Taxing the rich - what is the cutoff?

[hesscl34]

Originally Posted by 724Skinsfan

1) If you offer me and my wife a 250k income, I guarantee we can live comfortably in any city with our two boys. Some housing areas of certain cities may be off-limits, of course.

2) I agree with Slingin' Sammy: you can't keep taxing the well-to-do just because they have the money. {Pssst...sounds like someone likes the Fair Tax idea}

3) On the other hand, since they're are already hard-working, entrepreneurially spirited individuals, if you do tax them more they'll just work that much harder to make up the difference. It's a win-win situation.

"If you offer".. people that make money have a right to send their kids to private school and have nice car and nice homes. They do not deserve to get taxed more because they are wealthy and enjoy a higher standard of living than most. Take from the rich and give to the poor?? ... I think not when we are talking about $250k. If you want to go after Billionairs that have money to blow that's one thing, but $250k is not a lot when you live in an area like CA or DC... Obama says that millionairs and billionairs need to pay more, well $250k is not even close to a million IMO.

[Daseal]

I find it ironic the same people against taxes are the same people for spending $4,000 a minute in Iraq.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by 724Skinsfan

1) If you offer me and my wife a 250k income, I guarantee we can live comfortably in any city with our two boys. Some housing areas of certain cities may be off-limits, of course.

2) I agree with Slingin' Sammy: you can't keep taxing the well-to-do just because they have the money. {Pssst...sounds like someone likes the Fair Tax idea}

3) On the other hand, since they're are already hard-working, entrepreneurially spirited individuals, if you do tax them more they'll just work that much harder to make up the difference. It's a win-win situation.

I'm sure you could - most people could. The point is that it's a comfortable lifestyle, not an extravagant lifestyle. Bumping up the tax rate is not simply forcing these people right at the margin to cut back from three butlers to two. It's going to have an impact on something that, for the most part, they worked hard to achieve.

Now, on the flip side, the 2000 tax rates are doable. It's just not wise to think this is a well you can go back to too often.

That said, what is a reasonable cutoff these days? $500k?

[724Skinsfan]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

I'm sure you could - most people could. The point is that it's a comfortable lifestyle, not an extravagant lifestyle. Bumping up the tax rate is not simply forcing these people right at the margin to cut back from three butlers to two. It's going to have an impact on something that, for the most part, they worked hard to achieve.

Now, on the flip side, the 2000 tax rates are doable. It's just not wise to think this is a well you can go back to too often.

That said, what is a reasonable cutoff these days? $500k?

Weird. I never said bumping up the tax rate was acceptable.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by 724Skinsfan

Weird. I never said bumping up the tax rate was acceptable.

I didn't say you did. I was highlighting that $250k these days is "comfortable" in most places (as you stated), not "extravagant". The rest of my post was a general statement, not directed at you - I should have put an extra line or two in there to distinguish.

[724Skinsfan]

Originally Posted by hesscl34

"If you offer".. people that make money have a right to send their kids to private school and have nice car and nice homes. They do not deserve to get taxed more because they are wealthy and enjoy a higher standard of living than most. Take from the rich and give to the poor?? ... I think not when we are talking about $250k. If you want to go after Billionairs that have money to blow that's one thing, but $250k is not a lot when you live in an area like CA or DC... Obama says that millionairs and billionairs need to pay more, well $250k is not even close to a million IMO.

What point of mine are you disagreeing with? I'm fairly certain my post said nothing about people earning 250k deserve to get taxed more.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by hesscl34

"If you offer".. people that make money have a right to send their kids to private school and have nice car and nice homes. They do not deserve to get taxed more because they are wealthy and enjoy a higher standard of living than most. Take from the rich and give to the poor?? ... I think not when we are talking about $250k. If you want to go after Billionairs that have money to blow that's one thing, but $250k is not a lot when you live in an area like CA or DC... Obama says that millionairs and billionairs need to pay more, well $250k is not even close to a million IMO.

Come on now, why single out billionaires? Larry Ellison should be able to buy that 200 million dollar yacht. Gas isn't cheap these days and that bad boy costs a boatload to fill up. Those private jets don't pay for themselves either. You know, the sad thing is that due to rising costs and gas prices a lot of wealthy people are losing their yachts these days. It's just not right!

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Daseal

I find it ironic the same people against taxes are the same people for spending $4,000 a minute in Iraq.

Iraq is an investment in the long term future and safety of our beloved country.

Support the troops!

[That Guy]

500k is a much fairer cutoff.

