than others and he's going to rectify that by taking some of it away.

Citataion needed on "point 1"

I love the second point too from the GOPers. Hey, the tax increase won't pay for ALL of the defecit... might as well do nothing, am i right?

But hey, go on thinking people paying 15% on dividends whilst I work and pay 40% in taxes in to Feds, SSDI, and Medicare is fair.

Don't you understand that dividends income is superior to income derived through labor? Labor is for the lazy poors, and should therefore be punished. So that maybe, in the future, you'll learn to be rich, and make your money through dividends, instead of a lazy poor who works 60+ hours a week.

Incentive for investment, how does it work?

You mean that higher risk = greater reward? Strange concept. Durr.


Wouldn't the greater reward be the dividends from a successful investment? Why should one get a government reward from a successful private investment? Also, FTFA: "There's nothing in history that supports the view that if you give the wealthy their money back, they'll invest it," says Prince, who owns a company based in Nolensville, Tenn., that makes gift cards. "We invest anyway - that's what the wealthy do."
That particular job creator seems to suggest that tax rates have nothing to do with investing.
 
2012-12-14 01:15:59 PM  

Silly Jesus: pacified: Silly Jesus: 1. When the tax rates were previously lowered, the economy benefited.
2. The raising of the taxes will add a negligent amount of money to the coffers.
3. Obama has admitted that even if raising taxes on the wealthy hurts the economy, he is still all for it, because "fairness."

If it were to truly be a help or if based on a simple mathematical formula we needed it to be done for the good of everyone, then I'd be all for it. But it's not that at all, it's class warfare nonsense and Obama simply doesn't think that it's fair that the successful have accumulated more wealth than others and he's going to rectify that by taking some of it away.

Citataion needed on "point 1"

I love the second point too from the GOPers. Hey, the tax increase won't pay for ALL of the defecit... might as well do nothing, am i right?

But hey, go on thinking people paying 15% on dividends whilst I work and pay 40% in taxes in to Feds, SSDI, and Medicare is fair.

You're dividend tax rate is also 15% and their income tax rate is also 40%.


And everyone knows that the middle class rack up huge chunks of income through dividends. That preferential treatment of dividends was clearly put in place to benefit the middle class.

*rolls eyes*
 
2012-12-14 01:17:46 PM  

geek_mars: Wouldn't the greater reward be the dividends from a successful investment? Why should one get a government reward from a successful private investment? Also, FTFA: "There's nothing in history that supports the view that if you give the wealthy their money back, they'll invest it," says Prince, who owns a company based in Nolensville, Tenn., that makes gift cards. "We invest anyway - that's what the wealthy do."
That particular job creator seems to suggest that tax rates have nothing to do with investing.


LIBERAL PLANT! He probably isn't even rich! Sounds like "new money" at best!
 
2012-12-14 01:18:21 PM  

Silly Jesus: "What would make me feel a lot better is if I heard the president say, 'I want to thank the rich people who, because of our progressive tax system, pay the most - but we don't have enough money, so we're asking the wealthy people to help the country out by paying more than their fair share,' " says Martin Krall, a 71-year-old "semi-retired" attorney and media executive who lives in Palm Beach Gardens, Fla.

"Instead, you're made to feel like you're a bad guy," Krall says. "People resent the notion that somehow they've done something wrong by becoming successful."

THIS


When and how was he 'made to feel like he is a bad guy'?
 
2012-12-14 01:18:54 PM  
If these people love the idea of kicking in more, why aren't they posting pictures of their tax returns with a big fat zero on the exemptions and credits portion? It is easy to pay more, why not do it instead of just talking about it?
 
2012-12-14 01:20:18 PM  

jst3p: geek_mars: Wouldn't the greater reward be the dividends from a successful investment? Why should one get a government reward from a successful private investment? Also, FTFA: "There's nothing in history that supports the view that if you give the wealthy their money back, they'll invest it," says Prince, who owns a company based in Nolensville, Tenn., that makes gift cards. "We invest anyway - that's what the wealthy do."
That particular job creator seems to suggest that tax rates have nothing to do with investing.

LIBERAL PLANT! He probably isn't even rich! Sounds like "new money" at best!


RINO = rich in news only
 
2012-12-14 01:20:24 PM  

jst3p: geek_mars: Wouldn't the greater reward be the dividends from a successful investment? Why should one get a government reward from a successful private investment? Also, FTFA: "There's nothing in history that supports the view that if you give the wealthy their money back, they'll invest it," says Prince, who owns a company based in Nolensville, Tenn., that makes gift cards. "We invest anyway - that's what the wealthy do."
That particular job creator seems to suggest that tax rates have nothing to do with investing.

LIBERAL PLANT! He probably isn't even rich! Sounds like "new money" at best!


New keyboard, I haz needz one.
 
2012-12-14 01:21:24 PM  

Deathray187: If these people love the idea of kicking in more, why aren't they posting pictures of their tax returns with a big fat zero on the exemptions and credits portion? It is easy to pay more, why not do it instead of just talking about it?


I am willing to pay more, but only if everyone with equal or greater income to my own does too. Why is that so hard to grasp?
 
2012-12-14 01:22:00 PM  

monoski: jst3p: geek_mars: Wouldn't the greater reward be the dividends from a successful investment? Why should one get a government reward from a successful private investment? Also, FTFA: "There's nothing in history that supports the view that if you give the wealthy their money back, they'll invest it," says Prince, who owns a company based in Nolensville, Tenn., that makes gift cards. "We invest anyway - that's what the wealthy do."
That particular job creator seems to suggest that tax rates have nothing to do with investing.

LIBERAL PLANT! He probably isn't even rich! Sounds like "new money" at best!

RINO = rich in news only


Nicely done.
 
2012-12-14 01:23:22 PM  
"There's nothing in history that supports the view that if you give the wealthy their money back, they'll invest it," says Prince, who owns a company based in Nolensville, Tenn., that makes gift cards. "We invest anyway - that's what the wealthy do."


This guy is an idiot.
 
2012-12-14 01:24:08 PM  

pacified: Silly Jesus: pacified: Silly Jesus: 1. When the tax rates were previously lowered, the economy benefited.
2. The raising of the taxes will add a negligent amount of money to the coffers.
3. Obama has admitted that even if raising taxes on the wealthy hurts the economy, he is still all for it, because "fairness."

If it were to truly be a help or if based on a simple mathematical formula we needed it to be done for the good of everyone, then I'd be all for it. But it's not that at all, it's class warfare nonsense and Obama simply doesn't think that it's fair that the successful have accumulated more wealth than others and he's going to rectify that by taking some of it away.

Citataion needed on "point 1"

I love the second point too from the GOPers. Hey, the tax increase won't pay for ALL of the defecit... might as well do nothing, am i right?

But hey, go on thinking people paying 15% on dividends whilst I work and pay 40% in taxes in to Feds, SSDI, and Medicare is fair.

You're dividend tax rate is also 15% and their income tax rate is also 40%.

Yes, but I didn't inherit millions of shares of stock, nor is my primary income from dividends.

And "risk of investing"? Ha! Investing is a choice. You don't have to. You don't want to risk losing your money, put it in a CD. Why should you get special benefits?

Income is income is income is income is income. There is nothing more special about a dividend v. labor. None. Just because some rich people paid some nerds to come up with word salad to justify it doesn't make it true.


Their investments are needed, so they is an incentive (large reward) in place to encourage the investment.

Also, I love that you are one of those that think all rich people inherited their wealth. Keep farking that lie.
 
2012-12-14 01:25:04 PM  

Pro Zack: "There's nothing in history that supports the view that if you give the wealthy their money back, they'll invest it," says Prince, who owns a company based in Nolensville, Tenn., that makes gift cards. "We invest anyway - that's what the wealthy do."


This guy is an idiot.


We can only assume you've got contradictory evidence, then.
 
2012-12-14 01:25:22 PM  

Jackson Herring: Let me sum up the entire article:

"It won't effect me at all, but gosh I hate that President Ovronsky"


Rich people want to have an affair with Obama, then throw themselves in front of a train?
 
2012-12-14 01:25:26 PM  

The Jami Turman Fan Club: Silly Jesus: Durr.

Yo, mod alt. Question for you:

As a percentage of your income, how much are you, personally, willing to pay in additional taxes if it means:

1) Everybody gets health care.
2) The economy gets stronger.
3) The federal budget gets under control.

I'm willing to spend 4% on that. Are you?


If I'm already paying 37% of all taxes and a great portion of people aren't paying any? Sort of changes the whole "it's just 4% more" BS doesn't it?
 
2012-12-14 01:25:58 PM  

theknuckler_33: And everyone knows that the middle class rack up huge chunks of income through dividends. That preferential treatment of dividends was clearly put in place to benefit the middle class.

*rolls eyes*


do you even have a 401K?
 
2012-12-14 01:26:19 PM  

Elandriel: I like the bit about how the top 1% pay 37.4% of the income taxes. GOSH!! But, that's low - they take in what like 54%* of the national yearly income or something? And control 90+% of the wealth?

I think their tax rate should be equivalent to their share of income adjusted nationally. If the top 1% get 54% of the income, or whatever, they should be providing 54% of the income taxes.

* probably wrong


It's definitely wrong. The top 1% bring in 11% of all income and pay 37.4% of all income taxes. By your logic they are overtaxed.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/10/30/nyregion/where-the-one- p ercent-fit-in-the-hierarchy-of-income.html

I agree with the sentiment in the article that the people at the top of the income chain pay their fair share of taxes, and they shouldn't be vilified for not paying enough. Those who are making millions of dollars on capital gains however are clearly not paying their fair share. It's disgusting that someone like Romney can get by only paying 14% on their millions of dollars of income.
 
2012-12-14 01:27:00 PM  

Arkanaut: Jackson Herring: Let me sum up the entire article:

"It won't effect me at all, but gosh I hate that President Ovronsky"

Rich people want to have an affair with Obama, then throw themselves in front of a train?


They were already married to Romenin, so it's hard to go out in public with Ovronsky. People talk.
 
2012-12-14 01:27:16 PM  

geek_mars: Silly Jesus: LectertheChef: pacified: Silly Jesus: 1. When the tax rates were previously lowered, the economy benefited.
2. The raising of the taxes will add a negligent amount of money to the coffers.
3. Obama has admitted that even if raising taxes on the wealthy hurts the economy, he is still all for it, because "fairness."

If it were to truly be a help or if based on a simple mathematical formula we needed it to be done for the good of everyone, then I'd be all for it. But it's not that at all, it's class warfare nonsense and Obama simply doesn't think that it's fair that the successful have accumulated more wealth than others and he's going to rectify that by taking some of it away.

