Now we know their names

gooner

True Story:

I am walking down 7th Ave. and someone stops me and the following exchange takes place:

20'ish Female: Excuse me. Are you a registered democrat?
Gooner: No.
20'ish Female: Are you going to vote for Barrack Obama?
Gooner: No.
20'ish Female (slightly confused): Oh. Who are you going to vote for?
Gooner: I think that leaves John McCain. Excuse me. I am in a bit of a rush.
20'ish Female (starts walking with me): You are going to vote for John McCain??? Conservatives want to take away all your liberties. McCain is a total fascist.
Gooner: You mean in the same way Obama is a terrorist?
20'ish Female: Typical conservative. If you think Obama is a terrorist, then you should vote for McCain.
Gooner (stopping and turning to her): You do see the irony in this conversation, right?

At this point the 20'ish Female stomped off. Some of us have been living with this for quite some time now. New England is not a nice place to be if you are not liberal.

boogieknight

willregistersoon wrote: The government's most important function is to protect our borders and provide safety within our borders. So it makes perfect sense to me for most of our taxes to go towards defense spending. Next important function is to provide our infrastructure. I think that government healthcare should be treated like any other welfare program. People that are in dire straits should get government healthcare and anyone who is capable of paying for their own (whether privately or through an employer) should do so. If the government is paying for everyone's healthcare, why shouldn't they pay for everyone's houses? And food? etc etc etc

I'd ask, why don't we provide free food and housing for those who can't/won't afford it? Am I really to believe that the USA is too poor to provide for food and shelter for anybody who needs/wants it?

It just needs to be a decent functional home meeting minimal levels for 1st world human decency. A 12 bedroom mansion w/ a pool - no way, that's expensive. A broken down trailer in some raw sewage/crime infested slum - no way, that's beneath us as a country.

I studied and worked as hard as I did/do because they were some things I wanted for myself and my family. If I want fancier stuff I have to make the effort by study or work so to be to able afford those things. If I feel I need less then I can manage my career/ spending and do with less. This sort of thinking probably applies to every working adult in this country and abroad.

There would never be a situation where 90% of this country's population just decides to stop working and just live on welfare in free gov. housing and eat free government food. First of all if no one is working, where's the tax money coming from?

Two more reasons - Americans and the immigrants who come here just aren't wired like that. Most of us in some way are plugged into the work and buy stuff I like mentality and that's not going to change for a long time if ever. Between our consumerist mentality and our competitive streak ( I NEED a 6 burner Viking stove not that Kenmore crap...H2 vs Camry, etc) there are always going to be people who are richer and better off than someone else.

Second reason - we have to work to produce our wealth. We're not some oil-rich nation that can just sit back and sell our resources for prices so dear that we can put the entire country on the dole. We have to make stuff and sell stuff and all that making and selling means that people actually have to get out of bed and do stuff. Since you're up anyway, might as well work a little harder, a little smarter, make some extra dough, invest that dough, use that dough to send my kids to school, etc. and so on.

What I'm arguing for is that if I am incapable of providing for myself(through no fault of my own or even if I'm a complete jackass and slacker) I shouldn't be starving or sleeping in some cardboard box. I'm arguing that the US has enough wealth to do that and still not disrupt someone's standard of living too badly if at all.

And again we find ourselves, right now, in fantastically bad economic shape. If the choice is between making this country better and someone not buying a yacht - is that really a choice? Does that even make sense?

Almost certainly the yacht buyer has the loot to buy that yacht (and you to buy your bass equipment) precisely because you live in the USA. If the USA collapses or because of economic pressures warps to become unrecognizable or unworkable, then it's all a moot point anyway, aint it? Is yacht guy gonna pack his mansion on his fancy boat and sail away somewhere safe? Where is he going to go if the US collapse like a house of cards? China? Are you gonna fashion your bass into a spear and go live in the woods somewhere?

