Anonymous
Post 09/28/2011 09:59     Subject: Re:DCUM Class warfare
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

My "fair share" is already 1/3 of my income. Half the people in this country pay zip. That's the height of unfairness.


You realize half the people in this country make less than $48K a year right. 15% live in poverty which is less than $21k for a family of four. Let's say you make 300K, should they pay 7K of their income and be left with 14K because so you don't t have to pay 2% more? It's hard to feel bad for you (or me, because we have a lot of money, but understand we're rich because we live and were educated in America, yes we worked hard but people work hard all over the world and don't get to have what we have). I'm not jealous of you, I think you lack empathy and compassion.


You've got to stop with this nonsense. Nickels and dimes from those families making <$50,000 is a spit in the ocean -- it won't amount to anything significant for you, me, or our country. I don't care about your empathy or compassion; you're acting stupid. Think about it. If you got your way, no one would benefit and much harm could arise. You keep posting this same comment; it convinces nobody. It's your ignorance that is shining through.



Anonymous
Post 09/28/2011 09:58     Subject: Re:DCUM Class warfare
Anonymous wrote:

Significant?

So here's the scenario you describe: Person creates a company, employs a number of people, they create a good or a service, sell it to people who benefit from it, the company grows and then they sell it. They are taxed on the sale, and if they invest that money they are taxed on any gains they make yearly. So go back and think of all the taxes they paid, be it unemployment tax, or employer contributions to FICA, health care, retirement, and then the economic impact of hiring workers, or just general spending from the business etc. The overall stimulus to the economy is much much more than your janitor example you love to tout, or even a teacher or a nurse. That is just the facts. Vilifying someone who has done all of that as evil as our President seems to do daily is a clear disincentive for the next person to take this long path to reach that status. The sensible Economist which is a pretty left of center free market publication talks about this. On one hand the president talks about wanting American business to be strong and higher more workers then he calls the same people who will do so "fat cats" http://www.economist.com/node/21530100. The problem isn't Democrats in general, Bill Clinton never did this, its Obama and his staff and their view of the world. I've never heard a president sound so anti-business so anti-capitalism as from Obama. The issue of taxes is really just a small number it's the way he seems to just HATE anyone who owns a business.



Employer-Sponsored Insurance is heavily subsidized by the federal government. This is a win-win for all, so don't count it as a burden on the business owner. There are also significant tax breaks for new businesses, and other subsidies.

So, Bob creates company XYZ, makes $150k. He pays taxes on this, bringing it to $100k. He invests this wisely, and makes $10k. He isn't taxed on $110k, just $10k. At 15%, he pays $1500 in taxes, meaning he has $108,500. If he paid 30% on that 10k, he'd still have $106,600. Its not touching the principal, only the earnings, which has not been taxed at all. Seems fair to me.
Anonymous
Post 09/28/2011 09:50     Subject: Re:DCUM Class warfare
Anonymous wrote:"PP, there's a tone in your comments that suggests you think money is the best gauge of success and that anyone who made choices that resulted in lower income than you have made "wrong" choices and must now suffer the consequences. That attitude negates the value of so many professions, jobs and roles in this country that do not have high price tags attached to them, but contribute greatly to our society.

I'm curious what you do for a living. Where did you and your spouse end up after making all these sacrifices and choices? "

I'm making no judgment that making a high income = success. I'm saying going into a noble but low paying profession is a conscious choice, so don't whine about how CEOS, MDs, lawyers, etc. make so much more.


You are absolutely making a judgment that high income = success. Our jobs were not particularly low-paying. But they were meaningful and we worked hard. And we both did well in school, and neither of us went part time when our kids were born. Our HHI was 175, which to me sounds like a decent amount, even for this area. I am not whining about CEOs and law partners (I know a lot of MDs who are most definitely not making big bucks btw). We made sensible choices regarding housing, cars, education, etc. What I'm "whining" about is the dissolution of the middle class, and that if you aren't a super high earner, you have no value in our society. We had reserves saved, spent prudently, played by the rules, paid a lot of taxes without the benefits of loopholes and stock options, but there is only so much folks like us can do to stay afloat in this economy. So are you saying everyone should aspire to be a CEO or lawyer? Who will teach your children? Deliver your mail? Watch your children while you are at work? Pave your roads? Police the community? Work at your grocery store or favorite restaurant? Your attitude is frankly astounding, and rather frightening.
Anonymous
Post 09/28/2011 09:39     Subject: Re:DCUM Class warfare
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
My "fair share" is already 1/3 of my income. Half the people in this country pay zip. That's the height of unfairness.


NP here. First, I think most people want the dividend tax rules changes. There's a significant amount of millionaires that actually don't work and only pay 15% tax on their dividend income.

