Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 64

Thread: If you are a uber rich 250K person you need to pay

  1. #1
    God/dess FBR's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2003
    Posts
    8,351
    Thanks
    85
    Thanked 342 Times in 244 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Mellow

    Default If you are a uber rich 250K person you need to pay

    This article would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080613/...b.XCz0dVGs0NUE

    Obama wants to go after FICA taxes from those mean rich folks who have an employee salary of $250K or more. Conveniently, his Senate salary is way less than that. But he and Michelle earn many times that in book royalties and fees from speaking engagements and so forth but that income is exempt from payroll taxes. Sadly, many people still believe Obama is a man of the hard working people.

    FBR
    Once again I have embraced my addiction and have put off the moral dilemma to another day.

  2. #2
    Featured Member minnow's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,003
    Thanks
    242
    Thanked 519 Times in 315 Posts
    Blog Entries
    10
    My Mood
    Twisted

    Default Re: If you are a uber rich 250K person you need to pay

    Quote Originally Posted by FBR View Post
    This article would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080613/...b.XCz0dVGs0NUE

    Obama wants to go after FICA taxes from those mean rich folks who have an employee salary of $250K or more. Conveniently, his Senate salary is way less than that. But he and Michelle earn many times that in book royalties and fees from speaking engagements and so forth but that income is exempt from payroll taxes. Sadly, many people still believe Obama is a man of the hard working people.

    FBR
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    Interesting... So, how many SW members make a SALARY north of $250K?? The people that do likely have other "pay components" & perks that would more than offset a 6.2% bite. Things like stock options/awards (and dividends/capital gains derived from such), country club memberships, company car, etc. OTOH, there's far more people earning $102-250K that don't get those goodies. Last time I looked, every citizen gets 1 vote, regardless of income (electoral vote nuances notwistanding).

  3. #3
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: If you are a uber rich 250K person you need to pay

    ^^^ these proposals from Obama are no surprise. They follow the typical Democratic 'playbook' ...

    - low taxes and generous social welfare benefits to the 'poor'
    - raising 'official' tax rates on the rich, but leaving enough loopholes in place such that the rich don't actually have to pay taxes at a rate that remotely approaches the 'official' tax rate
    - continuing / adding civil service jobs with ultra generous benefits and low performance standards

    between these three groups, the Democrats are usually able to muster a 51% voting majority. At that point, the Democrats can significantly raise taxes on the 'middle class' i.e. those who receive the majority of their income from salaries, and who earn between $75k and $250k per year.

  4. #4
    God/dess
    Joined
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Your imagination
    Posts
    2,875
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 174 Times in 119 Posts

    Default Re: If you are a uber rich 250K person you need to pay

    anything over 250k puts you in the top 1.5 percent. just a bit of perspective. 98.5% of the country makes less than that. further, 100k is 'top 16 percent', with most of the range between 100 and 250k clustered around 100-150k.

    there's a reason people think six figures is a buncha money and that 250k is unimaginable wealth. it's because almost no-one earns that kind of money in salary form or otherwise.

  5. #5
    God/dess FBR's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2003
    Posts
    8,351
    Thanks
    85
    Thanked 342 Times in 244 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Mellow

    Default Re: If you are a uber rich 250K person you need to pay

    Quote Originally Posted by miabella View Post
    anything over 250k puts you in the top 1.5 percent. just a bit of perspective. 98.5% of the country makes less than that. further, 100k is 'top 16 percent', with most of the range between 100 and 250k clustered around 100-150k.

    there's a reason people think six figures is a buncha money and that 250k is unimaginable wealth. it's because almost no-one earns that kind of money in salary form or otherwise.
    Whats amusing is if you drove by my house you would see a typical 3 bedroom 2 bath ranch. I am far from rich. I pay close to half of what I earn in federal, state and payroll taxes.

    I know I could convert a large chunk of my income to dividends. But due to the tax laws my company cannot deduct those dividends as expenses and my company would have to pay the taxes anyway.