If it's not anyone's responsibility to fix the jam we're in, then what, do we just sit in our homes watching tv on our flatscreens until the lights go out?

vidro3

LongTimeSloper wrote: [quote=metalnyc][quote=BoogieKnight]
Yes they’ve earned their money and they should be proud of their accomplishments. But at the proposed levels of income – $250K+ (and that really income level puts you fuck far away from the ruin pit) - that $1000 bucks you’re so outraged about is not a matter of life and death. It just isn’t. Again it sucks that they have to cough it up and yes there’s a lot they can do w/ that $1000 bucks – but we’re crazy deep in debt and we have to fix it now. That $1000 means a lot to those who are asked to give it up - I’m not saying it’s meaningless – I’m saying the country needs it desperately and you alone ($250k+ people) are in the position to pay it.

i don't believe $250k is a lot of money in NYC. even in a decent neighborhood, a 3 bedroom is a lot of money. so take your mortgage for a 3 bedroom, a car (maybe 2), day-to-day living and commuting expenses, where does that leave you for savings and/or personal wants?

as willregistersoon said above, who decides?


And this is what divides most people when voting, income levels. To me and my family, $250k per year is a lot of money. We don't even come close to making that and we live in a good neighborhood, have a large apartment, pay a mortgage, have children, etc. etc. And, yes, I firmly believe people who make more money should be taxed at a higher level.

$250k per year is the top 5% of income in new york city. for comparison there are almost twice as many households making less than $10,000 as there are making 250k or more.
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=16000US3651000&-qr_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_DP3&-ds_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false

daver

metalnyc wrote: yup, there are other deductions like State, City, SS, SUTA/FUTA that also bring the gross down a good amount. no one is saying at $250k you are in dire straights, but people are equating $250k to being rich and in this city it's no where near being rich, it's being comfortable. and apparently being comfortable isn't allowed due to other's misfortunes.

This just in: Surprisingly, you can be comfortable AND YET STILL pay taxes. Now over to Ron for traffic.

Even after taxes, someone who makes $250k is going to end up with oodles more than someone who makes $25k. Seriously.

daver

vidro3 wrote: [quote=metalnyc]
i don't believe $250k is a lot of money in NYC. even in a decent neighborhood, a 3 bedroom is a lot of money. so take your mortgage for a 3 bedroom, a car (maybe 2), day-to-day living and commuting expenses, where does that leave you for savings and/or personal wants?

as willregistersoon said above, who decides?

$250k per year is the top 5% of income in new york city. for comparison there are almost twice as many households making less than $10,000 as there are making 250k or more.
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=16000US3651000&-qr_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_DP3&-ds_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false
Good point. Median household income for NYC is $46,480. 95% percent of the people living in NYC make do with less than $250k/yr. Which isn't to begrudge anyone anything who _is_ making $250k/yr or more, but rather just to say that yes, even in NYC $250k is a decent amount of money.

metalnyc

daver wrote: [quote=metalnyc]yup, there are other deductions like State, City, SS, SUTA/FUTA that also bring the gross down a good amount. no one is saying at $250k you are in dire straights, but people are equating $250k to being rich and in this city it's no where near being rich, it's being comfortable. and apparently being comfortable isn't allowed due to other's misfortunes.

This just in: Surprisingly, you can be comfortable AND YET STILL pay taxes. Now over to Ron for traffic.

Even after taxes, someone who makes $250k is going to end up with oodles more than someone who makes $25k. Seriously.

and no one is saying you shouldn't pay taxes. but YOU are saying a person making $250k should pay more than the person making $25k only because they make more and it won't hurt them as much. that's so damn subjective.

i'm sure there is stuff you love to do. now imagine the gov't coming along and saying, "you know what, you make too much money since you are able to do that thing you love. you have to give that money over to someone else who needs it more." now didn't you work your ass off at work, at school, so that you could afford to do the things you love? not so much fun when the gov't comes along and takes that money away to pay for someone that doesn't work as hard or didn't do as well in school.

daver

metalnyc wrote: and no one is saying you shouldn't pay taxes. but YOU are saying a person making $250k should pay more than the person making $25k only because they make more and it won't hurt them as much. that's so damn subjective.

i'm sure there is stuff you love to do. now imagine the gov't coming along and saying, "you know what, you make too much money since you are able to do that thing you love. you have to give that money over to someone else who needs it more." now didn't you work your ass off at work, at school, so that you could afford to do the things you love? not so much fun when the gov't comes along and takes that money away to pay for someone that doesn't work as hard or didn't do as well in school.

