Question: do you really care if the rich get richer at a faster rate than the poor if the poor are still getting richer? This is a situation in which wealth disparity is increasing, but no one is getting poorer. In fact, the US is probably the richest country in the world because it has a strong incentive-based economic system.
Did my taxes yesterday. I owe $7K. Being “wealthy” sucks!
Hello Mister Walrus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Question: do you really care if the rich get > richer at a faster rate than the poor if the poor > are still getting richer? No, that’s one of the many things that make this country great.
BValGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > frisian Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > My question: why do so many people who have > annual > > incomes of less than $250k rush to the defense > of > > people who make more than $250k per year? > > > > There’s a massive national debt. Yearly > deficits > > are adding to it. Taxes need to be paid, and > I’m > > happy that taxes could go up on people who make > a > > lot more money than me. I can act in my > > self-interest too. > > > Probably b/c many of the people on this board > making comments in defense of the wealthy hope to > find themselves in that >$250k bucket in the not > too distant future. So they are really looking > out for themselves. That’s the false hope that Republican media keeps feeding the poor and uneducated religious crowd. “If only the government did not exist you would be very rich by now”. Keep dreaming 
Hello Mister Walrus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Even if Bush had tax cuts for higher-earners, this > does not mean that they were “under paying” their > share of taxes. Even with the tax cuts, tax rates > were still very progressive. Actually, if you look at the total tax burden (not just fed income taxes), the average rate people actually pay is surprisingly flat across all brackets (in the neighborhood of 15-25%). Such an insane amount of attention gets paid to the very top tax bracket (which only gets applied to the portion of AGI above $370k) that people forget about all of the regressive taxes they pay as well: Payroll taxes (only paid on your first $100k or so) Sales taxes Any sort of flat fee Gas and cigarette taxes Not to mention that there’s a whole host of ways for (typically non-poor) people to lower their AGI, whether its through tax incentives for various savings (IRAs), writing off investment losses, tax breaks for things like college, etc. Plus lower rates for income earned through investments than income earned through labor. Remember the big fuss about how Teresa Heinz Kerry had a tax rate of something like 12%? On income in the millions? When tax time comes around, I think everyone at AF should calculate their average rate and post it.
naturallight Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > With the exception of certain unique circumstances, the more $ you make, the more taxes you will pay. There is no denying this. “Share” implies an equal contribution. So while someone might argue that rich people should pay more taxes because they have lower marginal returns to money, saying that they are not paying their share is just wrong.
Hello Mister Walrus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > naturallight Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > With the exception of certain unique > circumstances, the more $ you make, the more taxes > you will pay. There is no denying this. “Share” > implies an equal contribution. So while someone > might argue that rich people should pay more taxes > because they have lower marginal returns to money, > saying that they are not paying their share is > just wrong. The tax code is complicated for one reason and one reason only, for the benefit of the wealthy, make no mistake about it. I can remember sitting in my college taxation classes trying to memorize little deductions and loopholes designed to cover the asses of some small (usually wealthy) segment of the population and thinking how stupid this whole system is.
Hello Mister Walrus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > naturallight Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > With the exception of certain unique > circumstances, the more $ you make, the more taxes > you will pay. There is no denying this. “Share” > implies an equal contribution. So while someone > might argue that rich people should pay more taxes > because they have lower marginal returns to money, > saying that they are not paying their share is > just wrong. I was talking about rates. Now it looks like you’re talking about actual dollar amounts. Of course the more dollars you make, (generally) the more dollars you pay. But the important thing is the rate you pay on your dollars, is it not? I think most people would define share as a percentage of income, not a dollar amount. If Buffett pays 5% on income of $100mm while a firefighter pays 25% on income of $50k, is Buffett paying his share?