    The point I was trying to make was to illustrate the hypocrisy. Barack and Michelle live in a million dollar home in Chicago which they bought manipulating the Rezko connection. Thats fine. But to pretend they are friends of the common folks and understand their needs is laughable.

    FBR
    Once again I have embraced my addiction and have put off the moral dilemma to another day.

  6. #6
    God/dess Deogol's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 50 Times in 35 Posts

    Default Re: If you are a uber rich 250K person you need to pay

    Quote Originally Posted by FBR View Post
    Whats amusing is if you drove by my house you would see a typical 3 bedroom 2 bath ranch. I am far from rich. I pay close to half of what I earn in federal, state and payroll taxes.

    I know I could convert a large chunk of my income to dividends. But due to the tax laws my company cannot deduct those dividends as expenses and my company would have to pay the taxes anyway.

    The point I was trying to make was to illustrate the hypocrisy. Barack and Michelle live in a million dollar home in Chicago which they bought manipulating the Rezko connection. Thats fine. But to pretend they are friends of the common folks and understand their needs is laughable.

    FBR
    I second this.

    I also believe we need to go after globalism which is reducing the opportunity of the more common person. The ladders are being yanked away from people who could be adding to the over-all prosperity of the nation. The tide that was suppose to rise all boats seems to be the tide that is going out to sea grounding many boats.

    Unfortunately I think we have a lot further to slide before people accept massive change and we will have to live through a bit of "eat the rich" until it is learned that doesn't work.

    (Ever get paid for a job by a poor person?)

  7. #7
    God/dess
    Joined
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Your imagination
    Posts
    2,875
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 174 Times in 119 Posts

    Default Re: If you are a uber rich 250K person you need to pay

    the problem is i don't think taxing well-off people at 90 percent is a good idea. i am a filthy libertarian, after all. tariffs are more my speed.

    i'm just pointing out WHY people think 250k is 'rich'. it's literally 1/100 of the population. i am well aware that many people at that income level don't 'feel' rich, but their feelings don't erase the relative rarity of their status.

  8. #8
    Banned i.breathe.in's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Location
    ohio
    Posts
    4,967
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: If you are a uber rich 250K person you need to pay

    depends on the state. it shouldnt be nationwide it should vary by the above average income of the state, or county IMO...

  9. #9
    God/dess
    Joined
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Your imagination
    Posts
    2,875
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 174 Times in 119 Posts

    Default Re: If you are a uber rich 250K person you need to pay

    median incomes vary suprisingly little from state to state, even taking into account higher and lower costs of living. not large differences for the kind of numbers being referenced here.

  10. #10
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: If you are a uber rich 250K person you need to pay

    the problem is i don't think taxing well-off people at 90 percent is a good idea. i am a filthy libertarian, after all.
    I agree completely. But the ultimate hypocracy is that while certain politicians and mainstream media make a big 'splash' about calls to tax the rich, in reality the same politicians make sure that there are enough loopholes / tax credits / tax favored investment opportunities available for the rich so that they can avoid actually paying anywhere near the 'official' tax rates. In fact, thanks to these loopholes / tax credits / tax favored invesment opportunities the rich actually avoid paying tax rates as a percentage of their total incomes that is anywhere near the actual tax rates leveed on the 'middle class'.

    However mainstream media remains most silent on the latter point - with published info mostly stemming from 'volunteer' statements of uber rich individuals (like Warren Buffet's interview where he points out he only pays 1/2 the actual tax rate percentage that his secretary must pay), and the 'forced' disclosures of political candidates (like John Kerry's 2004 tax return, showing a 12% de-facto tax rate paid on over $5 million dollars worth of total income).

