Taxing the rich - what is the cutoff?
 

Interesting article about what constitutes "rich" from a practical standpoint as opposed to the political rhetoric about top percentiles.
[url=http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_24/b4088081624555.htm]Taxing the 'Not-So-Rich' Rich[/url]

The gist is that many people who fall in the top 2% of household incomes (projected to be about $250k/year for married couples) aren't basking in luxury. Often they live in areas with high costs of living and some are repaying school debts, which were required to allow them to get to the higher salary. These people would feel the squeeze of an extra 3-4% in taxes.

I don't have a feel for whether those in this situation are a significant percentage of that "top 2%" population or not. I do think that $250k/year puts most married couples in their 30s with 2 kids and a mortgage living in a top 20 metro area in the "comfortable but not secure" range.

Re: Taxing the rich - what is the cutoff?
 

I wonder what these people would do if they actually had to go live the life of someone who is actually working class? I think they might just shrivel up and die, the strain would be just too much for them. "I can't put 15% in my 401k and Junior might have to go to a state school. Whoas me!"

Notice also that among the costs that are putting the 'squeeze' on these poor folks are health care and education. Let's think about that one for a second.

Re: Taxing the rich - what is the cutoff?
 

I will have to agree $250K a year if you are manging your money correctly that tax squeeze should mean nothing to you. the problem is a lot of those people are living like they make $300K or $400k a year. Basically above their means.

Re: Taxing the rich - what is the cutoff?
 

It depends on where you live. A $250,000 salary goes a lot farther in the middle of nowhere than it does in downtown Manhattan. Unfortunately, I think it's hard to implement a tax scheme with COLAs.

Re: Taxing the rich - what is the cutoff?
 

[quote=SC Skins Fan;452772]I wonder what these people would do if they actually had to go live the life of someone who is actually working class? I think they might just shrivel up and die, the strain would be just too much for them. "I can't put 15% in my 401k and Junior might have to go to a state school. Whoas me!"

Notice also that among the costs that are putting the 'squeeze' on these poor folks are health care and education. Let's think about that one for a second.[/quote]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.

Re: Taxing the rich - what is the cutoff?
 

I don't think anyone is saying this is going to break the bank or push someone to foreclosure. The point is more that politicians speak of the top 2% as if they fly private jets around the world for dinner. 3% for a $250k income family probably [U]does[/U] make a difference.

Re: Taxing the rich - what is the cutoff?
 

[QUOTE=mredskins;452773]I will have to agree $250K a year if you are manging your money correctly that tax squeeze should mean nothing to you. the problem is a lot of those people are living like they make $300K or $400k a year. Basically above their means.[/QUOTE]

People at all levels live "above thier means" Such as the person working the overnight drive-in shift at Wendy's wearing the $200 Nikes and playing on their iPhone.

Re: Taxing the rich - what is the cutoff?
 

[QUOTE=SmootSmack;452786]People at all levels live "above thier means" Such as the person working the overnight drive-in shift at Wendy's wearing the $200 Nikes and playing on their iPhone.[/QUOTE]Leave me out of this.

Sorry, I have no place in this thread, but I'm really bored.

Re: Taxing the rich - what is the cutoff?
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;452784]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.[/quote]

You are my hero... great post.

Re: Taxing the rich - what is the cutoff?
 

It's really difficult to throw out a hard number/range without serious research and analysis. It's complex...you have to take locale and inflation into consideration. The number certainly can't be a hard figure because we'll eventually run into AMT tax like issues. One thing is for sure though, the well off won't be starving and will certainly be benefiting from all that this country has to offer.

Finally I'd like to add that our tax system is a progressive tax system which means the tax brackets can be adjusted. The question then becomes "what's a reasonable tax bracket structure?" If you don't like the progressive tax system, that's entirely a different matter.

Re: Taxing the rich - what is the cutoff?
 

I am against the federal income tax. I would like to see the states tax the income of their constituents, and have the federal government get its money from the states when it needs it. That way the state's tax would be more inline with the cost of living in that area (like Saden said).

