tax cuts for rich vs. middle class

[ikol]

And you wouldn't bill them/provide the service if you didn't think they could pay?

 

The government does this all the time.

[Atticus]

I'm kinda confused at so many people being so vehemently opposed to tax changes when they don't know what the tax changes would be.

 

bump

[ikol]

Behold the Wikipedia

 

EGTRRA generally reduced the rates of individual income taxes:

 

* a new 10% bracket was created for single filers with taxable income up to $6,000, joint filers up to $12,000, and heads of households up to $10,000.

* the 15% bracket's lower threshold was indexed to the new 10% bracket

* the 28% bracket would be lowered to 25% by 2006.

* the 31% bracket would be lowered to 28% by 2006

* the 36% bracket would be lowered to 33% by 2006

* the 39.6% bracket would be lowered to 35% by 2006

[Guest Speed Racer]

The government does this all the time.

 

Exactly. So since when do we not expect it to be hypocritical?

[Artifice]

I really hate how these discussions are framed by politicians and their lapdog talking heads.

 

First off, "rich" is defined by what you have not what you make per year. in my profession, I have worked with people who made extremely large salaries or closed deals that netted them 7 figures who didnt have a pot to piss in. I also worked with one guy who made $45k a year as a food broker but had $1 mil in the bank because he saved and spent his money wisely.

 

neither of the two parties' recent budgetary models is sustainable. They both spend too much. the democrats are not realistic about the shortfall of revenues, and want to continue expanding government spending (universal healthcare - aka getting everyone on the insurance companies rolls without controlling costs which is the real issue). The republicans are even worse, still mired in the basic precepts of reagan voodoo economics and straddled with the enormous costs of two PNAC preemptive wars, and sticking the american public with the inevitable costs of financial sector deregulation (even as the top feeders gorged themselves on it).

 

Both parties need a massive kick in the ass by reality, and the American public is too stupid and lazy to do it anytime soon, so as long as ideologues continue to push public policy, we're destined for failure.

 

The only thing that has a chance of working is to raise taxes across the board, decrease spending by controlling costs and eliminating some programs and benefits (this includes defense spending and foreign aid), and reducing foreign debt. These steps are the antithesis to globalist multinationals who dictate most of policy though, so it won't happen.

 

And for the record, I'm in the crowd that will be taxed heavier to pay for this crap, and I'm pissed about it. Only, I don't blame the current adminsitration because it's politically expedient to do so. I blame the dickheads who got us here with foreign wars, NAFTA, corn subsidies, financial deregulation, energy company subsidies for doing nothing to decrease our reliance on fossil fuels, and all the other crap that has gone on.

 

I'm a disenchanted working slob who doesn't identify with any political party, even the fringe ones, and who hates ideologues, appreciates informed, expert pragmatists, and realizes that no matter what, I'm fucked. The party is over and it's time to pay the bill for all of the excesses.

 

And FWIW, spare me the pitty for the rich "paying most of the taxes" and all that rot. It's b.s. I see thousands of tax returns every year. I know what people pay. Working professionals and small business owners pay the taxes. The rich don't - they pay the Bush Capital gains rates and some of the lowest effective tax rates of all filers, except for the true poor. It's the middle class (doctors, professionals, small business owners etc) who carry the load, and they need relief, but they're going to get soaked some more. The true rich, meanwhile, need to pay more because they make more. If you believe the talking points - if the wealthiest 1% pay 80% or whatever made up number of the taxes, then they're not doing their part because they make 95% of the money. The logic of that particular talking point is ridiculous. I hate seeing it regurgitated constantly by people who don't know what they're talking about, in the absence of real insight or critical thinking.

[bjorn_skurj]

I really hate how these discussions are framed by politicians and their lapdog talking heads.

 

First off, "rich" is defined by what you have not what you make per year. in my profession, I have worked with people who made extremely large salaries or closed delas that netted them 7 figures who didnt have a pot to piss in. I also worked with one guy who made $45k a year as a food broker but had $1 mil in the bank because he saved and spent his money wisely.

