In B.O.'s new budget, families making $250k or above will see their tax increase the most. But people who make such income usually work hard and/or smart for their money… Why should their hard work be targeted more for tax increase? Thoughts?
It’s political. Most people don’t make $250k. Obama is taxing the minority to appease average Joe.
And most people who claim 250k on their income taxes make much, much more than that. Write offs, IRA contributions, CPAs drive this number down as income that is far in excess of their expenses is sheltered.
AlphaSeeker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In B.O.'s new budget, families making $250k or > above will see their tax increase the most. > > But people who make such income usually work hard > and/or smart for their money… Why should their > hard work be targeted more for tax increase? > > Thoughts? This is something that many right-wingers seem to contemplate all the time. I also understand from speaking with several friends in Europe that the tax/welfare system is such that many people determine that the incremental effort it takes to work is so much greater than the incremental financial rewards they’d experience from that work, so they opt for unemployment instead. I don’t think making $250K a year is *that* wealthy from an absolute perspective, but it’s definitely a minority. Taxpayers, especially large families, will be hurt by this policy even despite what the Gini coefficient tells us about population dispersion based on income. On the other hand, $250K is plenty lush for almost every other country out there except for Canada and many places in Western or Northern Europe, so it’s all relative…might be seeing more and more people packing up their bags and moving to countries with tax shelters or developing economies where their dollar goes further.
If those people who make more than $250k want to gripe about paying taxes to the United States, they are welcome to go make more than $250k in Burkina Faso.
Exactly. I agree with Biz that income is grossly manipulated by CPAs for tax purposes. I think regardless of how you earned your money, having an AGI above $250K should be considered wealthy. As far as targeting them for tax increases, that’s another issue that I’m sure everyone here has conflicting opinions on.
Am I wrong or it says “family” making $250k, which means a couple, or $125k per person. Honestly, any white collar with decent experience will make over that.
I don’t make 250K, am I not working hard and/or smart for the money?
BizBanker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And most people who claim 250k on their income > taxes make much, much more than that. Write offs, > IRA contributions, CPAs drive this number down as > income that is far in excess of their expenses is > sheltered. CPA’s can be creative, but those with gross income > $250k cannot make tax deductible IRA contributions and also receive less favorable treatment for traditional home deductions (mort int, prop taxes) due to there being income limitations.
Look, this whole argument about who is “rich” is stupid. Even an average wage earner in the US would be rich compared to most people in most other countries. How many people in Indonesia can afford iPods?
NakedPuts Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don’t make 250K, am I not working hard and/or > smart for the money? Of course that’s not true, and on some level I think the debate about whether $250K is “much money” is moot. It’s just a number that stuck because of the original poster’s reference to B.O.'s policy. A lot of the time it’s easy to forget just how good we have it in our developed countries, which is why I think extended periods of time spent volunteering or working in third-world countries are a good way to gain perspective on things. That’s how I’ll be spending this summer, anyway, and hopefully it’ll be a life-changing experience.
Well generally these people underpaid their share during the Bush years, so this is just catch-up.
BValGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BizBanker Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > And most people who claim 250k on their income > > taxes make much, much more than that. Write > offs, > > IRA contributions, CPAs drive this number down > as > > income that is far in excess of their expenses > is > > sheltered. > > > CPA’s can be creative, but those with gross income > > $250k cannot make tax deductible IRA > contributions and also receive less favorable > treatment for traditional home deductions (mort > int, prop taxes) due to there being income > limitations. Im not a CPA so I cant comment on the exact rates and income levels, but I can say that business owners can elect distributing income directly from their business to an IRA, trust, in ways that minimize tax consequences and bypass the personal income tax numbers. Not going to get into tax strategy, just saying that people who make this kind of money generally have an financial planner working to minimize taxes over several periods while those in the lower tax brackets do not. Maybe CPAbeatsCFA can weigh in.
I don’t think people have such a big problem with increasing taxes… I think its the lack of efficient spending I don’t make over $250k but I still pay taxes… and I personally don’t care if I pay XX% or ZZ%… everyone ends up in the same boat and that determines the power of disposable income anyway. The problem I have is despite paying XX% I still see the government with a massive deficit and a completely bloated operating structure that is accomplishing very little relative to the money going out. I don’t think government programs have to or even should be profitable… but the amount of purely wasted money is sickening.