When you really think about it, the federal income tax is not much different from a tax imposed by a King -- a prime motive for The Framers to create this country. Seems like we're back to square one.

I'm sure there are problems, but this approach seems much better to me.

Re: Taxing the rich - what is the cutoff?
 

[quote=saden1;452791]Finally I'd like to add that our tax system is a progressive tax system which means the tax brackets can be adjusted. The question then becomes "what's a reasonable tax bracket structure?" If you don't like the progressive tax system, that's entirely a different matter.[/quote]
The income tax is progressive. However most folks in the U.S. pay more in the regressive payroll tax.

Re: Taxing the rich - what is the cutoff?
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;452784]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 [b]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[b], 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.[/quote]

Well, you've certainly got the talking points down. Obviously I have sharp ideological differences with you and I just cannot help thinking about late 19th century politics when I start hearing buzzwords like "confiscation and wealth redistribution" since those were the same arguments that helped topple the Reconstruction project (cf. Heather Cox Richardson, [I]The Death of Reconstruction[/I]). Like those Gilded Age politicians you ignore structural inequality and effectively say that the wealthy have money because they are worthy and the poor do not because they are lazy and unworthy. More importantly, I think you oversimplify the argument by setting up the strawman of the 'tax and spend' liberal boogyman.

Re: Taxing the rich - what is the cutoff?
 

[QUOTE=SC Skins Fan;452804]Well, you've certainly got the talking points down. Obviously I have sharp ideological differences with you and I just cannot help thinking about late 19th century politics when I start hearing buzzwords like "confiscation and wealth redistribution" since those were the same arguments that helped topple the Reconstruction project (cf. Heather Cox Richardson, [I]The Death of Reconstruction[/I]). Like those Gilded Age politicians you ignore structural inequality and effectively say that the wealthy have money because they are worthy and the poor do not because they are lazy and unworthy. More importantly, I think you oversimplify the argument by setting up the strawman of the 'tax and spend' liberal boogyman.[/QUOTE]

"structual inequality"?
"strawman of the 'tax and spend' liberal boogeyman"?

I'd you have to talking points down too. Nothing wrong with that in my opinion. Maybe one set of the talking points are right.

Re: Taxing the rich - what is the cutoff?
 

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. ;)

Re: Taxing the rich - what is the cutoff?
 

[quote=724Skinsfan;452806]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. ;)[/quote]

"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.

Re: Taxing the rich - what is the cutoff?
 

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

Re: Taxing the rich - what is the cutoff?
 

[quote=724Skinsfan;452806]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. ;)[/quote]

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?

Re: Taxing the rich - what is the cutoff?
 

[quote=onlydarksets;452811]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?[/quote]

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

Re: Taxing the rich - what is the cutoff?
 

[quote=724Skinsfan;452813]Weird. I never said bumping up the tax rate was acceptable.[/quote]
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.

Re: Taxing the rich - what is the cutoff?
 

[quote=hesscl34;452809]"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.[/quote]

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.

Re: Taxing the rich - what is the cutoff?
 

[quote=hesscl34;452809]"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. [B]If you want to go after Billionairs that have money to blow that's one thing[/B], 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.[/quote]

Come on now, why single out billionaires? Larry Ellison should be able to buy that [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rising_Sun_%28yacht%29"]200 million dollar yacht[/URL]. 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 [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/business/20repo.html?em&ex=1211428800&en=c4d055b10b190f92&ei=5087%0A"]wealthy people are losing their yachts these days[/URL]. It's just not right!

Re: Taxing the rich - what is the cutoff?
 

[quote=Daseal;452810]I find it ironic the same people against taxes are the same people for spending $4,000 a minute in Iraq.[/quote]

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

Support the troops!

Re: Taxing the rich - what is the cutoff?
 

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).

Re: Taxing the rich - what is the cutoff?
 

[quote=Daseal;452810]I find it ironic the same people against taxes are the same people for spending $4,000 a minute in Iraq.[/quote]

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.