 

neither of the two parties' recent budgetary models is sustainable. They both spend too much. the democrats are not realistic about the shortfall of revenues, and want to continue expanding government spending (universal healthcare - aka getting everyone on the insurance companies rolls). The republicans are even worse, still mired in the basic precepts of reagan voodoo economics and straddled with the enormous costs of two PNAC preemptive wars, and sticking the american public with the inevitable costs of financial sector deregulation (even as the top feeders gorged themselves on it).

 

Both paries need a massive kick in the ass by reality, and the American public is too stupid and lazy to do it anytime soon, so as long as ideologues continue to push public policy, we're destined for failure.

 

The only thing that has a chance of working is to raise taxes across the board, decrease spending by controlling costs and eliminating some programs and benefits (this includes defense spending and foreign aid), and reducing foreign debt. These steps are the antithesis to globalist multinationals who dictate most of policy though, so it won't happen.

 

And for the record, I'm in the crowd that will be taxed heavier to pay for this crap, and I'm pissed about it. Only, I don't blame the current adminsitration because it's politically expedient to do so. I blame the dickheads who got us here with foreign wars, NAFTA, corn subsidies, financial deregulation, energy company subsidies for doing nothing to decrease our reliance on fossil fuels, and all the other crap that has gone on.

 

I'm a disenchanted working slob who doesn't identify with any political party, even the fringe ones, and who hates ideologues, appreciates informed, expert pragmatists, and realizes that no matter what, I'm fucked. The party is over and it's time to pay the bill for all of the excesses.

 

And FWIW, spare me the pitty for the rich "paying most of the taxes" and all that rot. It's b.s. I see thousands of tax returns every year. I know what people pay. Working professionals and small business owners pay the taxes. The rich don't - they pay the Bush Capital gains rates and some of the lowest effective tax rates of all filers, except for the true poor. It's the middle class (doctors, professionals, small business owners etc) who carry the load, and they need relief, but they're going to get soaked some more. The true rich, meanwhile, need to pay more because they make more. If you believe the talking points - if the wealthiest 1% pay 80% or whatever made up number of the taxes, then they're not doing their part because they make 95% of the money. The logic of that particular talking point is ridiculous. I hate seeing it regurgitated constantly by people who don't know what they're talking about, in the absence of real insight or critical thinking.

This post rules.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Brilliant post (though in my business, I do see a little utility in NAFTA).

[bjorn_skurj]

This essay, brought to my attention by my brother editor, is blowing my mind like YHF.

 

AND I WOULD SHARE IT WITH YOU IF THIS BOARD WOULD ALLOW ME TO UPLOAD A PDF.

 

Jesus, the shit I have to go through to spread enlightenment.

 

https://www.yousendit.com/download/UFVxQk13NDRUWUN4dnc9PQ

[Artifice]

Brilliant post (though in my business, I do see a little utility in NAFTA).

 

I am asking without a desire to start a NAFTA debate so heated that Ross Perot shows up with what viagra can't even do for him anymore...

 

There are always pros and cons for most policies, this one included. What pro do you see in your line of work? I'm genuinely curious.

[Guest Jules]

And FWIW, spare me the pitty for the rich "paying most of the taxes" and all that rot. It's b.s. I see thousands of tax returns every year. I know what people pay. Working professionals and small business owners pay the taxes. The rich don't - they pay the Bush Capital gains rates and some of the lowest effective tax rates of all filers, except for the true poor. It's the middle class (doctors, professionals, small business owners etc) who carry the load, and they need relief, but they're going to get soaked some more. The true rich, meanwhile, need to pay more because they make more. If you believe the talking points - if the wealthiest 1% pay 80% or whatever made up number of the taxes, then they're not doing their part because they make 95% of the money. The logic of that particular talking point is ridiculous. I hate seeing it regurgitated constantly by people who don't know what they're talking about, in the absence of real insight or critical thinking.

The small business owners ARE the rich. Are rich people not working professionals?

[ikol]

Working professionals and small business owners pay the taxes. The rich don't - they pay the Bush Capital gains rates and some of the lowest effective tax rates of all filers, except for the true poor. It's the middle class (doctors, professionals, small business owners etc) who carry the load, and they need relief, but they're going to get soaked some more.