    I agree with the financial theory that it is primarily 'rich' people who serve to fuel the economic engine of America via creation of new jobs / businesses - anyone who has worked as a dancer in an upscale club will thoroughly understand the principle ! Therefore imposing ponderous tax rates on 'rich' people merely serves to motivate them to cut back on business investment (which is fully taxable) in favor of tax favored / tax exempt investments.

    median incomes vary suprisingly little from state to state, even taking into account higher and lower costs of living. not large differences for the kind of numbers being referenced here.
    I would argue that the statistics for 'high tax' states like California, New York, New Jersey etc. do constitute a large difference ... i.e. that on the average middle aged civil servants / union workers with 10+ years of seniority is going to be earning more than $100k per year. If the statewide median income calculation comes out surprisingly low, this can be directly attributed to the percentage of these states' populations that (for whatever reason) remains chronically unemployed thus sustaining themselves via social welfare benefit programs ... with the equivalent cash value of those benefits i.e. subsidized rent, subsidized utilities, free medicaid etc. being left out of the median income calculation.

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 06-14-2008 at 04:16 AM.

  11. #11
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: If you are a uber rich 250K person you need to pay

    (snip)"A column in the Wall Street Journal discusses Senator Obama’s plan to boost the top tax rate on entrepreneurs and investors from less than 38 percent to more than 50 percent. This huge tax increase will significantly undermine incentives to both earn and report income. As a result, the author, formerly with the Social Security Administration, explains that behavioral responses will result in far less money than projected by “static” revenue estimates:

    Mr. Obama has recently veered sharply left. He now proposes to solve the looming Social Security shortfall exclusively with higher taxes. …Currently, all wages below about $100,000 are subject to a 12.4% Social Security payroll tax. But all wages above that amount are not subject to the tax. Mr. Obama wants to eliminate the cap, but, in a concession to taxpayers, exempt wages between $100,000 and $200,000. …Mr. Obama’s plan would keep Social Security in the black for only three additional years. Under his proposal, annual deficits would hit in 2020, instead of 2017. By the 2030s the system would still run an annual deficit exceeding $150 billion. Mr. Obama’s modest improvements to Social Security’s financing come at a steep cost. …The top marginal federal tax rates would effectively increase to 50.3% from 37.9%, equivalent to repealing the Bush income tax cuts almost three times over. If one accounts for behavioral responses, even the modest budgetary improvements from Mr. Obama’s plan are likely to be overstated. If employers reduce wages to cover their increased payroll-tax liabilities, these wages would no longer be subject to state or federal income taxes, or Medicare taxes. A 2006 study by Harvard economist and Obama adviser Jeffrey Liebman concluded that roughly 20% of revenue increases from raising the tax cap would be offset by declining non-Social Security taxes. Assuming modest negative behavioral responses, Mr. Liebman projected an additional 30% reduction in net revenues, leaving barely half the intended revenue intact. Mr. Obama’s plan would also dramatically raise incentives for tax evasion, further degrading revenue gains. Many high-earning individuals evade the Medicare payroll tax by setting up “S Corporations,” paying themselves in untaxed dividends rather than taxable wages. John Edwards avoided $590,000 in Medicare taxes this way in the 1990s. …The U.S. already collects far more Social Security taxes from high earners than other countries do. Social Security taxes here are currently capped at about three times the national average wage — far above other developed countries. In Canada and France payroll taxes are levied only up to the average wage. In the United Kingdom, taxes stop at 1.15 times the average wage; in Germany and Japan at 1.5 times."(snip)

    from

  12. #12
    Featured Member
    Joined
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,342
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: If you are a uber rich 250K person you need to pay

    Quote Originally Posted by miabella View Post
    the problem is i don't think taxing well-off people at 90 percent is a good idea. i am a filthy libertarian, after all. tariffs are more my speed.
    How many libertarians do we have here? Perhaps we need a poll.

    Taxation is theft, plain and simple. I do not like tariff's either. The government('s) need to start by spending far less and shifting to use fees and taxes.

    If a communinity colllects property taxes then those should go to basic services like roads and sidewalks, etc...

  13. #13
    Banned i.breathe.in's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Location
    ohio
    Posts
    4,967
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: If you are a uber rich 250K person you need to pay

    Quote Originally Posted by crizgolfer View Post
    How many libertarians do we have here? Perhaps we need a poll.

    Taxation is theft, plain and simple. I do not like tariff's either. The government('s) need to start by spending far less and shifting to use fees and taxes.