Re: Taxing the rich - what is the cutoff?
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;452784]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.[/quote]

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.

Re: Taxing the rich - what is the cutoff?
 

[QUOTE=Daseal;452810]I find it ironic the same people against taxes are the same people for spending $4,000 a minute in Iraq.[/QUOTE]

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

Re: Taxing the rich - what is the cutoff?
 

[quote=FRPLG;452824]The two have not a single thing to do with each other.[/quote]
They do have [U]something[/U] 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.

Re: Taxing the rich - what is the cutoff?
 

[quote=onlydarksets;452825]They do have [U]something[/U] 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.[/quote]

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!

Re: Taxing the rich - what is the cutoff?
 

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.

Re: Taxing the rich - what is the cutoff?
 

Yes, That Guy. The war in Iraq is currently being paid for by China. All our debt is quickly being gobbled up by China and it will hurt us in the long run.

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

Support the troops![/quote]
I'm curious -- how was it an investment? What threat was there? Also, why is this a troop support issue. I have no issue with the troops at all. I come from a military family, in fact I have two family members that recently returned from Iraq along with many friends on their way over shortly. You can be totally against a war and support the troops. I bet a majority of the troops would rather not be in Iraq, but they do as their told.

I'm not trying to hijack the thread. But people want to complain about social programs trying to improve our country when our spending for wars and other efforts are making the debt go to an all-time high.

Schneed -- if my views are so short sighted, I am very interested to hear how the Iraq war will make money for the United States.

On a completely unrelated note. Did anyone get a piece of mail saying that your stimulus check would be sent out within 3-5 business days? What a waste of money that was.

Re: Taxing the rich - what is the cutoff?
 

[quote=Daseal;452828]Yes, That Guy. The war in Iraq is currently being paid for by China. All our debt is quickly being gobbled up by China and it will hurt us in the long run.


I'm curious -- how was it an investment? What threat was there? Also, why is this a troop support issue. I have no issue with the troops at all. I come from a military family, in fact I have two family members that recently returned from Iraq along with many friends on their way over shortly. You can be totally against a war and support the troops. I bet a majority of the troops would rather not be in Iraq, but they do as their told.

I'm not trying to hijack the thread. But people want to complain about social programs trying to improve our country when our spending for wars and other efforts are making the debt go to an all-time high.

Schneed -- if my views are so short sighted, I am very interested to hear how the Iraq war will make money for the United States.

On a completely unrelated note. Did anyone get a piece of mail saying that your stimulus check would be sent out within 3-5 business days? What a waste of money that was.[/quote]

I'm not questioning your support for the troops but what you're advocating is retreat. We must accomplish the mission and return home with honor. Like my man McCain says, only a fool likes wars but we shouldn't leave Iraq without achieving our objectives. We must wipe out terrorist off the face of the earth by fighting them over there rather than over here. We have to stabilize Iraq and bring democracy to the middle east. We can't afford not to succeed. We have to succeeded even if it takes 100 years.

Re: Taxing the rich - what is the cutoff?
 

[quote=Daseal;452828]
On a completely unrelated note. Did anyone get a piece of mail saying that your stimulus check would be sent out within 3-5 business days? What a waste of money that was.[/quote]

not as big a waste as the stimulus check that followed :/.

and when you offer 140 degree weather, sandstorms, and guys with guns firing on you and planting bombs randomly in roads... i don't think anyone sees that as the ideal place to spend their summer vacation.

the good news is hiring 100k insurgents to fight for us has really worked out well (not as well as say, if we decided not to be retarded and disband the iraqi military overnight, but still), and we're a lot closer to being able to leave with friendly ties and more influence in the middle east than we were a year ago... societal collapse upon reduction of troop levels is no longer an immanent threat, increased UAV orbits are making ground patrols safer, and the new iraqi army is able to diffuse anti-americanism in certain situations now (ie sadr city).

I mean, we probably will keep permanent bases there, just because it's a good location and they'll probably want to keep the military trainers and american toys (fighters/bombers/helos/UAV) around in case iran tries something, but i imagine the manning in country will be vastly (VASTLY) reduced, and it won't take that long to get there...

