Someone is in the middle class if they can afford to be out of work for a year without losing their house or car or having to subsist on eating beans.
If you can't afford to be out of work for a year, then you are not a member of the middle class. You are a member of the working class.
Let me tell you, LOTS of people who make over 200k couldn't afford to be out of work for a year because they have $5k/month mortgages, big dollar student loans and stuff. They have basically leveraged themselves into relative poverty with zilch disposable income.
When are you leftists going to catch on that progressive income taxes are actually a tool to force the middle class into the working class so we can go back to playing nobility and serfs?
tax cuts to the riches 2% of Americans else you get no medical relief to 911 responders.
Here's a tribute to a few Republican senators who find comfort and advantage in invoking the heroes of 9/11 but refuse to give them health care.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-december-13-2010/lame-as-f--k-congress
-- Modified on 12/16/2010 5:49:22 AM
The two issues are unrelated.
In that the obstructionist party is happy to deny health care to 9/11 responders if they don't get their tax cuts for the wealthy. Equally happy to say 'fuck you' to a man who puts his life on the line in the US military and who wants to be a citizen.
And, as always, a big 'fuck you' to any gay or lesbian who is willing to die for the country they love. No, they are not good enough.
I know you have better cognitive powers than that, John. It was very clearly stated that even a nuclear treaty is a pawn for the holy grail of making sure the wealthy get wealthier.
That is not to say that they won't propose and pass identical legislation in the next Congress - because then they get to take credit.
Wow. What statesmen.
What is "wealthy?"
That, I think, is an important question.
Xfean referenced the top 2%.
As income is taxed rather than wealth; what is the border for the top 2%?
When I last looked it up ... about $154k.
Lots of people making that much money are far from wealthy. I'd hazard a guess that most people on the P&R board make at least that much money and wouldn't think of themselves as wealthy.
There are very sound reasons not to increase the taxes on people in the top 2% (154k+) and top 1% (270k+). One of them is that taxing the crap out of those people prevents them from saving the money to actually BE financially independent instead of just more highly paid wage slaves.
And by preventing that financial independence, it actually serves to PROTECT the *truly* wealthy in this country by preventing their power and influence from being diluted.
Total wealth in this country follows a straight-up curve. There are about 3 million people with a net worth (includes home equity, retirement plans, etc.) of $1M. But there are only about 35,000 people with a net worth of $20M (how much wealth it took to be a millionaire in 1916 dollars). And there are fewer than 1,000 people with over a billion dollars in net worth.
And, frankly, many of these truly wealthy people pay no income taxes to speak of anyway because their homes are owned by a family trust, their yachts are owned by XYZ corporation, etc. and their actual attributable income for tax purposes is quite small. I know, because I play some of those (perfectly legal) games myself. I remember reading that the Kennedy Family Trust keeps its money offshore in Fiji.
There is a huge disconnect between being in the top 2% of income -- which can simply be a senior engineer at an ISP who is struggling to keep his house heated, and being a primary stockholder of Monsanto whose stocks are held indirectly anyway so he pays no taxes on the dividends. The top 2% of wage earners are NOT the 2% wealthiest individuals. Income is not the same as wealth. For income to be wealth, income must be retained, saved and invested. And many of the fortunes that are out there have been passed along since before income taxes existed.
So I believe that a reasonable person CAN look at those tax increases on people making $155k or $210k annually with a jaded eye, and appropriately so.
Furthermore, I think a reasonable argument against inheritance taxes can be made.
I have offspring. Do you think I would be so foolish as to set things up so whatever assets I have are all personal to be passed along and subjected to inheritance taxes? Of course not. Those assets exist outside my personal sphere and *control* will be passed; thus avoiding inheritance taxes.
Inheritance taxes are essentially a tax on people who can't afford (or don't think to afford) expensive lawyers to set everything up to game the system. In practice, what they do is force the sale of home and small businesses so that a family business or family home can't be passed down intergenerationally. At least, it can't be done by those who haven't invested in good legal talent.
Furthermore, anything that I might accumulate, has been accumulated from after-tax income. As such, taxes have already been paid. The idea of taxing it AGAIN when I give it to offspring after my death is ridiculous. It has already been taxed.
