2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

[FreshFish]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Serious, non-partisan, question:

How many people here think that a married couple with two children, living in NJ or NY or CT or MA or IL or CA, with both spouses working at professional / white collar occupations, with a combined income of $275,000, are "rich"?

How many people think that increasing their top federal tax rate by over 10% won't change their behavior?


How many people notice that, when the "stimulus" was proposed, they talked about a "multiplier"? How many people really believe that this "multiplier" doesn't work both ways? If you drain money out of the economy, shouldn't that work exactly the same (except in reverse) as when you inject money into the economy?

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Serious, non-partisan, question:

How many people here think that a married couple with two children, living in NJ or NY or CT or MA or IL or CA, with both spouses working at professional / white collar occupations, with a combined income of $275,000, are "rich"?

How many people think that increasing their top federal tax rate by over 10% won't change their behavior?


How many people notice that, when the "stimulus" was proposed, they talked about a "multiplier"? How many people really believe that this "multiplier" doesn't work both ways? If you drain money out of the economy, shouldn't that work exactly the same (except in reverse) as when you inject money into the economy?

I would think that. Of course, using the term "rich" also adds a dependency of how much you are spending. We didn't make too much money (family of 1), but made out just fine, mostly because we didn't spend much. Within my group of friends, I'm seen as rich despite being only in the 5 figures for salary, mostly because I don't spend too much. By looking to collect a higher rate from the rich while not touching the poor, you're encouraging bad behaviour from the poor. The rich don't need to be taught how to behave, because if they're in that position in the first place, they obviously did well.

To answer your second question, it may change their behaviour, but in a negative way.

 

[joecct]

I would think that. Of course, using the term "rich" also adds a dependency of how much you are spending. We didn't make too much money (family of 1), but made out just fine, mostly because we didn't spend much. Within my group of friends, I'm seen as rich despite being only in the 5 figures for salary, mostly because I don't spend too much. By looking to collect a higher rate from the rich while not touching the poor, you're encouraging bad behaviour from the poor. The rich don't need to be taught how to behave, because if they're in that position in the first place, they obviously did well.

To answer your second question, it may change their behaviour, but in a negative way.

Sounds like you'd be a fan of the Fair Tax.

 

[joecct]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

http://m.washingtonpost.com/busines...022ac0-3a2e-11e2-b01f-5f55b193f58f_story.html

When does the lockout happen?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

I would think that. Of course, using the term "rich" also adds a dependency of how much you are spending. We didn't make too much money (family of 1), but made out just fine, mostly because we didn't spend much. Within my group of friends, I'm seen as rich despite being only in the 5 figures for salary, mostly because I don't spend too much. By looking to collect a higher rate from the rich while not touching the poor, you're encouraging bad behaviour from the poor. The rich don't need to be taught how to behave, because if they're in that position in the first place, they obviously did well.

To answer your second question, it may change their behaviour, but in a negative way.

Do you have children? Or own a home?

 

[unofan]

Serious, non-partisan, question:

How many people here think that a married couple with two children, living in NJ or NY or CT or MA or IL or CA, with both spouses working at professional / white collar occupations, with a combined income of $275,000, are "rich"?

How many people think that increasing their top federal tax rate by over 10% won't change their behavior?


How many people notice that, when the "stimulus" was proposed, they talked about a "multiplier"? How many people really believe that this "multiplier" doesn't work both ways? If you drain money out of the economy, shouldn't that work exactly the same (except in reverse) as when you inject money into the economy?

Yes, they're rich. My wife and I make a combined low six figures in Iowa, which is probably the equivalent of the 275k on the coasts, if not less than that. And we're not hurting.

As to your premise, the fact remains that raising taxes on couples like me (snd yes I realize we wouldn't be hit even though we should be) is less disruptive than cutting the safety net. At least part of any hit we took could be absorbed by saving less. That's not true of people truly living paycheck to paycheck.

You also can't have it both ways...are you worried about the deficit, or hurting the economy? If the former, you better accept that higher taxes will be a part of the solution. If the latter, why are you trying to cut government spending so much so quickly

 

[Rover]

Yes, they're rich. My wife and I make a combined low six figures in Iowa, which is probably the equivalent of the 275k on the coasts, if not less than that. And we're not hurting.

As to your premise, the fact remains that raising taxes on couples like me (snd yes I realize we wouldn't be hit even though we should be) is less disruptive than cutting the safety net. At least part of any hit we took could be absorbed by saving less. That's not true of people truly living paycheck to paycheck.

