So you make over $250.000 per year

[WHAMPOM]

Originally Posted by Chris A

Ok when Obama eliminates the bush tax cuts and goes after people that make over $250.000 and with the new proposition in California that taxes people that make over $250.000 a year most are at a effective rate of 72% for taxes...

I know a guy that owns a heating and air company. Has 15 people working for him but often puts in 16 hour days to keep costs down. His profits last year were about $270.000. Under the new tax laws his take home would be about $75.000 a year. He just told me. A whole bunch of stuff but honestly some well paid professionals are going to be out of work.

Now, now, don't you mean he has a five or six $MILLION$ business (gotta spend lots of dough to make a buck but you don't pay taxes on expenses) and paying taxes on his (5% profits if he not cheating his customers too much)profits after expenses?

[Ferocious]

Umm the economy was great overall under Clinton....pre Bush tax cuts.

Businesses small and large prospered just fine before the Bush tax cuts.

Enough said.

[hal2kilo]

Originally Posted by Ferocious

Umm the economy was great overall under Clinton....pre Bush tax cuts.

Businesses small and large prospered just fine before the Bush tax cuts.

Enough said.

They are acting like a 4% change to the top marginal rate is like the end of civilization as we know it.

[redgtxdi]

Originally Posted by hal2kilo

They are acting like a 4% change to the top marginal rate is like the end of civilization as we know it.

Well sure. They're reaching into their pockets.

It's the same reason you'll frown when you get a speeding ticket, yet donate that $50 to the local police fundraiser.

And remember that the reaction is just as much to the notion that these increased taxes don't "fix" the realproblem.

[boomerang]

Originally Posted by redgtxdi

Well sure. They're reaching into their pockets.

It's the same reason you'll frown when you get a speeding ticket, yet donate that $50 to the local police fundraiser.

And remember that the reaction is just as much to the notion that these increased taxes don't "fix" the realproblem.

They for certain won't fix the problem as well as the revenue from them will be spent in days. We've done the math scores of times.

Think of it in terms of a hoarding mentality. When faced with items that are scarce, humans hoard those items. Take more of their income and they will hoard what income they've got left. Very simple.

Will "the rich" miss the money? Perhaps not. But team it up with scores of increases in taxes in Obamacare alone along with a multitude of tax increases being proposed and voilà! Hoarding mentality. What happens when people decide they need to spend on just the necessities? We've been experiencing it for 10 years. It's before us. Now, take more of their income. Humans will adapt. The results will be very detrimental to the economy and even more long lasting.

Why does the left have to learn everything the hard way?

Edit: Along the way, the definition of rich will change. That $250K figure is being bantered about although Obama was throwing out a figure of $200K earlier. Assume $250K. Rich will be redefined as needed. How low will it go? BTW, when did the definition of rich get to $250K? I hate to have to live on that in NYC or SF just to name a few.

[jpeyton]

Tell your friend to hire a better accountant.

[eskimospy]

Originally Posted by boomerang

They for certain won't fix the problem as well as the revenue from them will be spent in days. We've done the math scores of times.

Think of it in terms of a hoarding mentality. When faced with items that are scarce, humans hoard those items. Take more of their income and they will hoard what income they've got left. Very simple.

Will "the rich" miss the money? Perhaps not. But team it up with scores of increases in taxes in Obamacare alone along with a multitude of tax increases being proposed and voilà! Hoarding mentality. What happens when people decide they need to spend on just the necessities? We've been experiencing it for 10 years. It's before us. Now, take more of their income. Humans will adapt. The results will be very detrimental to the economy and even more long lasting.

Why does the left have to learn everything the hard way?

Edit: Along the way, the definition of rich will change. That $250K figure is being bantered about although Obama was throwing out a figure of $200K earlier. Assume $250K. Rich will be redefined as needed. How low will it go? BTW, when did the definition of rich get to $250K? I hate to have to live on that in NYC or SF just to name a few.

Have you ever lived on $250k or less in NYC or SF? Do you realize that the median income for NYC is about $60k? Nearly everyone in both cities lives on less than that, myself included.

The idea that you would somehow be struggling in any way with 'only' a $250k salary in either one of those cities just shows that the person making the remark has absolutely no clue as to what they are talking about.

[Tylanner]

Why do we honor such idiotic original posts with this amount of banter?

There is no 250k magic line, it is a bracket and what was his take home pay before? $78,000?

Ridiculous.

[RabidMongoose]

Originally Posted by eskimospy

Have you ever lived on $250k or less in NYC or SF? Do you realize that the median income for NYC is about $60k? Nearly everyone in both cities lives on less than that, myself included.

The idea that you would somehow be struggling in any way with 'only' a $250k salary in either one of those cities just shows that the person making the remark has absolutely no clue as to what they are talking about.

I've lived in SF on less than $250,000 per year. It was very tough. I'm not sure how people do it. I cried every night that I couldn't eat caviar for dinner.

[eskimospy]

Originally Posted by RabidMongoose

I've lived in SF on less than $250,000 per year. It was very tough. I'm not sure how people do it. I cried every night that I couldn't eat caviar for dinner.

I know, it's super tough for me with my tiny $80k salary, only 1/3rd of what it takes to just barely scrape by according to ATPN New York City Experts. Basically every night the neighborhood children and I get together and pull scraps from the garbage in order to make a thin broth that we hope to sustain ourselves with the next day.

I love how these idiots from the middle of nowhere try to tell people who actually live here what you need to survive in NYC or SF. I guess in some part I am flattered that they think the glamour and excitement of my city is such that only the top 2% of all Americans can hope to live here, but really it's just because they are trying to find some sad way to justify their hilariously wrong economic ideas.

[sigurros81]

Originally Posted by jpeyton

Tell your friend to hire a better accountant.

I don't think Chris A has any real friends. With stupid this strong, even his mother probably disowned him.

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally Posted by eskimospy

I know, it's super tough for me with my tiny $80k salary, only 1/3rd of what it takes to just barely scrape by according to ATPN New York City Experts. Basically every night the neighborhood children and I get together and pull scraps from the garbage in order to make a thin broth that we hope to sustain ourselves with the next day.

I love how these idiots from the middle of nowhere try to tell people who actually live here what you need to survive in NYC or SF. I guess in some part I am flattered that they think the glamour and excitement of my city is such that only the top 2% of all Americans can hope to live here, but really it's just because they are trying to find some sad way to justify their hilariously wrong economic ideas.

It is funny indeed. I have lived in both SF and NY. While in SF, I was living off of fairly meager student loans, yet somehow I survived. I have friends and family living in Manhattan on well under $100K a year with no discomfort. I would be quite content to be living off of $250K per year in either SF or NY, and would be fairly high on the wealth ladder in either city with that kind of income.