I was born into poverty. Should my offspring likewise be impoverished even though I have worked hard and done well? Shouldn't I have a right to dispose of the product of my labor and ingenuity in whatever way I wish?
So it is also reasonable to oppose the inheritance tax provisions.
And -- capital gains. I invest after-tax money. When I invest it, it is ALL at risk; kind of like when I lost all the money I invested in Eden Bioscience when they went bankrupt in 2009. Yes, I get to deduct that loss from my gains on other investments; but nobody out there is going to actually reimburse me for that loss. It is MY risk with after-tax money.
Shouldn't it also be MY gain?
And, fundamentally, one might reasonably ask what right ANYONE has to take the products of my labor, my thought, and my risk -- labor, thought and risk to which they made little if any contribution and likely erected barriers.
Now, maybe more compelling arguments could be made on the other side. All I really have to show here is that a person can, without malice, oppose imposition of inheritance and higher income taxes.
And if I can show that; then it is indeed a separate issue.
The fact that I oppose taxing a father of 3 who is making $160k and whose wife is in a wheelchair with MS at a rate higher than he is currently taxed doesn't necessarily make me an ogre.
And, there is also another side to that issue in terms of 9/11 responders. Fundamentally, I agree that the healthcare of those responders should be covered. But there are those who disagree, and some of their disagreements are not on the basis of simply being evil haters of humanity. There is debate over matters of causation, etc.
When a guy who smoked 2 packs of unfiltered camels daily for 40 years develops emphysema after being a first responder on 9/11; it is not automatically provable that his malady was caused by his responding to that emergency.
As I said, personally, I favor funding all the healthcare expenses for all the first responders to that attack across the board. I think it makes more sense than nitpicking over causation in every case. BUT, a person could certainly oppose my view without necessarily being a horrible person.
Does that make sense?
which has zero to do with the point made - that the Senate Republicans have held hostage all legislation until they get their tax cut. The point was not about 'what constitutes wealthy' - it was about asshole Republicans waving flags and pontificating about the heroic rescue workers, then voting against giving them needed health care as a political ploy.
But you knew that before YOU began pontificating about an unrelated side issue.
It's fucking politics, you can't blame one party over the over. Well this board is prove you CAN, but it still doesn't make it right.
Both parties play politics with ALL issues, only the narrowest minded of partisans claim that only one party does so.
but this is a case of such blatant, transparent hypocrisy that it is shocking they don't choke on it. Juxtaposing their posturing with their votes - and with their signed statement that no business would be done until they got their way - while Dems may do such things now and then (don't remember any instances off the top of my head, but I'm sure they are there) you have to admit that this is business as usual for the Repubs. It's always their way or the highway.
That said, watching the ongoing antics puts me in mind of a quote by Mencken:
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."
puck, you gotta remember that the republicans usually act as a group, and gang up on the opposition.
Democrats, on the other hand can never get their shit together, and circle the wagons. Talk about a dysfunctional group of nimrods....they had total power for the past two years, and they mostly fought amongst their internal factions. Only Pelosi's and Reid's heavy handed politicking and vote buying enabled them to pass any legislation at all. I would bet that Rahm Emmanuel twisted some elbows as well.
A good 100% house cleaning in 2012, and then set term limits in place is our only hope of restoring any semblance of what the founding fathers envisioned. Good luck with that.
Oh yeah, on point or not, johngaltnh has excellent comments in his post.
I thought for sure when I clicked on your response that I was going to read a comment that displayed the same level of indignation you did about the seating chart at a Medal Of Honor ceremony. I should have known better. I guess if you can't find a way to blame Obama or the Democrats for the subject at hand, you don't get your thong all twisted up in your asshole about it.
Just the thought of seeing myself in a thong even makes me a little nauseous, lmfao. And speaking of assholes.............
It is NOT a "tax cut." Rather, it is maintenance of current tax rates as they have remained for the past DECADE. It is refusal of a tax INCREASE. For me, as of 1/1/11, my taxes would increase.
In the midst of a serious recession; I think it is entirely reasonable to take a hard line on tax increases.
I am also not certain that the terminology "holding hostage" is reasonable.
All the other party has to do, if this other legislation is SO important, is allow current tax rates to stay in place. Yet, by their refusal, they are also holding these other things hostage.