Second, those people that paid "no tax" used the exact same deductions as you did. The child care credit, standard deduction, etc. Its just that once they deducted those things, they owned nothing. Most paid Social Security and Medicare, so its not as if they got off completely "free". And the 50% is a high mark. It was 40% in 2007. The statistics have only been tracked since 2004.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/08/john-cornyn/john-cornyn-says-51-percent-american-households-pa/
"Estimates by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center project that for tax year 2011, 46.4 percent of households won’t have any income tax liability. However, of this number, 28.3 percent will pay payroll taxes, the center projects. Of the remaining 18.1 percent with neither income nor payroll tax liability, 10.3 percent are elderly and 6.9 percent are not elderly but have incomes lower than $20,000. In other words, all but a tiny sliver of Americans without either income tax or payroll tax liability are either elderly or poor."

Interestingly enough, though, from the same webpage... in 2007, the richest 20 percent paid 68.9 percent of federal taxes although they earned only an estimated 62% of the income, and the top 1 percent paid 28.1 percent of federal taxes and earned 21 percent of income. This does support the notion that the rich are already paying more than their fair share.


Significant?

So here's the scenario you describe: Person creates a company, employs a number of people, they create a good or a service, sell it to people who benefit from it, the company grows and then they sell it. They are taxed on the sale, and if they invest that money they are taxed on any gains they make yearly. So go back and think of all the taxes they paid, be it unemployment tax, or employer contributions to FICA, health care, retirement, and then the economic impact of hiring workers, or just general spending from the business etc. The overall stimulus to the economy is much much more than your janitor example you love to tout, or even a teacher or a nurse. That is just the facts. Vilifying someone who has done all of that as evil as our President seems to do daily is a clear disincentive for the next person to take this long path to reach that status. The sensible Economist which is a pretty left of center free market publication talks about this. On one hand the president talks about wanting American business to be strong and higher more workers then he calls the same people who will do so "fat cats" http://www.economist.com/node/21530100. The problem isn't Democrats in general, Bill Clinton never did this, its Obama and his staff and their view of the world. I've never heard a president sound so anti-business so anti-capitalism as from Obama. The issue of taxes is really just a small number it's the way he seems to just HATE anyone who owns a business.

TheManWithAUsername
Post 09/28/2011 09:38     Subject: DCUM Class warfare
Anonymous wrote:
TheManWithAUsername wrote:So...as I was saying, look back through this thread and see which side tried to make it a war.

A: "Stop attacking me! Stop attacking me!"

B: "What the fuck are you talking about?!"

A: "Stop cursing at me! Stop cursing at me!"


I don't get this.

This is the Rep/Faux consistent tactic. Cry about being victimized by something to start an exchange on heated terms, then when that exchange occurs, say, "See - I told you they're attacking us." The OP complains about a supposed class war, which those on her side then proceed to create within this thread, and then cite to in support of the original claim.

In short, they fabricate attacks to justify their own aggression.
Anonymous
Post 09/28/2011 09:37     Subject: Re:DCUM Class warfare
Anonymous wrote:"Interestingly enough, though, from the same webpage... in 2007, the richest 20 percent paid 68.9 percent of federal taxes although they earned only an estimated 62% of the income, and the top 1 percent paid 28.1 percent of federal taxes and earned 21 percent of income. This does support the notion that the rich are already paying more than their fair share. "

This is not news to people making $500,000.


If you hit the "quote" button on the right side of the posting it brings up another page to type on with the quotes bracketed. You can delete the part of the post that is not relevant to what you are typing, or more common practice, bold it. Not being snarky, just easier to follow threads.
Anonymous
Post 09/28/2011 09:34     Subject: Re:DCUM Class warfare
Anonymous wrote:"Second, those people that paid "no tax" used the exact same deductions as you did. The child care credit, standard deduction, etc. Its just that once they deducted those things, they owned nothing. Most paid Social Security and Medicare, so its not as if they got off completely "free". And the 50% is a high mark. It was 40% in 2007. The statistics have only been tracked since 2004. "

I'd love to know your AGI. I don't get the childcare credit, I don't take the standard deduction. My IRA contributions are nondeductible. Our deductions are reduced due to our income by a percentage.



AGI = ~170k. We only qualify for a fraction of the child care deduction. However, we do use standard deductions, and our retirement plan was deductible.
Anonymous
Post 09/28/2011 09:32     Subject: Re:DCUM Class warfare
"Interestingly enough, though, from the same webpage... in 2007, the richest 20 percent paid 68.9 percent of federal taxes although they earned only an estimated 62% of the income, and the top 1 percent paid 28.1 percent of federal taxes and earned 21 percent of income. This does support the notion that the rich are already paying more than their fair share. "

This is not news to people making $500,000.
Anonymous
Post 09/28/2011 09:29     Subject: Re:DCUM Class warfare
"Second, those people that paid "no tax" used the exact same deductions as you did. The child care credit, standard deduction, etc. Its just that once they deducted those things, they owned nothing. Most paid Social Security and Medicare, so its not as if they got off completely "free". And the 50% is a high mark. It was 40% in 2007. The statistics have only been tracked since 2004. "

I'd love to know your AGI. I don't get the childcare credit, I don't take the standard deduction. My IRA contributions are nondeductible. Our deductions are reduced due to our income by a percentage.