No one is saying that you can't do the things you want to do. And I agree that the dollars coming out of the pocket of someone with a high income hurt just as much as the dollars coming out of the pocket of someone with a low one. When I do my taxes at the end of the year I sit and shake my head at how much I pay to the government. I nearly bust a gut paying sales tax on a car recently. But I do believe that it is fair to do it by a percent of your income, and to share the burden in that way. People with a high income are still going to have a high income, even after taxes. Recent studies have borne out that high wage earners' after tax income continues to increase. FWIW.

booklaw

No one ever promised us that if we worked hard at school and did well at school and in our careers, we would be allowed to keep every penny of our income and would be able to afford all of the things we loved.

That is a fantasy... akin to an Ayn Rand novel.

willregistersoon

To the people arguing on the "higher-taxes-for-the-rich" side of this debate - can you play devil's advocate for a moment? I'd like to hear from you why the government should NOT just pass a law saying everyone should just make the exact same salary?

If you actually do think everyone should make the same salary, just say why.

daver

booklaw wrote: That is a fantasy... akin to an Ayn Rand novel.

I had to stop reading those damn romance books. They made my reality seem so ... bleak.

vidro3

booklaw wrote: No one ever promised us that if we worked hard at school and did well at school and in our careers, we would be allowed to keep every penny of our income and would be able to afford all of the things we loved.

That is a fantasy... akin to an Ayn Rand novel.

In other words..

vidro3

willregistersoon wrote: To the people arguing on the "higher-taxes-for-the-rich" side of this debate - can you play devil's advocate for a moment? I'd like to hear from you why the government should NOT just pass a law saying everyone should just make the exact same salary?

If you actually do think everyone should make the same salary, just say why.

i don't think anyone has proposed that.

the government shouldn't make a law like that because it is just freaking ridiculous.

daver

willregistersoon wrote: To the people arguing on the "higher-taxes-for-the-rich" side of this debate - can you play devil's advocate for a moment?

Go4it buddy. Yer one that just advocated a graduated income tax percentage in your previous post.

daver

vidro3 wrote: [quote=willregistersoon]To the people arguing on the "higher-taxes-for-the-rich" side of this debate - can you play devil's advocate for a moment? I'd like to hear from you why the government should NOT just pass a law saying everyone should just make the exact same salary?

If you actually do think everyone should make the same salary, just say why.

i don't think anyone has proposed that.

the government shouldn't make a law like that because it is just freaking ridiculous.
I think that may have been in response to my comment regarding the fact that the higher income earners pay a higher dollar amount. Which is obvious. If I have 10 apples and I give you 10%, I give you 1 apple. If I have 1,000 apples and I give you 10%, I give you 100 apples. 100 is more than 1, it is true, but 10% is 10%. Lets say you need 101 apples. What is more fair, someone with 10 apples giving you 50.5 (hmm, how does _that_ work) and someone with 1,000 apples giving you 50.5 as well, or each giving you 10% of what they have? Like I said before, there is a basic fundamental difference in thought here that is not likely to be resolved.

boogieknight

willregistersoon wrote: Daver - I don't know where you got that example, but I never said people should pay a flat dollar amount regardless of income. That's ludicrous. Of course it should be by percentage - and I even believe it should be a graduated percentage - as it is today. Already as it is, the system is slanted so that the rich pay more. I had this discussion with an uncle of mine, and went to an indepenant tax think tank group and found some stats. I don't remember the exact numbers, but the top richest 1% of the country, take on about 40% of the country's tax burden. The top 5% is like 60% of the burden. It already is somewhat socialistic as someone pointed out.

The problem I have is that politicans like to use the tax policy to get votes. They say they want to lower taxes, and where do they keep going to get the money? The evil rich of course. This is the slippery slope. Where does it end?

Alright this is damn close to full-on Commie of me, BUT even w/ being responsible for 40% of the tax burden - those "evil rich" are still, well really rich. Really, really rich. Ridiculously rich. Richer than us mere American mortals can even imagine.

