Questions about Obama's speech and position?

[Anonymous]

Hey keeps talking about "millionaires and billionaires" but in effect he means any couple making over $250k right? Such a disingenuous person. Does he also know most multi-millionaires and billionaires don't report taxes like we normal folk making $250k do and so they'll still get to bypass any tax increases and this is just really an upper middle class tax hike? Why can't he be honest first?

[Anonymous]

I'm sorry, but when did $250K become middle-class?

[Anonymous]

Only here in DC that people complain how little their salary is when making $250K. What do you call people like me who make $90K? People on welfare?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hey keeps talking about "millionaires and billionaires" but in effect he means any couple making over $250k right? Such a disingenuous person. Does he also know most multi-millionaires and billionaires don't report taxes like we normal folk making $250k do and so they'll still get to bypass any tax increases and this is just really an upper middle class tax hike? Why can't he be honest first?

I would gladly pay more taxes if I make more than $250K. He is proposing tax credit for the middle class and I am all for that.

[Anonymous]

Regardless, it is really closer to 315K before the tax kicks in noticeably.

The tax would be applied to TAXABLE income OVER 250K, so it would only be a small portion of income that would even be affected. So if you are making 265K, how much of that OVER 250 is taxable? Not much.

Whiners.

[Anonymous]

OK take a deep breath. Let's get a few things clear. IF you live in Alabama the likelyhood you'll sniff $250k is so much lower than in say DC, NY, SF, or LA. These places are also very high cost of living areas so that 250k doesn't go very far. I actually think $500k is a much fairer amount to start a new tax bracket given where we are in America with regards to cost of living adjustments.

A family with 2 kids in DC and private school or college (not some cheap suburb) doesn't feel rich, because they arent.

[Anonymous]

The fact that someone can afford to live in DC and send their kids to private school--a true luxury--doe indicate you have some degree of wealth. Those are both luxuries a good part of the country cannot afford.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The fact that someone can afford to live in DC and send their kids to private school--a true luxury--doe indicate you have some degree of wealth. Those are both luxuries a good part of the country cannot afford.

And you do understand that these are things that have a residual effect for the economy? It pays for the taxes of teachers, admin, janitors etc. This money isn't being thrown away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that someone can afford to live in DC and send their kids to private school--a true luxury--doe indicate you have some degree of wealth. Those are both luxuries a good part of the country cannot afford.

And you do understand that these are things that have a residual effect for the economy? It pays for the taxes of teachers, admin, janitors etc. This money isn't being thrown away.

Of course, but what's your point? Everybody to some degree contributes to these things, via property, sales, and/or income tax. People in the 250K plus don't have a market on supporting the janitors. It sounds like you are getting close to advocating trickle down economics (though I could be misreading), one of the biggest failures ever in economic theory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that someone can afford to live in DC and send their kids to private school--a true luxury--doe indicate you have some degree of wealth. Those are both luxuries a good part of the country cannot afford.

And you do understand that these are things that have a residual effect for the economy? It pays for the taxes of teachers, admin, janitors etc. This money isn't being thrown away.

Of course, but what's your point? Everybody to some degree contributes to these things, via property, sales, and/or income tax. People in the 250K plus don't have a market on supporting the janitors. It sounds like you are getting close to advocating trickle down economics (though I could be misreading), one of the biggest failures ever in economic theory.

My point is that when people call private school a luxury they act as if its a frivolous good with no societal benefit. However you slice and ice it $250k is not RICH and they aren't billionaires and they don't ride in corporate jets.

[Anonymous]

You are completely posing a red herring. Whether or not is has an effect on the economy is irrelevant to the discussion of whether being able to provide private school is a luxury (note, I said luxury, not frivolous). It is. Most people have to make do with public schools.

[Anonymous]

A. Nobody says it will be absolutely painless for those with over 250K to pay more tax (on the taxable income over 250K) than under present law. The claim is just that with all the pain going around, they can bear a bit of it.
[I note that my last sentence is ambiguous, depending on which clause you link "just" to; I stand by either meaning.]

B. In any case, there could be negotiation of the threshold 250K, if that would get agreement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A. Nobody says it will be absolutely painless for those with over 250K to pay more tax (on the taxable income over 250K) than under present law. The claim is just that with all the pain going around, they can bear a bit of it.
[I note that my last sentence is ambiguous, depending on which clause you link "just" to; I stand by either meaning.]

B. In any case, there could be negotiation of the threshold 250K, if that would get agreement.

But would you agree that the president's assertion that we need to tax billionaires and fatcats more and then really having the new rate start at $250k political theater? I honestly believe that if he had come in at $500k he would have been able to get this passed when the Dems still controlled the house. The problem with $250k is that while it captures the typical DC family that I described it also hits a lot of really small businesses where the actual owners probably only net $100k out of the firm. I think even Mankiw did a blog posting and said he didn't think the doctor making $400k should be taxed at the same rate of the CEO making $15m. My personal belief is that taking 40% from a family making $250k has a much more disastrous effect than a family making $1mm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Regardless, it is really closer to 315K before the tax kicks in noticeably.

The tax would be applied to TAXABLE income OVER 250K, so it would only be a small portion of income that would even be affected. So if you are making 265K, how much of that OVER 250 is taxable? Not much.

Whiners.

Seriously. Our HHI is $225,000 and I'd gladly pay more marginal taxes if we hit the $250,000 mark. I'd pay it now. Am I the only one here who grew up lower-middle-class, living paycheck to paycheck? I feel rich with what I've got now. Yes, even in this area.

[Anonymous]

I actually think he is talking about millionaires and billionaires. He's not talking about the Bush tax cuts-- he's talking about the loophole that lets hedge fund managers (who earn tens of millions a year) to pay capital gain tax rates (the highest rate on long term capital gain is 15%, which is less than half of the usual top rate for salary), and he's talking about preferential tax deductions for personal jets.

Also it makes no sense to say that someone nets 100k out of a family company but would be taxed at the 250k level.