Originally Posted By Mr X ***sometimes the $250000 to $500000 income bracket end up paying the brunt of what the millionaires should be paying but still avoid*** The millionaires and billionaires would have to pay it, too. And in dollar terms, they'll be paying a HECK of a lot more than your parents do (see how that works out in reverse too when you don't examine it in percentage terms). But I actually do agree with you. Though no mainstream Democrat has dared propose this, I think a very fair increase at this point would be a 3% hike PER each $250,000 level, on up to the $1,000,000 level (so one who earns a million or more on a yearly basis would go from 36% up to 48% over that first one million), and perhaps even one more at 3 or 5 million or so but that gets complicated because people earning THAT kind of stratospheric wealth on a yearly basis aren't generally paying any earned income tax at all so there's really no point.
Originally Posted By calgrl2490 Agreed. I guess I wasn't arguing that my family shouldn't pay more taxes at all but that all the rich should have to pay. However I didn't really lay out my opinion real well.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "But I don't think they need to be outrageously high" Neither do I. And the 90's rates weren't. We don't seem to be so far apart now that you've clarified your position some more.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***We don't seem to be so far apart now that you've clarified your position some more*** I would say the same. Although she obviously "leans right" and I could do without some of the disparaging stuff (although I do the same myself so fair is fair), I can understand some of the the arguments quite well. Though I think that she is sort of Republican by Tradition (being from a staunchly Democratic family I can dig it), and not necessarily all that thrilled with the direction that party has taken lately. In other words, as she wrote, a "Moderate Republican". Refreshing, certainly. I just hope she doesn't get drummed out of the club like all the rest of the "RINO's" these days lol. I it certainly more difficult to be a moderate Republican than to be a moderate Democrat in these times (the shift TOWARDS the right is unmistakable...that's one of the things about President Obama that I really admire, that he does seem to be taking the WHOLE country into consideration in his thinking process, rather than "pander to the left" who are at least as disgusted with him these days as the far right is lol).
Originally Posted By calgrl2490 I think living in California sort of gives me my moderate view points because I was part of a republican family but the world around me is liberal based in its ideals. I agree with what you said about Obama because I think that's why he is very careful in his talking points on issues. However I don't like how he's not addressing his party's issues which he campaigned to help with. Even though I don't always agree with the democratic way, if I was a democrat I would be upset that he isn't really taking too much action based on his ideals. But at the same time I don't even really know what his focus is anymore but I think that's just because of the state of our country/ world. But yes I think we are coming from the same place.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<I actually am a full time student on my own with two jobs if you can believe it.>> Been there, done that for both my B.A. and M.A. <<My father taught me not to expect handouts (even from him). Aside from my education he pays for nothing.>> Didn't get handouts from the parents, but took out student loans. <<Where do you live in the Bay Area by the way?>> Downtown San Francisco. <<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.>> Sorry, but that's simply not true, even in San Francisco. If he's actually making $250K annually, that's almost $21,000 each month. Even if he's taking zero deductions on his taxes, he can afford to drive a Mercedes or join a country club, if that's what's important to him. Having an income exceeding $20,000 every month gives one a tremendous amount of disposable income, even in a high cost region like the Bay Area. <<And in fact you are "punishing" the those who make a decent income.>> Taxation is not "punishment." It's asking those citizens who can more easily afford to give a bit more than those who cannot, to help support the society they live in and are a part of. Only someone who's selfish and self-centered would view taxation that they could easily afford as "punishment." <<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 giving to charity, you get tax deductions. With tax deductions, you pay less taxes. But many in the $250K and above bracket -- less than 3% of the country -- hire tax attorneys and accountants to help them pay very, very little in taxes, as a percentage of their total income. And that's wrong. They can afford to give more, and should give more. <<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.>> Here we go. Republican talking points about how the Dems have no solutions to our fiscal problems. Try reading this thread and the article I posted at the link: <a href="http://mb.laughingplace.com/MsgBoard-T-119606-P-1.asp" target="_blank">http://mb.laughingplace.com/Ms...-P-1.asp</a> <<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.>> Here's a shot in the dark. Are you a fan of Ayn Rand? I'm guessing you agree with much of her Social Darwinistic ideology, given this particular criticism of the suicide net, and other social programs you complained about in other posts. (And FWIW, the suicide net on the bridge is not only to prevent people from killing themselves, but also to prevent unsuccessful suicides resulting in severe disabilities, which our tax dollars would be supporting for decades in the form of continuous health care and financial assistance.) Given your attitude, you want to reap all of the benefits from government and a democratic society but only want to fund those parts you personally agree with or find of personal value to you. Sorry, but societies like ours simply cannot work that way. Everyone must contribute, and everyone must be willing to accept that their taxes are going to pay for programs they don't personally believe in or agree with. That's just the way democracies work. <<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.>> No, that's not going to happen to us. The "rich" will not leave our nation for another country because there is no other country for them to go to where taxation would be lower for the same quality of life. The soccer players can leave because they can play in a dozen or so different countries. But the billionaire business leaders in our country have but just a handful of nations to park their citizenships in, where they can still run their companies, and the United States is still the best option for them, even at a higher rate of taxation. You're buying into another Republican talking point myth that higher taxes will force the wealthy to flee our shores. Hogwash. They didn't leave during the pre-Reagan era, and stuck around for higher taxes during Clinton. If we return the tax rates of the Clinton era, the rich will remain. They might not like paying more in taxes, but they won't leave the US and relocate elsewhere, in order to pay less. <<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?">> Why should the wealthy Democrats be expected to give charitable contributions to the IRS when the Republicans refuse to do so? Why are you expecting the Dems to be super heroes and bail out the government when you obviously don't expect reciprocal behavior from your Republicans? That's hypocritical. Would you voluntarily give your college extra tuition to help them meet their financial obligations, which all colleges and universities are now facing, while other students refused? Of course not. No one would. But by your reasoning and expectations in your IRS example, you'd be expecting other students to do what you refuse to do. Unbelievable.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>If he's actually making $250K annually, that's almost $21,000 each month. Even if he's taking zero deductions on his taxes, he can afford to drive a Mercedes or join a country club, if that's what's important to him. Having an income exceeding $20,000 every month gives one a tremendous amount of disposable income.<< That's a great reality check, skinner. I think the reason so many people think $250,000 is somehow not rich or just a moderate income is it's not "I have more money than I know what to do with" rich. This was my parents growing up. They lived in a big house with a pool, my mom drove a Lexus, my dad a BMW. But they complained about money, much along the same lines that we've seen here. They weren't greedy people, they never complained about taxes or anything, but having a big mortgage, high car payments, etc, meant they weren't swimming in money. They budgeted for what they could afford, it just happened to be nice things. In other words, I understand that someone who has $250,000 a year isn't swimming in money. But if they examine their lifestyle, I think they'll realize they're doing just fine, and asking for a little more to help our country isn't too much.
Originally Posted By Mr X First off, I appreciate every point in post #145 so thank you, CG, for your decidedly right leaning yet reasonable and moderate viewpoints! We need more of that here in LP WE (laughingplace worldevents). I think you and WahooSkipper would be great friends if you guys ever met in person. ***I think the reason so many people think $250,000 is somehow not rich or just a moderate income is it's not "I have more money than I know what to do with" rich. This was my parents growing up. They lived in a big house with a pool, my mom drove a Lexus, my dad a BMW. But they complained about money, much along the same lines that we've seen here*** There's a ton of truth to this. I, on the other hand, was raised in what WE proudly considered a "middle-class" household, and it was, but more of a lower middle-class level though we didn't look at it that way. We never took any elaborate vacations (I went to DisneyWorld exactly TWICE in my childhood, once when I was 4 and we stayed with friends right after my Mom died, and the other in my teen years on a band trip which I had to go door to door fundraising $500 to make happen lol...which is probably why I'm as infatuated with the parks as an adult because it was always a dream just out of reach when I was a kid, but then again some kids NEVER get to go!). My Dad and step-Mom drove second hand cars and we had a modest house that wasn't huge but we owned it (a source of pride, to be sure). In any case, that was just to set up the idea that EVERYONE feels the same sort of pressure no matter what the income level, except for the folks at the very top and the very bottom (they, too, have different sorts of worries and yes, that does include the truly rich because rich does not necessarily = happy). But for all of us somewhere in between, there will always be the usual life stress issues such as education, mortgage, car payments, trying to figure out some fun stuff along the way...and when you really stop and think about it the differences really are quite small.
Originally Posted By Mr X HUGE appreciation to Skinner as well for his excellent dissection of the right wing mindset in post 146. You should be a surgeon, dude! (I would be interested, someday, to read a similar dissection of the left wing mindset by a capable, rational right winger...there are certainly a few on LP who might be capable of such a task and it would be a most interesting read to say the least!)
Originally Posted By calgrl2490 Skinnerbox what I'm saying is more along the lines of Mr Xs logic. Even if we are considered rich it doesn't mean our family doesn't worry about money and I feel like you have this image that anyone above $250000 income is living a fabulous life financially and they should just get over themselves because they're in heaven. Well its not true. I hate to generalize but I feel like the left demonizes this bracket and above in order to gain the vote of the people. If you had read my other post I said I was not against taxes but against outrageous taxes for our tax bracket because what usually happens is that the mega billionaires find a loop hole out of almost any tax increase and we end up paying the brunt of it. How is that fair? But then we would probably agree that these people should pay their fair share too. And I think you missed my point with the IRS check thing but what ever. I wasn't being serious but I was hinting that I hope the dems who are in the top 1% tax bracket are willing to pay their fair share as well.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Even if we are considered rich it doesn't mean our family doesn't worry about money and I feel like you have this image that anyone above $250000 income is living a fabulous life financially and they should just get over themselves because they're in heaven.>> Did you not read where I live? What makes you think I cannot relate to this on a personal level? <<If you had read my other post I said I was not against taxes but against outrageous taxes for our tax bracket because what usually happens is that the mega billionaires find a loop hole out of almost any tax increase and we end up paying the brunt of it. How is that fair?>> The rich will always find a way to avoid doing the right thing for society. They've been that way for thousands of years. What isn't fair, is expecting folks making less than six figures to bear the brunt of taxation, which is precisely what's happening now. Asking those making $250K and more to pick up the slack and pay a greater percentage *is* fair, because they can better afford to do so. <<And I think you missed my point with the IRS check thing but what ever. I wasn't being serious but I was hinting that I hope the dems who are in the top 1% tax bracket are willing to pay their fair share as well.>> Warren Buffet states they should pay more, and has repeatedly stated he'd have no problem doing so. Besides... for every Democrat billionaire, there are at least a dozen Republican billionaires, if not more. The vast overwhelming majority of the uber rich are conservative Republicans, not Dems. So your point about expecting the Dems in the top 1% tax bracket to gladly pay their fare share is moot. There are so few of them, it wouldn't make much of a difference if only their taxes were increased and they actually paid it.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Basically, I'm still hearing the same whine, just in different octaves. Our new poster believes that it would be too much of a financial burden on her family making $250K annually, to pay more in taxes. Hogwash. Folks in this bracket have far more disposable income than those in the median income brackets for the middle class, and can absolutely afford to pay more. And anyone at this financial level who "worries about money" essentially needs therapy for irrational paranoia. Worrying about money when your monthly income is equal to a Starbucks barista's annual income is pretty much whack.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Even if we are considered rich it doesn't mean our family doesn't worry about money and I feel like you have this image that anyone above $250000 income is living a fabulous life financially and they should just get over themselves because they're in heaven. Well its not true<< Do you have any idea of how ridiculous that statement sounds to the average American wage earner (The weekly median wage in the US is under $500 a week). From their perspective you ARE living in paradise. You have a nice home, a late model car that doesn't break down, you can afford to take vacations, see the doctor, you don't have to buy your shoes and clothes at WalMart, you don't work 3 part time jobs nor have a running account at the local pay day loan store. The bottom line is that government tax recepts have flat lined in the past 10 years, which is one of the reasons we are running trillion dollar+ budget deficits. These deficits are unsustainable. We can do some budget cutting, but it won't be enough. Taxes will have to go up, especially if the very rich expect the US Military to continue protecting their financial interests around the world. Someone has to pay for it, and the working poor simply cannot foot the bill.