So in that case, w/ the country being broke and all and its fellow citizens lacking stuff that smaller, poorer countries have - is it really that crazy to want them to pay more taxes? Because again, it's not like they can't afford to and even a significant bump in their taxes is going to leave them w/ more money than they could spend in their and their children's lifetimes.

If they want to pack up and leave and take their all their toys with them, where are they gonna go? China? (I love China ) Or Europe w/ even crazier tax burdens? Or Central/South America where they'll need a private army to keep kidnappers away?

And no self-made billionaire type who works 1000 hours a week is gonna stop being a crazy fortune building SOB and go work at Lowes out of spite. Self-made types can't help but keep working and being their own boss because the pay-off's gonna be that even when saddled w/ a heavier tax burden they're still 1000x more succesful and better off than Joe Schmo.

boogieknight

willregistersoon wrote: To the people arguing on the "higher-taxes-for-the-rich" side of this debate - can you play devil's advocate for a moment? I'd like to hear from you why the government should NOT just pass a law saying everyone should just make the exact same salary?

If you actually do think everyone should make the same salary, just say why.

Dude, no one said same salary.

A bunch of us are just asking for a fair share of income. In good times - the fair share should be easily carried by all taxpayers - maybe less than what we pay now.

In bad times - fair share up to but not approaching breaking point.

In really bad times - the well-off pay even more than fair share but still not anywhere approaching breaking point.

Because as others have pointed out $250K is a lot more than $50K. Even after hefty mortgages and braces for your kids and so on - you have a lot more money than anyone else, and although it's an imposition - you and yours are not going to starve or be thrown out on the street and you will still live better than 97% of your countrymen.

longtimesloper

metalnyc wrote: [quote=LongTimeSloper][quote=metalnyc][quote=BoogieKnight]
Yes they’ve earned their money and they should be proud of their accomplishments. But at the proposed levels of income – $250K+ (and that really income level puts you fuck far away from the ruin pit) - that $1000 bucks you’re so outraged about is not a matter of life and death. It just isn’t. Again it sucks that they have to cough it up and yes there’s a lot they can do w/ that $1000 bucks – but we’re crazy deep in debt and we have to fix it now. That $1000 means a lot to those who are asked to give it up - I’m not saying it’s meaningless – I’m saying the country needs it desperately and you alone ($250k+ people) are in the position to pay it.

i don't believe $250k is a lot of money in NYC. even in a decent neighborhood, a 3 bedroom is a lot of money. so take your mortgage for a 3 bedroom, a car (maybe 2), day-to-day living and commuting expenses, where does that leave you for savings and/or personal wants?

as willregistersoon said above, who decides?


And this is what divides most people when voting, income levels. To me and my family, $250k per year is a lot of money. We don't even come close to making that and we live in a good neighborhood, have a large apartment, pay a mortgage, have children, etc. etc. And, yes, I firmly believe people who make more money should be taxed at a higher level.

ok, i'm not asking your age or exactly how long you have been a a Long Time Sloper, but imagine being about 30 years old and starting a family and trying to buy that 3 bedroom and having a couple of kids. the ratio between salaries and real estate isn't exactly fair in this fine city, so that's why i believe $250k is not a lot in this day and age. If you bought a 3 bedroom 20 years ago and it cost you $200 - $300k, then yes, $250k leaves you with some disposable income, but when a 3 bedroom is upwards of $1mil, it doesn't.

True, I paid a lot less for my apartment than someone just moving in. But, still, a $250k income even with a mortgage on a million dollar apartment, they still have plenty of disposable income. it's all relative, say someone paid $200K years ago for a 3 bedroom apartment, but they only make $80k.

willregistersoon

I can't write a long reply but I guess with the flat salary idea I was trying (unsuccesfully) to demonstrate the slippery slope. I guess I'm just selfish. I want to keep as much of my money as possible.

