Putting a face on tax increases

Looks like the GOP tries to put a face on the proposed 2.5% increase in the top tax bracket.
It also looks like a seriously bad Idea.

Take John Flemming
www.huffingtonpost.com...
He also claimns to spend 547$ and 95 cent a day on "feeding his family" Has this guy never heard of Subway?

Bill O'Reilly said he might quit if taxes went to 50%
O Really?
The highest income Bracket starts at 372,951
O'Reillys fox contract alone is worht 10 Million. I really can see him go to Roger Ailes and say "You need to cut my salary by 9,700,000$ It's really not worth it after you pay the taxes"

Bad strategy if you ask me.

reply to post by narwahl


It just kills you that your grubby little mitts don't belong on their wallet, huh?

I built my own place, took all the risks, earned all the rewards. When the GD gov't starts making more from me than I do, I burning the place to the ground.

Originally posted by narwahl

www.huffingtonpost.com...
He also claimns to spend 547$ and 95 cent a day on "feeding his family"

[color=dodgerblue]Statements like that are sickening.

That's more than I spend in a month to feed a family of four.

reply to post by daryllyn


Well I guess that makes YOU the standard then, eh? How about, "It's none of your business!"?

How much will you have to spend if Michelle has her way? Yeah, organic eggs cost $5/dozen not $1. Maybe he's actually trying to feed his family right? Not that I care. It's none of MY business either!

reply to post by TreadUpon


So you seriously believe Billo will quit his 10 Million Fox job, stop publishing books, and start working somewhere for 300.000?

With the govt spending $16 a muffin and $8 per coffee for their DC meetings is it any wonder people don't want to pay more taxes? 1st Lady O rents out an entire 5 star hotel for a week and wears $800 shoes and $42,000 diamond jewelry and they want more of our hard earned money? PISS OFF.

Originally posted by TreadUpon
reply to post by daryllyn

 

Well I guess that makes YOU the standard then, eh? How about, "It's none of your business!"?

How much will you have to spend if Michelle has her way? Yeah, organic eggs cost $5/dozen not $1. Maybe he's actually trying to feed his family right? Not that I care. It's none of MY business either!

[color=dodgerblue]You can eat healthy for a lot less than almost 600 dollars a day.

The way people waste money makes me sick. But, that's just me. And I am entitled to my opinion.

Maybe you should mind YOUR own business. We are all here on a discussion forum to discuss the topics of our choice. If it's none of your business (your words there), maybe you should log off.

reply to post by TreadUpon


You blowhard. You'll burn down everything you have, yeah, haha, sure. Another spoiled rich brat doesn't want to pay into the system.

I have no problem with increasing the tax for $1 million and up earners as long as the bottom 40% do not continue to have ZERO federal income tax liability. Were all in this together, everyone needs to pay their fair share.

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap


Try me. Don't need anything, much less the headache. Not everything I own. As if I could still consider myself "owner" when somebody that has nothing to do with it is stealing more than I can bring home.

I could bulldoze it but the sooty skeletal remains of smoking ash is the picture I'll paint for the locals. Then retire. Young.

Originally posted by Fitch303
I have no problem with increasing the tax for $1 million and up earners as long as the bottom 40% do not continue to have ZERO federal income tax liability. Were all in this together, everyone needs to pay their fair share.

That's not the argument: Billo Argued that he would *quit* if top tax bracket got raised.
Let's guesstimate that he has 10 Million income in the top tax bracket (It's propably more)
Right now he gets to take home 6.5 Mil
After the tax increase it would be 6.39
Thats a 110.000$ Increase

Billo says that if he has a 110.000$ tax increase he will voluntarily lower his income from 6.69 Milliion Dollars to 300.000
He is willing to give up 6.3 Million to save 110.000$
That's the problem: with the faces come numbers, and they make no sense.

We're not spoiled rich kids. We just understand that forcing someone to pay for anything is simple slavery.

The "fair share" rhetoric is shallow and uneducated. Please show me an instance where a government has been more frugal and wise with their money than the private sector.

If you tax one person a greater percentage of their income than someone else, that is (by definition) NOT fair.

Cut spending. Don't raise taxes and pretend our government is doing a good job.

Anti-tax libertarian revolters are sickening hypocrites. Anytime there is talk of raising taxes on the wealthiest members of society, they scream and throw a fit. I can't count how many times revolting libertarians like neo96 have shouted on this board that the poor don't pay enough taxes and that more money would be raised by taxing the poor than the rich! The supply-side argument is insane. Apparently, when you tax the rich, you reduce their motivation to work (so sad!!) but when you tax the poor, you do not reduce their motivation to work! The poor will be happy to work all day every day and not even have enough money to survive!

But when the rich are taxed... "oh no, my ten million dollar salary is only seven million after taxes, how can I live on this?!" Woe, woe is they unfortunate enough to be taxed so harshly, for they truly have nothing to live for!

Anti-tax libertarianism is straight up class warfare. Besides the obvious "EAT THE POOR" rhetoric that their demands involve, libertarian-conservatives also endorse the War Against the Poor. When housing prices skyrocket because of greedy, wealthy real estate speculators, who suffers the most? Who suffers the most when utility bills rise because of greedy corporations? Who suffers the most when gasoline, automobiles, and public transit rise in price because the rich want to line their pockets during a crisis? The working poor are the most vulnerable members of society, they are assaulted on all sides by corporate 'taxes,' little premiums that businesses get away with extorting from their clients because the clients have no other options.

And if taxes on the poor were raised, as these conservative sociopaths demand, what would be the effect? The already high cost of living becomes unattainable; material poverty looms and threatens, like a black hole, to draw you into its inescapable gravity. Missed a phone bill because you had to pay for your kid's appendectomy? Your credit rating is toast, have fun getting a car loan or a mortgage or a student loan now. Missed work because you couldn't afford the subway and had to walk to work? You're fired, good luck finding a new job. Couldn't pay your taxes because life is too expensive? Welcome to debtor's prison.

When taxes and fees levied against the poor become too high, why would they even bother working a legitimate job? Why would you want to work if you were actually a slave to the state, paying out so much of your earnings to the state that you can't afford to live? Why wouldn't you turn instead to a tax-free and lucrative career in crime? Drugs, prostitution, theft, gambling, extortion, scams... Is this something that the rich have to worry about? Do they have to worry about whether or not they'll have to sell their body just so that their kids won't starve? Do they have to worry about whether or not this drug deal will go bad because they can't afford to eat?

All of these activities, these criminal activities, there is a good reason that they are punished with increasingly draconian measures. The rich don't want anybody to become rich except through patronage by the established plutocracy. They attack entrepreneurs with viciously monopolistic practices, they prohibit any cash crops that people can grow themselves (organic remedies and foods not inspected by the FDA; hemp; coca; opium; mushrooms; etc.), they do their damnedest to put people behind bars forever if they violate these laws. How are you expected to get rich in America? By proving trickle-down economics right, of course! The only legitimate way to get rich is to suckle at the teat of the wealthy by working for them, and selling goods to them, and fulfilling their whims!

The end goal of all anti-crime legislation is the imprisonment of all poor people who refuse to toady up tot he rich. The end goal of all anti-tax legislation is to remove the social safety net on the poor and thus ensure that they fall into the snares laid by rich Americans who are held accountable to nobody.

By the way, the policies our government has chosen lead us to where we are today. Can we really buy our way back out? Is it really a good idea to give them more money? Should we really reward and encourage such institutions as the Federal Reserve?

Not to mention the destructive ethos of "Wait... if I work harder... make more money... I have to pay more for other peoples' stuff? Why would I work harder? Why not just get an government entitlement program to supplement my desires and let some other rich dude pay for it?"

It's easy to drag someone down.

It's hard to pull them up.

Which is more noble?

reply to post by narwahl


I love the rah rah rah chants of tax the wealthy when I seem to recall people with incomes of $45k or less pay no income taxes. And that income rate should probably be what $75k actually.


Yeah, fair share huh?
What a crock.

Originally posted by Paote
Why would I work harder?

Erm... to make more money?

Look at the back of an envelope calculations above:
Billo is saying that he actually doesn't want those 6.3 Million dollars.

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap

But when the rich are taxed... "oh no, my ten million dollar salary is only seven million after taxes, how can I live on this?!" Woe, woe is they unfortunate enough to be taxed so harshly, for they truly have nothing to live for!

[color=dodgerblue]A person could live a very comfortable life on 7 million dollars, provided that they didn't go buy an insanely priced house in the Hollywood Hills or something. And they complain that they can't live on 7 million a year? Really?

I sometimes wonder about the ultra-rich. How much money is enough? Some will never even be able to spend the interest on their fortunes and yet it is never enough. What is the point?

Originally posted by narwahl
Looks like the GOP tries to put a face on the proposed 2.5% increase in the top tax bracket.
It also looks like a seriously bad Idea.

Take John Flemming
www.huffingtonpost.com...
He also claimns to spend 547$ and 95 cent a day on "feeding his family" Has this guy never heard of Subway?

Bill O'Reilly said he might quit if taxes went to 50%
O Really?
The highest income Bracket starts at 372,951
O'Reillys fox contract alone is worht 10 Million. I really can see him go to Roger Ailes and say "You need to cut my salary by 9,700,000$ It's really not worth it after you pay the taxes"

Bad strategy if you ask me.

Where is there any proposed plan to raise the uppermost tax bracket to 50%? Obama wants to raise it 2.5%.

Originally posted by daryllyn
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap

 

But when the rich are taxed... "oh no, my ten million dollar salary is only seven million after taxes, how can I live on this?!" Woe, woe is they unfortunate enough to be taxed so harshly, for they truly have nothing to live for!

[color=dodgerblue]A person could live a very comfortable life on 7 million dollars, provided that they didn't go buy an insanely priced house in the Hollywood Hills or something. And they complain that they can't live on 7 million a year? Really?

I sometimes wonder about the ultra-rich. How much money is enough? Some will never even be able to spend the interest on their fortunes and yet it is never enough. What is the point?

edit on 22-9-2011 by daryllyn because: (no reason given)

The issue is not if you or I think that said person can live on 7 million instead of 9 million. The issue is why is it any of your business what they live on or spend.
The other issue is why should they pay more. Because they make more? That is wrong.
That is that persons money, yet you, others and the Govt think it is righteous to declare them unfit to keep their own money.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by daryllyn
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap

 

But when the rich are taxed... "oh no, my ten million dollar salary is only seven million after taxes, how can I live on this?!" Woe, woe is they unfortunate enough to be taxed so harshly, for they truly have nothing to live for!

[color=dodgerblue]A person could live a very comfortable life on 7 million dollars, provided that they didn't go buy an insanely priced house in the Hollywood Hills or something. And they complain that they can't live on 7 million a year? Really?

I sometimes wonder about the ultra-rich. How much money is enough? Some will never even be able to spend the interest on their fortunes and yet it is never enough. What is the point?

edit on 22-9-2011 by daryllyn because: (no reason given)

The issue is not if you or I think that said person can live on 7 million instead of 9 million. The issue is why is it any of your business what they live on or spend.
The other issue is why should they pay more. Because they make more? That is wrong.
That is that persons money, yet you, others and the Govt think it is righteous to declare them unfit to keep their own money.

Yes, but the argument Billo makes remains: My 6 millions are worth 100.000.
If I have to pay 100.000 more in taxes I will not want to earn the 6 millions.
That makes no sense, whether it's fair or not.

On Fairness: Money has an interesting property: dimnishing returns.
A little thought experiment can show this nicely.
If I hand Warren Buffet 100.000$ he will go "thank you". Take it. But It wouldn't really change much for him.
If I hand Billo 100.000$ he will go "thank you". Take it. But it wouldn't really change much for him either.
If I hand 100.000$ to Flemming he can "feed his family" for 3 months, but he could do that anyway.
If I hand you 100.000$ you would propably do something with it, and depending on your current income be moderately to very happy about it.
If I hand 100.000$ to a homeless person he will stop being homeless for several years.
It's like any other good really