    If a communinity colllects property taxes then those should go to basic services like roads and sidewalks, etc...
    but that would make sense! we cant have the government do anything like that! lol

    i just choose the lesser of the evils i guess.

  14. #14
    Featured Member
    Joined
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,342
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: If you are a uber rich 250K person you need to pay

    Quote Originally Posted by i.breathe.in View Post
    i just choose the lesser of the evils i guess.
    Many do choose the lesser of two evils, but even that is still an evil. There has been a movement in the US for many years to add another voting option to each political race. That option would be "None of the Above."

    Of course, those in power will not allow it, because it would show the truth of how American citizens really feel about their political "leadership." It would be interesting to see the outcome with that selection added.

    I do not vote in all political races. I laugh at people that say "if you don't vote then you don't count." I reply that "you do vote and you don't count." I only vote for candidates that I believe are worthy (and there are not many). Give me the NOTA option and I will vote in all races.

  15. #15
    Banned i.breathe.in's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Location
    ohio
    Posts
    4,967
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: If you are a uber rich 250K person you need to pay

    Quote Originally Posted by crizgolfer View Post
    I do not vote in all political races. I laugh at people that say "if you don't vote then you don't count." I reply that "you do vote and you don't count.".
    that sure is how it seems!

  16. #16
    God/dess
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,993
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: If you are a uber rich 250K person you need to pay

    Quote Originally Posted by FBR View Post
    Obama wants to go after FICA taxes from those mean rich folks who have an employee salary of $250K or more.
    Why should they be exempt exactly?

    Quote Originally Posted by FBR View Post
    Conveniently, his Senate salary is way less than that. But he and Michelle earn many times that in book royalties and fees from speaking engagements and so forth but that income is exempt from payroll taxes.
    That doesn't mean that it's exempt from income taxes, it's still taxed.

  17. #17
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: If you are a uber rich 250K person you need to pay

    That doesn't mean that it's exempt from income taxes, it's still taxed
    true, but royalty payments are generally taxed at a rate of 15%, with 0% Social Security tax and 0% medicare tax tacked on top. Municipal Bond interest earnings are generally taxed at a rate of 0%, with 0% SSI tax and 0% medicare tax ... which is the main reason that John Kerry was able to pay such a low tax rate on his 5 million dollar income (more than half of that income stemmed from muni bonds). In contrast, for the self-employed dancers earning $75-$100k per year who dominate this BBS, they are typically taxed at a rate of 21-28%, with 15.3% Social Security and medicare tax tacked on top of that.

    Obama wants to go after FICA taxes from those mean rich folks who have an employee salary of $250K or more.

    Why should they be exempt exactly?
    clarification ... under the present system nobody is exempt. However, there is a cutoff in regard to the maximum amount of Social Security tax dollars collected from one person in a year ... which presently is $102,000 * 7.65% = $7803 per year for an employee and another $7,803 from their employer (with self-employed persons paying both). At the same time there is a cutoff in regard to the maximum amount of Social Security monthly benefits which can be paid out upon retirement ... which presently is $26,220 per year. This is an outgrowth of the FDR premise that Social Security is a government administrated retirement system of sorts - in that higher earning people pay higher Social Security taxes (to a point) and also receive higher Social Security retirement benefits (to a point) that are proportional to the amount of taxes they paid into the system.

    In contrast, there is no cutoff in regard to the maximum amount of medicare tax collected from one person in a year. The amount collected is 2.9% of 'wage' income, regardless of the amount of 'wage' income. On the flip side, there is no stated limit as to the amount of medicare benefits one person can collect upon retirement either.

    Of course other forms of income i.e. dividends from subchapter S corporations, royalties, bond interest etc. are exempt from medicare tax (as well as being exempt from Social Security tax). This leads to the famous story about John Edwards avoiding nearly $600k in medicare taxes by funnelling his income through a 'shell' corporation - which is probably what Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and every other politician on the 'lecture circuit' is doing in regard to speaking fee earnings. But I stray from the point ...