Re: Taxing the rich - what is the cutoff?
 

[quote=saden1;452832]I'm not questioning your support for the troops but what you're advocating is retreat. We must accomplish the mission and return home with honor. Like my man McCain says, only a fool likes wars but we shouldn't leave Iraq without achieving our objectives. We must wipe out terrorist off the face of the earth by fighting them over there rather than over here. We have to stabilize Iraq and bring democracy to the middle east. We can't afford not to succeed. We have to succeeded even if it takes 100 years.[/quote]
saden, have you started drinking the kool aid? staying in Iraq for 100 years shouldn't even be an option. and im interested to hear what people think would happen, if we do pull out? and the comment about wiping terrorists off the face of the earth is down right brutal. i don't care if we fight the gazillion years in Iraq, there will always be terrorists. i think you have done a 180 degree turn in your thinking

Re: Taxing the rich - what is the cutoff?
 

I think he is using the rhetorical art of hyperbolic sarcasm.

Re: Taxing the rich - what is the cutoff?
 

[quote=Daseal;452828]Schneed -- if my views are so short sighted, I am very interested to hear how the Iraq war will make money for the United States. [/quote]

Who in the H-E-double-hockey-sticks ever said the war would make money for us??? That would be utterly despicable to go to war for the purposes of financial gain. I responded to your statement about the disconnect between wanting to lower taxes and be for the war (and war spending) at the same time.

This shouldn't be hard to understand. Take your own personal budget. You could be for spending money on a plasma TV, say $1000. You could also be for taking a job for less money (say you want more vacation time). Say this new job represents a $3000 decrease in your pay.

You can still get the plasma TV, as long as you're for cutting $4000 out of your monthly budget. $3000 of cuts to account for the decrease in pay, and $1000 in cuts to pay for the Plasma TV. Maybe you figure I don't need a car, I'll trade it in for a motorbike and save on gas. Maybe you figure I don't need a cell phone. Maybe you figure you don't need to eat out as much. Maybe you figure you don't need a vacation this year. Whatever.

Same thing with the Iraq war. Just because people want to see lower taxes doesn't mean they have to give up spending on the war. Perhaps they want to cut wasteful spending in other government agencies before they consider halting the war spending.

Re: Taxing the rich - what is the cutoff?
 

[quote=dmek25;452840]saden, have you started drinking the kool aid? staying in Iraq for 100 years shouldn't even be an option. and im interested to hear what people think would happen, if we do pull out? and the comment about wiping terrorists off the face of the earth is down right brutal. i don't care if we fight the gazillion years in Iraq, there will always be terrorists. i think you have done a 180 degree turn in your thinking[/quote]

I get the feeling saden was being playful, but I'm not. I agree with what he wrote, even if he doesn't.

Those who want to pull out of Iraq immediately think way too selfishly about the interests of the United States. Picture this: You hate your American government, it's a dictatorship and oppressive. A foreign military storms into the United States, defeats our military handily to the point where our own troops are deserting the fight, marches into our capital, overthrows our government, destroys our infrastucture so we have little electicity and poor quality drinking water, disrupts our security forces and police from doing their jobs. Got that picture in your head?

Now, imagine that even though you didn't like your American government that was just overthrown, you're more fearful now for your family's safety because there is no American police force, no American military, only this foreign force present in your streets. There's no order, they don't answer to you or your government, and you're not clear what the laws are and what the consequences are for certain actions. You're more fearful for you family's life than when your oppressive American government was in control. You need electricity, and there's nobody to complain to.

So a group of Americans, some loyal to the American regime that was just forced out, and some just flat out tired of the deplorable conditions, decide to take up arms against these foreign invaders. Fighting breaks out in streets in your neighborhood. Bombs go off at the supermarket, where you're simply trying to buy food for your family. The American uprising grows stronger, causing more fighting, and fighters from Canada and Mexico begin coming across the border to fight the foreign regime, many of whom shared radical religious beliefs with the former American dictator. The fight grows stronger and more intense.

