Originally Posted By DAR Pump the brakes kid <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090803/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_economy" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200..._economy</a> Remember "read my lips" Maybe when asked a question about taxes the best answer should be "we'll see"
Originally Posted By Mr X Fine with me, if so. I think "the economy is recovering" is the big news in THAT particular link, though. (funny you didn't mention it, DAR)
Originally Posted By DAR Great it's recovering. But the middle class was promised taxes wouldn't be raised.
Originally Posted By Mr X Meh. Promise/hopeful comment/campaign rhetoric...it's all the same. Personally, I hope they tax the crap out of practically everyone (they'll need the cash to fund all these plans to save the country from the crap left on the ground from Bush anyway)...I would be fine with 15-25% increases across the boards, and much more for the filthy rich.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Agreed X, the US hardly pays any taxes at all compared to the rest of the world, and get rubbish service for their tax dollars. I hope Obama turns the civic structures right around.
Originally Posted By Mr X And to stave off the inevitably ignorant "well, that's easy for YOU to say because you live in JAPAN!" comments, I file my 1040's every year just like the rest of you (and I would, even if I became a Japanese citizen...for a full seven years more if I understand the laws correctly). If tax increases are needed, then that's just fine with me.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Agreed X, the US hardly pays any taxes at all compared to the rest of the world, and get rubbish service for their tax dollars. I hope Obama turns the civic structures right around.*** Hear hear!
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I'm not sure anyone is ready to say the economy is "recovering" but I think it is safe to say the recession is slowing. Greenspan said this weekend that he is cautiously optimistic about the short term. He also warned of the unknown implications of long term debt that is mounting with all of the new initiatives. As I said, I'm happy to see that my 401K didn't lose money in the last quarter but I'm a long way from feeling comfortable. I don't have a problem paying more taxes so long as they get rid of the waste along the way.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo sounds like a pretty sensible response Wahooskipper. All around. What is interesting is in the 90's recession, we had a significant improvement for 2 quarters and then it plummeted again. Hope that doesn't happen this time around.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I'm not sure I follow your logic mawnck. I know some rich people that have nothing to do with my NOT being rich. What is the payback for, exactly?
Originally Posted By ecdc I'm happy to have my taxes go up to fix the problem. The health industry has ensured that they are so entrenched, so burrowed, and so intractable, that extracting them and removing them as they currently are is going to be long, painful, and difficult. Yet the attitude of some Americans is if that's the case, then let's not do anything. Taxes might go up? Whoa, whoa, whoa! My healthcare might change? Whoa, whoa, whoa! I might have to change? I might have [gulp!] sacrifice? Here's some shocking news for our "Christian nation:" It's still the right thing to do. I know it's hard for Americans to wrap their heads around that. How can something that isn't perfect, easy, free, or or an immediate benefit to ME ME ME! be the right thing to do? It's really, really lucky that this current crop of Americans wasn't around in 1941 or we would currently be the biggest province of the Empire of Japan. The notion of rationing, of sacrificing, of having their comfortable little lives changed one iota, appears to petrify most Americans. Guess what? It's time Americans learned to be patriotic about something other than war.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>I'm not sure I follow your logic mawnck. I know some rich people that have nothing to do with my NOT being rich. What is the payback for, exactly?<< Funny you should ask. Here's Paul Krugman in the NYT yesterday: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/03/opinion/03krugman.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&ref=opinion&adxnnlx=1249304676-mDiSQ0yDhjzLlz1BgJSWKg" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08...1BgJSWKg</a> >>Now, you might be tempted to dismiss destructive speculation as a minor issue — and 30 years ago you would have been right. Since then, however, high finance — securities and commodity trading, as opposed to run-of-the-mill banking — has become a vastly more important part of our economy, increasing its share of G.D.P. by a factor of six. And soaring incomes in the financial industry have played a large role in sharply rising income inequality. What should be done? Last week the House passed a bill setting rules for pay packages at a wide range of financial institutions. That would be a step in the right direction. But it really should be accompanied by much broader regulation of financial practices — and, I would argue, by higher tax rates on supersized incomes. Unfortunately, the House measure is opposed by the Obama administration, which still seems to operate on the principle that what’s good for Wall Street is good for America. Neither the administration, nor our political system in general, is ready to face up to the fact that we’ve become a society in which the big bucks go to bad actors, a society that lavishly rewards those who make us poorer.<<
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Not all rich people are ruthless CEO's. Some earned their money within the rules and through blood, sweat and tears.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>Guess what? It's time Americans learned to be patriotic about something other than war.<<< ecdc - I have always respected you, and this proves why!
Originally Posted By retlawfan My question to the group is: What is rich? What is "filthy rich"? Where do we draw that line? Everyone yells about the middle class being promised no raise in taxes, but wants the rich to pay through the nose. Where is that line? just curious.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>My question to the group is: What is rich? What is "filthy rich"? Where do we draw that line? << Rich - income greater than $562,797.19/yr. Filthy rich - income greater than $1,828,713.46/yr. I was, OF COURSE, speaking in terms of principles for creating new tax policies, but it sounded like you wanted actual numbers, so there ya go.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Not all rich people are ruthless CEO's. Some earned their money within the rules and through blood, sweat and tears.<< Beside the point. One of the biggest booms in US economic history took place in the 1950s, when the top tax bracket - on income greater than $200,000.01 ($7.5 million in today's money) - was ... y'ready for this? 91%. FWIW, I consider $7.5 million in income to be filthy rich. How about you? Complete 1954 tax brackets at the bottom of this page. Looks reasonable to me, and gives you some precise "lines" for those who want to draw them: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Code_of_1954" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I..._of_1954</a>
Originally Posted By ecdc >>One of the biggest booms in US economic history took place in the 1950s, when the top tax bracket - on income greater than $200,000.01 ($7.5 million in today's money) - was ... y'ready for this? 91%.<< Irrelevant. Everyone knows Eisenhower was a socialist pig. High taxes, opposition to Joseph McCarthy, and don't even get me started on that military industrial complex speech. If Obama hadn't been born in Kenya I'd say Eisenhower could be his father they're so much alike.
Originally Posted By queenbee << According to the Tax Policy Center, households making between $500,000 and $1 million per year would pay an average of $2,769 more in taxes in 2011, canceling out a potential $2,500 premium savings. Those making more than $1 million would pay much more. Granted, these are very wealthy families, in the top 1 percent of U.S. earners.>> <a href="http://wire.factcheck.org/2009/07/15/you-talking-to-me/" target="_blank">http://wire.factcheck.org/2009...g-to-me/</a> I cut out the part about families making 350K because the new proposal starts with 500K. In another article it stated that families earning 500K would pay about $1500/year more. This article just gives the average for the whole group. If the premium savings materialize, it could be a revenue nuetral policy for earners under $1mil. Over $1mil/year, the top 1% in the nation will pay more.