    What Obama is proposing is to formally do away with any vestiges of the FDR premise that Social Security is a government administrated retirement program, and instead concede that the amount of social security tax collected versus the amount of social security benefits eventually becoming payable will have no future relationship with each other besides that what is dictated by future gov't tax and social welfare benefit policy. In essence this transforms the Social Security tax into just another general tax on businesses and workers, and transforms Social Security benefits into just another social welfare benefit program. Obviously Obama thinks that imposing a 7.65% additional tax on all 'wage' income above $200k or $250k or whatever number he eventually chooses, will raise huge amounts of new tax revenue. My previous post gives evidence that far less additional revenue will actually be collected than Obama anticipates, because the 'rich' will have stronger motivation to pull a John Edwards to avoid Social Security taxes as well as to avoid medicare taxes. My previous post also gives evidence that the employers who are also saddled with paying the same 7.65% additional tax on behalf of their employees will cut back future salaries / bonuses accordingly, as well as cutting back on expanding US employment and investment, if the $7.803 per employee maximum limit is raised to 7.65% of $250k or 7.65% of $2.5mil or 7.65% of $25mil. Specifically, this would provide strong motivation for more US based businesses and industries to relocate themselves and their highly paid executives outside the country, or would provide strong motivation for the increased use of non-cash compensation i.e. stock options / free use of the company jet, 'convention center' in the Bahamas, 'retreat' in Aspen / financial derivatives / other tricky shit that has yet to be invented - but I again stray from the point ...

    In the area of a slippery slope, because Obama's proposal breaks all vestiges of FDR's linkage between Social Security retirement system tax collections and social security retirement benefit payouts, it also throws the door wide open for the next 'stop' down the slope - 'means testing' of future Social Security benefit eligibility. Obama's logic that 'rich people can afford to pay more taxes' can easily be logically inverted to state that 'rich people don't need help from the gov't to pay for their retirement'.

    This in turn could very easily translate into future changes in gov't retirement benefit policy where people who have scrimped and saved in order to build up very sizeable balances in their 401k's, IRA's etc. over the course of 45 years of hard work could easily be told that because they can afford to pay for their own retirement expenses they don't need any help from the gov't - and as such will not be receiving Social Security checks from the gov't when they retire (despite the fact that they may have paid in 1/4 million dollars worth of Social Security taxes over the course of that 45 years of hard work).

    Also, like virtually every other 'liberal' taxation and social welfare benefit policy, this proposed breaking of the linkage between Social Security taxes paid in and social security benefits paid out, i.e. the imposition of an 'unlimited' new tax as a percentage of 'wage' earnings on employees and employers, is loaded with MORAL HAZARD. It arguably penalizes the potential returns for hard work and risk taking, while increasing the relative returns for safe passive tax favored investments. It arguably penalizes those who would save money for their retirement, and would reward those who spend every dollar they can lay their hands on (thus turning to the gov't for help when they reach retirement age, and getting it).

    Frankly speaking, I have been anticipating an eventual 'means test' being applied to Social Security retirement benefits as the only workable solution to future Social Security balance of payments problems ... which is the reason that I haven't gone overboard in regard to making IRA contributions. I have also been anticipating an increase in all sorts of taxes at both the federal and state level, which is the reason that I have been migrating towards raising my portfolio's percentage of New York based Muni Bonds. However, younger people, and people who have not been able to build up a sufficient portfolio to afford getting into tax favored investments (which unfortunately typically have high minimum buy-ins), are going to take these new taxes right up the a$$. I would also point out that nobody has discussed indexing these new taxes for inflation, thus today's 'rich' $200k or $250k earnings level may easily become commonplace when a true inflation rate of 6-8-10% per year is factored in over a 45 year working life ( a la the Alternative Minimum Tax) !!!

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 06-14-2008 at 09:25 AM.

  18. #18
    God/dess
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,993
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: If you are a uber rich 250K person you need to pay

    ^^^Oh, I get it now, McCain must be proposing to close those loopholes. Why didn't you say so?