Citataion needed on "point 1"

I love the second point too from the GOPers. Hey, the tax increase won't pay for ALL of the defecit... might as well do nothing, am i right?

But hey, go on thinking people paying 15% on dividends whilst I work and pay 40% in taxes in to Feds, SSDI, and Medicare is fair.

Don't you understand that dividends income is superior to income derived through labor? Labor is for the lazy poors, and should therefore be punished. So that maybe, in the future, you'll learn to be rich, and make your money through dividends, instead of a lazy poor who works 60+ hours a week.

Incentive for investment, how does it work?

You mean that higher risk = greater reward? Strange concept. Durr.

Wouldn't the greater reward be the dividends from a successful investment? Why should one get a government reward from a successful private investment? Also, FTFA: "There's nothing in history that supports the view that if you give the wealthy their money back, they'll invest it," says Prince, who owns a company based in Nolensville, Tenn., that makes gift cards. "We invest anyway - that's what the wealthy do."
That particular job creator seems to suggest that tax rates have nothing to do with investing.


One guy. Must be a fact and opinion shared among all of the successful. I know a guy who's cutting back to compensate for tax increases. That means only 1 less job at his particular small business, but I bet he isn't the only one that feels that way just as there are others that feel like your guy.
 
2012-12-14 01:27:23 PM  

quatchi: But he adds that he thinks Obama and other Democrats make being rich "sound like a bad thing," which he says is a mistake.

Spot the FOX viewer in this sentence.


May I suggest that you actually speak to some of these "Democrats" and ask them personally if that's in fact what they believe. Instead of, you know, just going with what someone else is telling you they believe.
 
2012-12-14 01:27:24 PM  

qorkfiend: Pro Zack: "There's nothing in history that supports the view that if you give the wealthy their money back, they'll invest it," says Prince, who owns a company based in Nolensville, Tenn., that makes gift cards. "We invest anyway - that's what the wealthy do."


This guy is an idiot.

We can only assume you've got contradictory evidence, then.


The guy contradicts himself. what will he do with extra money, according to his quote? invest it.
 
2012-12-14 01:28:03 PM  

theknuckler_33: Silly Jesus: pacified: Silly Jesus: 1. When the tax rates were previously lowered, the economy benefited.
2. The raising of the taxes will add a negligent amount of money to the coffers.
3. Obama has admitted that even if raising taxes on the wealthy hurts the economy, he is still all for it, because "fairness."

If it were to truly be a help or if based on a simple mathematical formula we needed it to be done for the good of everyone, then I'd be all for it. But it's not that at all, it's class warfare nonsense and Obama simply doesn't think that it's fair that the successful have accumulated more wealth than others and he's going to rectify that by taking some of it away.

Citataion needed on "point 1"

I love the second point too from the GOPers. Hey, the tax increase won't pay for ALL of the defecit... might as well do nothing, am i right?

But hey, go on thinking people paying 15% on dividends whilst I work and pay 40% in taxes in to Feds, SSDI, and Medicare is fair.

You're dividend tax rate is also 15% and their income tax rate is also 40%.

And everyone knows that the middle class rack up huge chunks of income through dividends. That preferential treatment of dividends was clearly put in place to benefit the middle class.

*rolls eyes*


It was put in place to encourage investment...from anyone, including the middle class.
 
2012-12-14 01:28:37 PM  
Silly Jesus: Keep farking that lie.

lolwut
 
2012-12-14 01:29:17 PM  

theknuckler_33: Silly Jesus: "What would make me feel a lot better is if I heard the president say, 'I want to thank the rich people who, because of our progressive tax system, pay the most - but we don't have enough money, so we're asking the wealthy people to help the country out by paying more than their fair share,' " says Martin Krall, a 71-year-old "semi-retired" attorney and media executive who lives in Palm Beach Gardens, Fla.

"Instead, you're made to feel like you're a bad guy," Krall says. "People resent the notion that somehow they've done something wrong by becoming successful."

THIS

When and how was he 'made to feel like he is a bad guy'?


Read a Fark thread. All of the wealthy are sick sociopaths who inherited all of their wealth and are lazy and do no real work...that's sort of been the liberal talking point for awhile now. You've really not seen it?
 
2012-12-14 01:29:28 PM  

theknuckler_33: "My wife and I collectively make over that," says Bernie Grimm, an attorney in Washington, D.C., "but with three kids and two in college, that's not a lot of money."

What is your after-deductions taxable income? If it is still over $250K, then yea, that IS a lot of money. How much over $250K is your taxable income? 10K? 50k? An extra 4% on 50K is $2000. If your TAXABLE income is $300K, even in Washington, DC with 3 kids and 2 in college, yea that IS a lot of farking money and even so, your taxes would go up $2000... about $165 a MONTH!

The more tax someone would pay as a result of the tax increase, the less it will hurt them because it means they are making a farking shiat-ton of money!


It is hilarious how little this guy knows about how the tax code works. If he's just a little over $250,000 in total income, there is no chance at all he's affected by the tax increase at all after the ~~$18,000 reduction in taxable income from 5 personal exemptions and probably about $40,000 in itemized deductions.that is standard for his income group.
 
2012-12-14 01:30:48 PM  

Silly Jesus: 1. When the tax rates were previously lowered, the economy benefited.
2. The raising of the taxes will add a negligent amount of money to the coffers.
3. Obama has admitted that even if raising taxes on the wealthy hurts the economy, he is still all for it, because "fairness."

If it were to truly be a help or if based on a simple mathematical formula we needed it to be done for the good of everyone, then I'd be all for it. But it's not that at all, it's class warfare nonsense and Obama simply doesn't think that it's fair that the successful have accumulated more wealth than others and he's going to rectify that by taking some of it away.


Jesus, you're silly.
 
2012-12-14 01:31:26 PM  

tstrimp: Elandriel: I like the bit about how the top 1% pay 37.4% of the income taxes. GOSH!! But, that's low - they take in what like 54%* of the national yearly income or something? And control 90+% of the wealth?

I think their tax rate should be equivalent to their share of income adjusted nationally. If the top 1% get 54% of the income, or whatever, they should be providing 54% of the income taxes.

* probably wrong

It's definitely wrong. The top 1% bring in 11% of all income and pay 37.4% of all income taxes. By your logic they are overtaxed.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/10/30/nyregion/where-the-one- p ercent-fit-in-the-hierarchy-of-income.html

I agree with the sentiment in the article that the people at the top of the income chain pay their fair share of taxes, and they shouldn't be vilified for not paying enough. Those who are making millions of dollars on capital gains however are clearly not paying their fair share. It's disgusting that someone like Romney can get by only paying 14% on their millions of dollars of income.


What percentage of the country's income taxes WOULD it be fair for 1% of the population to pay?
 
2012-12-14 01:32:01 PM  

urbangirl: Silly Jesus: 1. When the tax rates were previously lowered, the economy benefited.
2. The raising of the taxes will add a negligent amount of money to the coffers.
3. Obama has admitted that even if raising taxes on the wealthy hurts the economy, he is still all for it, because "fairness."

If it were to truly be a help or if based on a simple mathematical formula we needed it to be done for the good of everyone, then I'd be all for it. But it's not that at all, it's class warfare nonsense and Obama simply doesn't think that it's fair that the successful have accumulated more wealth than others and he's going to rectify that by taking some of it away.

Jesus, you're silly.


Tee-hee!
 
2012-12-14 01:36:33 PM  

Cinaed: "My wife and I collectively make over that," says Bernie Grimm, an attorney in Washington, D.C., "but with three kids and two in college, that's not a lot of money." ~FTFA


You can actually afford to send your kids to college. And I'm guessing that they aren't going to NOVA, you sanctimonious douchebag.
Other, lower income, groups can go to college... with loans, lots of loans. Your kids will come away debt free.

Now, we don't dislike your relative wealth. Far from it. We do, however, get pissy when you somehow think that your paying the same rate as the dirt poor is a 'bad' thing.


Can there be a middle-ground statement? My wife and I make close to that. We live in the New York Metro area (Hoboken). We do not live nearly as well as somebody making that much money in Ohio or Kansas or Montana. Not even close.
BUT, we consider ourselves very very lucky, and wealthy, and we are ready to fork over more cash so others don't have to. Fair is fair.
 
2012-12-14 01:38:01 PM  

Pro Zack: theknuckler_33: And everyone knows that the middle class rack up huge chunks of income through dividends. That preferential treatment of dividends was clearly put in place to benefit the middle class.

*rolls eyes*

do you even have a 401K?


Of course, what does that have to do with anything? Dividends on your 401k investments (well, at least mine) are immediately reinvested (again, pre-tax, just like my contributions) into the plan. I won't pay taxes until I withdraw funds after, hopefully, I retire, at which time those withdrawals will be taxes as regular income.
 
2012-12-14 01:38:11 PM  

jst3p: Deathray187: If these people love the idea of kicking in more, why aren't they posting pictures of their tax returns with a big fat zero on the exemptions and credits portion? It is easy to pay more, why not do it instead of just talking about it?

I am willing to pay more, but only if everyone with equal or greater income to my own does too. Why is that so hard to grasp?


Ideas so good they have to be mandatory...
 
2012-12-14 01:38:43 PM  

Pro Zack: qorkfiend: Pro Zack: "There's nothing in history that supports the view that if you give the wealthy their money back, they'll invest it," says Prince, who owns a company based in Nolensville, Tenn., that makes gift cards. "We invest anyway - that's what the wealthy do."


This guy is an idiot.

We can only assume you've got contradictory evidence, then.

The guy contradicts himself. what will he do with extra money, according to his quote? invest it.


You really are this dumb, aren't you?

He is saying you don't need to give wealthy people incentive to invest, that's what wealthy people do.
 
2012-12-14 01:39:58 PM  

Pro Zack: qorkfiend: Pro Zack: "There's nothing in history that supports the view that if you give the wealthy their money back, they'll invest it," says Prince, who owns a company based in Nolensville, Tenn., that makes gift cards. "We invest anyway - that's what the wealthy do."


This guy is an idiot.

We can only assume you've got contradictory evidence, then.

The guy contradicts himself. what will he do with extra money, according to his quote? invest it.


Wrong. What he said was he wouldn't stop investing if he had slightly less money.
 
2012-12-14 01:40:08 PM  

Silly Jesus: The Jami Turman Fan Club: Silly Jesus: Durr.

Yo, mod alt. Question for you:

As a percentage of your income, how much are you, personally, willing to pay in additional taxes if it means:

1) Everybody gets health care.
2) The economy gets stronger.
3) The federal budget gets under control.