BizBanker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BValGuy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > BizBanker Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > And most people who claim 250k on their > income > > > taxes make much, much more than that. Write > > offs, > > > IRA contributions, CPAs drive this number > down > > as > > > income that is far in excess of their > expenses > > is > > > sheltered. > > > > > > CPA’s can be creative, but those with gross > income > > > $250k cannot make tax deductible IRA > > contributions and also receive less favorable > > treatment for traditional home deductions (mort > > int, prop taxes) due to there being income > > limitations. > > > Im not a CPA so I cant comment on the exact rates > and income levels, but I can say that business > owners can elect distributing income directly from > their business to an IRA, trust, in ways that > minimize tax consequences and bypass the personal > income tax numbers. Not going to get into tax > strategy, just saying that people who make this > kind of money generally have an financial planner > working to minimize taxes over several periods > while those in the lower tax brackets do not. > Maybe CPAbeatsCFA can weigh in. These guys have tricks we haven’t even thought of. Remember as Kramer said: Jerry: So, we’re going to make the post office pay for my new stereo, now? Kramer: It’s a write-off for them. Jerry: How is it a write-off? Kramer: They just write it off. Jerry: Write it off what? Kramer: Jerry all these big companies they write off everything. Jerry: You don’t even know what a write-off is. Kramer: Do you? Jerry: No, I don’t. Kramer: But they do - and they are the ones writing it off.
NakedPuts Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don’t make 250K, am I not working hard and/or > smart for the money? You fail at logic.
NakedPuts Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well generally these people underpaid their share > during the Bush years, so this is just catch-up. Nakedputs, that’s nonsense!.. 
Example, You and I have dinner at a certain nice place once week. You make more than I do, so you alway pay 2/3 of the bill. One day, the resturant gives cash back on the bill. You took 2/3 of the cashback. Now, do I have a right to complain that I didn’t get half of the cashback? The point is - high earners pay higher taxes to begin with…
justin88 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > NakedPuts Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I don’t make 250K, am I not working hard and/or > > smart for the money? > > You fail at logic. You fail at sarcasm.
AlphaSeeker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > NakedPuts Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Well generally these people underpaid their > share > > during the Bush years, so this is just > catch-up. > > Nakedputs, that’s nonsense!.. > > Example, You and I have dinner at a certain nice > place once week. You make more than I do, so you > alway pay 2/3 of the bill. One day, the resturant > gives cash back on the bill. You took 2/3 of the > cashback. Now, do I have a right to complain that > I didn’t get half of the cashback? > > The point is - high earners pay higher taxes to > begin with… Good analogy, but those who pay more also benefit greatly from a system that protects that wealth and offers services that only the wealthy can afford. Ever dealt with an insurance company without a lawyer? I have. Not fun. You dont want to pay taxes? Move to a country that has low or no income tax rates. See how long your SL500 lasts in your driveway. Oh, wait, its only libruls who hate America, not those who are living comfortably whining about paying more.
NakedPuts Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well generally these people underpaid their share > during the Bush years, so this is just catch-up. what- by what calculation is this? Can you please define your term “overpaid” ?? Sorry- I am not rich but I get thoroughly frustrated by completely baseless comments like this. Over time the proportion of all tax receipts paid by the “rich” has been growing. I have nothing against a progressive tax system but its starting to get a bit out of control- is there any other area where this would fly? Do the rich use marginally more roads or military or medicare? They don’t typically participate in entitlements. Can you think of how it would fly if the “rich” were charged in a way that meant they ended up covering 80% percent of the cost of various private services- ie have “rich” parents cover 80% of a schools annual budget. Maybe I’m retarded, but I sure think that its unfair to the rich when they cover pretty much the whole budget and everyone is still using them to prop their populist rhetoric. In 1987 the top 1% paid 24.81% of total receipts- in 2007 it was 40.42%!! In 1987 the top 5% paid 43.26% of total receipts- in 2007 it was 60.63% !! In 1987 the bottom 50% paid 6.07% of total receipts- in 2007 it was 2.89% !! who needs to catch up again?? btw this is from www.taxfoundation.org and doesn’t account for those who actually pay negative taxes (refundable credits )