volante99 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hello Mister Walrus Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > naturallight Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > > > > > With the exception of certain unique > > circumstances, the more $ you make, the more > taxes > > you will pay. There is no denying this. “Share” > > implies an equal contribution. So while someone > > might argue that rich people should pay more > taxes > > because they have lower marginal returns to > money, > > saying that they are not paying their share is > > just wrong. > > > The tax code is complicated for one reason and one > reason only, for the benefit of the wealthy, make > no mistake about it. I can remember sitting in my > college taxation classes trying to memorize little > deductions and loopholes designed to cover the > asses of some small (usually wealthy) segment of > the population and thinking how stupid this whole > system is. No It is complicated becasue that creates jobs and the people who have these jobs protect them by maintaining the complexity of the system. Both on the government side and the private sector
naturallight Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Do you really believe that on average, people who make millions of dollars pay less % of income as taxes than people who make $100k or less? I’m not even going to try to respond to this…
naturallight Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hello Mister Walrus Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > naturallight Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > > > > > With the exception of certain unique > > circumstances, the more $ you make, the more > taxes > > you will pay. There is no denying this. “Share” > > implies an equal contribution. So while someone > > might argue that rich people should pay more > taxes > > because they have lower marginal returns to > money, > > saying that they are not paying their share is > > just wrong. > > > I was talking about rates. Now it looks like > you’re talking about actual dollar amounts. Of > course the more dollars you make, (generally) the > more dollars you pay. But the important thing is > the rate you pay on your dollars, is it not? I > think most people would define share as a > percentage of income, not a dollar amount. If > Buffett pays 5% on income of $100mm while a > firefighter pays 25% on income of $50k, is Buffett > paying his share? You have to clearly define income first… But then the only fair way for a tax system to work so that everyone pay a share and a fair share at that is to have a flat percentage of net income. It could be 10 20 25 percent it does not really matter. In Canada our top marginal rate is mostly over 40%. Now that clearly gives incentive to work harder and be more productive doesn’t it
You work harder/longer, you get more money. 40% of it goes to protect you from being lynched by people who have less, protecting cheap oil, ensuring that your contracts can be enforced, and paying some money to your mom so that you can just throw her on the dung-heap and not care. You still get 60%. Maybe you decide that it’s not worth it, and you’d rather spend some time with your family. That’s fine. People earning less than you will still want to work hard to get to your level.
I admit that I didn’t read most of this thread, so maybe this has been discussed, but help me out here. Why is it that the question is always how to raise more taxes and who to stick the taxes to? Why isn’t the answer cut more benefits? Making $250K a year most likely means that you are producing some level of value for society, hence, you are already a contributor. So instead of punishing contributors, why not focus on chipping away at the $80B per year in medicare fraud, wasteful war spending (Blackwater, etc.), unproductive people at the bottom (the welfare mom with 8 kids), etc. The incentive system in this country is totally backwards. Instead of punishing people who produce, we should “punish” people who extract without producing anything of equal or greater value. No wonder the country is in decline.
Q: Is making $250k+ a year wealthy? A: Yes.
Making $250K in most of the midwest and southeast is a lot different than making $250K in the northeast or pacific coast.
Difference between “rich” and “filthy rich,” I think. 
Agree with the person who said people who show income of 250k on their tax returns make far more than that. Also I remember Bill Gates and Buffet advocating higher taxes for the rich because % wise they pay less taxes than a guy who makes 50k a year and thats BS. The richer you get the more loopholes you have, so the argument about paying more for working harder doesn’t really apply. (Of course I will only agree to this as long as my net income stays below 250k)
I bet many on this thread would vigorously defend HF managers paying 15% taxes on their carried interest. If you’ve ever gone through the mechanics of exactly how the carry is transferred from the LPs to the GP, you’ll quickly see it’s done in such a way as to carefully qualify as capital gains. Just one of the many loopholes the rich enjoy. Closing this won’t raise a ton of money, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it.
NakedPuts Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I bet many on this thread would vigorously defend > HF managers paying 15% taxes on their carried > interest. If you’ve ever gone through the > mechanics of exactly how the carry is transferred > from the LPs to the GP, you’ll quickly see it’s > done in such a way as to carefully qualify as > capital gains. Just one of the many loopholes the > rich enjoy. Closing this won’t raise a ton of > money, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it. Yep, many HF managers give their employees option to ‘reinvest’ the bonus into the fund and redeem it a year later as capital gains that gets taxed at 15%.
If your not writing the $250k paycheques to other people you are not rich.