 

And if you've read any of the comments in this thread (made by ideologues lacking insight and critical thinking, no doubt), the whole point is that because many of these professionals and business owners make more than $200,000, they get thrown into the "rich" category whenever the topic of what their taxes should be arises. And FWIW, I agree with like 63% of what you said in your post, but damn, even I'm not that arrogant about my views.

[Guest Speed Racer]

I work in immigration; the way NAFTA works with regard to immigration is that companies can sponsor people in certain, underrepresented occupations (teachers, physicians), or occupations in sectors that would improve our own economy (STEM occupations), can come here after jumping through only 193 hoops (for Canadians, 1,931 for Mexican) instead of 18,930.

 

The NAFTA is the U.S. version of a guestworker program. While guestworker programs are notorious for becomeing people-who-don't-leave programs, NAFTA workers are specifically prohibited from taking steps to become permanent residents, and must jump through the other 18,930 hoops (subsequently switching authorization categories) to do so.

[Artifice]

The small business owners ARE the rich. Are rich people not working professionals?

 

No. The rich are a silent sect. They own $40 million weekend pads in the Hamptons and do not "work" for a living. They are passive investors and the majority of their incomes are taxed at capital gains rates.

 

But again - rich isnt defined by what you make, its what you have. Anyone who has an income, even if its fairly modest, can be rich with judicious application of their income, and a little luck.

 

And if you've read any of the comments in this thread (made by ideologues lacking insight and critical thinking, no doubt), the whole point is that because many of these professionals and business owners make more than $200,000, they get thrown into the "rich" category whenever the topic of what their taxes should be arises. And FWIW, I agree with like 63% of what you said in your post, but damn, even I'm not that arrogant about my views.

 

I'm disaffected and tired, not arrogant. And the post was written so those with a guilty conscience would take offense.

[Guest Jules]

I'm disaffected and tired, not arrogant. And the post was written so those with a guilty conscience would take offense.

You trickster, you.

[Artifice]

I work in immigration; the way NAFTA works with regard to immigration is that companies can sponsor people in certain, underrepresented occupations (teachers, physicians), or occupations in sectors that would improve our own economy (STEM occupations), can come here after jumping through only 193 hoops (for Canadians, 1,931 for Mexican) instead of 18,930.

 

The NAFTA is the U.S. version of a guestworker program. While guestworker programs are notorious for becomeing people-who-don't-leave programs, NAFTA workers are specifically prohibited from taking steps to become permanent residents, and must jump through the other 18,930 hoops (subsequently switching authorization categories) to do so.

 

I didn't know that. Generally, I'm in favor of any type of controlled immigration. That's another political red herring. We need immigration, but we also need to control the quality and velocity of it like most of our friendly/peer countries.

[Guest Speed Racer]

The Immigration Service also institutes a pretty hefty surcharge for all H-1Bs, which is used to fund STEM educational incentives (fellowships and scholarships and the like) for U.S. women and minorities. A lot about the CIS annoys the hell out of me, but that's pretty nifty, IMO.

[embiggen]

with regards to taxes, the middle class deserves a tax cut. why do the rich deserve one? I've never understood that. I'm middle class and my husband and I pay through the f**king nose. you would not believe the tax bill we have right now and we make well below $250k.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Because if the rich don't get a tax cut, or have their taxes raised, they'll have to lay off their pool boys and stuff - you know, you and me.

[Guest Jules]

Because if the rich don't get a tax cut, or have their taxes raised, they'll have to lay off their pool boys and stuff - you know, you and me.

 

That would suck.

[embiggen]

screw the rich. seriously.

[Guest Jules]

They'll probably have to give up their accupuncture treatments, too.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Not your usual warm and fuzzy self today, are you?

[Guest Jules]

Not your usual warm and fuzzy self today, are you?

Me? No, same as usual.

[ikol]

I'm disaffected and tired, not arrogant.

 

Maybe you're all three. Your post sure came across as "this is the way things are and if you disagree, you're a partisan zombie who just parrots talking points without actually thinking."

 

And the post was written so those with a guilty conscience would take offense.

 

My post was actually written so that only those who are arrogant would disagree.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Your post sure came across as "this is the way things are and if you disagree, you're a partisan zombie who just parrots talking points without actually thinking."

 

Which post in this thread doesn't come off that way?