They could, if they wished, keep current tax rates extended for just another year, get their other important business done, and then revisit the issue next fall.
So both sides have the power to move things forward.
Not only that, looking at some of the legislation that is clogged up; I have to admit I'm glad some of it is clogged up.
"It is NOT a 'tax cut.' Rather, it is maintenance of current tax rates as they have remained for the past DECADE. It is refusal of a tax INCREASE."
One could split hairs here, but I wanted to point out that the original Bush tax cuts were set to expire regardless. Therefore, in a literal sense, continuing the current tax rate, would indeed be additional tax cuts.
Setting semantics aside for the moment, I would note that it is literally impossible to have a tax cut when a government is in deficit spending. If you have to borrow money to finance a tax cut, then it's not really a tax cut. It's just a gov't loan that you're forced at gun point to accept and repay at interest.
"In the midst of a serious recession; I think it is entirely reasonable to take a hard line on tax increases."
Historically, raising top marginal income taxes has always resulted in a stronger economy.
"They could, if they wished, keep current tax rates extended for just another year, get their other important business done, and then revisit the issue next fall."
I'd prefer no deal at all be made, so that these tax cuts expire. That would result in higher taxes on myself, and I'm guessing that I could use it more than anyone else on this board, but I'm willing to give up a few luxaries for the long term health of the nation I love. Strangely, this sense of patriotism is oddly missing among the comfortable, for whom this country has done so much.
As you are describing it, anytime government is running a deficit, it is due to inadequate taxation.
But it could just as easily be said that it is due to excessive spending.
Our federal government -- not counting the post office and the military -- has over TWO MILLION employees. (2,150,000)
In addition, there are 1.445 million military employees.
And that is just DIRECT employees. That doesn't count the millions of other employees who work for contractors that do strictly U.S. government work.
For example, HUD-insured foreclosed homes are not managed by HUD. Instead, their property management and marketing is handled by several very large companies across the country. But as their salaries are paid by taxes, they should be counted in the total as well.
Then there are people working in the military industrial complex. They only do business with the U.S. government; and as such should also be counted.
Then there are a shitload of companies whose primary work is government work. This ranges from private military contractors to people doing research on fruit flies. There are even private companies whose only purpose is to fly around people for extraordinary rendition or to administer US Aid to foreign countries.
When you add it all up, the size of our government is truly gargantuan and its direct and indirect payroll (I'm not counting benefit recipients in this) is bigger than the combined population of several of our smaller states.
People have no conception of how HUGE our government is. The size of our government ALONE in direct and indirect hires is larger than the entire population of the whole country in the 1810 census.
And oh -- by the way -- I haven't even counted reserve forces.
Do not expect me to believe that in a government THAT huge, that stupendously gargantuan, that there isn't a nickel being wasted somewhere.
I know better than that shit. I know better because I have friends in that system who tell me all about it.
I have a friend getting a six figure wage who only does less than an hour of actual work a day. The rest of the time is spent waiting on a brutally inefficient IT system. I have another friend whose job is to schedule meetings -- really, just schedule meetings -- and he has to do this 2-3 times a week. He earns about 75k for this. But talk about insane -- he has a damned MBA and they use him for a task any secretary could perform and pay him gobs more than the work should pay for the 3-4 hours of actual work he does.
Our government does this. It gobbles up highly qualified people and sets them to work on mind-numbing and useless shit.
Waste? There are GOBS of waste and inefficiency in our government.
Deficits cannot automatically be seen as resulting from inadequate taxes. Somewhere, it is reasonable, to draw a line on the size of this government and say "Enough is enough!" I propose that we have already cross that line!!!
I'm a little short on time, so I'm going to have to make this quicker than I'd like.
"As you are describing it, anytime government is running a deficit, it is due to inadequate taxation.
But it could just as easily be said that it is due to excessive spending."
I completely agree. It is an indication that gov't is mismanaging it's books. But regardless, if your balance sheet is in that much disarray, it's irresponsible to make it worse.
"Our federal government -- not counting the post office and the military -- has over TWO MILLION employees. (2,150,000)"
A lot of workers, to be sure, but compared to other first world nations, the US has a extremely low percentage of public workers in it's total workforce. But I agree that gov't should be run as efficiently as possible.