Anonymous
Post 09/28/2011 09:29     Subject: Re:DCUM Class warfare
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

My "fair share" is already 1/3 of my income. Half the people in this country pay zip. That's the height of unfairness.


You realize half the people in this country make less than $48K a year right. 15% live in poverty which is less than $21k for a family of four. Let's say you make 300K, should they pay 7K of their income and be left with 14K because so you don't t have to pay 2% more? It's hard to feel bad for you (or me, because we have a lot of money, but understand we're rich because we live and were educated in America, yes we worked hard but people work hard all over the world and don't get to have what we have). I'm not jealous of you, I think you lack empathy and compassion.


So now our tax structure should be based on what YOU believe is empathy and compassion? How about we stop using tax dollars to kill babies, that's empathy and compassion. This so called moral argument that you must give more to the governement to show compassion is bullshit. I'd rather give more to Catholic Charities (I'm not even Catholic but they do great work), or the Red Cross or some other charitable organization that actually uses it, not overpaid DC federal workers who churn it down and waste it. This empathy argument is so straw man. YOU give more, give half of your income to the American government because you have more empathy than me, that's fine. See how well they spend it. It boggles my mind that after hundreds of years people still believe that the government is the best allocator of resources. Look at how the government has fucked up year on year on year. The government does not create wealth. Period.
Anonymous
Post 09/28/2011 09:21     Subject: Re:DCUM Class warfare
Anonymous wrote:
My "fair share" is already 1/3 of my income. Half the people in this country pay zip. That's the height of unfairness.


NP here. First, I think most people want the dividend tax rules changes. There's a significant amount of millionaires that actually don't work and only pay 15% tax on their dividend income.

Second, those people that paid "no tax" used the exact same deductions as you did. The child care credit, standard deduction, etc. Its just that once they deducted those things, they owned nothing. Most paid Social Security and Medicare, so its not as if they got off completely "free". And the 50% is a high mark. It was 40% in 2007. The statistics have only been tracked since 2004.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/08/john-cornyn/john-cornyn-says-51-percent-american-households-pa/
"Estimates by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center project that for tax year 2011, 46.4 percent of households won’t have any income tax liability. However, of this number, 28.3 percent will pay payroll taxes, the center projects. Of the remaining 18.1 percent with neither income nor payroll tax liability, 10.3 percent are elderly and 6.9 percent are not elderly but have incomes lower than $20,000. In other words, all but a tiny sliver of Americans without either income tax or payroll tax liability are either elderly or poor."

Interestingly enough, though, from the same webpage... in 2007, the richest 20 percent paid 68.9 percent of federal taxes although they earned only an estimated 62% of the income, and the top 1 percent paid 28.1 percent of federal taxes and earned 21 percent of income. This does support the notion that the rich are already paying more than their fair share.
Anonymous
Post 09/28/2011 09:20     Subject: Re:DCUM Class warfare
Anonymous wrote:

My "fair share" is already 1/3 of my income. Half the people in this country pay zip. That's the height of unfairness.


You realize half the people in this country make less than $48K a year right. 15% live in poverty which is less than $21k for a family of four. Let's say you make 300K, should they pay 7K of their income and be left with 14K because so you don't t have to pay 2% more? It's hard to feel bad for you (or me, because we have a lot of money, but understand we're rich because we live and were educated in America, yes we worked hard but people work hard all over the world and don't get to have what we have). I'm not jealous of you, I think you lack empathy and compassion.
Anonymous
Post 09/28/2011 09:07     Subject: Re:DCUM Class warfare
"okay. his secretary. (and you mean no income taxes. Janitors pay plenty of taxes. Every time they buy generic flour to bake bread) "

Yes, income taxes is what we're talking about.
Anonymous
Post 09/28/2011 09:06     Subject: Re:DCUM Class warfare
"PP, there's a tone in your comments that suggests you think money is the best gauge of success and that anyone who made choices that resulted in lower income than you have made "wrong" choices and must now suffer the consequences. That attitude negates the value of so many professions, jobs and roles in this country that do not have high price tags attached to them, but contribute greatly to our society.

I'm curious what you do for a living. Where did you and your spouse end up after making all these sacrifices and choices? "

I'm making no judgment that making a high income = success. I'm saying going into a noble but low paying profession is a conscious choice, so don't whine about how CEOS, MDs, lawyers, etc. make so much more.
Anonymous
Post 09/28/2011 09:04     Subject: Re:DCUM Class warfare
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
I'm sorry you reject that premise. That's exactly right. That's why I didn't slack off in school, go PT when I had kids, etc. Do you really think I should pay for you rejecting this premise? Grow up.


Why should the rest of us be expected to support you with tax expenditures? You benefit from a stable society more than poor people do, or people in precarious positions. Pay your fair share.


My "fair share" is already 1/3 of my income. Half the people in this country pay zip. That's the height of unfairness.