GOP takes tough stand on saving Bush tax cuts

[IBMer]

No. Any dual income professional household generally puts you at the top 2% income. Are you telling me that only .2% of all bankers, engineers, etc make more than 125 grand a year? That is simply not true, most all of them will make that in a good sized city.

This is why raising the taxes on working white collar professionals is such a bad idea, they DO spend that money, they are consumers as well and stealing their money just means they won't spend it. The worst thing you could do right now in this economy is raise taxes on consumers who not only spend the most consumer money, they also pay the most taxes. It's a terrible idea with only bad consequences, there are NO good thing that can come of it.

You live in a fantasy world if you think all Lawyers, Bankers and Engineers make 125k a year.

 

[fskimospy]

I am still trying to understand the argument that lower taxes on the rich create jobs. Seems to me lowering taxes on the middle class and the poor would be a lot more for the economy, and even the rich than lowering taxes on the rich. Is there a good website that has information on these things? Or at least info on what people think should work and why?

I posted a graph that showed the relationship between GDP growth and tax rates on the rich earlier in this thread. In short: there isn't one. While that chart doesn't tell us what the best policy for growing our economy is, it does very strongly suggest that cutting taxes on rich people has zero to do with it.

 

[Slew Foot]

Whats the top 2% for household income, something like 200K? The top 1% is 350K or something.

200K isnt that hard, that's a nurse and a fireman, a pharmacist and a vice principal, an engineer and a BART driver.

You jealous retards sweeping shit off the floor at Dennys are too stupid to get an education and a real job.

 

[Engineer]

Whats the top 2% for household income, something like 200K? The top 1% is 350K or something.

200K isnt that hard, that's a nurse and a fireman, a pharmacist and a vice principal, an engineer and a BART driver.

You jealous retards sweeping shit off the floor at Dennys are too stupid to get an education and a real job.

Top 2% is $250,000. The "average" salary for all the people in the positions you mention isn't close to $125,000 each, so I'm not sure how it's easy sorry. If it were easy, there would be far more households in the $250,000 range moving that 2% to a much higher percentage.

From 2006:
Engineers average salary: 78,484
Nurse (RN): 58,483
Fire Fighters: 50,986
Pharmacist: 96,120
vice principal: 119,000 (from Indeed.com)
Education Administrator: 72,261

For reference: Anesthesiologist 178,493

From here...

 

[fskimospy]

Whats the top 2% for household income, something like 200K? The top 1% is 350K or something.

200K isnt that hard, that's a nurse and a fireman, a pharmacist and a vice principal, an engineer and a BART driver.

You jealous retards sweeping shit off the floor at Dennys are too stupid to get an education and a real job.

You seriously have no grasp on reality. Top 2% is around $250,000 or so. It obviously is pretty hard, considering that by definition only 2% of people achieve that much or better.

 

[spidey07]

You live in a fantasy world if you think all Lawyers, Bankers and Engineers make 125k a year.

Most, with 10+ years experience, in a major city (especially on the coasts) absolutely will. You live in a fantasy world or you aren't surrounded by people in your field who earn decent money, or you just have no idea about people in those fields. I do. They are my friends, they are my coworkers. Our close group has two lawyers, one RE agent, one mortgage broker, one salesman, two F500 directors and a few IT consultants. ALL make well over 125K a year.

Get in the real world sometime.

 

[CallMeJoe]

spidey also pretends not to understand how marginal tax rates work; for the "dual-income working couples" making $300K, only the last $50K will be subject to the higher tax rate. Not exactly the devastating economic blow he likes to pretend.



I suppose I should allow the possibility that he's not pretending, and really is as clueless as he appears...

 

[Smartazz]

Whats the top 2% for household income, something like 200K? The top 1% is 350K or something.

200K isnt that hard, that's a nurse and a fireman, a pharmacist and a vice principal, an engineer and a BART driver.

You jealous retards sweeping shit off the floor at Dennys are too stupid to get an education and a real job.

Correction, that's some nurses, firemen, pharmacists, vice principals and engineers, not nearly the average. As others have said, the top 2% is around $250k a year. There is no way most of the people in the professions you mentioned can make $125k/year. In fact, there are going to be individuals in these professions that don't make the average.

 

[Engineer]

Most, with 10+ years experience, in a major city (especially on the coasts) absolutely will. You live in a fantasy world or you aren't surrounded by people in your field who earn decent money, or you just have no idea about people in those fields. I do. They are my friends, they are my coworkers. Our close group has two lawyers, one RE agent, one mortgage broker, one salesman, two F500 directors and a few IT consultants. ALL make well over 125K a year.

Get in the real world sometime.

So you just happen to have a few friends that "could" fall in the top 2% of household incomes and this is now the "norm"? It is by definition the TOP 2% of the country in household income. That's 2 out of 100 for those that are mathematically challenged.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Correction, that's some nurses, firemen, pharmacists, vice principals and engineers, not nearly the average. As others have said, the top 2% is around $250k a year. There is no way most of the people in the professions you mentioned can make $125k/year. In fact, there are going to be individuals in these professions that don't make the average.

They live in Lake Woebegone, where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the incomes are above average.

 

[Smartazz]

spidey also pretends not to understand how marginal tax rates work; for the "dual-income working couples" making $300K, only the last $50K will be subject to the higher tax rate. Not exactly the devastating economic blow he likes to pretend.



I suppose I should allow the possibility that he's not pretending, and really is as clueless as he appears...

Heh, if that were the case, I think more people be collecting salaries like $249,999 just to avoid making less money by making $250,000.

 

[Hacp]

The argument is simple. Why should we take money from hardworking people who just happen to make lots of money so we can give it to the high school dropout? The high school dropout can just go find a job to support himself. I don't want to hear the "but he can't find a job" argument. Eliminate the minimum wage. Then there will be some job he can work that will pay him money.

A better way to cut the deficit would be to fire all federal employees and hire them back at half the salary. I'm willing to bet that most of the people will take the job because they won't be able to find a job that pays just as well. The federal government pays their employees too damn much.

 

[spidey07]

Heh, if that were the case, I think more people be collecting salaries like $249,999 just to avoid making less money by making $250,000.

No, I know exactly how the tax code works. They only advantage you would have by earning under 250 would be to avoid the phase out and AMT. Your federal income tax burden would not increase just by moving into a higher bracket. He knows better, I fully understand marginal rate and how taxes work. A whole lot more than most all in this thread.

 

[Hacp]

Correction, that's some nurses, firemen, pharmacists, vice principals and engineers, not nearly the average. As others have said, the top 2% is around $250k a year. There is no way most of the people in the professions you mentioned can make $125k/year. In fact, there are going to be individuals in these professions that don't make the average.

Where is the tax money going? Its going to pay the Union janitor working for the government with his union salary and his union pension. FUCK that. Why should a hardworking individual shed his sweat and tears so the government can overpay its workers?

 

[Throckmorton]

The argument is simple. Why should we take money from hardworking people who just happen to make lots of money so we can give it to the high school dropout? The high school dropout can just go find a job to support himself. I don't want to hear the "but he can't find a job" argument. Eliminate the minimum wage. Then there will be some job he can work that will pay him money.

A better way to cut the deficit would be to fire all federal employees and hire them back at half the salary. I'm willing to bet that most of the people will take the job because they won't be able to find a job that pays just as well. The federal government pays their employees too damn much.

The feds pay peanuts compared to the private sector. Look at listings here
http://www.usajobs.opm.gov/

 

[Hacp]

The feds pay peanuts compared to the private sector. Look at listings here
http://www.usajobs.opm.gov/

Well I dare say that if we fired all federal employees and offered them their job back at half the rate, many of them will take it.

 

[Smartazz]

The argument is simple. Why should we take money from hardworking people who just happen to make lots of money so we can give it to the high school dropout? The high school dropout can just go find a job to support himself. I don't want to hear the "but he can't find a job" argument. Eliminate the minimum wage. Then there will be some job he can work that will pay him money.

To avoid the adverse effects of a small percentage of your population owning too much of the country's wealth for starters. While abolishing minimum wage would increase a company's ability to hire, wages could drop to poverty levels.

 

[Hacp]

To avoid the adverse effects of a small percentage of your population owning too much of the country's wealth for starters. While abolishing minimum wage would increase a company's ability to hire, wages could drop to poverty levels.

OK. So they drop to poverty levels. So what? A person is paid what he is worth. If all he can do is mop a floor, well he SHOULD be making poverty level salary.

 

[Hacp]

Top 2% is $250,000. The "average" salary for all the people in the positions you mention isn't close to $125,000 each, so I'm not sure how it's easy sorry. If it were easy, there would be far more households in the $250,000 range moving that 2% to a much higher percentage.

From 2006:
Engineers average salary: 78,484
Nurse (RN): 58,483
Fire Fighters: 50,986
Pharmacist: 96,120
vice principal: 119,000 (from Indeed.com)
Education Administrator: 72,261

For reference: Anesthesiologist 178,493

From here...

These people are the best of the best. They work hard and play by the rules to make a large salary for retirement, only to see a big chunk go to the federal government to pay for some janitor or administrator's pension plan.

 

[Carmen813]

The argument is simple. Why should we take money from hardworking people who just happen to make lots of money so we can give it to the high school dropout? The high school dropout can just go find a job to support himself. I don't want to hear the "but he can't find a job" argument. Eliminate the minimum wage. Then there will be some job he can work that will pay him money.

A better way to cut the deficit would be to fire all federal employees and hire them back at half the salary. I'm willing to bet that most of the people will take the job because they won't be able to find a job that pays just as well. The federal government pays their employees too damn much.

HACP logic:
High school drop outs aren't hard working.
It's easy for high school dropouts to find jobs in any economy.
Firing people and giving them a 50% pay-cut will make them want to work for you.
Only hardworking people are rich.
Hardworking people just stumble onto wealth, if you haven't yet you aren't working hard enough.


Welcome to the myth of meritocracy folks, enshrined in posters such as this. Unfortunately explaining why aggregation of wealth is harmful to society requires more cognitive ability than they routinely demonstrate on this forum. It also requires an honest willingness to debate and consider new ideas, which they are not. Move along, these aren't the droids you're looking for.

Median wage for Chemical Engineers (routinely the highest paid engineers) is 88k a year.
http://online.onetcenter.org/link/summary/17-2041.00

 

[CallMeJoe]

No, I know exactly how the tax code works. They only advantage you would have by earning under 250 would be to avoid the phase out and AMT. Your federal income tax burden would not increase just by moving into a higher bracket. He knows better, I fully understand marginal rate and how taxes work. A whole lot more than most all in this thread.

:thumbsup: So you're not ignorant, just trolling.

 

[Hacp]

HACP logic:
High school drop outs aren't hard working.
It's easy for high school dropouts to find jobs in any economy.
Firing people and giving them a 50% pay-cut will make them want to work for you.
Only hardworking people are rich.
Hardworking people just stumble onto wealth, if you haven't yet you aren't working hard enough.


Welcome to the myth of meritocracy folks, enshrined in posters such as this. Unfortunately explaining why aggregation of wealth is harmful to society requires more cognitive ability than they routinely demonstrate on this forum. It also requires an honest willingness to debate and consider new ideas, which they are not. Move along, these aren't the droids you're looking for.

Socialism and Communism were conceived with the help of many books,papers, ideas, and debate. They were well thought out and logical. They ultimately failed.

 

[Carmen813]

Socialism and Communism were conceived with the help of many books,papers, ideas, and debate. They were well thought out and logical. They ultimately failed.

Fighting against wealth aggregation does not automatically make one a socialist or communist. The founding fathers were VERY concerned about the creation of an American aristocracy, which is where wealth aggregation is leading us.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Ah CAD, another /facepalm inducing post from you. You never fail to make a conversation stupider.

Your post doesn't even make any internal sense. How could I simultaneously be conducting class warfare (nice standard talking point) by pushing for more government if I believe that the government is the cause of the inequality to begin with? Unless you mean that I am blinded by my class warfare on the side of the rich? Okay, it's more likely that you're just stupid.

I believe that our government currently works in many ways to perpetuate inequality, yes. We have also successfully used government in the past in order to address this inequality, and we should do so now. Government is a vastly preferable vehicle for this as opposed to some sort of deregulation/reliance on private industry because we have a greater ability to make government responsive to us than we do private industry.

I don't know why I waste my time typing responses to you, you're more interested in fighting the evil 'libruls' than you are in anything else. It's Sunday, can't you busy yourself with a different sports team other than Team Red? (Oh, and trust me, I wish you were mature enough to look at politics as something other than a sports team)

lol, I didn't expect you would understand - you are too blinded to think about this rationally - thus you go after me personally with wildly inaccurate BS.

What you and other leftists whine about - is directly enabled by the gov't - yet you want more and more gov't intervention. Who pays for the gov't and controls it - oh yeah - people with money(you people whine about this all the time) yet your solution is more of the same enablement.

Meh - your types will never realize how illogical your stances are... but carry on.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Fighting against wealth aggregation does not automatically make one a socialist or communist. The founding fathers were VERY concerned about the creation of an American aristocracy, which is where wealth aggregation is leading us.

And BIG gov't is the problem - it enables and encourages it.