You also can't have it both ways...are you worried about the deficit, or hurting the economy? If the former, you better accept that higher taxes will be a part of the solution. If the latter, why are you trying to cut government spending so much so quickly

Gotta agree here. My household isn't bringing in close to 250K, and I consider us to be solidly in the upper middle class here in suburban Boston, not exactly a cheap place to live. Add additional funds to put us over 250K and we're talking vacation home/regular trips to Europe goodies. Growing up poor as I did it amazes me how people of little means will sympathize with Mitt Romney because his taxes might go up. 250K a year, anywhere in this country, even NYC, is a LOT of freakin' money. If you can't get by on that, you're the problem not the gubmint.

 

[Rover]

Upon further review, the penalty has been rescinded. Looking only at total tax revenues (adjusted for CPI) without also looking at tax revenues as % of the economy that generates them also is misleading. All else being equal, wouldn't you expect a larger economy to generate more dollars in tax merely because it is bigger?

The data in the link Minn Fan provided gives the information both in terms of gross dollars and also in terms of % of the economy that generated those gross dollars.


Touchdown to Minn Fan! The inverse correlation between rates and revenues, whether in fixed dollars or in % of GDP, is demonstrably proven. Well done!

[You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to MinnFan again.]

After going to the replay booth the penalty is re-instated. Its funny how a so-called sophisticated analysis will take such a basically flawed premise and run with it. Graphing tax rates vs revenues completely ignores economic conditions, so saying revenue from cap gains was up in 1984 vs 1978 because the rates were cut is stark raving stupid as the differences between a severe recession and a recovery are by far the driving factor.

This is a great example of what I call "Knuckledragger logic". Only a knuckledragger at this point in time still thinks massive tax cuts pay for themselves via economic growth. They don't, and the voters firmly rejected that idea which Romney/Ryan explicitly ran on. This dinosaur logic needs to go the way of the black and white TV and the typewriter. Its obsolete.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

People have control over whether and when they sell stocks. "none" is too strong a word here, doncha think? Haven't you noticed all the things people are doing now to take advantage of 2012 tax rates before the 2013 rates arrive? Corporations moving dividend payments from 2013 into 2012, people taking bonuses in 2012 instead of 2013, etc.?

How about "some", eh?

Sure I do. Its like Y2K...a one time event. I don't know of anyone that will put their money under a mattress because rates go back to where they were a decade ago.

See the massive increase in wealth inequality below. This is not driven by the 1% just working harder...its driven by the 1% making money off their money. I say just have a tax on it that's at least half of what it would be if they actually worked for it.

Just go back to the rates we had in the 90s, approx 25%, when the economy boomed.

Point is...we absolutely need to address the deficit and now. Cuts are necessary, but with the size of the deficit...so are increased tax revenues.

Perhaps you believe we should increase taxes on people who are working hard for their money?

I would rather tax people who making huge money off of multi million dollar investments which have almost no tax...while choosing to not work, because they are taxed much higher rates to do productive work.

 

[joecct]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Pat Buchanan opines on our divided country... http://buchanan.org/blog/stirrings-of-secession-5403

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Pat Buchanan opines on our divided country... http://buchanan.org/blog/stirrings-of-secession-5403

There have been wide gulfs in positions for thousands of years. There will be as long as we live on this earth.

The question is whether individuals can see the big picture, let neighbors live the way they see fit, avoid positioning others as enemies...and work together on collective solutions.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Pat Buchanan opines on our divided country... http://buchanan.org/blog/stirrings-of-secession-5403

Let them secede. Problem solved.

 

[Gurtholfin]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Pat Buchanan opines on our divided country... http://buchanan.org/blog/stirrings-of-secession-5403

Haha

"While folks in Texas may talk of seceding from the Union, folks in Austin talk of seceding from Texas."

If conservatards would just pull that giant stick out of their collective arse, replace it with a vibrating plug, roll up a fatty, screw some illegal-immigrant skank from the bar and then pay for her abortion - all metaphorically speaking, of course - we'd all be able to get along just fine.

 

[Foxton]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Pat Buchanan opines on our divided country... http://buchanan.org/blog/stirrings-of-secession-5403

Curiosity brings me back to these threads, but then all I do is get ****ed off as the stupidity and arrogance of white people.

Can't win elections because the majority of the country votes against you? Why not get the **** out? It's what you say to everyone else if they don't like your dictations.

 

[joecct]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Haha

"While folks in Texas may talk of seceding from the Union, folks in Austin talk of seceding from Texas."

If conservatards would just pull that giant stick out of their collective arse, roll up a fatty, screw some illegal-immigrant skank from the bar and then pay for her abortion, metaphorically speaking of course, we'd all be able to get along just fine.

