Rangel's Tax Increase Proposal

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

$150k in most of California is not very wealthy. It's middle class.

Median household income for California is about $50k a year. So, it's 300% of the median income. If you're making three times what the average person is making, to me that counts as wealthy. I guess your mileage may vary... but under your definition there are almost no wealthy people in the country.

average != median. average income is higher than median income because there is a lower bound, but no upper.

 

[imported_Baloo]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
You ad a surtax like that and people will start to hide income rather than pay the tax.

Too late. People already doing that, ever since taxes were first levied.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

$150k in most of California is not very wealthy. It's middle class.

Median household income for California is about $50k a year. So, it's 300% of the median income. If you're making three times what the average person is making, to me that counts as wealthy. I guess your mileage may vary... but under your definition there are almost no wealthy people in the country.

It's all a matter of perspective.

IMO $50k is dirt poor in big metro areas. A fresh from school engineering graduate earns more than that.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

$150k in most of California is not very wealthy. It's middle class.

Median household income for California is about $50k a year. So, it's 300% of the median income. If you're making three times what the average person is making, to me that counts as wealthy. I guess your mileage may vary... but under your definition there are almost no wealthy people in the country.

average != median. average is higher.

That's true, however I said average person meaning what a regular somebody in America is most likely to be making. Regardless, the median is a far far better estimate of what a normal American makes for purposes of comparison as the average is skewed due to the huge incomes of the top 1-2%.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

$150k in most of California is not very wealthy. It's middle class.

Median household income for California is about $50k a year. So, it's 300% of the median income. If you're making three times what the average person is making, to me that counts as wealthy. I guess your mileage may vary... but under your definition there are almost no wealthy people in the country.

It's all a matter of perspective.

IMO $50k is dirt poor in big metro areas. A fresh from school engineering graduate earns more than that.

Well $50k is very close to the median income for nearly every major metropolitan area I could find except for San Francisco where it's about $60k. Many others are significantly lower. So, by your definition the vast majority of households in these areas of the country are 'dirt poor'. I don't think that's very accurate.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
I'll throw some numbers out . . .

In 2004 - 132,226,042 tax returns

129,204,606 tax returns were less than $200k.

119,469,037 tax returns were less than $100k.


4% surtax on incomes above $150,000 for a single earner or incomes above $200,000 for a married couple

Looks like 1% or less of Americans * $200,000 for a married couple* - not that I'm engaging in class warfare. I did have to pay $128 in AMT tax a few years ago and I make well less than $100k/year. Anything that starts to address AMT is a good thing.

Tax numbers from Individual Income Tax, All Returns: Sources of Income and Adjustments (XLS) from our good friend, Uncle IRS.

Here again, chart is not completely helpful, and/or your intepretation is faulty.
~~snip~~
Fern

Fern sez: Firstly, it's ALL taxpayers, meaning corporations, p'ships, etstates, trusts etc.

Read the title of the link, please, Fern .Individual Income Tax, All Returns It's individual Form 1040 income tax returns and associated schedules.

Fern sez: Secondly, and can't be sure due to lack explanitory language, the chart shows about 11 million taxpayers with salary & wage income above $100K. That's compared to about 112 million tax returns showing salary/wage income. Thus about 10% of people (filing retruns with wages) make $100K or above.

And what does that have to do with my point that Looks like 1% or less of Americans * $200,000 for a married couple* would be subject to the 4% as depicted in Pabs misleading title to this thread ??? If you would have read Pabs link that would make sense to you as would my next 'factoid' - that 673,273 returns would be subject to 4.6% (those returns over $500k a year). Maybe one half of one percent of taxpayers? You make the call, Fern . . . .

Fern sez: There are more not counted in the above number: ~~ Those with business income (income coming through tax returns via K-1's, whether doctors, lawyers, accountants or biz other owners) not reported on a W-2. ~~ Those with sufficient non-wage income to push them above $100K (dividengds, cap gains, interest etc) when combined with their W-2 wage income..

Those who are the non-working rich. No wages, just a bunch of other income.

Ferrrrrrrn. Read the title of the link, please. Individual Income Tax, All Returns It's individual Form 1040 income tax returns. There are over 130 columns in the spreadsheet that include schedules and line items associated with ALL individual tax returns. And are you saying ""non-working rich. No wages, just a bunch of other income"" don't file 1040s???

As an example, column BJ (I know you guys like to talk about that!) in the spreadsheet is "Net Long-term partnership/S-corp loss". I only wish there was a column FU for yah, Fern :shocked:

It's funny you claim my intepretation is faulty. Is that page one in the Karl Rove Contard Attacking Point Handbook? Deny factual information!

 

[FoBoT]

that is too low, that'll impact the middle class

i thought they just wanted to screw the rich people. it should be $250,000, if they are going to do it

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

$150k in most of California is not very wealthy. It's middle class.

Median household income for California is about $50k a year. So, it's 300% of the median income. If you're making three times what the average person is making, to me that counts as wealthy. I guess your mileage may vary... but under your definition there are almost no wealthy people in the country.

It's all a matter of perspective.

IMO $50k is dirt poor in big metro areas. A fresh from school engineering graduate earns more than that.

Well $50k is very close to the median income for nearly every major metropolitan area I could find except for San Francisco where it's about $60k. Many others are significantly lower. So, by your definition the vast majority of households in these areas of the country are 'dirt poor'. I don't think that's very accurate.

$60k is not a lot in San Francisco. I guess your standards are just extremely low compared to mine. I don't consider someone earning a normal fresh out of college income to be wealthy.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

$60k is not a lot in San Francisco. I guess your standards are just extremely low compared to mine. I don't consider someone earning a normal fresh out of college income to be wealthy.

Well engineering degrees tend to make more then your average fresh out of college guy, but it's not really what I think that matters... the numbers just show that this is what people make. Since it sounds like you are educated, you probably associate with people that in general just happen to make significantly more then normal, (which is great) but it might be skewing your perception of what wealth is.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

$60k is not a lot in San Francisco. I guess your standards are just extremely low compared to mine. I don't consider someone earning a normal fresh out of college income to be wealthy.

Well engineering degrees tend to make more then your average fresh out of college guy, but it's not really what I think that matters... the numbers just show that this is what people make. Since it sounds like you are educated, you probably associate with people that in general just happen to make significantly more then normal, (which is great) but it might be skewing your perception of what wealth is.

I live in the San Jose area where the median family income is something like $70-$80k. $150k would be what you need to earn to afford a house. So yes, my perception of wealth is skewed.

However, you can survive on something like $60k if you inherited a home.

 

[dmcowen674]

Wow 109 replies already.

Rich republicans are very scared :laugh: :thumbsup:

 

[Pacemaker]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Wow 109 replies already.

Rich republicans are very scared :laugh: :thumbsup:

I am not rich or republican, but I don't like 150,000 being considered rich for an individual. That number should be at least 200-250 which is what I hope it will get changed to before it gets out of congress. I consider someone who makes 150,000 to be upper middle class, but not rich. They should be in a different tax bracket than people who make middle class wages, but I don't think they need to be hit with an additional tax.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Wow 109 replies already.

Rich republicans are very scared :laugh: :thumbsup:

Scared enough, likely, to vote Republican and keep the Socialists from taking over this great country. Rangel's plans will go nowhere presently.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Pacemaker
I am not rich or republican, but I don't like 150,000 being considered rich for an individual. That number should be at least 200-250 which is what I hope it will get changed to before it gets out of congress. I consider someone who makes 150,000 to be upper middle class, but not rich. They should be in a different tax bracket than people who make middle class wages, but I don't think they need to be hit with an additional tax.

Note the inherent marriage penalty in this proposal as well. $150K for a single worker, $200K for a couple. Doesn't that seem off?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

$150k in most of California is not very wealthy. It's middle class.

Median household income for California is about $50k a year. So, it's 300% of the median income. If you're making three times what the average person is making, to me that counts as wealthy. I guess your mileage may vary... but under your definition there are almost no wealthy people in the country.

average != median. average income is higher than median income because there is a lower bound, but no upper.

Thank you for pointing out the obvious.

It's really, really, really frightening that people don't know the difference.

I've noticed that most posters don't know the difference and flaunt median figures.

It's nothing more than class warfare this is. "Hey, they're making too much! Let's take!" Look at what the tax cuts did to our economy, high marks all around. Take into account the age of posters and how they think 150K/yr is a lot of money and they'll be like a rap star with that. Real life kind of shows differently. 150K/yr is purely middle class in a medium cost of living city.

But OH NO! We can't have growth, we must stifle that growth with further taxation. It's fricking sick this line of thinking.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

$150k in most of California is not very wealthy. It's middle class.

Median household income for California is about $50k a year. So, it's 300% of the median income. If you're making three times what the average person is making, to me that counts as wealthy. I guess your mileage may vary... but under your definition there are almost no wealthy people in the country.

average != median. average income is higher than median income because there is a lower bound, but no upper.

Thank you for pointing out the obvious.

It's really, really, really frightening that people don't know the difference.

I've noticed that most posters don't know the difference and flaunt median figures.

It's nothing more than class warfare this is. "Hey, they're making too much! Let's take!" Look at what the tax cuts did to our economy, high marks all around. Take into account the age of posters and how they think 150K/yr is a lot of money and they'll be like a rap star with that. Real life kind of shows differently. 150K/yr is purely middle class in a medium cost of living city.

But OH NO! We can't have growth, we must stifle that growth with further taxation. It's fricking sick this line of thinking.

:thumbsup:

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: spidey07
But OH NO! We can't have growth, we must stifle that growth with further taxation. It's fricking sick this line of thinking.

Yes it is; And even more frightening that so many subscribe to the Socialist mantra which a certain Presidential Candidate will bring to the table.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
that is too low, that'll impact the middle class

i thought they just wanted to screw the rich people. it should be $250,000, if they are going to do it

$250,000/yr isn't exactly rich. If you're living in the suburbs of NYC or in Manhattan, $250k/yr doesn't make you stand above the pack.

 

[ProfJohn]

Why do we need this big tax increase?

The 90s taught us that you can balance the budget by slowing the growth of spending.

Look at the difference between Clinton?s 94 and 94 budget proposals and the actually spending towards the end of the decade and you will see that slow growth in spending is how the budget was balanced.

Look at the insane growth of revenue since Bush took office. If him and the Republicans weren?t spending like made we could have balanced budget by now.

History shows that any time we give the Federal government more money they spend that money. The only way to balance the budget is to limit the growth of spending.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

$150k in most of California is not very wealthy. It's middle class.

Median household income for California is about $50k a year. So, it's 300% of the median income. If you're making three times what the average person is making, to me that counts as wealthy. I guess your mileage may vary... but under your definition there are almost no wealthy people in the country.

average != median. average income is higher than median income because there is a lower bound, but no upper.

Thank you for pointing out the obvious.

It's really, really, really frightening that people don't know the difference.

I've noticed that most posters don't know the difference and flaunt median figures.

It's nothing more than class warfare this is. "Hey, they're making too much! Let's take!" Look at what the tax cuts did to our economy, high marks all around. Take into account the age of posters and how they think 150K/yr is a lot of money and they'll be like a rap star with that. Real life kind of shows differently. 150K/yr is purely middle class in a medium cost of living city.

But OH NO! We can't have growth, we must stifle that growth with further taxation. It's fricking sick this line of thinking.

You have your opinion, I'll stick with the census bureau though... thanks.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Deniers of Fact

Originally posted by: spidey07
But OH NO! We can't have growth, we must stifle that growth with further taxation. It's fricking sick this line of thinking.

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: spidey07
But OH NO! We can't have growth, we must stifle that growth with further taxation. It's fricking sick this line of thinking.

:thumbsup:

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: spidey07
But OH NO! We can't have growth, we must stifle that growth with further taxation. It's fricking sick this line of thinking.

Yes it is; And even more frightening that so many subscribe to the Socialist mantra which a certain Presidential Candidate will bring to the table.

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Why do we need this big tax increase?

Look at the insane growth of revenue since Bush took office...

% Increase in Nominal GDP - Presidential Term
GDP (in billions of dollars)

1995 - - - $7,397.7
1996 - - - $7,816.9
1997 - - - $8,304.3
1998 - - - $8,747.0
1999 - - - $9,268.4
2000 - - - $9,817.0

2001 - - - $10,128.0
2002 - - - $10,469.6
2003 - - - $10,960.8
2004 - - - $11,685.9
2005 - - - $12,433.9
2006 - - - $13,194.7

32.72% Increase - Last six years of Bill Clinton
30.28% Increase - First Six Years of George Bush

Individual & Corporate Tax Receipts - Presidential Term
(in millions of dollars)

1995 - - - - $747,248
1996 - - - - $828,241
1997 - - - - $919,759
1998 - - - $1,017,263
1999 - - - $1,064,160
2000 - - - $1,211,751

2001 - - - $1,145,414
2002 - - - $1,006,389
2003 - - - - $925,477
2004- - - - -$998,330
2005 - - - $1,205,504
2006 - - - $1,397,823


Increase in Federal Debt - George W. Bush

2007 - - $556 Billion
2006 - - $574 Billion
2005 - - $554 Billion
2004 - - $596 Billion
2003 - - $555 Billion
2002 - - $421 Billion
2001 - - $133 Billion

Under William J. Clinton in FY 2000 the Federal Debt increased . . . . $18 Billion


More Voodoo Economics from the Deniers of Fact :laugh:

PS - Why don't you define ""Socialist"" for us Pabs? And while you're at it you could tell us what exactly is an ""Islamofascist"". You seem to like calling people names without understanding what those names actually mean - if they have any meaning or appropriateness at all.

Inquiring minds want to know . . . .

 

[Queasy]

I like how the impact that the recession/slow-down that began just at the end of Clinton's term, 9/11, the Enron and Worldcom scandals had on the economy are always conveniently ignored. That is why you see the dip in receipts from 2002 to 2004. You also see a sharp increase in 2005 and 2006 after the economy shrugged off those effects.

Deficit spending is also being reduced at a rate greater than anticipated. It has dropped down to 16%. This is amazing to me given how much the Congress spends like drunken sailors. Overall the deficit is currently only something like 1.2% of the GDP. Which is actually a very good ratio.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Why do we need this big tax increase?

The 90s taught us that you can balance the budget by slowing the growth of spending.

Look at the difference between Clinton?s 94 and 94 budget proposals and the actually spending towards the end of the decade and you will see that slow growth in spending is how the budget was balanced.

Look at the insane growth of revenue since Bush took office. If him and the Republicans weren?t spending like made we could have balanced budget by now.

History shows that any time we give the Federal government more money they spend that money. The only way to balance the budget is to limit the growth of spending.

Because politicians get power by spending our money. If they can't spend the money, they can't buy the votes. There was some rule change in 2000 or 2001 and that was when the Republicans started acting like Dems and spent like crazy. The Dems are just being Dems right now and trying to spend like crazy.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Queasy
Because politicians get power by spending our money. If they can't spend the money, they can't buy the votes.

QFT. :thumbsup:

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Queasy
I like how the impact that the recession/slow-down that began just at the end of Clinton's term, 9/11, the Enron and Worldcom scandals had on the economy are always conveniently ignored. That is why you see the dip in receipts from 2002 to 2004. You also see a sharp increase in 2005 and 2006 after the economy shrugged off those effects.

Deficit spending is also being reduced at a rate greater than anticipated. It has dropped down to 16%. This is amazing to me given how much the Congress spends like drunken sailors. Overall the deficit is currently only something like 1.2% of the GDP. Which is actually a very good ratio.

""...9/11, the Enron and Worldcom scandals That is why you see the dip in receipts from 2002 to 2004.""

That's funny!

GDP increases over 33% and income/corporate tax receipts in 2004 have yet to return to the levels collected in 1998.

You have officially joined the [B]Deniers of Fact Club[/b]

Long live Voodoo Economics, eh, Deniers ???