eggcream

metalnyc wrote: [quote=BoogieKnight]
Yes they’ve earned their money and they should be proud of their accomplishments. But at the proposed levels of income – $250K+ (and that really income level puts you fuck far away from the ruin pit) - that $1000 bucks you’re so outraged about is not a matter of life and death. It just isn’t. Again it sucks that they have to cough it up and yes there’s a lot they can do w/ that $1000 bucks – but we’re crazy deep in debt and we have to fix it now. That $1000 means a lot to those who are asked to give it up - I’m not saying it’s meaningless – I’m saying the country needs it desperately and you alone ($250k+ people) are in the position to pay it.

i don't believe $250k is a lot of money in NYC. even in a decent neighborhood, a 3 bedroom is a lot of money. so take your mortgage for a 3 bedroom, a car (maybe 2), day-to-day living and commuting expenses, where does that leave you for savings and/or personal wants?

as willregistersoon said above, who decides?

250K is not a lot of money, especially in NYC but don't forget ole foot in the mouth Biden dropped it down to 150K.

brooklynpotter

crunch some numbers for me please. forget deductions and all that crap. can someone fill in the XX below so i (we) can see some actual numbers?

if i make $225k, my tax burden will be XX. meaning XX dollars

if i make $275K, my tax burden will be XX, meaning XX dollars

eggcream

BoogieKnight wrote: [quote=willregistersoon]Daver - I don't know where you got that example, but I never said people should pay a flat dollar amount regardless of income. That's ludicrous. Of course it should be by percentage - and I even believe it should be a graduated percentage - as it is today. Already as it is, the system is slanted so that the rich pay more. I had this discussion with an uncle of mine, and went to an indepenant tax think tank group and found some stats. I don't remember the exact numbers, but the top richest 1% of the country, take on about 40% of the country's tax burden. The top 5% is like 60% of the burden. It already is somewhat socialistic as someone pointed out.

The problem I have is that politicans like to use the tax policy to get votes. They say they want to lower taxes, and where do they keep going to get the money? The evil rich of course. This is the slippery slope. Where does it end?

Alright this is damn close to full-on Commie of me, BUT even w/ being responsible for 40% of the tax burden - those "evil rich" are still, well really rich. Really, really rich. Ridiculously rich. Richer than us mere American mortals can even imagine.

So in that case, w/ the country being broke and all and its fellow citizens lacking stuff that smaller, poorer countries have - is it really that crazy to want them to pay more taxes? Because again, it's not like they can't afford to and even a significant bump in their taxes is going to leave them w/ more money than they could spend in their and their children's lifetimes.

If they want to pack up and leave and take their all their toys with them, where are they gonna go? China? (I love China ) Or Europe w/ even crazier tax burdens? Or Central/South America where they'll need a private army to keep kidnappers away?

And no self-made billionaire type who works 1000 hours a week is gonna stop being a crazy fortune building SOB and go work at Lowes out of spite. Self-made types can't help but keep working and being their own boss because the pay-off's gonna be that even when saddled w/ a heavier tax burden they're still 1000x more succesful and better off than Joe Schmo.

Gee ya think you're a full on commie? 250K is not ridiculously rich. Most people right now are going to fire employees if obama becomes president. They cannot afford the taxes. And yes, a lot of businesses will pick up and leave just like they do in Calif and NY.

Taxing times

By Thomas Sowell

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Chief Justice John Marshall said it all in one sentence: "The power to tax is the power to destroy."


It is not the money that is taxed away that is destroyed. What is destroyed is the wealth that does not get produced in the first place, because high taxes make its production not worthwhile.

Those who are receptive to Senator Barack Obama's plan to increase taxes on "the rich" seem not to understand that the issue is the nation's loss of wealth. Today, wealth can leave the country when heavy taxes threaten it— instantly, in an age of electronic financial transfers— and create jobs and economic growth overseas, instead of at home.

The two months between the time of a presidential election and the time when the new president takes office is an eternity in terms of how much money can be transferred out of the country electronically before any new high-tax laws can be enacted.

Like so much that is said glibly by Barack Obama, raising taxes on "the rich" has serious— and potentially disastrous— implications for the whole country that have been ignored amid the political euphoria.

Moreover, like so much that is proposed under the magic mantra of "change," it is something that has been tried before in many countries and failed before in many countries.