I'm willing to spend 4% on that. Are you?

If I'm already paying 37% of all taxes and control 80% of the wealth and a great portion of people aren't paying any and are living under the poverty line? Sort of changes the whole "it's just 4% more" BS doesn't it?

 

You are an embarassment of a human being and you should be ashamed.
 
2012-12-14 01:40:15 PM  

Deathray187: jst3p: Deathray187: If these people love the idea of kicking in more, why aren't they posting pictures of their tax returns with a big fat zero on the exemptions and credits portion? It is easy to pay more, why not do it instead of just talking about it?

I am willing to pay more, but only if everyone with equal or greater income to my own does too. Why is that so hard to grasp?

Ideas so good they have to be mandatory...


By your logic we should just abolish income tax all together, peopel will all pay their fair share without it being mandatory right?
 
2012-12-14 01:41:39 PM  

sweetmelissa31: Arkanaut: Jackson Herring: Let me sum up the entire article:

"It won't effect me at all, but gosh I hate that President Ovronsky"

Rich people want to have an affair with Obama, then throw themselves in front of a train?

They were already married to Romenin, so it's hard to go out in public with Ovronsky. People talk.


Ahhhh Anne Romenina.
 
2012-12-14 01:44:08 PM  

Silly Jesus: Read a Fark thread. All of the wealthy are sick sociopaths who inherited all of their wealth and are lazy and do no real work...that's sort of been the liberal talking point for awhile now. You've really not seen it?


No, we haven't seen the imaginary liberals in your head and what they post on your alternate reality Fark.
 
2012-12-14 01:44:54 PM  

urbangirl: Silly Jesus: The Jami Turman Fan Club: Silly Jesus: Durr.

Yo, mod alt. Question for you:

As a percentage of your income, how much are you, personally, willing to pay in additional taxes if it means:

1) Everybody gets health care.
2) The economy gets stronger.
3) The federal budget gets under control.

I'm willing to spend 4% on that. Are you?

If I'm already paying 37% of all taxes and control 80% of the wealth and a great portion of people aren't paying any and are living under the poverty line? Sort of changes the whole "it's just 4% more" BS doesn't it? 

You are an embarassment of a human being and you should be ashamed.


From each according to his ability, to each according to his need, amiright?
 
2012-12-14 01:45:30 PM  

Teufelaffe: Silly Jesus: Read a Fark thread. All of the wealthy are sick sociopaths who inherited all of their wealth and are lazy and do no real work...that's sort of been the liberal talking point for awhile now. You've really not seen it?

No, we haven't seen the imaginary liberals in your head and what they post on your alternate reality Fark.


Selective reading on your part I reckon.
 
2012-12-14 01:45:37 PM  

Silly Jesus: theknuckler_33: Silly Jesus: pacified: Silly Jesus: 1. When the tax rates were previously lowered, the economy benefited.
2. The raising of the taxes will add a negligent amount of money to the coffers.
3. Obama has admitted that even if raising taxes on the wealthy hurts the economy, he is still all for it, because "fairness."

If it were to truly be a help or if based on a simple mathematical formula we needed it to be done for the good of everyone, then I'd be all for it. But it's not that at all, it's class warfare nonsense and Obama simply doesn't think that it's fair that the successful have accumulated more wealth than others and he's going to rectify that by taking some of it away.

Citataion needed on "point 1"

I love the second point too from the GOPers. Hey, the tax increase won't pay for ALL of the defecit... might as well do nothing, am i right?

But hey, go on thinking people paying 15% on dividends whilst I work and pay 40% in taxes in to Feds, SSDI, and Medicare is fair.

You're dividend tax rate is also 15% and their income tax rate is also 40%.

And everyone knows that the middle class rack up huge chunks of income through dividends. That preferential treatment of dividends was clearly put in place to benefit the middle class.

*rolls eyes*

It was put in place to encourage investment...from anyone, including the middle class.


Of course. The already rich invest 10s, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars on dividend paying stocks of well-established companies acquiring thousands and thousands of shares and making thousands upon thousands of dollars taxed at 15%. The middle-class, after putting away whatever they can into their 401K, might be lucky enough to have a few hundred dollars or maybe even a couple grand to buy some stocks... you know, maybe 3-4 shares of Apple, for example. God forbid they need a new roof on their house or the engine in their car takes a shiat on them and they have to sell those stock before a year goes by and pay regular income on whatever capital gains they might make on the short term holdings. Yea, that was put in place for everyone. Totally. I remember the big middle-class swell of support for that when it was being proposed because of how much it was going to benefit joe six pack.
 
2012-12-14 01:46:20 PM  

Deathray187: jst3p: Deathray187: If these people love the idea of kicking in more, why aren't they posting pictures of their tax returns with a big fat zero on the exemptions and credits portion? It is easy to pay more, why not do it instead of just talking about it?

I am willing to pay more, but only if everyone with equal or greater income to my own does too. Why is that so hard to grasp?

Ideas so good they have to be mandatory...


Yeah, voluntary charity has been so successful at alleviating poverty and suffering.
 
2012-12-14 01:46:36 PM  

Silly Jesus: 1. When the tax rates were previously lowered, the economy benefited.
2. The raising of the taxes will add a negligent amount of money to the coffers.
3. Obama has admitted that even if raising taxes on the wealthy hurts the economy, he is still all for it, because "fairness."

If it were to truly be a help or if based on a simple mathematical formula we needed it to be done for the good of everyone, then I'd be all for it. But it's not that at all, it's class warfare nonsense and Obama simply doesn't think that it's fair that the successful have accumulated more wealth than others and he's going to rectify that by taking some of it away.


On your points, in order:
1. Actually, you have it exactly backwards. Some of the most prosperous times for the US economy have been when we had MUCH higher top marginal tax rates. Our economy was booming when the top marginal tax rate was 91%. Wealth has its own sort of gravity - wealth attracts more wealth. If you don't keep it flowing through the economy with taxes it will simply accumulate in the hands of the very wealthy, and make it progressively more difficult for everyone else in society to improve their lot in life.

2. It depends by how much, but you're factually incorrect there. The extremely MODEST tax increases being suggested by the Obama administration would raise somewhere around 1 and 1/2 trillion dollars. If you think well over a trillion dollars is negligable (you said "negligent", but I'm sure negligable is the word you were looking for) then you're simply being obstinate.

3. When did he say that? I've heard no such thing. Could you provide a citation, please? The justifications I've heard from the Obama administration are actually the opposite of what you've claimed - that the extra taxes are necessary to help keep our economy healthy going forward.

As far as class warfare... We ALREADY are in a state of class warfare, and have been for around three decades now. And the poor and middle class have been getting their asses utterly and absolutely kicked. Both wages and household wealth for the lower and middle classes have sunk over the last few decades. Meanwhile, the very, very, very most wealthy (think the 0.1%) have been who that wealth has been being plundered by - and they now hold an incredibly disproportiate amount of the wealth in society. It's not the just rewards of a hardworking few, it's the spoils of the class warfare they've been waging against the rest of the society using the changes to the law that they've been purchasing.

This is a HUGE problem for the economy. As the wealth continues to accumulate in the hands of the few the purchasing power of the rest of society plummets. That purchasing power IS the strength of the US economy. If current trends continue the middle class and poor will continue to be able to afford less and less as time goes on. What good exactly is investing in businesses that no one can afford to purchase from any more? The lower that purchasing power of the hoi poloi drops, the weaker and less able to recover from shocks and downturns our economy becomes.

The wealthy will ALWAYS invest their wealth, where else do you think they're going to keep it? Under their mattresses? But those investments aren't necessarily job creating investments. The middle class wealth is the job engine of our economy, as that's where the small businesses which will become our future big businesses so often begin. But if the poor and middle class have both less and less purchasing power and less household wealth those small businesses will increasingly have too few customers and will be started less and less frequently without the wealth to invest in entrepenurial endeavors.
 
2012-12-14 01:48:24 PM  

Silly Jesus: If I'm already paying 37% of all taxes and a great portion of people aren't paying any federal income tax, but still pay a myriad of other taxes, but I already knew that, I'm just a disingenuous douche?


FTFY, douche
 
2012-12-14 01:48:26 PM  

theknuckler_33: Silly Jesus: theknuckler_33: Silly Jesus: pacified: Silly Jesus: 1. When the tax rates were previously lowered, the economy benefited.
2. The raising of the taxes will add a negligent amount of money to the coffers.
3. Obama has admitted that even if raising taxes on the wealthy hurts the economy, he is still all for it, because "fairness."

If it were to truly be a help or if based on a simple mathematical formula we needed it to be done for the good of everyone, then I'd be all for it. But it's not that at all, it's class warfare nonsense and Obama simply doesn't think that it's fair that the successful have accumulated more wealth than others and he's going to rectify that by taking some of it away.

Citataion needed on "point 1"

I love the second point too from the GOPers. Hey, the tax increase won't pay for ALL of the defecit... might as well do nothing, am i right?

But hey, go on thinking people paying 15% on dividends whilst I work and pay 40% in taxes in to Feds, SSDI, and Medicare is fair.

You're dividend tax rate is also 15% and their income tax rate is also 40%.

And everyone knows that the middle class rack up huge chunks of income through dividends. That preferential treatment of dividends was clearly put in place to benefit the middle class.

*rolls eyes*

It was put in place to encourage investment...from anyone, including the middle class.

Of course. The already rich invest 10s, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars on dividend paying stocks of well-established companies acquiring thousands and thousands of shares and making thousands upon thousands of dollars taxed at 15%. The middle-class, after putting away whatever they can into their 401K, might be lucky enough to have a few hundred dollars or maybe even a couple grand to buy some stocks... you know, maybe 3-4 shares of Apple, for example. God forbid they need a new roof on their house or the engine in their car takes a shiat on them and they have to sell those stock before a year goe ...


Everyone is completely equal and everyone, no matter their accomplishments in life should have the same end result. A participation trophy, if you will.
 
2012-12-14 01:49:16 PM  
What percentage of the country's income taxes WOULD it be fair for 1% of the population to pay?

Commensurate to their share of income would be "fair". However I don't think the taxes need to be fair. Lets call it what it is though and not pretend like the top 10% aren't already bearing the burden of the entire country. I think fixing the capital gains tax would go a long way toward taking the undeserved attention off the evil wage earners making over $250k.
 
2012-12-14 01:50:38 PM  

Silly Jesus: theknuckler_33: Silly Jesus: "What would make me feel a lot better is if I heard the president say, 'I want to thank the rich people who, because of our progressive tax system, pay the most - but we don't have enough money, so we're asking the wealthy people to help the country out by paying more than their fair share,' " says Martin Krall, a 71-year-old "semi-retired" attorney and media executive who lives in Palm Beach Gardens, Fla.

"Instead, you're made to feel like you're a bad guy," Krall says. "People resent the notion that somehow they've done something wrong by becoming successful."

THIS

When and how was he 'made to feel like he is a bad guy'?

Read a Fark thread. All of the wealthy are sick sociopaths who inherited all of their wealth and are lazy and do no real work...that's sort of been the liberal talking point for awhile now. You've really not seen it?


That guy was talking about what he wants to hear the president say, then he goes on to say that "instead" he's made to feel like the bad guy. Instead of the president saying what he would like the president to say, the president made him feel like the bad guy. You can't invoke the president and then say that 'those other people on the street or the internet said a bad thing about me' and pretend like that is some sort of valid rebuttal of a friggin' policy proposal. WTF?
 
2012-12-14 01:50:45 PM  

Silly Jesus: geek_mars: Silly Jesus: LectertheChef: pacified: Silly Jesus: 1. When the tax rates were previously lowered, the economy benefited.
2. The raising of the taxes will add a negligent amount of money to the coffers.
3. Obama has admitted that even if raising taxes on the wealthy hurts the economy, he is still all for it, because "fairness."

If it were to truly be a help or if based on a simple mathematical formula we needed it to be done for the good of everyone, then I'd be all for it. But it's not that at all, it's class warfare nonsense and Obama simply doesn't think that it's fair that the successful have accumulated more wealth than others and he's going to rectify that by taking some of it away.

Citataion needed on "point 1"

I love the second point too from the GOPers. Hey, the tax increase won't pay for ALL of the defecit... might as well do nothing, am i right?

But hey, go on thinking people paying 15% on dividends whilst I work and pay 40% in taxes in to Feds, SSDI, and Medicare is fair.

Don't you understand that dividends income is superior to income derived through labor? Labor is for the lazy poors, and should therefore be punished. So that maybe, in the future, you'll learn to be rich, and make your money through dividends, instead of a lazy poor who works 60+ hours a week.

Incentive for investment, how does it work?

You mean that higher risk = greater reward? Strange concept. Durr.

Wouldn't the greater reward be the dividends from a successful investment? Why should one get a government reward from a successful private investment? Also, FTFA: "There's nothing in history that supports the view that if you give the wealthy their money back, they'll invest it," says Prince, who owns a company based in Nolensville, Tenn., that makes gift cards. "We invest anyway - that's what the wealthy do."
That particular job creator seems to suggest that tax rates have nothing to do with investing.

One guy. Must be a fact and opinion shared among all of t ...


Yea, one guy. I intended to indicate it was one guy by using the word "particular". It seemed like a singularly explicit term, to me.
As to the questions I actually asked, while you didn't answer me, you made some comments in other posts that are on the subject and brought to mind something else I'd like to ask.

"Their investments are needed, so they is an incentive (large reward) in place to encourage the investment."
"It was put in place to encourage investment...from anyone, including the middle class."

Do we still need these encouragements? I mean, if they were put in place when the stock exchange was being created* then I can see why they would have been needed. Now, though, there are stock exchanges all over the world. Investments and stock exchanges are an every day reality in the modern world and the system has evolved to provide its own encouragement, so I don't see why something that was put in place to encourage investments and is no longer needed should be maintained.

*I have no idea when they were put in place, but it's not important to the point I'm making.
 
2012-12-14 01:53:36 PM  
After her torrid affair with Mitt Mittovich Ovronsky cools off, Anne Romenina throws herself under the hooves of a ballet-dancing horse
 
2012-12-14 01:53:56 PM  

Silly Jesus: Everyone is completely equal and everyone, no matter their accomplishments in life should have the same end result. A participation trophy, if you will.


You know what's fair? All income from all sources being taxed as regular income.

Putting a special tax rate on income from a source that overwhelmingly goes to the wealthy is unfair.
 
2012-12-14 01:56:22 PM  

tstrimp: Elandriel: I like the bit about how the top 1% pay 37.4% of the income taxes. GOSH!! But, that's low - they take in what like 54%* of the national yearly income or something? And control 90+% of the wealth?

I think their tax rate should be equivalent to their share of income adjusted nationally. If the top 1% get 54% of the income, or whatever, they should be providing 54% of the income taxes.

* probably wrong

It's definitely wrong. The top 1% bring in 11% of all income and pay 37.4% of all income taxes. By your logic they are overtaxed.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/10/30/nyregion/where-the-one- p ercent-fit-in-the-hierarchy-of-income.html

I agree with the sentiment in the article that the people at the top of the income chain pay their fair share of taxes, and they shouldn't be vilified for not paying enough. Those who are making millions of dollars on capital gains however are clearly not paying their fair share. It's disgusting that someone like Romney can get by only paying 14% on their millions of dollars of income.


That article is only on income nothing about the "income" that they get from capital gains.
 
2012-12-14 01:58:44 PM  

mongbiohazard: On your points, in order:
1. Actually, you have it exactly backwards. Some of the most prosperous times for the US economy have been when we had MUCH higher top marginal tax rates. Our economy was booming when the top marginal tax rate was 91%. Wealth has its own sort of gravity - wealth attracts more wealth. If you don't keep it flowing through the economy with taxes it will simply accumulate in the hands of the very wealthy, and make it progressively more difficult for everyone else in society to improve their lot in life.

Folks pull out the 91% nonsense a lot but conveniently (or out of ignorance) fail to mention all of the other differences at that time, like all of the deductions on all interest etc. So, essentially, that's an absurd comparison.
I am fine with money being moved around through law if it is genuinely needed in order to keep the economic machine functioning, but I am not OK with the redistribution out of some emotional "fairness" concept.



2. It depends by how much, but you're factually incorrect there. The extremely MODEST tax increases being suggested by the Obama administration would raise somewhere around 1 and 1/2 trillion dollars. If you think well over a trillion dollars is negligable (you said "negligent", but I'm sure negligable is the word you were looking for) then you're simply being obstinate.

People are saying / thinking that if those greedy rich people just gave a little more all of our problems would be solved. I'm saying that in that context it's negligible.

3. When did he say that? I've heard no such thing. Could you provide a citation, please? The justifications I've heard from the Obama administration are actually the opposite of what you've claimed - that the extra taxes are necessary to help keep our economy healthy going forward.

In the debate that Charles Gibson moderated. He said (paraphrasing) "Mr. Obama, what if raising taxes reduced revenue, would you still be for it?" Obama responded along the lines of "To me, it's an issue of fairness."

As far as class warfare... We ALREADY are in a state of class warfare, and have been for around three decades now. And the poor and middle class have been getting their asses utterly and absolutely kicked. Both wages and household wealth for the lower and middle classes have sunk over the last few decades. Meanwhile, the very, very, very most wealthy (think the 0.1%) have been who that wealth has been being plundered by - and they now hold an incredibly disproportiate amount of the wealth in society. It's not the just rewards of a hardworking few, it's the spoils of the class warfare they've been waging against the rest of the society using the changes to the law that they've been purchasing.

I agree that many of the laws are corrupted by wealth (buying congressmen etc.) and that should be stopped.
This is a HUGE problem for the economy. As the wealth continues to accumulate in the hands of the few the purchasing power of the rest of society plummets. That purchasing power IS the strength of the US economy. If current trends continue the middle class and poor will continue to be able to afford less and less as time goes on. What good exactly is investing in businesses that no one can afford to purchase from any more? The lower that purchasing power of the hoi poloi drops, the weaker and less able to recover from shocks and downturns our economy becomes.

The wealthy will ALWAYS invest their wealth, where else do you think they're going to keep it? Under their mattresses? But those investments aren't necessarily job creating investments. The middle class wealth is the job engine of our economy, as that's where the small businesses which will become our future big businesses so often begin. But if the poor and middle class have both less and less purchasing power and less household wealth those small businesses will increasingly have too few customers and will be started less and less frequently without the wealth to invest in entrepenurial endeavors.

I'm not seeing that argument being made though. I'm seeing the "fairness" argument. Those are two completely different things. If the increase is needed to keep the system in check, fine. If it's for the arbitrarily and emotionally dictated concept of "fairness", then I am opposed to it.

 
2012-12-14 01:59:28 PM  

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: Silly Jesus: If I'm already paying 37% of all taxes and a great portion of people aren't paying any federal income tax, but still pay a myriad of other taxes, but I already knew that, I'm just a disingenuous douche?

FTFY, douche


The rich pay other taxes as well, cupcake.
 
2012-12-14 02:02:24 PM  

Silly Jesus: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/10/30/nyregion/where-the-one- p ercent-fit-in-the-hierarchy-of-income.html


You also ready that wrong.
the 11% group is 99.0 to 99.9 then you have to add in the 99.9 to 99.99 group 6% then the last 0.001 % who make up 5 %

that makes the total 1% top group represent 15% of the income from WAGES.
 
2012-12-14 02:03:19 PM  

mitEj: Silly Jesus: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/10/30/nyregion/where-the-one- p ercent-fit-in-the-hierarchy-of-income.html

You also ready that wrong.
the 11% group is 99.0 to 99.9 then you have to add in the 99.9 to 99.99 group 6% then the last 0.001 % who make up 5 %

that makes the total 1% top group represent 15% of the income from WAGES.


Damn it 25% (stupid typo :()
 
2012-12-14 02:06:09 PM  

theknuckler_33: Silly Jesus: theknuckler_33: Silly Jesus: "What would make me feel a lot better is if I heard the president say, 'I want to thank the rich people who, because of our progressive tax system, pay the most - but we don't have enough money, so we're asking the wealthy people to help the country out by paying more than their fair share,' " says Martin Krall, a 71-year-old "semi-retired" attorney and media executive who lives in Palm Beach Gardens, Fla.

"Instead, you're made to feel like you're a bad guy," Krall says. "People resent the notion that somehow they've done something wrong by becoming successful."

THIS

When and how was he 'made to feel like he is a bad guy'?

Read a Fark thread. All of the wealthy are sick sociopaths who inherited all of their wealth and are lazy and do no real work...that's sort of been the liberal talking point for awhile now. You've really not seen it?

That guy was talking about what he wants to hear the president say, then he goes on to say that "instead" he's made to feel like the bad guy. Instead of the president saying what he would like the president to say, the president made him feel like the bad guy. You can't invoke the president and then say that 'those other people on the street or the internet said a bad thing about me' and pretend like that is some sort of valid rebuttal of a friggin' policy proposal. WTF?


You didn't build that, among other things. It's sort of silly to deny that he's presented the wealthy as being greedy and unfair.
 
2012-12-14 02:07:38 PM  

geek_mars: Silly Jesus: geek_mars: Silly Jesus: LectertheChef: pacified: Silly Jesus: 1. When the tax rates were previously lowered, the economy benefited.
2. The raising of the taxes will add a negligent amount of money to the coffers.
3. Obama has admitted that even if raising taxes on the wealthy hurts the economy, he is still all for it, because "fairness."

If it were to truly be a help or if based on a simple mathematical formula we needed it to be done for the good of everyone, then I'd be all for it. But it's not that at all, it's class warfare nonsense and Obama simply doesn't think that it's fair that the successful have accumulated more wealth than others and he's going to rectify that by taking some of it away.

Citataion needed on "point 1"

I love the second point too from the GOPers. Hey, the tax increase won't pay for ALL of the defecit... might as well do nothing, am i right?

But hey, go on thinking people paying 15% on dividends whilst I work and pay 40% in taxes in to Feds, SSDI, and Medicare is fair.

Don't you understand that dividends income is superior to income derived through labor? Labor is for the lazy poors, and should therefore be punished. So that maybe, in the future, you'll learn to be rich, and make your money through dividends, instead of a lazy poor who works 60+ hours a week.

Incentive for investment, how does it work?

You mean that higher risk = greater reward? Strange concept. Durr.

Wouldn't the greater reward be the dividends from a successful investment? Why should one get a government reward from a successful private investment? Also, FTFA: "There's nothing in history that supports the view that if you give the wealthy their money back, they'll invest it," says Prince, who owns a company based in Nolensville, Tenn., that makes gift cards. "We invest anyway - that's what the wealthy do."
That particular job creator seems to suggest that tax rates have nothing to do with investing.

One guy. Must be a fact and opinion shared a ...


Those investments are still riskier than a CD, for example. Not sure where you're going with that.
 
2012-12-14 02:08:56 PM  
Look, it's very simple. We just have to tax poor people more to punish them for being poor, and tax rich people less to reward them for being rich.

That way, everyone will want to be rich, and nobody will want to be poor. Then there will be no more poor people, and everyone will be rich, and the economy will get better.
 
2012-12-14 02:11:52 PM  

theknuckler_33: Pro Zack: theknuckler_33: And everyone knows that the middle class rack up huge chunks of income through dividends. That preferential treatment of dividends was clearly put in place to benefit the middle class.

*rolls eyes*

do you even have a 401K?

Of course, what does that have to do with anything? Dividends on your 401k investments (well, at least mine) are immediately reinvested (again, pre-tax, just like my contributions) into the plan. I won't pay taxes until I withdraw funds after, hopefully, I retire, at which time those withdrawals will be taxes as regular income.


The bogus argument, "won't anyone think of the 401ks" when discussing the idea of taxing dividends as regular income has always infuriated me.

It is unquestionably a false objection, because as you say, dividends in retirement accounts are tax-deferred and then withdrawals are taxed as regular income, except for ROTHs. Dividends could be taxed at 1% or 99% and it still wouldn't make a lick of difference to anyone's retirement account.

Any dipstick who tries that objection is disingenuous, and should DIAF.
 
2012-12-14 02:15:49 PM  
Marty: You know... in Greece, they would cut off the head of the messenger that brought the bad news. Private Detective Visser: Now that don't make much sense.
Marty: No. It made them feel better.
 
2012-12-14 02:16:42 PM  

Silly Jesus: urbangirl: Silly Jesus: The Jami Turman Fan Club: Silly Jesus: Durr.

Yo, mod alt. Question for you:

As a percentage of your income, how much are you, personally, willing to pay in additional taxes if it means:

1) Everybody gets health care.
2) The economy gets stronger.
3) The federal budget gets under control.

I'm willing to spend 4% on that. Are you?

If I'm already paying 37% of all taxes and control 80% of the wealth and a great portion of people aren't paying any and are living under the poverty line? Sort of changes the whole "it's just 4% more" BS doesn't it? 

You are an embarassment of a human being and you should be ashamed.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need, amiright?


Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, amiright?
 
2012-12-14 02:18:13 PM  

The Larch: Look, it's very simple. We just have to tax poor people more to punish them for being poor, and tax rich people less to reward them for being rich.

That way, everyone will want to be rich, and nobody will want to be poor. Then there will be no more poor people, and everyone will be rich, and the economy will get better.


jst3p: Deathray187: jst3p: Deathray187: If these people love the idea of kicking in more, why aren't they posting pictures of their tax returns with a big fat zero on the exemptions and credits portion? It is easy to pay more, why not do it instead of just talking about it?

I am willing to pay more, but only if everyone with equal or greater income to my own does too. Why is that so hard to grasp?

Ideas so good they have to be mandatory...

By your logic we should just abolish income tax all together, peopel will all pay their fair share without it being mandatory right?


I'm just pointing out how many seem to think it is a great idea, but they won't do it because other people won't. Apparently it isn't as hot of an idea as it is made out to be.

My personal belief is that everyone should pay taxes (the po' and the "evil" rich), not just the top half. A flat tax would be great. Eliminate deductions for businesses and slap a flat tax on them as well. 

This way everyone would have some "skin in the game" to quote the prez.
 
2012-12-14 02:20:58 PM  

Brian Ryanberger: That's right liberal America go ahead and tax rich people until there are no rich people any more and then you will wonder why everybody is poor.


LOL!
 
2012-12-14 02:21:10 PM  
"What would make me feel a lot better is if I heard the president say, 'I want to thank the rich people who, because of our progressive tax system, pay the most - but we don't have enough money, so we're asking the wealthy people to help the country out by paying more than their fair share,' " says Martin Krall, a 71-year-old "semi-retired" attorney and media executive who lives in Palm Beach Gardens, Fla."

Yep. Raise my taxes. Because we need the revenue, and I've benefited from everything from free education on up to get here. But do it without the class warfare. Because I didn't inherit a penny of it.
 
2012-12-14 02:25:47 PM  

Silly Jesus: geek_mars: Silly Jesus: geek_mars: Silly Jesus: LectertheChef: pacified: Silly Jesus: 1. When the tax rates were previously lowered, the economy benefited.
2. The raising of the taxes will add a negligent amount of money to the coffers.
3. Obama has admitted that even if raising taxes on the wealthy hurts the economy, he is still all for it, because "fairness."

If it were to truly be a help or if based on a simple mathematical formula we needed it to be done for the good of everyone, then I'd be all for it. But it's not that at all, it's class warfare nonsense and Obama simply doesn't think that it's fair that the successful have accumulated more wealth than others and he's going to rectify that by taking some of it away.

Citataion needed on "point 1"

I love the second point too from the GOPers. Hey, the tax increase won't pay for ALL of the defecit... might as well do nothing, am i right?

But hey, go on thinking people paying 15% on dividends whilst I work and pay 40% in taxes in to Feds, SSDI, and Medicare is fair.

Don't you understand that dividends income is superior to income derived through labor? Labor is for the lazy poors, and should therefore be punished. So that maybe, in the future, you'll learn to be rich, and make your money through dividends, instead of a lazy poor who works 60+ hours a week.

Incentive for investment, how does it work?

You mean that higher risk = greater reward? Strange concept. Durr.

Wouldn't the greater reward be the dividends from a successful investment? Why should one get a government reward from a successful private investment? Also, FTFA: "There's nothing in history that supports the view that if you give the wealthy their money back, they'll invest it," says Prince, who owns a company based in Nolensville, Tenn., that makes gift cards. "We invest anyway - that's what the wealthy do."
That particular job creator seems to suggest that tax rates have nothing to do with investing.

One guy. Must be a fact and opini ...


Well, one of us isn't understanding the other, then (probably me). It seems like you're saying the reason capital gains are taxed at a lower rate is to encourage investment. I'm saying that encouragement is no longer needed so why shouldn't capital gains be taxed at the same rate as other sources of income?
 
2012-12-14 02:27:51 PM  

Silly Jesus: theknuckler_33: Silly Jesus: theknuckler_33: Silly Jesus: "What would make me feel a lot better is if I heard the president say, 'I want to thank the rich people who, because of our progressive tax system, pay the most - but we don't have enough money, so we're asking the wealthy people to help the country out by paying more than their fair share,' " says Martin Krall, a 71-year-old "semi-retired" attorney and media executive who lives in Palm Beach Gardens, Fla.

"Instead, you're made to feel like you're a bad guy," Krall says. "People resent the notion that somehow they've done something wrong by becoming successful."

THIS

When and how was he 'made to feel like he is a bad guy'?

Read a Fark thread. All of the wealthy are sick sociopaths who inherited all of their wealth and are lazy and do no real work...that's sort of been the liberal talking point for awhile now. You've really not seen it?

That guy was talking about what he wants to hear the president say, then he goes on to say that "instead" he's made to feel like the bad guy. Instead of the president saying what he would like the president to say, the president made him feel like the bad guy. You can't invoke the president and then say that 'those other people on the street or the internet said a bad thing about me' and pretend like that is some sort of valid rebuttal of a friggin' policy proposal. WTF?

You didn't build that, among other things. It's sort of silly to deny that he's presented the wealthy as being greedy and unfair.


So you've got nothing. Can't say I'm surprised, but it's nice that can't cite anything.
 
2012-12-14 02:30:07 PM  

Silly Jesus: Folks pull out the 91% nonsense a lot but conveniently (or out of ignorance) fail to mention all of the other differences at that time, like all of the deductions on all interest etc. So, essentially, that's an absurd comparison.
I am fine with money being moved around through law if it is genuinely needed in order to keep the economic machine functioning, but I am not OK with the redistribution out of some emotional "fairness" concept.



And there are no deductions that the wealthy can avail themselves of today? The point still stands, taxes on the wealthy have been significantly higher through the US economic booms of the past. You stated the opposite of this.


People are saying / thinking that if those greedy rich people just gave a little more all of our problems would be solved. I'm saying that in that context it's negligible.


That is not a mainstream economic or political position. If you are suggesting it is such you are at least grossly misrepresenting the views of other - or outright imagining it whole cloth - to fit with the views you have made a choice to believe in. Obama himself and reputable economists from both the right and left have all consistently insisted that we need tax increases combined with some spending cuts.


In the debate that Charles Gibson moderated. He said (paraphrasing) "Mr. Obama, what if raising taxes reduced revenue, would you still be for it?" Obama responded along the lines of "To me, it's an issue of fairness."


Jeez... GIBSON?!? You mean in the 2004 primary debates? How in the world does cherry picking - AND misrepresenting - a quote from the primary debtes years ago prove your point? Let me provide the quote in context, since your misrepresented quote seems to have been lifted straight from Rush Limbaugh, and the real quote has a much different meaning:
GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.

So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year -- $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair.

And what I want is not oppressive taxation. I want businesses to thrive, and I want people to be rewarded for their success. But what I also want to make sure is that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don't have it and that we're able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools.

And you can't do that for free.


Notice how different that is from how you presented the quote?


I'm not seeing that argument being made though. I'm seeing the "fairness" argument. Those are two completely different things. If the increase is needed to keep the system in check, fine. If it's for the arbitrarily and emotionally dictated concept of "fairness", then I am opposed to it.


The increase - and more actually then Obama is suggesting - is absolutely needed to keep the organism that is called our economy in line and functioning properly. Those arguments ARE being presented (though maybe not as explicitly as I laid it out in my last post for practical reasons), and the "fairness" motivations you're ascribing are not nearly as prevelent as you're suggesting. That's the right-wing echo chamber preying on your existing biases.
 
2012-12-14 02:32:02 PM  
Marty: You know... in Greece, they would cut off the head of the messenger that brought the bad news. Private Detective Visser: Now that don't make much sense.
Marty: No. It made them feel better.

This is what I think of when everybody is chomping at the bit to tax the rich . As the article states, they will be just fine and some of them are even for it. My question is what is the impact? It's minimal as far as increased revenues and miniscule when considering the fact size of the debt . What nobody wants to say is that there are only 3 ways out and all will have to be done.

1. Print money. It's already happening with the Fed and the QEs. It's inflationary but will make the debt much easier to pay off.

2. Tax the middle class. This will raise revenues significantly.

3. Cut spending. Lower the yearly increase in entitlement programs. Raise the retirement age. Cut or at least freeze defense spending for the foreseeable future.

It's going to hurt but something has got to give.

/Just kidding. The status quo is fine.
 
2012-12-14 02:32:59 PM  

jst3p: He is saying you don't need to give wealthy people incentive to invest, that's what wealthy people do.


qorkfiend: Wrong. What he said was he wouldn't stop investing if he had slightly less money.


No one for an instant said that he would stop investing money if he paid more in taxes.

The question is what he does with the extra two percent he has, because his tax rates are 2 percent lower than they could be?

Is he investing that money in the economy?
 
2012-12-14 02:35:10 PM  

Silly Jesus: You didn't build that, among other things. It's sort of silly to deny that he's presented the wealthy as being greedy and unfair.



The quote I corrected for you in my last post? This is you giving another example of that. A quote totally misrepresented in order to prey on the biases of folks on the right.

Do yourself a favor, find the original quote in context and read it. Then think back to how that was presented to you by the right-wing "fact" industry and let me know if you still trust the source who miseld you about that Obama quote. They had an agenda, and you are playing right in to it.
 
2012-12-14 02:38:51 PM  

mitEj: mitEj: Silly Jesus: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/10/30/nyregion/where-the-one- p ercent-fit-in-the-hierarchy-of-income.html

You also ready that wrong.
the 11% group is 99.0 to 99.9 then you have to add in the 99.9 to 99.99 group 6% then the last 0.001 % who make up 5 %

that makes the total 1% top group represent 15% of the income from WAGES.

Damn it 25% (stupid typo :()


You're right I read it wrong. I saw the third group (11%) and read it as the sum of the top two groups (5% + 6%). So the top 1% earn 22% of the income, and pay 38% of the taxes. I don't see that as being unfair. My point is still to fix the capital gains problems as the income tax portion is pretty close to being in the right place.
 
2012-12-14 02:39:30 PM  

Irregardless: Marty: You know... in Greece, they would cut off the head of the messenger that brought the bad news. Private Detective Visser: Now that don't make much sense.
Marty: No. It made them feel better.

This is what I think of when everybody is chomping at the bit to tax the rich . As the article states, they will be just fine and some of them are even for it. My question is what is the impact? It's minimal as far as increased revenues and miniscule when considering the fact size of the debt . What nobody wants to say is that there are only 3 ways out and all will have to be done.

1. Print money. It's already happening with the Fed and the QEs. It's inflationary but will make the debt much easier to pay off.

2. Tax the middle class. This will raise revenues significantly.

3. Cut spending. Lower the yearly increase in entitlement programs. Raise the retirement age. Cut or at least freeze defense spending for the foreseeable future.

It's going to hurt but something has got to give.

/Just kidding. The status quo is fine.


This seems a bit disingenuous when #2 reads "Tax the middle class" rather than "Raise taxes." Most middle class folks I know are willing to accept an increase and feel that pretty much everyone but the poor should be taxed a bit higher to drag our butts out of our current situation. Why do you specify the middle class in your example? Should the higher classes not also be included in that revenue raising?
 
2012-12-14 02:39:52 PM  
It's been well established that tax breaks are government subsidies. Every dollar that isn't taxed is welfare. This means we are giving away BILLIONS of dollars in welfare to rich people. Propping up the wealthy at the expense of hard working folks is wrong. We need a wealth tax now! And if they leave, who cares? Rich people contribute nothing to society, and America would be better off without them. Let them move to countries that don't share our views, places where their unbridled greed can run unchecked. Good riddance! The US will be a better place without the rich; the people have decided!
 
2012-12-14 02:44:04 PM  

Deathray187: By your logic we should just abolish income tax all together, peopel will all pay their fair share without it being mandatory right?

I'm just pointing out how many seem to think it is a great idea, but they won't do it because other people won't. Apparently it isn't as hot of an idea as it is made out to be.


The idea is for everyone to do it, not just me as an individual.
 
2012-12-14 02:49:04 PM  

geek_mars: Irregardless: Marty: You know... in Greece, they would cut off the head of the messenger that brought the bad news. Private Detective Visser: Now that don't make much sense.
Marty: No. It made them feel better.

This is what I think of when everybody is chomping at the bit to tax the rich . As the article states, they will be just fine and some of them are even for it. My question is what is the impact? It's minimal as far as increased revenues and miniscule when considering the fact size of the debt . What nobody wants to say is that there are only 3 ways out and all will have to be done.

1. Print money. It's already happening with the Fed and the QEs. It's inflationary but will make the debt much easier to pay off.

2. Tax the middle class. This will raise revenues significantly.

3. Cut spending. Lower the yearly increase in entitlement programs. Raise the retirement age. Cut or at least freeze defense spending for the foreseeable future.

It's going to hurt but something has got to give.

/Just kidding. The status quo is fine.

This seems a bit disingenuous when #2 reads "Tax the middle class" rather than "Raise taxes." Most middle class folks I know are willing to accept an increase and feel that pretty much everyone but the poor should be taxed a bit higher to drag our butts out of our current situation. Why do you specify the middle class in your example? Should the higher classes not also be included in that revenue raising?


I was not being disingenuous. I was lazy and did not communicate clearly. I should not have singled the middle class out. What I should have made clear is that they are the largest demographic and raising their taxes will provide the largest increase in revenues. I agree everyone but the poor should pay more. The only tax increase currently being discussed is aimed at the rich. Politicians are too scared to mention the middle class.
 
2012-12-14 02:49:28 PM  

Deathray187: Eliminate deductions for businesses and slap a flat tax on them as well.


What does this even mean?
 
2012-12-14 02:49:56 PM  

Pro Zack: jst3p: He is saying you don't need to give wealthy people incentive to invest, that's what wealthy people do.

qorkfiend: Wrong. What he said was he wouldn't stop investing if he had slightly less money.

No one for an instant said that he would stop investing money if he paid more in taxes.

The question is what he does with the extra two percent he has, because his tax rates are 2 percent lower than they could be?

Is he investing that money in the economy?


If he were and if it were to everyone's benefit I would be OK with it, but the trend is making the wealthy wealthier at the expense of the middle and lower class.

static2.businessinsider.com

For 30 years the Republicans have pushed policies that increase the wealth and income gaps and then have the nerve to complain that there are so many poors. And you are whiteknighting them.
 
2012-12-14 02:52:13 PM  

tstrimp: mitEj: mitEj: Silly Jesus: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/10/30/nyregion/where-the-one- p ercent-fit-in-the-hierarchy-of-income.html

You also ready that wrong.
the 11% group is 99.0 to 99.9 then you have to add in the 99.9 to 99.99 group 6% then the last 0.001 % who make up 5 %

that makes the total 1% top group represent 15% of the income from WAGES.

Damn it 25% (stupid typo :()

You're right I read it wrong. I saw the third group (11%) and read it as the sum of the top two groups (5% + 6%). So the top 1% earn 22% of the income, and pay 38% of the taxes. I don't see that as being unfair. My point is still to fix the capital gains problems as the income tax portion is pretty close to being in the right place.


I can agree with that there is not legitimate reason for capital gains to be so low. Other than as a giveaway to the rich and well connected.

The funny thing is the income tax bump would barely effect the truly rich since capital gains is where most of their "income" comes from
 
2012-12-14 02:52:33 PM  

Pro Zack: jst3p: He is saying you don't need to give wealthy people incentive to invest, that's what wealthy people do.

qorkfiend: Wrong. What he said was he wouldn't stop investing if he had slightly less money.

No one for an instant said that he would stop investing money if he paid more in taxes.

The question is what he does with the extra two percent he has, because his tax rates are 2 percent lower than they could be?

Is he investing that money in the economy?


Ah, you are still here. I'm still waiting to hear what my 401k has to do with the dividend tax rate.
 
2012-12-14 02:54:52 PM  

Irregardless: geek_mars: Irregardless: Marty: You know... in Greece, they would cut off the head of the messenger that brought the bad news. Private Detective Visser: Now that don't make much sense.
Marty: No. It made them feel better.

This is what I think of when everybody is chomping at the bit to tax the rich . As the article states, they will be just fine and some of them are even for it. My question is what is the impact? It's minimal as far as increased revenues and miniscule when considering the fact size of the debt . What nobody wants to say is that there are only 3 ways out and all will have to be done.

1. Print money. It's already happening with the Fed and the QEs. It's inflationary but will make the debt much easier to pay off.

2. Tax the middle class. This will raise revenues significantly.

3. Cut spending. Lower the yearly increase in entitlement programs. Raise the retirement age. Cut or at least freeze defense spending for the foreseeable future.

It's going to hurt but something has got to give.

/Just kidding. The status quo is fine.

This seems a bit disingenuous when #2 reads "Tax the middle class" rather than "Raise taxes." Most middle class folks I know are willing to accept an increase and feel that pretty much everyone but the poor should be taxed a bit higher to drag our butts out of our current situation. Why do you specify the middle class in your example? Should the higher classes not also be included in that revenue raising?

I was not being disingenuous. I was lazy and did not communicate clearly. I should not have singled the middle class out. What I should have made clear is that they are the largest demographic and raising their taxes will provide the largest increase in revenues. I agree everyone but the poor should pay more. The only tax increase currently being discussed is aimed at the rich. Politicians are too scared to mention the middle class.


The problem is, at the same time, depriving the largest consumer segment of that much purchasing power will probably have a negative effect on the demand-driven economy. On the other hand, the higher you get up the income ladder, the less likely it is for a slight increase in tax rates affect consumption in any meaningful way. That balance, between revenue and economic effects, is what we're trying to strike.
 
2012-12-14 02:55:34 PM  

Irregardless: geek_mars: Irregardless: Marty: You know... in Greece, they would cut off the head of the messenger that brought the bad news. Private Detective Visser: Now that don't make much sense.
Marty: No. It made them feel better.

This is what I think of when everybody is chomping at the bit to tax the rich . As the article states, they will be just fine and some of them are even for it. My question is what is the impact? It's minimal as far as increased revenues and miniscule when considering the fact size of the debt . What nobody wants to say is that there are only 3 ways out and all will have to be done.

1. Print money. It's already happening with the Fed and the QEs. It's inflationary but will make the debt much easier to pay off.

2. Tax the middle class. This will raise revenues significantly.

3. Cut spending. Lower the yearly increase in entitlement programs. Raise the retirement age. Cut or at least freeze defense spending for the foreseeable future.

It's going to hurt but something has got to give.

/Just kidding. The status quo is fine.

This seems a bit disingenuous when #2 reads "Tax the middle class" rather than "Raise taxes." Most middle class folks I know are willing to accept an increase and feel that pretty much everyone but the poor should be taxed a bit higher to drag our butts out of our current situation. Why do you specify the middle class in your example? Should the higher classes not also be included in that revenue raising?

I was not being disingenuous. I was lazy and did not communicate clearly. I should not have singled the middle class out. What I should have made clear is that they are the largest demographic and raising their taxes will provide the largest increase in revenues. I agree everyone but the poor should pay more. The only tax increase currently being discussed is aimed at the rich. Politicians are too scared to mention the middle class.


Lazy and not communicating clearly!? Now that I can appreciate.

Politicians are too scared to mention the middle class because they're only worried about keeping their jobs and not as concerned about actually doing them, and that's a lot of voters to be pissing off.
 
2012-12-14 03:14:17 PM  

Silly Jesus: "What would make me feel a lot better is if I heard the president say, 'I want to thank the rich people who, because of our progressive tax system, pay the most - but we don't have enough money, so we're asking the wealthy people to help the country out by paying more than their fair share,' " says Martin Krall, a 71-year-old "semi-retired" attorney and media executive who lives in Palm Beach Gardens, Fla.

"Instead, you're made to feel like you're a bad guy," Krall says. "People resent the notion that somehow they've done something wrong by becoming successful."

THIS


Never before have so few possessed so much, and had the nerve to complain to those with nothing about how they aren't thanked enough. This truly is some "through the looking glass"-level bs.

Get the fark over yourselves. Your conservative-media-induced persecution complex only increases the likelihood of an uprising by those who actually have a valid claim of oppression.
 
2012-12-14 03:20:51 PM  
"There are a lot of people in my income category who are living paycheck to paycheck," says Mark Anderson, a 29-year-old mortgage broker in St. Louis. "It's just a different level of credit card debt." Mark Anderson of St. Louis thinks President Obama and other Democrats make being rich "sound like a bad thing," something he says is a mistake. Anderson says he and his wife, a pathologist, fall into the 2 percent category but not by much.

First, the guy has a very punchable face. Second, fark you and the horse you rode in on asshole. I'll tell you what, I am nowhere close to the top 2% income bracket but we do not live paycheck to paycheck. So I'll switch incomes with you so that way you don't have to bear that terrible burden.

And they wonder why we think they are out of touch with the rest of us 98 percenters?
 
2012-12-14 03:35:57 PM  
The next motherfarker who makes some multiple of the average household income and still complains they're living paycheck to paycheck is getting a swift kick in the slats.
 
2012-12-14 03:53:55 PM  
What do you mean Subby?
Pigs can fly.

Exibit A:
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-12-14 04:02:55 PM  
here is the sentence where the article stopped being well-written and once again was merely rewriting prejudice into the national narrative:

But he believes there's plenty of waste in government - including domestic programs he worries are leaving some individuals dependent on government largesse.

A well-written article would have noted who those individuals are.
 
2012-12-14 04:05:49 PM  

Testiclaw: The next motherfarker who makes some multiple of the average household income and still complains they're living paycheck to paycheck is getting a swift kick in the slats.


My household income is a little more than 2X the average household income and my family lives paycheck to paycheck unless you want to consider being able to contribute to my 401K via pre-tax payroll deductions as not being 'paycheck to paycheck'. You are more than welcome to attempt to deliver a swift kick in the slats to me, mr. ITG.
 
2012-12-14 04:14:33 PM  

mrshowrules: sweetmelissa31: Also in that article: a man claiming that > $250K per year is not a lot of money because he has 3 kids. Maybe it's your penis's fault and not Oblomov's.

Agreed. $250K in a 5 person household is not a fortune but is not bad. In the context of tax it is $250K a person which is quite a bit of money by any standard.


Let's not forget, he's claiming its hard because he's paying for college for 2 kids. What happened to the student loans we're all supposed to be getting if we can't afford college? In other news, people like bernie grimm can EABOD and DIAF. They're the reason we have this problem.

/what, only plebs take out student loans? f this guy. hard.
 
2012-12-14 04:15:28 PM  

theknuckler_33: Testiclaw: The next motherfarker who makes some multiple of the average household income and still complains they're living paycheck to paycheck is getting a swift kick in the slats.

My household income is a little more than 2X the average household income and my family lives paycheck to paycheck unless you want to consider being able to contribute to my 401K via pre-tax payroll deductions as not being 'paycheck to paycheck'. You are more than welcome to attempt to deliver a swift kick in the slats to me, mr. ITG.


I'm having a hard time finding "average"... everything seems to be 'median'. But the "some college" (which is my case) median that I see in wikipedia as of 2003 is about $46K. I make about $80K/yr now, but my wife (real estate agent) contributes wildly varying amounts to our household income. Probably close to $30K this year (her best year in the last 5 by far). So, I guess personally, I don't make twice the average, maybe... but as a household, we do... usually.

My wife quit a $55K/yr job in 2005 to become a real estate agent, so the house we bought in 2000 based on our two incomes suddenly became much more expensive to us as a percentage of our household income.

I was just a tad perturbed at the 'some multiple' inclusiveness of your statement. I can understand cost of living differences and such for people making 3, 4, even 5 times the national median income... but when you start getting into being effected by the tax increases proposed by Obama, then you lose any sympathy from me once you consider only TAXABLE income above $250K is subject to the increased rate and to have income of that level, your base income (before deductions) is likely to be well over $300K.

That's a damned FAR cry from a guy like me making about twice the median.
 
2012-12-14 04:23:23 PM  
TLDR - $250,000 just isn't that much money once you've spent it all.
 
2012-12-14 04:24:41 PM  

Bennie Crabtree: here is the sentence where the article stopped being well-written and once again was merely rewriting prejudice into the national narrative:

But he believes there's plenty of waste in government - including domestic programs he worries are leaving some individuals dependent on government largesse.

A well-written article would have noted who those individuals are.



Did you misread that? That's what the guy they were talking to said, not what the author was asserting.
 
2012-12-14 04:47:22 PM  

urbangirl: Silly Jesus: urbangirl: Silly Jesus: The Jami Turman Fan Club: Silly Jesus: Durr.

Yo, mod alt. Question for you:

As a percentage of your income, how much are you, personally, willing to pay in additional taxes if it means:

1) Everybody gets health care.
2) The economy gets stronger.
3) The federal budget gets under control.

I'm willing to spend 4% on that. Are you?

If I'm already paying 37% of all taxes and control 80% of the wealth and a great portion of people aren't paying any and are living under the poverty line? Sort of changes the whole "it's just 4% more" BS doesn't it? 

You are an embarassment of a human being and you should be ashamed.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need, amiright?

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, amiright?


What are you talking about Karl?
 
2012-12-14 04:48:40 PM  

geek_mars: Silly Jesus: geek_mars: Silly Jesus: geek_mars: Silly Jesus: LectertheChef: pacified: Silly Jesus: 1. When the tax rates were previously lowered, the economy benefited.
2. The raising of the taxes will add a negligent amount of money to the coffers.
3. Obama has admitted that even if raising taxes on the wealthy hurts the economy, he is still all for it, because "fairness."

If it were to truly be a help or if based on a simple mathematical formula we needed it to be done for the good of everyone, then I'd be all for it. But it's not that at all, it's class warfare nonsense and Obama simply doesn't think that it's fair that the successful have accumulated more wealth than others and he's going to rectify that by taking some of it away.

Citataion needed on "point 1"

I love the second point too from the GOPers. Hey, the tax increase won't pay for ALL of the defecit... might as well do nothing, am i right?

But hey, go on thinking people paying 15% on dividends whilst I work and pay 40% in taxes in to Feds, SSDI, and Medicare is fair.

Don't you understand that dividends income is superior to income derived through labor? Labor is for the lazy poors, and should therefore be punished. So that maybe, in the future, you'll learn to be rich, and make your money through dividends, instead of a lazy poor who works 60+ hours a week.

Incentive for investment, how does it work?

You mean that higher risk = greater reward? Strange concept. Durr.

Wouldn't the greater reward be the dividends from a successful investment? Why should one get a government reward from a successful private investment? Also, FTFA: "There's nothing in history that supports the view that if you give the wealthy their money back, they'll invest it," says Prince, who owns a company based in Nolensville, Tenn., that makes gift cards. "We invest anyway - that's what the wealthy do."
That particular job creator seems to suggest that tax rates have nothing to do with investing.

One guy. Must be a f ...


So people would equally invest in more risky and more safe investments if the payment incentives of both were equal?
 
2012-12-14 04:55:27 PM  

Trail of Dead: Cinaed: "My wife and I collectively make over that," says Bernie Grimm, an attorney in Washington, D.C., "but with three kids and two in college, that's not a lot of money." ~FTFA

You can actually afford to send your kids to college. And I'm guessing that they aren't going to NOVA, you sanctimonious douchebag.
Other, lower income, groups can go to college... with loans, lots of loans. Your kids will come away debt free.

Now, we don't dislike your relative wealth. Far from it. We do, however, get pissy when you somehow think that your paying the same rate as the dirt poor is a 'bad' thing.

Can there be a middle-ground statement? My wife and I make close to that. We live in the New York Metro area (Hoboken). We do not live nearly as well as somebody making that much money in Ohio or Kansas or Montana. Not even close.
BUT, we consider ourselves very very lucky, and wealthy, and we are ready to fork over more cash so others don't have to. Fair is fair.


Sure. I'm guessing your employment is very much tied to that area, with comparable salary/wages/earnings/etc unlikely to be matched by anything in the... Ohio, Kansas, or Montana areas.

Assuming that even after cash is forked over, a good bit remains. But no biggie, that's your due. But the kid-tuition thing... if you have kids, are they going the community college route? The nearest state school? The big name state school? The nice liberal arts school? The big name Ivy?

Being wealthy means being able to actually 'choose' that last bit. Being poor means 'no one goes to college'.
 
2012-12-14 05:29:15 PM  

sweetmelissa31: Also in that article: a man claiming that > $250K per year is not a lot of money because he has 3 kids. Maybe it's your penis's fault and not Oblomov's.


It amazes me how some people manage to amass a lot of wealth while apparently having no financial sense. Yes, $250k goes further in some parts of the country than others, but it's enough for a family to live just fine on. Buy a Toyota instead of a Jaguar and cook at home once in awhile, and get over it.
 
2012-12-14 05:43:53 PM  

Elandriel: I like the bit about how the top 1% pay 37.4% of the income taxes. GOSH!! But, that's low - they take in what like 54%* of the national yearly income or something? And control 90+% of the wealth?

I think their tax rate should be equivalent to their share of income adjusted nationally. If the top 1% get 54% of the income, or whatever, they should be providing 54% of the income taxes.

* probably wrong


Their share of income is significantly lower than their share of taxes.

Ive heard 18% and 24% from different sources.
 
2012-12-14 05:49:37 PM  

Cinaed: Trail of Dead: Cinaed: "My wife and I collectively make over that," says Bernie Grimm, an attorney in Washington, D.C., "but with three kids and two in college, that's not a lot of money." ~FTFA

You can actually afford to send your kids to college. And I'm guessing that they aren't going to NOVA, you sanctimonious douchebag.
Other, lower income, groups can go to college... with loans, lots of loans. Your kids will come away debt free.

Now, we don't dislike your relative wealth. Far from it. We do, however, get pissy when you somehow think that your paying the same rate as the dirt poor is a 'bad' thing.

Can there be a middle-ground statement? My wife and I make close to that. We live in the New York Metro area (Hoboken). We do not live nearly as well as somebody making that much money in Ohio or Kansas or Montana. Not even close.
BUT, we consider ourselves very very lucky, and wealthy, and we are ready to fork over more cash so others don't have to. Fair is fair.

Sure. I'm guessing your employment is very much tied to that area, with comparable salary/wages/earnings/etc unlikely to be matched by anything in the... Ohio, Kansas, or Montana areas.

Assuming that even after cash is forked over, a good bit remains. But no biggie, that's your due. But the kid-tuition thing... if you have kids, are they going the community college route? The nearest state school? The big name state school? The nice liberal arts school? The big name Ivy?

Being wealthy means being able to actually 'choose' that last bit. Being poor means 'no one goes to college'.


No kids or cars. Can't afford them! Kidding. Pretty sure if we had triplets today, we could save enough over the next 18 years to send them in-state.
 
2012-12-14 05:59:26 PM  

Bennie Crabtree: here is the sentence where the article stopped being well-written and once again was merely rewriting prejudice into the national narrative:

But he believes there's plenty of waste in government - including domestic programs he worries are leaving some individuals dependent on government largesse.

A well-written article would have noted who those individuals are.


Well, the reporter could have asked the guy who he thought was getting all that sweet, sweet government cheese. But generally that's a bad idea, because people get offended and end the interview when you ask them questions that reveal what idiots they are.
 
2012-12-14 08:21:34 PM  

theknuckler_33: Testiclaw: The next motherfarker who makes some multiple of the average household income and still complains they're living paycheck to paycheck is getting a swift kick in the slats.

My household income is a little more than 2X the average household income and my family lives paycheck to paycheck unless you want to consider being able to contribute to my 401K via pre-tax payroll deductions as not being 'paycheck to paycheck'. You are more than welcome to attempt to deliver a swift kick in the slats to me, mr. ITG.


Well, my wife and I max out our contributions each year and we don't make 2x the average household income and we don't live paycheck to paycheck. Did you buy too much house? A few too many cars? Do you have ten kids? There must be something else to this story you aren't telling us.
 
2012-12-14 08:38:24 PM  

Pincy: theknuckler_33: Testiclaw: The next motherfarker who makes some multiple of the average household income and still complains they're living paycheck to paycheck is getting a swift kick in the slats.

My household income is a little more than 2X the average household income and my family lives paycheck to paycheck unless you want to consider being able to contribute to my 401K via pre-tax payroll deductions as not being 'paycheck to paycheck'. You are more than welcome to attempt to deliver a swift kick in the slats to me, mr. ITG.

Well, my wife and I max out our contributions each year and we don't make 2x the average household income and we don't live paycheck to paycheck. Did you buy too much house? A few too many cars? Do you have ten kids? There must be something else to this story you aren't telling us.


It makes me wonder if some people don't quite understand what living "paycheck to paycheck" actually means. It means that you come very close to, or actually do, completely run out of money on or before each payday. If you have a savings account with more than a week's worth of pay in it, you don't live paycheck to paycheck. If you always maintain a positive balance in your checking account of $10+, you don't live paycheck to paycheck.  If you can cover even a relatively small unexpected expense without getting a loan or putting it on credit, you don't live paycheck to paycheck.

/Has known a few people with 5-figure savings accounts who've claimed to be living "paycheck to paycheck".
 
2012-12-14 10:26:06 PM  

Jackson Herring: Let me sum up the entire article:

"It won't effect me at all, but gosh I hate that President Ovronsky"


affect*

I apologize for being a bit of a grammar nazi.

as in: The wealthy will not be greatly affected by the increased taxes that will take effect, should the law pass.

Improper use of affect and effect drive me nuts.

/rocks back and forth
//nervously scratches head
 
2012-12-14 10:37:32 PM  
Bunch of MINO's
 
2012-12-14 11:43:13 PM  
Is there any way that I can just get that bacon without having to read the article?
 
2012-12-15 10:07:46 AM  

Hector Remarkable: Is there any way that I can just get that bacon without having to read the article?


Lol. You'd be better off cooking bacon instead of reading this article. We should just let all the Bush tax cuts expire.
 
2012-12-15 10:41:12 AM  

quatchi: But he adds that he thinks Obama and other Democrats make being rich "sound like a bad thing," which he says is a mistake.

Spot the FOX viewer in this sentence.


I don't watch Fox. I don't even have cable! I voted for Obama twice and would go for a third term if the constitution allowed. The problem is that I feel like Obama has allowed himself to walk right into a Republican trap. My quote was in a larger context where I explained that Obama has allowed the Republicans to propagate this class warfare garbage by not adopting a more nuanced tone toward the upper 2%. Most of us didn't get a bailout. Most of us don't have access to fancy loopholes in the tax code. In fact, AMT pretty well ensures that I simply DO NOT qualify for some deductions that most everyone else gets. But I'm not complaining about taxes. Of course Obama has more important things to worry about and I don't blame him too much for his tone toward the upper middle class and rich. But I was asked my opinion on this narrow subject and gave a much longer, nuanced argument than what the two quotes capture in the article. Oh well - clearly not a huge deal.
 
2012-12-15 11:14:24 AM  

Pincy: theknuckler_33: Testiclaw: The next motherfarker who makes some multiple of the average household income and still complains they're living paycheck to paycheck is getting a swift kick in the slats.

My household income is a little more than 2X the average household income and my family lives paycheck to paycheck unless you want to consider being able to contribute to my 401K via pre-tax payroll deductions as not being 'paycheck to paycheck'. You are more than welcome to attempt to deliver a swift kick in the slats to me, mr. ITG.

Well, my wife and I max out our contributions each year and we don't make 2x the average household income and we don't live paycheck to paycheck. Did you buy too much house? A few too many cars? Do you have ten kids? There must be something else to this story you aren't telling us.


I find that hard to believe. Do you live in a basement apartment somewhere or live in north dakota? I'm not going to run down all of my finances for you, but my understanding is that the average is in the mid 40s, making 2X about 90K. I don't know if that is gross income or 'taxable' income. If it is the latter, then we don't make that much, but if it is the former, my wife and I combined would normally exceed that. She is a real estate agent and her income varies wildly. I'd say in 2008 through 2010, we didn't make 2X, but this year we will.

We bought my house in 2000 for $167K with 18K down and I refinanced in 2003 to a 20-year mortgage, so that is half-way to being paid off. I don't think that is 'too much house'. Both of our cars were bought used. One is a paid-off 2004 Pontiac Grand Prix that we bought in 2007 and now has over 100K miles on it. The other is a 2009 Dodge Grand Caravan that we bought in 2011 and owe about $6K on and it has over 70K miles on it. I have one kid and two dogs. I put 10% to my 401K and $6000/yr toward health care premiums, not to mention taxes. If my wife makes a sale and has a commission check, we're fine that month. If she doesn't, we may or may not be able to cover all our expenses that month. 2008-2010 were not fun years and we took on home equity debt to get by. If she were making HALF of what she was making at her full time job that she had when we bought our house (and quit in 2005 to become a real estate agent), we'd be on easy street.

I consider that paycheck to paycheck.
 
2012-12-15 11:26:52 AM  
One of the problems with this article is that my quote about people living paycheck to paycheck on $250k/year was NOT about me. It also was not meant to garner sympathy from anyone for someone in this position of financial irresponsibility. The point was simply that income does not equal wealth. In my profession, I come across relatively wealthy folks earning much, much less than $250,000. They save and in general spend their money wisely. On the other end of the spectrum, I think it might shock people just how much money the self-assured rich can spend over and above what they actually make. I don't feel sympathy here but perhaps it highlights the motives of those in my income category who seem so dead set against any 'tax increases' (back to the rates we had during the most financially successful decade of our economy in recent memory).
 
Displayed 153 of 153 comments

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


Report