Good fact based WSJ article on who pays taxes in America

[briansd1]

It’s income over $250,000, not all of it. People just don’t seem to understand the concept of marginal rates.

Perfectly reasonable to me.

It’s like the estate tax. Only a few thousands pay it but the conservative riff-rafts think it’ll trickle down to them so they go out and march with placards about the death tax. Like they are ever going to worry about paying estate taxes.

[an]

[quote=briansd1]It’s income over $250,000, not all of it. People just don’t seem to understand the concept of marginal rates.[/quote]
Of course it’s income over $250k and it only hit 3% of the people. After that’s in the bag, what would stop them from saying, lets lower that to $150k when they need more money. That only affect a few more % of people. Those people are not middle class anyways. Then what would stop them from lowering it to $100k? That’s alost 2X the median income. It only affect another small % of people.

[SK in CV]

[quote=AN]This is exactly what I’m talking about. Once you get 3% in the bag, I can see, oh, we need more money, lets go for the top 5%, then 10%. After all, they’re rich and it’s only the top 5-10%. 90% of the people aren’t making that much money. They’re no where near middle class. It’ll only affect another handful of cities. This doesn’t affect the majority of cities and 90% of the people.

So, since there are only a handful of cities that have expensive cost of living, they don’t count then? Add in Irvine, LA, certain part of SD (if you hate traffic and want to live near work), Chicago, Seattle, Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, etc. to you handful of cities.[/quote]

Right, and milk is just a gateway drug to heroin. That’s a new argument applied to taxes. I haven’t heard it before. (If that’s what you were talking about before, you failed to mention it.)

$250K a year will get you a solid middle class lifestyle in San Diego, as it will in LA, Chicago, Seattle, and every other city you listed there. RSF is not a middle class community. Neither is Beverly Hills or Malibu. Even in NYC, that kind of money is decent. Better than decent in Brooklyn. Middle class doesn’t mean having everything your neighbor has.

[Anonymous]

[quote=AN]This is exactly what I’m talking about. Once you get 3% in the bag, I can see, oh, we need more money, lets go for the top 5%, then 10%. After all, they’re rich and it’s only the top 5-10%. 90% of the people aren’t making that much money. They’re no where near middle class.[/quote]

Although it’s tough to filter through the gibberish of the last sentence, there’s definitely a blatant use of the “slippery slope” logical fallacy in there.

Here’s a historical fact for ya: Tax rates don’t always go up. They sometimes go down. In fact they’ve gone up and down quite a bit in the past 50 years (and there is little correlation between the direction of change and the party of the president in office at the time.)

So the slippery slope argument can be completely dis-proven by history, i.e. the real world.

As for the “barely middle class” claim: more illogical nonsense. Middle class is – surprise – in the middle! And in no city in America is $250K anywhere but well into the top quartile.

The problem is people think they can live in a dense urban area and, because they have a decent job, they are entitled to a nice big home, and short commute, along with lots of goodies. It doesn’t work that way when millions of other people want the same things. Scarce resources are scarce.

When you live in NYC, $250K gets you a lifestyle in a small apartment. Not because $250K is at at the bottom of the income scale, but because you are in NYC along with millions of other people who want the same thing.

[SK in CV]

[quote=AN][quote=briansd1]It’s income over $250,000, not all of it. People just don’t seem to understand the concept of marginal rates.[/quote]
Of course it’s income over $250k and it only hit 3% of the people. After that’s in the bag, what would stop them from saying, lets lower that to $150k when they need more money. That only affect a few more % of people. Those people are not middle class anyways. Then what would stop them from lowering it to $100k? That’s alost 2X the median income. It only affect another small % of people.[/quote]

Some people will say that. That would be the people that say that the middle class doesn’t pay it’s fair share, and that those with higher incomes pay too much. Wait, they already are saying that. So which is better? Those that already want to tax those with lower incomes at a higher rate, or those that want to tax only those with higher incomes at a higher rate?

[Anonymous]

The core idiocy of the OP theme is that it is mathematically impossible to eliminate the budget deficit by taxing the poor. The tax rates would have to change such that the “bottom 50%” would have to pay a much higher effective rate than most everyone else in order to close the gap.

Did anyone promoting this “solution” consider the fact that taxing the poor might not be a good source of revenue because … they don’t have any money.

The “tax the poor” theme of the GOP and their propaganda arm at Fox/WSJ seems to have become very popular.

It’s a scary example of just how so many Americans lack basic mathematical and critical thinking skills.

[no_such_reality]

You all are really funny bickering over class warfare

We are overspending by a trillion, which happens to be 33% or basically 1/3rd

Taxes need to increased across the board for all people and business by a 30%

Or you can cut

California has tried the tax the rich and it fails miserably. It is why our budget revenue swings so drastically.