Much wealth from Third World countries flows out to richer countries like Switzerland or the United States, where it is safer from confiscation. Jack up the capital gains tax rate in the United States and more Americans can be expected to send their capital elsewhere.

That means sending jobs elsewhere, so that even people with no capital to invest lose employment opportunities.

Economists have trouble determining how many people are affected by a tax increase because those affected extend far beyond those who write the checks to pay the government.

Taxes on businesses can get passed along to consumers, in whole or in part, even though it is only the business that writes the check to the government.

Payroll taxes or government-mandated employee benefits may be paid for directly by the employer, but these costs reduce the value of an employee to the employer. If these costs add up to $10,000, for example, employers bidding for labor may bid $10,000 less in salary than they would have otherwise.

As in other cases, who writes the checks does not tell you who really pays the costs, since the worker is now $10,000 worse off. The idea that you can single out one segment of society to be taxed or mandated, for the benefit of the rest of society, is reminiscent of a San Francisco automobile dealer's sign: "We cheat the other guy and pass the savings on to you."

The economy is not a zero-sum game where someone gains what others lose. The whole economy can lose when ill-considered policies gain political popularity and stifle economic growth.

People who do not own a single share of corporate stock can still lose big time when capital gains taxes are raised— not only because jobs can follow capital out of the country, but also because millions of working people's pension plans own corporate stock, and those people's retirement incomes will depend on the value of those stocks, which is reduced by capital gains taxes.

One of the biggest taxes is one that is not even called a tax — inflation. When the government spends money that it creates, it is transferring part of the value of your money to themselves. It is quiet taxation but often heavy taxation, falling on everyone, no matter how low their incomes might be.

By the end of the 20th century, a $100 bill would not buy as much as a $20 bill would buy in the middle of that century. For people who saved cash, inflation amounted to an 80 percent tax. For others, it was an 80 percent tax minus whatever cumulative interest or dividends they received on the money they invested.

Given the staggering cost of the government's financial bailouts, there is no way that Barack Obama's grandiose spending plans can be carried out without inflation.

When politicians start talking about taxing "the rich," remember the old saying: "Send not to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee."

eggcream

It's not for YOU to decide how much money is in one's bank account. Stop with the braces, clothes, mortgages sympathy crapola. Life is not fair. Get over it. Stop worrying about what other people have in their bank accounts. If your kid needs braces get another job to pay for it. Stop looking to take it out of other people's pockets.

BoogieKnight wrote: [quote=willregistersoon]To the people arguing on the "higher-taxes-for-the-rich" side of this debate - can you play devil's advocate for a moment? I'd like to hear from you why the government should NOT just pass a law saying everyone should just make the exact same salary?

If you actually do think everyone should make the same salary, just say why.

Dude, no one said same salary.

A bunch of us are just asking for a fair share of income. In good times - the fair share should be easily carried by all taxpayers - maybe less than what we pay now.

In bad times - fair share up to but not approaching breaking point.

In really bad times - the well-off pay even more than fair share but still not anywhere approaching breaking point.

Because as others have pointed out $250K is a lot more than $50K. Even after hefty mortgages and braces for your kids and so on - you have a lot more money than anyone else, and although it's an imposition - you and yours are not going to starve or be thrown out on the street and you will still live better than 97% of your countrymen.

longtimesloper

Still trying to wrap my head around 250k NOT being a lot of money, even here in good old NY!

OK, all you pro McCain people , let's say <<shiver>>, McCain wins. Sadly , he has a heart attack and dies shortly after. Now we have President Palin! Still happy with your choice? Seriously, you all feel fine having her as number 2?

vidro3

eggcream wrote: [quote=metalnyc][quote=BoogieKnight]
Yes they’ve earned their money and they should be proud of their accomplishments. But at the proposed levels of income – $250K+ (and that really income level puts you fuck far away from the ruin pit) - that $1000 bucks you’re so outraged about is not a matter of life and death. It just isn’t. Again it sucks that they have to cough it up and yes there’s a lot they can do w/ that $1000 bucks – but we’re crazy deep in debt and we have to fix it now. That $1000 means a lot to those who are asked to give it up - I’m not saying it’s meaningless – I’m saying the country needs it desperately and you alone ($250k+ people) are in the position to pay it.

i don't believe $250k is a lot of money in NYC. even in a decent neighborhood, a 3 bedroom is a lot of money. so take your mortgage for a 3 bedroom, a car (maybe 2), day-to-day living and commuting expenses, where does that leave you for savings and/or personal wants?

as willregistersoon said above, who decides?

