3 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWhy 50K?
I'd say, raise taxes for everyone making over 50K.
If you ask me, the most politically savy thing to do is find the cut off point in terms of percentages of incomes. In other words, find out what the median income of 51% of the population is and tax the other upper 49% accordingly. That way you have the majority with you and can penalize the others without fearing getting thrown out of office.
Its all about dividing and conquering!! 😵
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou are 100% correct, it is arbritrary as is the $250,000 number. It sounds "fair" to you but what about the guy making 51K?
Just an arbitrary number, at least it should be somewhere around that range. It's the income at which nominal utility gain drops to almost zero.
As I said, if you wish to survive politically you better make sure that at least 51% of the population makes 50K or below. Otherwise you will not be in office that long.
Having said that, the good news for tax happy individuals is that the middle class is shrinking and has been for some time. At some point I anticipate that 51% of the population will be making 50K or under.
Originally posted by whodeyWell, someone making 51K will pay only slightly more taxes than someone making 49K. Have you ever paid taxes? You don't seem to be aware of how taxation works.
You are 100% correct, it is arbritrary as is the $250,000 number. It sounds "fair" to you but what about the guy making 51K?
As I said, if you wish to survive politically you better make sure that at least 51% of the population makes 50K or below. Otherwise you will not be in office that long.
Having said that, the good news for tax happy individuals ...[text shortened]... some time. At some point I anticipate that 51% of the population will be making 50K or under.
Originally posted by whodeyThey are due to expire; that's not something "Obama and Co." are just saying.
What has been the tax rate the last 8 years? You may point to the fact that these tax rates were temporary, but are not all tax rates temporarty? Let's be fair, we ARE talking about increasing taxes even though Obama and company try to get a free pass by saying that they are due to expire.
- Joined
- 03 Sep 03
- Moves
- 89331
1 edit
Originally posted by whodey50k goes a lot further or less far depending on where in the US you live.
Why 50K?
If you ask me, the most politically savy thing to do is find the cut off point in terms of percentages of incomes. In other words, find out what the median income of 51% of the population is and tax the other upper 49% accordingly. That way you have the majority with you and can penalize the others without fearing getting thrown out of office.
Its all about dividing and conquering!! 😵
Originally posted by whodeyNot according to Democrats, according to economists.
So lets work through this. According to the Democrats:
1. Tax cuts put money in the pockets of the average Joe which increases the federal deficit but stimulates the economy. Of course, we are only talking about tax cuts for the middle class because the rich will bury their money in the back yard thus not stimulating the eocnomy.
2. Unemployment be ...[text shortened]... uldn't increased unemployment coupled with unemployment benefits stimulate the economy further?
So, now your intention is to only stimulate the economy and not balance the budget, correct? If that is the case then both will work towards that goal. If not, then the difference between 1 and 2 is several billion dollars.
Originally posted by whodeyReally? They aren't due to expire?
What has been the tax rate the last 8 years? You may point to the fact that these tax rates were temporary, but are not all tax rates temporarty? Let's be fair, we ARE talking about increasing taxes even though Obama and company try to get a free pass by saying that they are due to expire.
Originally posted by whodeyYou need to do your homework.
What has been the tax rate the last 8 years? You may point to the fact that these tax rates were temporary, but are not all tax rates temporarty? Let's be fair, we ARE talking about increasing taxes even though Obama and company try to get a free pass by saying that they are due to expire.
Here's a little after school reading for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Growth_and_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2001
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_and_Growth_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2003
You will notice that the tax cuts were "designed to be phased in over a period of up to 9 years" and "are set to expire after 2010".
Originally posted by CliffLandinPersonally, I rather see all the Bush tax cuts expire rather than continue the special treatment of capital gains and dividends and the reduced marginal rate on the top brackets. Then Obama could propose a real stimulus creating actual jobs rather than relying on supply side economics.
You need to do your homework.
Here's a little after school reading for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Growth_and_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2001
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_and_Growth_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2003
You will notice that the tax cuts were "designed to be phased in over a period of up to 9 years" and "are set to expire after 2010".
Taxes wouldn't be a problem if we got our ridiculous military spending in line.
1. We have to stop being the world's police we have no business having troops anywhere but in America.
2. After we close all our bases overseas we can drastically reduce the size of our military.
3. Our military is hideously overpaid. We need to freeze their pay increases until they fall back to reasonable levels. This will take some time since they make so much money now. If they don't like it they can become civilians and see how much more they can make on the outside.
4. Reinstitute the draft and cut the pay for new recruits even more. Privates in basic training make an obscene amount of money, their pay and benefits equal over 30,000 dollars a year on the outside. That's TOO MUCH.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyYeah, but he only pays the higher tax rate on the proportion of his income above 50K, so it actually only affects the last 1K of his earnings. If the tax rate above 50K rises from, say 20% to 30%, then his post-tax income goes from 40.8K to 40.7K. A difference of a hundred dollars. Big deal.
You are 100% correct, it is arbritrary as is the $250,000 number. It sounds "fair" to you but what about the guy making 51K?
Originally posted by TeinosukeTry telling that to voters.
Yeah, but he only pays the higher tax rate on the proportion of his income above 50K, so it actually only affects the last 1K of his earnings. If the tax rate above 50K rises from, say 20% to 30%, then his post-tax income goes from 40.8K to 40.7K. A difference of a hundred dollars. Big deal.
1 edit
Originally posted by CliffLandinThis is not about me, this is about asking why both parties are in favor of tax relief for the middle class and who agrees with them. As for balancing the budget, neither party gives a damn. In fact, the only time that Dems protest increases in the deficit is when the "rich" are given tax breaks.
Not according to Democrats, according to economists.
So, now your intention is to only stimulate the economy and not balance the budget, correct? If that is the case then both will work towards that goal. If not, then the difference between 1 and 2 is several billion dollars.