250k is pretty easy with two working contractors in NoVA, and land and some of the job requirements just aren't cheap.

as far as CoLAs, the military has been using them forever, and i really don't hear complaints (most people love going to higher CoLAs, since it usually means more overall take home pay after everything is said and done). however, military CoLAs might not work so well with independent contractors, the unemployeed, those making etremely low pay in high cost areas, and those that would look to abuse the system by moving in or out of area (depending on specifics).

maybe if the CoLAs were handled at the payroll level based on business location, and customer location (ie, internet shipping based businesses without real overhead don't get a loop hole for re-locating to downtown NYC).

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Daseal

I find it ironic the same people against taxes are the same people for spending $4,000 a minute in Iraq.

Incredibly shortsighted.

The only way this statement is at all valid is if the entire US Federal Budget consisted of spending in Iraq.

People can be for lower taxes and for the war, if they're also for reducing government spending elsewhere (social programs, etc.) to offset the difference.

Math is not that hard.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

I'm pretty sure the folks making this type of income will survive. Contrary to popular belief, most families making that type of money did not get it handed to them through trust funds or Mommy & Daddy paying all their bills until they were in their 30s. I would argue that their good judgement in putting 15% in their 401K and sending their children to private schools is also, in the long run, much better for the economy.

A majority of them worked their hind-quarters off to try to make a better life than what they came up in, even if it meant making sacrifices like studying in high school so they could get into a good college while their friends were at parties and getting drunk/high, studying and working internships while in college rather than blowing off class and partying, or spending years in the military to attend or pay for college at night, working 50-60 hour weeks, spending time on the road away from their families, answering pages, texts and cell phones in the middle of the night to deal with business responsibilities.

I've posted the numbers before, the top 10% of earners pay approximately 67% of the taxes in this country, the bottom 50% pay about 3%. The rates for income earned vs. tax rate is disproportionate.

WTF right does the government have to increase the tax rates on the "wealthy". It's flat out wealth confiscation and redistribution. The money earned by the American people is THEIRS it is NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S. Unfortunately, so many people have the attitude of "well they can afford it".....until they move into a higher tax bracket and their tax rate goes up. It doesn't matter if the "wealthy" can afford it, why should they? The "raise taxes on the rich" argument is class warfare at its worst. How does the "top 2%" fight this? They can't because the folks voting in November outnumber them by a vast majority and don't recognize or don't care that what is being proposed is wrong.

Not only is this approach flat out wrong, it will stiffle the economy. It has been proven time and again, when the government raises taxes the economy slows down. Like it or not, that "top 2%" is not just ambulance- chasing lawyers, professional athletes, and overpaid CEOs of major corporations. It is mostly your local doctor, dentist, salesperson, or small business person who owns the local restaurant or store at the mall. Most of these folks go to the same stores, drive on the same roads, go to the same churches and work their asses off like everyone else. And they almost never qualify for or take advantage of any government entitlement programs.

And I don't want to hear the "Warren Buffett paid 15% or 17%" argument. Buffett is in the crowd that can live off investments and has a team of accoutants/tax attorneys making sure he pays the least amount of taxes he can. Most of the people in the $ 250-300K range make a vast majority of their income through salaries and business income that isn't taxed at the lower capital gains rate.

Philosophically, I'm right there with you. From a practical standpoint, a flat tax just won't work. Either our government would experience a drastic reduction in revenues, or way too many people would be thrust into poverty.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Daseal

I find it ironic the same people against taxes are the same people for spending $4,000 a minute in Iraq.

The two have not a single thing to do with each other.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

The two have not a single thing to do with each other.

They do have something to do with each other. The feds can't spend without taxing, can they? So, if someone supports a particular initiative, they have to be willing to tax to pay for it.

Now, the fact that you may have different priorities (e.g., defense over social programs) is, I agree, a separate issue.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

They do have something to do with each other. The feds can't spend without taxing, can they? So, if someone supports a particular initiative, they have to be willing to tax to pay for it.

Now, the fact that you may have different priorities (e.g., defense over social programs) is, I agree, a separate issue.

First rule of fiscal responsibility is "don't spend more money than you have." This rule, however, does not apply to matters concerning national security. Instead of complaining about the cost of war what we should be doing is cutting worthless social programs. I wouldn't worry if I were you, the economy will pick and we'll pay for it when we pay for it. Right now, safety and spreading freedom is a priority. We'll definitely be better of in the long run.

Support the troops!

[That Guy]

we're not even paying for the war right now :/ normally when a war is ongoing, a war tax is collected to pay for it (which also leads to restraint, since no one likes higher taxes). because that would have made going into iraq very hard, bush & co. are passing a lot of this war's cost onto your children :/.


not ideal.