We can argue over Romney paying to little or the poor getting hit too hard but everyone needs to share the paIn. it’s a uniform increase or cuts across the board. The gap is too big to try goring sacred cows

[no_such_reality]

You all are really funny bickering over class warfare

We are overspending by a trillion, which happens to be 33% or basically 1/3rd

Taxes need to increased across the board for all people and business by a 30%

Or you can cut

California has tried the tax the rich and it fails miserably. It is why our budget revenue swings so drastically.

We can argue over Romney paying to little or the poor getting hit too hard but everyone needs to share the paIn. it’s a uniform increase or cuts across the board. The gap is too big to try goring sacred cows

[Anonymous]

[quote=no_such_reality]Or you can cut[/quote]

Or you can do both.

And there have already been some plans developed that do both. Reasonable, bipartisan plans that have a good shot at success. They don’t tax the “rich” any higher than historical standards, so nobody has to be “punished” for their success.

These plans actually have numbers!

[blake]

Md. General Assembly OKs income tax increases for $100k earners

Coming soon to CA …

[an]

[quote=SK in CV]Some people will say that. That would be the people that say that the middle class doesn’t pay it’s fair share, and that those with higher incomes pay too much. Wait, they already are saying that. So which is better? Those that already want to tax those with lower incomes at a higher rate, or those that want to tax only those with higher incomes at a higher rate?[/quote]
Who said the middle class doesn’t pay their fair share? What’s your definition of the middle class?

Your choice suck. That’s like saying which would you rather have, sh!t or vomit. That’s a false choice and I choose neither. I want true tax reform. I want most deductions to go away, I want lower tax rate, I want to simplify the tax code, etc. I.E. I want something like Bowles-Simpson proposal.

[an]

[quote=SK in CV]$250K a year will get you a solid middle class lifestyle in San Diego, as it will in LA, Chicago, Seattle, and every other city you listed there. RSF is not a middle class community. Neither is Beverly Hills or Malibu. Even in NYC, that kind of money is decent. Better than decent in Brooklyn. Middle class doesn’t mean having everything your neighbor has.[/quote]
Exactly, $250k a year will get you a solid middle class lifestyle but according to some, $250k is the top 3%, the wealthy and should be taxed more. So, which is it, $250k = middle class or $250k is the wealthy? You can’t be called the wealthy if all you can afford is a middle class lifestyle, can you?

[bearishgurl]

From the OP,

You continue to get punished for financial prosperity, hard work & putting your nose to the grindstone… you get to carry the tax burden for the whole county, you don’t get to contribute to a Roth IRA, if you pay your mortgage on time you don’t get any of the goodies the deadbeats get like loan mods, principle reductions, free rent squatting in your house for 3+ years, you don’t get to take the loss on rentals over $150k in AGI, etc…. and it goes on and on an on.

I understand your frustration but you’re failing to take into account one thing, ctr. That is that these “deadbeats” can’t even currently use their credit reports for toilet paper. They’re neither strong nor absorbent enough. But YOU CAN!

I have no doubt that the “fb squat-mod and squat-shortsale party” will be over fairly soon. I haven’t seen actual proof yet but I really believe those who have actually agreed to timely pay on modifications and are still currently doing so will have to pay the piper down the road in the form of “equity sharing” with their 1st TD holder upon sale. The reason for this opinion is that cramdowns have not yet been approved for fannie/freddie-backed mortgages (which were the vast majority of 1st TD purchase-money mtgs made during the boom).

And many of those borrowers whose mtgs were “modified” still have 2nd TD’s which will come due as a balloon payment (if they haven’t already). As soon as the market picks up a little more, these 2nd TD holders will begin to foreclose … ESP if they learn that enough principle was forgiven on a 1st TD and note on a property they are holding a 2nd TD on to make foreclosure worth their while.

I predict most of the “successful loan-mod borrowers” will just walk away in the coming years, especially if their last kid just graduated from HS (usually the sole reason why they got in over their heads in the first place).

It’s not over for the “deadbeats.”

[an]

[quote=blake]Md. General Assembly OKs income tax increases for $100k earners

Coming soon to CA …[/quote]
Watch out folks, it’s getting quite slippery out there.

[SK in CV]

[quote=AN]
Exactly, $250k a year will get you a solid middle class lifestyle but according to some, $250k is the top 3%, the wealthy and should be taxed more. So, which is it, $250k = middle class or $250k is the wealthy? You can’t be called the wealthy if all you can afford is a middle class lifestyle, can you?[/quote]

This really shouldnt be such a hard concept. $250K a year IS the top 3%. It will also provide a much greater than middle class lifestyle in the vast majority of this country. Guess what, a nice house with new cars, and gym memberships, $100 dinners out, season tickets to baseball or football games, and nice vacations IS a wealthy lifestyle. There are a few spots in this country where income below the upper middle class can’t afford to live. That doesn’t make residents there middle class. It makes them wealthy.

If you live in San Diego, and make $250K a year and aren’t saving a shit load of money, you ARE living a wealthy lifestyle.

[Author]

Posts