But catch the gist of Pat's piece -- many are voting with their feet. People who need social services are moving to states that have good SS programs. People who are highly taxed are moving to states that don't tax much. The disturbing trend is that the states that like to provide services may not have enough tax receipts to pay for it. The low tax states may not be willing to support their more profligate brethren through higher federal taxes.

Imagine if the NYSE and NASDAQ decided there did not have to be anyone on the floor to do trading. The traders could be in their house or office in North Carolina, Florida, or Texas making trades and markets. Their income would not be (as it is currently) subject to NYS and NYC tax. And if the trades take place in the "ether", NYS & NYC could not tax a transaction. Since NYC needs Wall Street to support the rest of the city, NYC goes bankrupt (again!). This is not what the Big Blue states (nor the rest of the USA) need or want -- but the trend is there.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

But catch the gist of Pat's piece -- many are voting with their feet. People who need social services are moving to states that have good SS programs. People who are highly taxed are moving to states that don't tax much. The disturbing trend is that the states that like to provide services may not have enough tax receipts to pay for it. The low tax states may not be willing to support their more profligate brethren through higher federal taxes.

Imagine if the NYSE and NASDAQ decided there did not have to be anyone on the floor to do trading. The traders could be in their house or office in North Carolina, Florida, or Texas making trades and markets. Their income would not be (as it is currently) subject to NYS and NYC tax. And if the trades take place in the "ether", NYS & NYC could not tax a transaction. Since NYC needs Wall Street to support the rest of the city, NYC goes bankrupt (again!). This is not what the Big Blue states (nor the rest of the USA) need or want -- but the trend is there.

And eventually those in the lower tax states will begin to demand clean air and clean water and good schools and the cycle will continue. I'm not buying that these low tax states are inherently sustainable over the long term.

 

[joecct]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

And eventually those in the lower tax states will begin to demand clean air and clean water and good schools and the cycle will continue. I'm not buying that these low tax states are inherently sustainable over the long term.

I wonder what the % of a state's budget is directed to providing social services (including the employees' payroll) vs. public schools, & safety?

 

[FreshFish]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Sure I do. Its like Y2K...a one time event. I don't know of anyone that will put their money under a mattress because rates go back to where they were a decade ago.

See the massive increase in wealth inequality below. This is not driven by the 1% just working harder...its driven by the 1% making money off their money. I say just have a tax on it that's at least half of what it would be if they actually worked for it.

Just go back to the rates we had in the 90s, approx 25%, when the economy boomed.

Point is...we absolutely need to address the deficit and now. Cuts are necessary, but with the size of the deficit...so are increased tax revenues.

Perhaps you believe we should increase taxes on people who are working hard for their money?

I would rather tax people who making huge money off of multi million dollar investments which have almost no tax...while choosing to not work, because they are taxed much higher rates to do productive work.

yeah but your data is seriously flawed since the advent of S-corporations and limited liability companies. I'd have to look up exact date, let's say early 1990s for now pending clarification.

Up until [1990, say], business owners had personal income on form 1040 and corporate income on form 1120. You couldn't tell from their 1040 how profitable their businesses were, and so their business income never showed up in the statistics.

Since [1990, say] most owners of closely-held businesses switched to S-corporation status or limited liability company status: they now file an informational form 1120S but all corporate profits now appear on their personal income tax returns. You are comparing one set of data that omits ALL business profit to another set of data that includes business profit.

Unless / until you find someone willing to make the necessary adjustments, those graphs and statistics you cite are bogus. Bad data = unreliable conclusions.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Yes, they're rich. My wife and I make a combined low six figures in Iowa, which is probably the equivalent of the 275k on the coasts, if not less than that. And we're not hurting.

I always thought there were poor people, lower middle class, upper middle class, and wealthy.

Nowadays, "anyone who makes more than me is rich", is that it??

If you compare Greenwich, CT, for example (they really are rich there!) with a decent neighborhood in New Haven (well enough off, granted; yet certainly nowhere near "rich"), you'd see what I mean right away.

Typical Obama math: $250,000 = $1,000,000 = $1,000,000,000. It's all the same, right?

 

[Foxton]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

But catch the gist of Pat's piece -- many are voting with their feet. People who need social services are moving to states that have good SS programs. People who are highly taxed are moving to states that don't tax much. The disturbing trend is that the states that like to provide services may not have enough tax receipts to pay for it. The low tax states may not be willing to support their more profligate brethren through higher federal taxes.

You're funny, oh wait I meant that other thing, tedious and boring.

Please, continue to amuse with meaningless platitudes on taxes. Maybe you can show us this mass exodus of people moving just to avoid higher state taxes? Hmm? Surely such a thing should be easy to find.