"When you add it all up, the size of our government is truly gargantuan and its direct and indirect payroll (I'm not counting benefit recipients in this) is bigger than the combined population of several of our smaller states."
It certainly is, and there's more things than I can count that should be cut, in my estimation.
"People have no conception of how HUGE our government is. The size of our government ALONE in direct and indirect hires is larger than the entire population of the whole country in the 1810 census."
A daunting figure to be sure, but the human population on this planet has grown 8 fold since then. Hell, there were only half as many people on this planet when we landed on the moon. Gov't certainly can be run leaner and better, but we are a country of 300 million people.
"Waste? There are GOBS of waste and inefficiency in our government.
Deficits cannot automatically be seen as resulting from inadequate taxes. Somewhere, it is reasonable, to draw a line on the size of this government and say "Enough is enough!" I propose that we have already cross that line!!!"
I agree witht his sentiments, but when we have a nation whose citizens adopt an attitude that, as Ronald Reagan said, "deficits don't matter", then people behave as if they don't. Inefficiency in gov't is ignored because it doesn't matter who's paying for it. Tax rates can be incredibly low, because it doesn't matter that we're borrowing money from generations yet unborn to pay for all this.
Unless Americans everywhere are ready to take responsibility for our lousy gov't, then it's going to continue to destroy our nation. Part of that responsibility is to demand spending cuts and increases in taxation. Not just on somebody else, but with regards to themselves.
If people had to pay for our government and it couldn't run a deficit, the pain would be so intense and the economy would be so screwed ... that there would be cries for revolution.
You ignored the point you were responding to and set up a false premise which you then proceeded to attack.
"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."
-- Modified on 12/17/2010 12:07:16 PM
... does refute the original proposition by questioning its underlying premises.
Specifically, I point out why the decision to hold out for maintenance of current tax rates is supportable; why reasonable people might differ from us on the 9/11 first responders, and finally that the gridlock could just as easily be broken by the other party. Finally, I question the implicit idea that obstructionism is ethically problematic.
So it isn't a straw man -- it is a matter of questioning the underlying premises.
Pretend, instead of a tax bill, it was a law calling for something really horrible that we can ALL agree is bad. "Public law 2010-2345, A Bill Funding Creation of Ethnic Bioweapons to Selectively Kill Ethnicity X." Pretty bad. Right?
Okay -- so the obstructionist party refuses to let anything else come to a vote until that law is voted down.
True, they ARE obstructionist. I won't deny that.
But I question the implicit premise that being obstructionist is automatically unethical. EVEN IF, by virtue of obstructing, a few people literally died, it would seem to me that in a hierarchy of values the harm prevented through the obstruction outweighed any other ethical implications short of a nuclear war.
So IF it is agreed that obstructionism CAN be a good thing (e.g. by preventing an ethnic bioweapon) THEN it is valid to argue the wisdom of the actual legislation (taxes in this case) being prevented by the obstruction.
Which so called normal group do you think belong. Ooooopppppps!, my bad, there must be a difference between rational and normal!
That, I think, is an important question.
Xfean referenced the top 2%.
As income is taxed rather than wealth; what is the border for the top 2%?
When I last looked it up ... about $154k.
Lots of people making that much money are far from wealthy. I'd hazard a guess that most people on the P&R board make at least that much money and wouldn't think of themselves as wealthy.
There are very sound reasons not to increase the taxes on people in the top 2% (154k+) and top 1% (270k+). One of them is that taxing the crap out of those people prevents them from saving the money to actually BE financially independent instead of just more highly paid wage slaves.
And by preventing that financial independence, it actually serves to PROTECT the *truly* wealthy in this country by preventing their power and influence from being diluted.
Total wealth in this country follows a straight-up curve. There are about 3 million people with a net worth (includes home equity, retirement plans, etc.) of $1M. But there are only about 35,000 people with a net worth of $20M (how much wealth it took to be a millionaire in 1916 dollars). And there are fewer than 1,000 people with over a billion dollars in net worth.
And, frankly, many of these truly wealthy people pay no income taxes to speak of anyway because their homes are owned by a family trust, their yachts are owned by XYZ corporation, etc. and their actual attributable income for tax purposes is quite small. I know, because I play some of those (perfectly legal) games myself. I remember reading that the Kennedy Family Trust keeps its money offshore in Fiji.
There is a huge disconnect between being in the top 2% of income -- which can simply be a senior engineer at an ISP who is struggling to keep his house heated, and being a primary stockholder of Monsanto whose stocks are held indirectly anyway so he pays no taxes on the dividends. The top 2% of wage earners are NOT the 2% wealthiest individuals. Income is not the same as wealth. For income to be wealth, income must be retained, saved and invested. And many of the fortunes that are out there have been passed along since before income taxes existed.
So I believe that a reasonable person CAN look at those tax increases on people making $155k or $210k annually with a jaded eye, and appropriately so.
Furthermore, I think a reasonable argument against inheritance taxes can be made.
I have offspring. Do you think I would be so foolish as to set things up so whatever assets I have are all personal to be passed along and subjected to inheritance taxes? Of course not. Those assets exist outside my personal sphere and *control* will be passed; thus avoiding inheritance taxes.
Inheritance taxes are essentially a tax on people who can't afford (or don't think to afford) expensive lawyers to set everything up to game the system. In practice, what they do is force the sale of home and small businesses so that a family business or family home can't be passed down intergenerationally. At least, it can't be done by those who haven't invested in good legal talent.
Furthermore, anything that I might accumulate, has been accumulated from after-tax income. As such, taxes have already been paid. The idea of taxing it AGAIN when I give it to offspring after my death is ridiculous. It has already been taxed.
I was born into poverty. Should my offspring likewise be impoverished even though I have worked hard and done well? Shouldn't I have a right to dispose of the product of my labor and ingenuity in whatever way I wish?
So it is also reasonable to oppose the inheritance tax provisions.
And -- capital gains. I invest after-tax money. When I invest it, it is ALL at risk; kind of like when I lost all the money I invested in Eden Bioscience when they went bankrupt in 2009. Yes, I get to deduct that loss from my gains on other investments; but nobody out there is going to actually reimburse me for that loss. It is MY risk with after-tax money.
Shouldn't it also be MY gain?
And, fundamentally, one might reasonably ask what right ANYONE has to take the products of my labor, my thought, and my risk -- labor, thought and risk to which they made little if any contribution and likely erected barriers.
Now, maybe more compelling arguments could be made on the other side. All I really have to show here is that a person can, without malice, oppose imposition of inheritance and higher income taxes.
And if I can show that; then it is indeed a separate issue.
The fact that I oppose taxing a father of 3 who is making $160k and whose wife is in a wheelchair with MS at a rate higher than he is currently taxed doesn't necessarily make me an ogre.
And, there is also another side to that issue in terms of 9/11 responders. Fundamentally, I agree that the healthcare of those responders should be covered. But there are those who disagree, and some of their disagreements are not on the basis of simply being evil haters of humanity. There is debate over matters of causation, etc.
When a guy who smoked 2 packs of unfiltered camels daily for 40 years develops emphysema after being a first responder on 9/11; it is not automatically provable that his malady was caused by his responding to that emergency.
As I said, personally, I favor funding all the healthcare expenses for all the first responders to that attack across the board. I think it makes more sense than nitpicking over causation in every case. BUT, a person could certainly oppose my view without necessarily being a horrible person.
Does that make sense?
-- Modified on 12/17/2010 6:28:01 AM
except I always spell out the word fuck in it's entirety, after all it's only four letters.
Leave it to AF to bring out the best in all of us, even JG. rofl
also you need to make over a certain amount per year for at least three years to be considered wealthy
or a sophisticated investor.
median income class
$50k/year for a single adult.
thats $25.00/hour X 2000 hours/year=$50k.
most people earn less then that unless you are in a job thats subsidized byt the government.
Reuters) - Most Americans in the United States define themselves as being part of the middle class, but there are differing opinions of what that means.
President Barack Obama talks of "middle class tax cuts" that would apply to families who earn up to $250,000, which would cover all but the top 3 percent of U.S. households.
Many Republicans point out that location and expenses can affect class status -- a family earning $250,000 in a high-cost location like Manhattan, for example, may not consider themselves rich.