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>The rich will always find a way to avoid doing the right thing for society. They've been that way for thousands of years.<< Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! >>And anyone at this financial level who "worries about money" essentially needs therapy for irrational paranoia. Worrying about money when your monthly income is equal to a Starbucks barista's annual income is pretty much whack.<< Or to put it more broadly, you make more in month than about half of all Americans do in a year. Yeah, your demographic might have to drive the Lexus or Beamer one more year than usual before getting a new one. Oh the agony! Someone please think of the poor, oppressed rich people!
Originally Posted By Mr X CG, while my post about "everybody has money worries" was sincere and I believe it to be true, if you continue down this "woe is us!" path regarding your parents and their quarter of a million bucks a year income, the regulars in WE will continue to tear you a new one as they already have here, and RIGHTLY SO. You should consider how decidedly obnoxious that comes across like, if you would just take a look around the world you live in and consider the difficulties of literally billions of others (MOST of whom, on the whole planet, are far less fortunate).
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "I hate to generalize but I feel like the left demonizes this bracket and above in order to gain the vote of the people." Taking the eminently sensible position that tax rates need to back to where they were when we were balancing our budgets is not demonizing anyone.
Originally Posted By Labuda To this: "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)? " I would say because whatever you do for the least of my children, you do for me.
Originally Posted By Longhorn12 >remain generational welfare families by "choosing" not to work and just live off welfare?< You clearly don't understand (go figure) how welfare works. You can't stay on it forever.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox "Generational welfare" is right out of the GOP playbook. She's simply parroting Republican talking points without actually knowing the truth about how welfare works, as Longhorn stated, or why someone would need to be on general assistance and unable to find sustainable gainful employment. Her statement is ignorant and disrespectful of others who aren't like her, particularly those who didn't catch the lucky break of being born into a well-off family. Selfishness on this level is especially distasteful.
Originally Posted By calgrl2490 Skinnerbox I've tried to reason with you but aparently you are the type of Dem that thinks there way is the right way and that anyone who offers any other opinion is wrong. And Mr X is right you come off as a whiner. It slike hitting your head against a brick wall. And by the way if you dont believe in generational welfare then I would love to introduce you to the Quisada family. Lol I bet you would think twice giving all your money to people like them. However I think your poor attitude and whiney posts may have to do with your age. Dems and Reps are constantly fighting on the media and on capital hill but those people are all older. I guess my generation is over the negativity and pettyness of both parties and they choose to actually DISCUSS an issue instead of perosnally attacking a party. Everytime I say something you cry GOP. There is a reason we have a democracy you know so that people of all opinions can have a voice. Just because I am poorly represented on these boards or in CA does not mean what I'm saying is wrong. Otherwise there would never be a GOP president. And yet they still get elected. I may be a new poster on these boards but I thought I was joining a forum of real discussion. If it quacks like a duck its a duck but no matter what evidence I throw at you I don't think you get it. Maybe I'll just stick to intelligent settings of discussion like my college classes. I can tell you right now that at least in the business department the young Dems you are so dearly counting on to carry on your party are not too keen on you party right now