You are scared, you are tired, and you're clamoring for life to return to normal. You recognize that the American uprising, this American insurgency, is not equipped to take on this powerful foreign regime, so they hide, and they plant bombs, but they never fight the foreign regime in a full-on attack. The foreign regime is forcing them to operate covertly. The foreign regime sends in a surge of troops, and helps to quell some of the violence, and things begin getting better, and your streets start to feel safer, and you start to feel hopeful that the worst is behind you.

Now, imagine that with this uprising in place, imagine that this foreign regime just leaves. You have no local police force worth a darn, no American military capable of maintaining security. How do you feel now? How do you feel as the radical American fighters come out of the woodwork, no longer suppressed by the presence of a powerful foreign military. They fight your pathetic excuse for an American military and kill what little police you have.

Are you scared? Is your life any better?

You may find fault with the reasons we went to Iraq, and I can't say I can disagree with that. And you may question the logic behind trying to fight terrorists in this manner, and I can't say I have much of an argument.

But the fact is we fucked up the lives of many, many innocent Iraqis. We CANNOT abandon them. We owe it to them to restore order. From a moral standpoint, I have a major problem with the United States leaving the Iraqi people in a worse situation than the one they had with Saddam in charge. We must see to it that they achieve a democratic society with the ability to at least maintain some semblance of security, at least as much as is possible in today's Middle East.

Morally, we owe them that much. On top of it, we stand to gain a permanent strategic military presence in the middle of that region. From a strategic defense standpoint against ICBMs and other long-range nuclear weapons, it is important to have a base established there capable of shooting down any Iranian ICBMs before they can threaten Europe, Asia, Israel, or the United States.

But nevermind the military strategy. From a moral standpoint, I cannot stomach abandoning the Iraqi people after all we've done to them.

Re: Taxing the rich - what is the cutoff?
 

[quote=Schneed10;452854]I get the feeling saden was being playful, but I'm not. I agree with what he wrote, even if he doesn't.

Those who want to pull out of Iraq immediately think way too selfishly about the interests of the United States. Picture this: You hate your American government, it's a dictatorship and oppressive. A foreign military storms into the United States, defeats our military handily to the point where our own troops are deserting the fight, marches into our capital, overthrows our government, destroys our infrastucture so we have little electicity and poor quality drinking water, disrupts our security forces and police from doing their jobs. Got that picture in your head?

Now, imagine that even though you didn't like your American government that was just overthrown, you're more fearful now for your family's safety because there is no American police force, no American military, only this foreign force present in your streets. There's no order, they don't answer to you or your government, and you're not clear what the laws are and what the consequences are for certain actions. You're more fearful for you family's life than when your oppressive American government was in control. You need electricity, and there's nobody to complain to.

So a group of Americans, some loyal to the American regime that was just forced out, and some just flat out tired of the deplorable conditions, decide to take up arms against these foreign invaders. Fighting breaks out in streets in your neighborhood. Bombs go off at the supermarket, where you're simply trying to buy food for your family. The American uprising grows stronger, causing more fighting, and fighters from Canada and Mexico begin coming across the border to fight the foreign regime, many of whom shared radical religious beliefs with the former American dictator. The fight grows stronger and more intense.

You are scared, you are tired, and you're clamoring for life to return to normal. You recognize that the American uprising, this American insurgency, is not equipped to take on this powerful foreign regime, so they hide, and they plant bombs, but they never fight the foreign regime in a full-on attack. The foreign regime is forcing them to operate covertly. The foreign regime sends in a surge of troops, and helps to quell some of the violence, and things begin getting better, and your streets start to feel safer, and you start to feel hopeful that the worst is behind you.

Now, imagine that with this uprising in place, imagine that this foreign regime just leaves. You have no local police force worth a darn, no American military capable of maintaining security. How do you feel now? How do you feel as the radical American fighters come out of the woodwork, no longer suppressed by the presence of a powerful foreign military. They fight your pathetic excuse for an American military and kill what little police you have.

Are you scared? Is your life any better?

You may find fault with the reasons we went to Iraq, and I can't say I can disagree with that. And you may question the logic behind trying to fight terrorists in this manner, and I can't say I have much of an argument.

But the fact is we fucked up the lives of many, many innocent Iraqis. We CANNOT abandon them. We owe it to them to restore order. From a moral standpoint, I have a major problem with the United States leaving the Iraqi people in a worse situation than the one they had with Saddam in charge. We must see to it that they achieve a democratic society with the ability to at least maintain some semblance of security, at least as much as is possible in today's Middle East.

Morally, we owe them that much. On top of it, we stand to gain a permanent strategic military presence in the middle of that region. From a strategic defense standpoint against ICBMs and other long-range nuclear weapons, it is important to have a base established there capable of shooting down any Iranian ICBMs before they can threaten Europe, Asia, Israel, or the United States.

But nevermind the military strategy. From a moral standpoint, I cannot stomach abandoning the Iraqi people after all we've done to them.[/quote]

gotta say i agree with that pretty strongly.

Re: Taxing the rich - what is the cutoff?
 

[quote=SC Skins Fan;452804]Well, you've certainly got the talking points down. Obviously I have sharp ideological differences with you and I just cannot help thinking about late 19th century politics when I start hearing buzzwords like "confiscation and wealth redistribution" since those were the same arguments that helped topple the Reconstruction project (cf. Heather Cox Richardson, [I]The Death of Reconstruction[/I]). Like those Gilded Age politicians you ignore structural inequality and effectively say that the wealthy have money because they are worthy and the poor do not because they are lazy and unworthy. More importantly, I think you oversimplify the argument by setting up the strawman of the 'tax and spend' liberal boogyman.[/quote]
First, I agree with you, we do have sharp ideological differences. :) However, IMO even though we have these differences it is important to have the discussion even though neither of our minds will be changed.

My post has nothing to do with "talking points", I didn't search Hannity or Rush's websites, the RNC or anyone else's. Other than accuse me of using "talking points", then throw out the "buzz-word" implication, you haven't put forward any accurate or logical dispute to what I said.

I understand structural inequalities and I would argue that we are not in 1888, but 2008 and while not perfect, I think our government has done a better job than most in putting programs in place to address that. Our tax structure is already progressive, it certainly doesn't need to become confiscatory.

Let me be clear. I don't consider $ 250-300K yr. for a family "wealthy". If one spouse or the primary breadwinner in a family with this level of income lost his/her job that family would be in trouble. If a person puts in the work, makes good decisions, and the necessary sacrifices, and that person is rewarded with material wealth they should not feel guilty or be the object of ridicule (as the "greedy" or "wealthy"). If people are poor because they didn't take advantage of educational opportunities, or government programs available, or repeatedly made bad decisons regarding having children or with drugs/alcohol, their situation is their own fault.

I'm also not setting up any "tax and spend boogeyman". I didn't mention the appropriations of tax dollars only the principles behind their collection. As far as I'm concerned, the Bush Administration has been as bad or worse than any Democrat or Democrat controlled Congress when it comes to increasing the scope and size of government.

Here's some interesting info:
Where do these two points come from?
1) Establish a heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
2) Abolish all rights of inheritance (Death Tax)
Answer: Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto, 1848.

In 1894 a 2% tax on those making over $ 4,000 / yr. was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. In 1896 and 1908 the Democratic Party was pushing for a constitutional ammendment to add the income tax, Republicans were against it. Even in the early 1900s, it was touted as a "tax on the rich" that wouldn't affect most Americans (OOOOPS!). [B]Adjusted for todays dollars[/B] the income tax in 1913 was 1% on those making over $ 250K and 7% on those making over $ 6M. How far we've come. I'll get down now. :soapbox:

Re: Taxing the rich - what is the cutoff?
 

[quote=724Skinsfan;452806]
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}
[/quote]
You caught me, LOL!