Originally Posted By calgrl2490 I think that we shouldn't get rid of entitlement programs (obviously they do help people in need). But they need to be supervised a lot more. There are those who would try to take advantage of services like welfare or disabilities checks in order to avoid work (it sucks but you can't say it doesn't happen. There are always going to be those people). Also I agree we should tax the rich but it should be the mega super rich not the people who make even $500000 a year. My family makes a lot of money but my father chose to put two kids through private school and send them to college. Along the way he has had to battle skin cancer and a life threatening disease that ended up costing him his spleen but luckily not his life. And you would punish someone who only makes about $250000 a year in California? We don't live like kings. We drive hondas and toyotas and we don't live in a country club. There needs to be some kind of consideration taken into what "rich" really is based on geography and family. The biggest kicker is that he was kicked out of his mother's house at 16 and worked to get himself through college. He has an MBA and a successful career in a defense company because worked hard. And if it is his choice to give his family a better life then he had because he can afford private schooling and paid off his house then why are we going to punish him for that? I think what we are all forgetting is that there is a person at the end of that pay check. The fighting and naming calling between both parties is devastating because it is creating a country that becomes numb to insensitivity.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "And you would punish someone who only makes about $250000 a year in California?" I would. And it had nothing to do with "punishing" anyone. All anyone's talking about is going back to the 90's rates. They were not onerous, and it sounds like your family didn't struggle too terribly in the 90's.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>And it had nothing to do with "punishing" anyone.<< Exactly. Part of the problem is how these things are consistently framed from a right-wing perspective. "Punishment," "wealth redistribution," "class warfare." These labels immediately frame the issue in such a way as to make reasonable debate difficult, if not impossible. If dabob said, "ecdc, have you stopped using coke yet?" the discussion is immediately framed in such a way that I'm spending all my time denying that I'm a drug user, instead of discussing whatever the isuse at hand might be. That's how politics goes in this country. "Why do you support socialist medicine?" "How come you hate the rich?"
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Big words from someone of whom we're not even sure if he's still doing coke or not.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<We don't live like kings. We drive hondas and toyotas and we don't live in a country club. There needs to be some kind of consideration taken into what "rich" really is based on geography and family.>> Not past a certain threshold of annual income, of which $250K qualifies. Also, you're confusing "inability to pay" with "deciding not to pay" in defense of your lifestyle. Your family has simply chosen *not* to drive more expensive cars or join a country club. Even in California, $250K would allow you to drive Mercedes and join a country club with $10K annual dues. The fact that you haven't done this is simply a matter of choice. Hate to break it to you, but your family is indeed "rich." Less than 3% of American households make $250K or more each year. Less than 3%! Don't tell me your family isn't rich. They're absolutely loaded compared the vast majority in this country. <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/2010/02/02/you-re-rich-get-over-it.html" target="_blank">http://www.newsweek.com/2010/0...-it.html</a>
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Big words from someone of whom we're not even sure if he's still doing coke or not.<< It's powdered sugar! I was holding it for a friend!
Originally Posted By velo calgrl - are you now out on your own, supporting yourself; or are you still living with your parents?
Originally Posted By Mr X In honor of Skinner's excellent post #125... <a href="http://tinyurl.com/3z3cukk" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/3z3cukk</a> And I am shocked, honestly shocked, to hear ecdc is still using. I think it's time for an intervention or something!
Originally Posted By hopemax The median income in San Francisco, which is always one of the places come up when rich people claim poverty, is still only about $73,000. If you are making $250K that is over 3 times the median income. That's rich. It may not provide all the luxuries that are available. And if you think it's hard to live on $250K, imagine what its like for the half of families that are living on less than $73,000. Mr. X posted to an Onion article, but I have seen the same in more mainstream articles. The existence of billionaires makes people who make 6 figures think they aren't rich, even though they are.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Sure, good for them on one level. But if they're trying not to pay a little more (90's level) when they'd be one of the relatively few families who could without too much pain at a time when the country is swimming in red ink-- not so good.
Originally Posted By calgrl2490 I actually am a full time student on my own with two jobs if you can believe it. My father taught me not to expect handouts (even from him). Aside from my education he pays for nothing. Where do you live in the Bay Area by the way? And how is it our choice not to buy more expensive cars or a better house. If my father did that he would be spending beyond his means but apparently responsible spending is not valued in this country. And in fact you are "punishing" the those who make a decent income. If you pay over $40000 a year in taxes and give a decent amount of income to charity why are you being targeted by the government as someone who does not contribute? When in fact you do? A heck of a lot more then most people. The fact is there is no "mythical rich" person that yo ucan turn to and pick clean who will solve all your problems. The left is acting as if this is the only solution. What about altering the pay of some of those CEOs who make millions more then their employees. And what about some regulation in spending obviously? And cutting ridiculous programs like the billion dollar suicide net on the golden gate? I mean if they wanna commit suicide so badly they'll find another way. And I realize this is chump change compared to the debt but how many other projects do we have going on like this around the country? Let's attack this debt from all angles. If you solely focus on taxing the rich they are going to eventually leave for a country that doesn't try to wring them dry. I'll have to find the article but a bunch of soccer players in England are leaving for Spain and Italy because taxes have gotten so high that they aren't pleased with their income. That's what could happen to us! And if we are going to match the taxes of England we better be able to have some impressive programs to back up our support. But what proof do we have that our money will really help in these areas. If you guys are cool with blindly sending your money to the over spending politicians on capital hill then that's fine by me. I'm sure the IRS accepts checks so why don't the super rich dems send some in if its "such a problem?"