    ***For the record, McCain has not proposed the closing of any tax loopholes.
    Last edited by Richard_Head; 06-14-2008 at 10:34 AM. Reason: Stating the obvious

  19. #19
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: If you are a uber rich 250K person you need to pay

    ^^^ actually, what McCain APPEARS to be proposing is a reduction in the financial tax savings incentive that prompts the rich to stop putting money into risk taking mainstream investments and to instead seek out the exploitation of loopholes / tax favored investments / tax free investments instead. He proposes this via making the Bush income tax cuts permanent and by leaving the capital gains tax alone, as opposed for a call for increasing both by Obama.

    Additionally McCain APPEARS to be proposing far fewer new tax favored investment opportunities. He proposes this by a much more restrained approach to gov't subsidies for (othewise unprofitable) ethanol / solar / wind power companies, which reduces the production tax credits available to first tier investors in ethanol corn farms / refineries / solar / wind farms ( which can then be used by those rich investors to offset other tax liabilities).

    In both cases I say 'appears' because nobody knows what will actually be proposed by either candidate, or what support will actually be forthcoming from the congress, in regard to tax changes.

  20. #20
    God/dess
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,993
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: If you are a uber rich 250K person you need to pay

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    He proposes this via making the Bush income tax cuts permanent and by leaving the capital gains tax alone, as opposed for a call for increasing both by Obama.
    And how well did that work for GWB and the economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    Additionally McCain APPEARS to be proposing far fewer new tax favored investment opportunities.
    Sorry, but proposing fewer NEW tax favored investment opportunities is a far cry from closing existing loopholes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    In both cases I say 'appears' because nobody knows what will actually be proposed by either candidate, or what support will actually be forthcoming from the congress, in regard to tax changes.
    Actually, Obama has stated what he is proposing, isn't that why this thread was started? As for what will be forthcoming? Democrats had control of congress for less then two years and they at least made an attempt (by Rangel) to close some of these loopholes (yes, it did fail, but at least it was an attempt which was more than the GOP can claim while they controlled congress and the white house for 6 years, and I think it highly probable that they will try again after they gain more seats this coming fall).

  21. #21
    Veteran Member LadyLuck's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    521
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: If you are a uber rich 250K person you need to pay

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard_Head View Post
    And how well did that work for GWB and the economy?
    I think it worked out just like they planned.

    The rich got richer and the middle class and the poor are suffering.

    Gas is more than double than when GW first took office. Which means that he and his family are personally raking in tons and tons cash .

    Similarly, oil companies are making record profits.

    Even non oil companies with connections him and members of his administration have received huge no bid contracts for shoddy workmanship and massive waste done in an illegal and immoral war.

    I think those ethically bankrupt bastards got exactly what they were aiming for- all at the expense of the majority of the US population and tremendous loss of life and destruction in Iraq.
    There never was a good war or a bad peace.

    Benjamin Franklin

  22. #22
    Featured Member
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,030
    Thanks
    21
    Thanked 117 Times in 78 Posts

    Default Re: If you are a uber rich 250K person you need to pay

    I could rant about what is above, but it's so ridiculous theres no point.

    No matter what Obama proposes, he's more of a friend to the common man than Hillary would have been, and probably more than McCain will be. I mean seriously? You really think the man with millions is trying to bend tax law to his favor? Come on...

  23. #23
    God/dess VegasPrincess's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Location
    MKE
    Posts
    4,660
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 182 Times in 40 Posts

    Default Re: If you are a uber rich 250K person you need to pay

    I think we are at a time in this country where things are truly in a downward spiral. I know that for the last few years I definitely would have considered myself Upper Middle Class, and altho I have moved and quit my great job at Spearmint & OGs, I am struggling to merely make ends meet dancing in Milwaukee. When I danced here in the past, say 2002, I could easily make 3-400 a night. Now, I am lucky to make 200.

    I see so much ruin around me...people in foreclose, cashing in their IRAs, etc. These are not lower class people, BTW. Also, I have a highly specialized degree that is in the Arts, and I could not get a straight job to save my soul right now as th economy is so awful people are not right now so interestd in putting their children in ballet classes.