250K is not a lot of money, especially in NYC but don't forget ole foot in the mouth Biden dropped it down to 150K.

again, in NYC an income of $250k puts you in the top 5%.
Nationwide you would be the top 1.5%

if you can't get by on that, you are over extending yourself.

eggcream

LongTimeSloper wrote: Still trying to wrap my head around 250k NOT being a lot of money, even here in good old NY!

OK, all you pro McCain people , let's say <<shiver>>, McCain wins. Sadly , he has a heart attack and dies shortly after. Now we have President Palin! Still happy with your choice? Seriously, you all feel fine having her as number 2?

Yes, most definitely. I like Gov. Palin more than McCain. She has more experience than Obama does with no crooked, racist or terrorist ties either. Ya know Obama could also have a heart attack. President Biden? I don't think so.

longtimesloper

Oh I would much much rather have Biden than the inexperienced, crooked Palin, the beauty contestant governor of Alaska. how could you even compare her experience with Biden? How about her experience with foreign policy? I mean, i know she can see Russia from her house, but is that enough?

willregistersoon

brooklynpotter wrote: crunch some numbers for me please. forget deductions and all that crap. can someone fill in the XX below so i (we) can see some actual numbers?

if i make $225k, my tax burden will be XX. meaning XX dollars

if i make $275K, my tax burden will be XX, meaning XX dollars

I did a Google serach for "tax brackets" and found this site:

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

In both your examples (if those figures are after deductions), your tax burden would be 33% or $90,750. I think that's quite a bit of money. Remember this is just income tax. There's all kinds of other taxes - capital gains, etc etc.

carmen

LongTimeSloper wrote: Still trying to wrap my head around 250k NOT being a lot of money, even here in good old NY!

Ditto. I don't have a family and kids (I am a single woman) but I do have my own apartment and own a car outright and I make a mere fraction of that and I seem to live just fine. 250k seems like it should be plenty to live comfortably with a reasonable amount of children, even in NYC.

booklaw

The thing is, people in those income ranges start taking certain things for granted, as part of being "comfortable":

their own brownstone; private school for their kids; a country house; cruises, ski trips, and other expensive family vacations; expensive cars, brand name clothes, etc.

Once they're loaded down with all of those expectations, a $90,000+ tax bite really cramps their style.

Just sayin'...

boogieknight

eggcream wrote: It's not for YOU to decide how much money is in one's bank account. Stop with the braces, clothes, mortgages sympathy crapola. Life is not fair. Get over it. Stop worrying about what other people have in their bank accounts. If your kid needs braces get another job to pay for it. Stop looking to take it out of other people's pockets.

If thats how you feel and how you want to live, thats your prerogative. But may I suggest that perhaps you live in the wrong country.

This country and our closest allies have a tradition of trying to take care of their own (that sympathy crapola as you call it). When those programs were not in place, the people demanded it and their governments, which should act as an extension of the people's will, implemented those programs.

If you just want generate your own money and keep it all for yourself and not care whether your neighbors live or die, then you should move elsewhere.

I don't know the names of any countries that reward and encourage such ruthless and selfish behavior, but I'm sure one of the more knowledgeable posters on this forum can think of a few. I' sure such a place is an awesome place to live.

Currently so much of your tax money is being spent on this helping people bullshit, I wonder how you sleep at night? Knowing that all these fucking kids and old people and the sick may be sleeping under a government paid for roof or eating a wedge of government cheese - horrifying! God, its so fucking wasteful and inefficient taking care of these useless assholes. They should be rounded up and exterminated like the vermin they are. That'll be good, right, because guys like you and me, we can take care of ourselves and everybody else should go screw, right?
$$