Originally Posted By calgrl2490 This isn't the soccer article but I found it interesting when I read it in the paper a few days ago. <a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_17893816?nclick_check=1" target="_blank">http://www.mercurynews.com/opi..._check=1</a>
Originally Posted By Mr X ***My father taught me not to expect handouts (even from him). Aside from my education he pays for nothing*** So that's not a handout, then? ***If you pay over $40000 a year in taxes and give a decent amount of income to charity why are you being targeted by the government as someone who does not contribute? When in fact you do? A heck of a lot more then most people*** If you re-consider this in terms of percentages, rather than simple dollar amounts, I think you'll understand that saying "a heck of a lot more" is an extremely relative thing. For a struggling family earning the median wage, the amount they have to pay has a far greater impact on their lives. They can't worry about whether or not a Toyota is more practical than a BMW, they have to worry about whether or not they can even get a car at all (or perhaps chose between that and buying their kids some clothing for the school year).
Originally Posted By Mr X That article is garbage, the writer lost me in the first sentence by putting the word rich in quotation marks (as others on here have said, if you make over $250,000 a year you ARE, in fact, rich in percentage terms compared to all your fellow countrymen...and there's nothing WRONG with that, it's admirable in fact when people work hard and succeed very nicely in their chosen professions, but that doesn't mean setting a slightly higher tax for such wealth is any sort of "punishment", that's absurd). The rest of the article was simply an Obama bash peppered with typical right wing memes.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "And in fact you are "punishing" the those who make a decent income. If you pay over $40000 a year in taxes and give a decent amount of income to charity why are you being targeted by the government as someone who does not contribute" You continue to both miss the point and mischaracterize what others are saying. No one said that raising taxes back to 90's levels is the only thing we need to do, but yes, it is one of the things we need to do. And that's not any sort of punishment. They were not onerous levels, and they were the closest we've come in recent years to finding the "sweet spot" of taxes that were still pretty low by historic levels, but not so low that we were swimming in red ink.
Originally Posted By calgrl2490 Right compared to any other leftist article bashing the right. I however will concede that education can be considered a handout by my parents but apparently my omission about how I take care of myself is ignored because you had to find something wrong with my argument. While I understand that on a standard chart of wealth distribution my family is considered "rich." But only based on a number NOT the expenses incurred by choosing to live in the Bay Area or supporting 2 children (yes skinnerbox "choosing"). But by that same logic why do I have to pay for the 14 year old that "chose" to get pregnant when they can't afford it. Why do I have to pay for the people who "choose" to remain generational welfare families by "choosing" not to work and just live off welfare? They are two sides to every argument and I am willing to agree to that by why can't you (and by you I mean the Dems)? Because its a great way to turn the tables on the GOP by campaign time. But if they were smart the dems wouldn't attack republicans especially moderates like me because most of us loathe the choices for the next election. The Dems (at least the high up politicians) don't care about the average american that they are fighting so hard for. They want your vote and you are buying right into it. Obama has increased the debt by $3 trillion and its climbing. Bush (while I'm not defending that presidency) only increased it by $4.9 trillion for both terms combined! <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20019931-503544.html" target="_blank">http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-50...544.html</a> Robert Reich (an economist and democrat) understands why this kind of legislation will never work. Dems like making money just as much as the GOP. <a href="http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2007/10/logic-of-taxing-rich-and-why-dems-are.html" target="_blank">http://robertreich.blogspot.co...are.html</a> All I'm saying is you shouldn't be closed minded to other options because as many economists have stated this is not THE solution its a band aid solution. Therefore why are you acting like it is the only choice?
Originally Posted By calgrl2490 Dabob2 I'm not missing the point but if it's not the only solution then why is it the only one being discussed by the left? And I only say this because the left holds the presidency so they should be the ones talking about it. If anyone brings up other options they are bashed for not wanting to help those in need which is simply not true. Why can't we have transparent, credible discussion on these issues on the main stage instead of politicians (on both sides) telling us that this solution is best and we should accept it no questions asked? But then again what am I saying? Politics and transparency have never mixed. Wishful thinking I guess.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 You continue to argue against things that mo ome said. I realize your last post was directed primarily at Mr. X, but he didn't say them either. Raising taxes back to more sensible levels is only one component of a many-sided solution. You're fairly new to WE, but several of us articulated such multiple steps in previous posts. But raising taxes has to be ONE of the components if we're serious about debt reduction. Putting them off the table indicates a lack of seriousness or an inability to do math.
Originally Posted By calgrl2490 Is WE world events? (sorry I'm bad with the whole shortening word thing sometimes)But yes I am new to this one at least. If you can believe it I originally came on this section to see if anyone was discussing the royal wedding but then I got caught up in this thread. I agree with you there. But I don't think they need to be outrageously high and I also don't think that we as American's should get comfortable with the idea that raising taxes on any class is a good solution because that logic could get out of control. But I think I didn't really express my view as well as I could have. But I agree with taxing the rich to a point. It just needs to be fair and universal for every level of "rich" meaning the billionares and millionares shouldn't be excluded and sometimes the $250000 to $500000 income bracket end up paying the brunt of what the millionaires should be paying but still avoid. So I guess if I look at it that way we both do want the rich to pay. Sometimes its hard to get my point across through a message board and it can sound more negative then I mean, but hopfully everyone realizes I just enjoy a good political debate.