    While I don't think that wealthy people should be punished for their success, I do feel that it is the social responsibility of all wealthy people to contribute back. I do not think that the extra 6% tax would burden those in the 250k plus group as much as a 2% tax increase would burden the middle class at this point. And, fyi, even though I am broke I do contribute what I can to charity right now, altho it is small in the big shceme of things.

    PS-FBR, you are free to spend some of that disposable income on my web-cam if that would be more suitable than paying it in taxes hehhee
    Sexy Jasmine after getting fucked over at work:

    God loves strippers and when guys do things like that its an automatic ticket to HELL!


    Quote Originally Posted by anomar View Post
    Perhaps you stopped spending money on her. Strippers need money to operate. They are like coin operated juke-boxes of love.

  24. #24
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: If you are a uber rich 250K person you need to pay

    ^^^ such is the fate of any economy that is dominated by the 'service sector'. When times get tough, people suddenly discover that they can do without ballet lessons / massages / lap dances and a host of other 'luxury' services, and that they can also groom their own pets / mow their own lawns / clean their own pools.

    I do feel that it is the social responsibility of all wealthy people to contribute back. I do not think that the extra 6% tax would burden those in the 250k plus group as much as a 2% tax increase would burden the middle class at this point.
    In theory I agree of course. But in practice, the prospect of a 40%+ income tax bracket will provide sufficient motivation for the wealthy to resort to tax exempt bonds / tax favored investments like solar or wind or ethanol / offshore private banking and a host of other options which will allow them to legally avoid paying anywhere near the published 40% tax rate. As a result, the amount of tax revenue the gov't will actually gain from the wealthy will be significantly less than they have anticipated.

    As a further result, the politicians who imposed the additional taxes on the wealthy in order to fund new social welfare benefits for the 'poor' will be faced with a dilemma. They can either reneg on their benefits promises because they can't pay for them with tax revenues from the wealthy that won't actually exist, or they can make up for the legal tax avoidance by the wealthy by raising the middle class tax rate by 4% instead of 2% - with the middle class usually lacking the 'minimum buy-ins' required to take advantage of the legal tax avoidance options open to the wealthy thus unable to escape the 4% tax increase !

  25. #25
    God/dess FBR's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2003
    Posts
    8,351
    Thanks
    85
    Thanked 342 Times in 244 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Mellow

    Default Re: If you are a uber rich 250K person you need to pay

    Quote Originally Posted by VegasPrincess View Post
    While I don't think that wealthy people should be punished for their success, I do feel that it is the social responsibility of all wealthy people to contribute back. I do not think that the extra 6% tax would burden those in the 250k plus group as much as a 2% tax increase would burden the middle class at this point. And, fyi, even though I am broke I do contribute what I can to charity right now, altho it is small in the big shceme of things.
    Vegas, I hear what you are saying but I earned the money through hard work and taking the risk to get a business going. Had I failed, no one would have been there to bail me out.

    I punched 6% of $250,000 into my calculator and it came out $15,000. Why in the world would I want to give total strangers $15K? I have numerous children who have a stronger claim.

    PS-FBR, you are free to spend some of that disposable income on my web-cam if that would be more suitable than paying it in taxes hehhee
    Hmmm. Well, you are not exactly a total stranger. And I like web cams in theory. I should check with my accountant to see if I can write it off

    FBR
    Once again I have embraced my addiction and have put off the moral dilemma to another day.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. latest bailout plan directly benefits uber-rich
    By Melonie in forum Member Boards
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-25-2008, 04:25 AM
  2. The Uber-rich Bondholder Myth
    By xanfiles1 in forum Dollar Den
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-27-2008, 09:00 AM
  3. talk about government subsidies to the uber-rich !
    By Melonie in forum Member Boards
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-19-2008, 08:06 AM
  4. more proof you can't really tax uber-rich Americans
    By Melonie in forum Member Boards
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-29-2008, 03:35 AM
  5. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 02-27-2008, 04:27 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •