I think we should redefine rich as $170k or more

[Jhhnn]

Sorry it's both spending and cutting. the 2-5% proposed on income above >$250k a year really isn't the end of the world.

That said it needs to come with massive cuts because it's not enough money anyway.

Restoring 1980 tax rates for the top 50% of earners would make necessary cuts a helluva lot easier to manage. Raising taxes on the bottom 50% would be criminal, considering their radically reduced share of income achieved over the last 30 years and the fact that they're the people most likely affected by cuts, anyway.

I was a working adult in 1980, and I really didn't notice rich people having a tough time making ends meet, at all. They were rich, after all. Even then, they enjoyed the lowest tax rates of any of the first world rich.

 

[a777pilot]

What is wrong with the traditional Democrat Party definition of rich: Anyone with a private sector job.

 

[Jhhnn]

What is wrong with the traditional Democrat Party definition of rich: Anyone with a private sector job.

Drivel.

 

[QuantumPion]

I think we should define rich based on percentiles of average world GDP. It's only fair. Say oh 75% tax at $10,000 per year as the top bracket ought to do it.

 

[Jhhnn]

I think we should define rich based on percentiles of average world GDP. It's only fair. Say oh 75% tax at $10,000 per year as the top bracket ought to do it.

Flippant drivel.

 

[Lithium381]

If it's "just 2-5%" then why not just do it? Why make it a talking point at all of his speeches? does it need a national vote to raise the tax on 250+ earners? Why be so public about it.

Class warfare.

 

[bfdd]

Restoring 1980 tax rates for the top 50% of earners would make necessary cuts a helluva lot easier to manage. Raising taxes on the bottom 50% would be criminal, considering their radically reduced share of income achieved over the last 30 years and the fact that they're the people most likely affected by cuts, anyway.

I was a working adult in 1980, and I really didn't notice rich people having a tough time making ends meet, at all. They were rich, after all. Even then, they enjoyed the lowest tax rates of any of the first world rich.

Raising taxes on any specific group of people, is unethical and immoral. We are in this shit together, we're part of the union, we can all pay the same rate. Or are you saying some are lesser/greater citizens than others so they have to pay more/less? Or is it based on "opportunities" how do you know those down the rung didn't have opportunities they squandered? You don't. This is why a FLAT TAX RATE IS THE FAIREST. It makes the blow of paying for social services you'll never use easier, knowing full well those who are taking advantage of them are paying into our system and benefiting from it.

 

[Zebo]

If obama wants to raise taxes "on the rich" i think the cutoff point should be $170k. New taxes will be based on gross income, ie you're not allowed deductions.

This has to be a joke. People have businesses which have hundreds of thousands in gross income and make less than their employees or even lose money when starting out. Basically you'd kill all chances of starting a business if you taxed gross receipts.

Sensible taxes tax net after expenses and deductions - the only question is is how much.

 

[Jhhnn]

Raising taxes on any specific group of people, is unethical and immoral. We are in this shit together, we're part of the union, we can all pay the same rate. Or are you saying some are lesser/greater citizens than others so they have to pay more/less? Or is it based on "opportunities" how do you know those down the rung didn't have opportunities they squandered? You don't. This is why a FLAT TAX RATE IS THE FAIREST. It makes the blow of paying for social services you'll never use easier, knowing full well those who are taking advantage of them are paying into our system and benefiting from it.

So, uhh, cutting taxes for any specific group of people would also be immoral, huh? As with RR & Bush, obviously. I suppose that's "different" somehow...

What Righties fail to comprehend is that progressive income taxes are a form of economic self defense for the middle and working class, and we haven't done a very good job of defending ourselves for the last 30 years.

Righties also cast a blind eye on the concept of total taxes, which are almost flat from the middle to the top o' the heap, actually regressive at the tippytop-

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2010.pdf

If federal income taxes were flat rate, then those at the top would actually pay a much lower total tax bill as a % of income than the middle class.

You're entitled to your own opinion, such as it is, just not your own facts.

Me? I'm dyin' to pay big taxes on big money, as is most of America. Too bad we can't auction incomes to the highest bidder- What would you be willing to pay uncle Sam to make $1M/yr? How about $100M/yr? would you skip along happily to the bank with the big money you had after tax, or would you whine and simper like a spoiled brat for having to pay more than the little guy, who needs every dime he can get?

 

[shira]

How about the "progressives" stop playing class warfare and start addressing the real problems of this country?

In case you hadn't noticed, one of the "real problems facing this country" is that our government's revenues are much less than our spending. So raising revenues by increasing the taxes on those best able to afford the increase is PART of the solution to that problem.


Your ideology prevents you from seeing that deficit reduction via a spending-cuts-only approach is overwhelmingly going to be paid for by the poor and middle class. I'd like to see you rationalize how making the poor and middle classes "pay more" isn't class warfare.

 

[Lithium381]

In case you hadn't noticed, one of the "real problems facing this country" is that our government's revenues are much less than our spending. So raising revenues by increasing the taxes on those best able to afford the increase is PART of the solution to that problem.


Your ideology prevents you from seeing that deficit reduction via a spending-cuts-only approach is overwhelmingly going to be paid for by the poor and middle class. I'd like to see you rationalize how making the poor and middle classes "pay more" isn't class warfare.

making the poor and middle class pay more?

 

[dank69]

Raising taxes on any specific group of people, is unethical and immoral.
...

So, uhh, cutting taxes for any specific group of people would also be immoral, huh?
...

I would love to see how he answers this question. Does he really believe that 'Raising taxes on any specific group of people, is unethical and immoral' and 'Lowering taxes on any specific group of people, is not unethical and immoral.'

 

[halik]

So, uhh, cutting taxes for any specific group of people would also be immoral, huh? As with RR & Bush, obviously. I suppose that's "different" somehow...

What Righties fail to comprehend is that progressive income taxes are a form of economic self defense for the middle and working class, and we haven't done a very good job of defending ourselves for the last 30 years.

Righties also cast a blind eye on the concept of total taxes, which are almost flat from the middle to the top o' the heap, actually regressive at the tippytop-

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2010.pdf

If federal income taxes were flat rate, then those at the top would actually pay a much lower total tax bill as a % of income than the middle class.

You're entitled to your own opinion, such as it is, just not your own facts.

Me? I'm dyin' to pay big taxes on big money, as is most of America. Too bad we can't auction incomes to the highest bidder- What would you be willing to pay uncle Sam to make $1M/yr? How about $100M/yr? would you skip along happily to the bank with the big money you had after tax, or would you whine and simper like a spoiled brat for having to pay more than the little guy, who needs every dime he can get?

This, probably the least coherent argument about tax policy I've heard so far.

Flat tax is a 'tarded idea, to maintain the same tax revenue, it essentially amounts to 30% tax cut for people in the 28% and up bracket and 50% tax hike for people making under $35K a year

 

[dank69]

This, probably the least coherent argument about tax policy I've heard so far.

Flat tax is a 'tarded idea, to maintain the same tax revenue, it essentially amounts to 30% tax cut for people in the 28% and up bracket and 50% tax hike for people making under $35K a year

Please explain how raising taxes on one group of people is immoral, while lowering taxes on one group of people is not immoral.

 

[Jhhnn]

Please explain how raising taxes on one group of people is immoral, while lowering taxes on one group of people is not immoral.

Halik never made that argument.

My reply was tailored to the poster quoted, and was not intended to be coherent in a conventional sense.

 

[halik]

Please explain how raising taxes on one group of people is immoral, while lowering taxes on one group of people is not immoral.

This comes handy when deciding the incidence of tax:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_marginal_utility#Diminishing_marginal_utility

 

[werepossum]

This, probably the least coherent argument about tax policy I've heard so far.

Flat tax is a 'tarded idea, to maintain the same tax revenue, it essentially amounts to 30% tax cut for people in the 28% and up bracket and 50% tax hike for people making under $35K a year

A flat tax on ALL income (including capital gains and muni bonds) above the poverty rate for one's household, with no exemptions, would in my opinion be very fair. It'll never happen though, people are too fond on their own exemptions to eliminate them along with those of others.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Since when does rich = stinking rich and never have to balance a check book or worry about money?

If your engine runs rich does that mean you are burried in gasoline and never have to fill up your gas tank again? Or does it mean you have a bit more inflow of fuel than absolutely necessary?

Um. Fuck you. Why do i need to live on what is just absolutely necessary? It's my money. I earned it. I should be able to do with it as I please. If you want the system to be fair, make everyone pay an equal percentage. IE, make the almost 50% that don't currently pay anything, PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE.
They can afford it. They don't need cell phones, or cars. They can ride the bus and buy clothes at the 2nd hand store.

 

[Lithium381]

Um. Fuck you. Why do i need to live on what is just absolutely necessary? It's my money. I earned it. I should be able to do with it as I please. If you want the system to be fair, make everyone pay an equal percentage. IE, make the almost 50% that don't currently pay anything, PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE.
They can afford it. They don't need cell phones, or cars. They can ride the bus and buy clothes at the 2nd hand store.

i work hard so i can have MORE than the absolute necessities in life.....

 

[pauldun170]

I am a hard working business man. I have a day job and am the sole proprietor of a tech company. I do almost all of my own work, with help from a 1099 contractor that I pay in excess of $40/hour. I make gross somewhere around $500K/year and don't outsource, play dirty, or try to hide my money. I just sell my ass off and provide excellent service and support. I end up paying somewhere around $100K+/year in taxes.

Someone - please explain how I am abusing the system and how it is fair that I pay so much when I truly use so little.

HENRYs (high earner not rich yet) are NOT the problem. The problem are these bastards making millions of dollars in capital gains, only paying 15% tax, and unfairly lowering tax burden by writing off their jets, yachts, ski trips and vacation homes. The people who can afford to have 50 CPAs on staff to lower their tax burden and find loopholes need to be targeted, not the high earners.

20% effective tax rate isn't bad.
That's a little less than the 25% average those making over 20 million typically pay.
It not as good as the average single income homeowner with 2.5 kids who aree more likely to pay an effective 10%-15% tax rate.
Hell of lot better than a single person making 150K who could potentially be shelling out 27% effective.

The fact is that each case is different and it depends on the lifestyle\investment choices each individual makes.
Creating boogeyman whther its the welfare queen or "generic rich man"
does nothing but make chocolate milk go sour.

 

[orbster556]

Although I don't have particular insight into what level of gross income qualifies someone as rich, I would like to make a general observation, namely, that the American left, has, over the past fifty years, endorsed a vision of society in which individual liberty is paramount. It is this reverence for individual liberty that has helped support the Left's positions on issues ranging from abortion to minority rights to divorce to interaction of Church state to drug policy to even 4th Amendment rights.

Yet, when discussion moves to the economic sphere regard for individual liberty seems to disappear as members of the Left have little compunction over telling other people how to dispose of their income or other possessions.

I would suggest, however, that one's ability to free do with his property as he will is as essential to the preservation of personal autonomy and individual liberty as who that person marries or what chemical substances the person chooses to imbibe.

 

[werepossum]

Although I don't have particular insight into what level of gross income qualifies someone as rich, I would like to make a general observation, namely, that the American left, has, over the past fifty years, endorsed a vision of society in which individual liberty is paramount. It is this reverence for individual liberty that has helped support the Left's positions on issues ranging from abortion to minority rights to divorce to interaction of Church state to drug policy to even 4th Amendment rights.

Yet, when discussion moves to the economic sphere regard for individual liberty seems to disappear as members of the Left have little compunction over telling other people how to dispose of their income or other possessions.

I would suggest, however, that one's ability to free do with his property as he will is as essential to the preservation of personal autonomy and individual liberty as who that person marries or what chemical substances the person chooses to imbibe.

I agree completely. In fairness though I have to add that this isn't just a problem with the left. I consider myself pretty far right on average, and I'll admit the right has similar problems. Far too many people who preach small, limited government have absolutely no problem with government having the power to say whom one can and cannot marry. None of us is perfect, but it's good to point out these inconsistencies.

 

[orbster556]

I agree completely. In fairness though I have to add that this isn't just a problem with the left. I consider myself pretty far right on average, and I'll admit the right has similar problems. Far too many people who preach small, limited government have absolutely no problem with government having the power to say whom one can and cannot marry. None of us is perfect, but it's good to point out these inconsistencies.

I think you're absolutely right and I think both 'sides' have problems with inconsistencies.

I only pointed it that specific inconsistency here because the debate in this thread has seemed to focus on an inquiry into what level of income a person truly 'needs' with the government having a stake in the remaining portion. I would contend that the first question we ought to consider is whether it is prudent to permit the government to coerce individuals to dispose of their property or the fruits of their labor in a manner that might be antithetical to their personal desires or beliefs. I believe this is especially true where the money collected is not for promotion of the general welfare but rather the enhancement of the welfare of specific individuals.

 

[werepossum]

I think you're absolutely right and I think both 'sides' have problems with inconsistencies.

I only pointed it that specific inconsistency here because the debate in this thread has seemed to focus on an inquiry into what level of income a person truly 'needs' with the government having a stake in the remaining portion. I would contend that the first question we ought to consider is whether it is prudent to permit the government to coerce individuals to dispose of their property or the fruits of their labor in a manner that might be antithetical to their personal desires or beliefs. I believe this is especially true where the money collected is not for promotion of the general welfare but rather the enhancement of the welfare of specific individuals.

Once again I agree completely. I too make a huge distinction personally between tax money that is taken to be used for the general welfare and tax money that is taken simply to be redistributed, whether out of a sense of fairness or a cynical attempt to buy votes.