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 23
    More: Interesting, progressive taxes, personal income taxes, Palm Beach Gardens, Tax Foundation, media proprietor, land trust, Boehner  
•       •       •

4393 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Dec 2012 at 12:42 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-12-14 12:39:12 PM
5 votes:
"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 12:47:16 PM
4 votes:

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 12:47:08 PM
4 votes:
"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 11:05:41 AM
4 votes:
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 11:52:46 AM
3 votes:

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 12:50:54 PM
2 votes:

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 11:03:50 AM
2 votes:
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 10:45:52 AM
2 votes:
Let me sum up the entire article:

"It won't effect me at all, but gosh I hate that President Ovronsky"
2012-12-14 10:35:33 AM
2 votes:
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 02:11:52 PM
1 votes:

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 02:03:19 PM
1 votes:

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 02:02:24 PM
1 votes:

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 01:49:16 PM
1 votes:
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 01:15:51 PM
1 votes:

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 01:15:37 PM
1 votes:

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 01:03:30 PM
1 votes:

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 12:59:11 PM
1 votes:
"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 12:57:58 PM
1 votes:
"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 12:57:54 PM
1 votes:

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 12:51:53 PM
1 votes:
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 11:45:07 AM
1 votes:
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 11:40:02 AM
1 votes:
"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 10:27:36 AM
1 votes:
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.
 
Displayed 23 of 23 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report