Economists say there is no specific criteria for defining the middle class, though income level is the most common way of breaking it down.
Below are some of the ways the middle class is defined:
INCOME
Economists generally align the group according to earnings, even if there is no standard established range.
"Most people tend to think of themselves as middle class unless they're (billionaire investor) Warren Buffett or really poor," said J.D. Foster, an economist and senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.
Foster regards the upper 20 percent of earners as "upper income" and the lower 20 percent as "lower income." He regards the 60 percent in the middle as middle class, with household incomes roughly between $25,000 and $100,000.
Median household income in the United States was $52,175 in 2008, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
Here's a tribute to a few Republican senators who find comfort and advantage in invoking the heroes of 9/11 but refuse to give them health care.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-december-13-2010/lame-as-f--k-congress
-- Modified on 12/16/2010 5:49:22 AM
To be considered an accredited investor, you need to reach and mantain certain minimum income and/or net worth levels, none of which have anything to do with tax brackets.
-- Modified on 12/16/2010 7:19:25 PM
Someone is in the middle class if they can afford to be out of work for a year without losing their house or car or having to subsist on eating beans.
If you can't afford to be out of work for a year, then you are not a member of the middle class. You are a member of the working class.
Let me tell you, LOTS of people who make over 200k couldn't afford to be out of work for a year because they have $5k/month mortgages, big dollar student loans and stuff. They have basically leveraged themselves into relative poverty with zilch disposable income.
When are you leftists going to catch on that progressive income taxes are actually a tool to force the middle class into the working class so we can go back to playing nobility and serfs?
We can have a marginally progressive tax, a "flat" progressive tax (perfectly linear), or a progressive tax that really does put the burden of taxation on those who can most afford it. I favor the latter.
The current tax structure defines top marginal income at $373,000. I have no idea who makes the highest annual income in the United States, but if you divide Bill Gates' net worth by the number of years he's been working, he made on average about $1.6 billion a year. That's taxing two people in the same tax bracket when one makes around 50 times more than the other.
By definition, that is not progressive taxation. Rather it is a flat tax, at least in certain income brackets. I agree that such a system results in people being reduced to serfs, but it also serves as a protection racket for the very wealthy.
Corporate income taxes are even worse. For reasons that defy logic, a corporation making 15-18.3 million is taxed at a higher rate than those making over 18.3 million. The only purpose of this is to prevent smaller businesses from being able to compete against larger businesses.
Progressive taxation isn't the culprit here John. A far too regressive tax system is.
911 responders are not the only heros in the world. Why not provide medical relief to all heros?
As far as tax cuts to the rich is concerned, that would mean tax cutting everybody that doesn't go to bed hungry. As most of the world does. So if you got 2 quarters to rub together, you are rich. And give me your fifty cents, I'll call you a hero too.
Cause tax payers are heros in my book. Thank you, tax payers. You are the best humans for sure.
The Obama position is only increase the top marginal rates on those making over $250,000 (joint) $200,000 (single).
Not sure the details may be just related to current bracket.
Today only the income above $373,651 (TAXABLE AFTER ALL DEDUCTIONS) is taxed at the highest 35% rate which would revert to the old 39.6% in the prosperous good times with surpluses under Clinton.
The 33% current rate for between $209,251 and $373,651 would go to the old 35%.
The average tax rate for these brackets is probably around 25%.
The U.S. has some of the lowest individual tax rates in the world and no VAT tax. We use to have a 70% top rate and the economy did fine with low unemployment etc.
Many of the upper income shelter the income in many ways, have their corporate jets, villas and yachts etc. The U.S. in the industrial world has one of the highest disparity between the most wealthy and the middle class which has widen substantially over the last 20 years as the rich get more and more unevenly wealthy.
The estate tax is very fair above $3-5 million, because with inheritances your wealth is determined by how lucky you were to be born in the right womb. You don't earn it, you can be spoiled and get wealthy because you were lucky enough to be born into the right family. The wife/husband of course pays no tax only the beneficiaries that die after the spouse is also gone. Lots of ways to reduce estate tax (A/B trusts, gifts etc).
For family businesses there is a provision to pay over as I recall 10 years. Also usually have life insurance to cover.