Republicans, even Lyin' Ryan cave on no tax increases for people making >$250k.

[Anarchist420]

Link.

They never ran on cutting govt revenue and that was the problem I had with them from the very beginning. They favored revenue neutral "reform" and now they don't mind raising taxes on people making more than $250k/year.

Anyone surprised?

I'm not surprised because:
1. If they favored revenue neutrality with simply shifting the burden (and they did), then they could favor getting themselves another $80Bn/year to waste.
2. Dr. Paul was the only Republican who ran on reducing govt revenue.
3. They had 4 years to make the Bush Tax Cuts permanent but they chose not to... instead, they chose to legislate high taxes on steel in 2002 and to take away some loopholes in 05-06.

I guess when this $80Bn/year is no longer enough for the GOP to blow then they'll legislate a national consumption tax and/or make the loopholes even fewer.

EDIT: I just realized there was another thread on this. Mods can close this if they desire.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Taxing going up wasn't a question. It was just a matter of where and when. And targeting only $250k+ annoys me to no end. All around or nothing - and people wonder why we complain that the top 10% pays 80% of the taxes.

 

[Jhhnn]

Taxing going up wasn't a question. It was just a matter of where and when. And targeting only $250k+ annoys me to no end. All around or nothing - and people wonder why we complain that the top 10% pays 80% of the taxes.

If that annoys you, then Repub plans should annoy you even more, given that they want to spare the wealthiest, put it all off onto the upper middle class & the petit riche...

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

If that annoys you, then Repub plans should annoy you even more, given that they want to spare the wealthiest, put it all off onto the upper middle class & the petit riche...

As much as I want it all around - the targetting of millionaires is an area you may want to tread slowly on instead of this retarded lower class bitching up a storm to them demanding they fix their problems.


So I'll simply ask this: We do try to tax the upper class, and what is to prevent this from happening? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...aires-left-Britain-to-avoid-50p-tax-rate.html

People didn't become rich by being stupid.

 

[soundforbjt]

and people wonder why we complain that the top 10% pays 80% of the taxes.

Maybe because they own 80% of the wealth, that's why they pay 80% of the taxes.

 

[Genx87]

Maybe because they own 80% of the wealth, that's why they pay 80% of the taxes.

They dont own 80% of the wealth.

 

[Matt1970]

So now it's only $80 Billion. $80 Billion fixes a $1.2 Trillion deficit.

 

[Matt1970]

Maybe because they own 80% of the wealth, that's why they pay 80% of the taxes.

So then they are already paying their fair share?

 

[soundforbjt]

They dont own 80% of the wealth.

You're right, the top 20% own 89% of the wealth.

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2010, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 35.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 53.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 89%, leaving only 11% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.1%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details, drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2012).

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

 

[nehalem256]

You're right, the top 20% own 89% of the wealth.



http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Well when you have 50%+ of people living paycheck to paycheck why is this a surprise?

 

[Paul98]

So you would be just fine with 1% of the population with 99.9% of the wealth as long as they paid 99.9% of the taxes?

 

[soundforbjt]

So you would be just fine with 1% of the population with 99.9% of the wealth as long as they paid 99.9% of the taxes?

I wouldn't, if you're asking me.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Well when you have 50%+ of people living paycheck to paycheck why is this a surprise?

This. I can't recall exactly whom said this - but it was spot on. And yes - it does explain why people are in the position they are, and why they are destined to stay in it.

"Americans live paycheck to paycheck because they like to be consumer-whores and live for the moment instead of saving for the future. Our entire economy works on the premise that Americans don't save money and spend it like drunken sailors. That's why tax cuts work on the middle class, they don't save it, every dime uncle sam gives back goes right out to the department stores"


Yes, you can go without cable TV. Yes, you can go without internet. Yes, you can grow your own food. Yes, you can use less electricity. They can afford using everything at full throttle, it's just paycheck to paycheck. They just don't grasp importance of saving for preparation.

 

[Ausm]

If that annoys you, then Repub plans should annoy you even more, given that they want to spare the wealthiest, put it all off onto the upper middle class & the petit riche...

W0rd!

 

[Ausm]

You're right, the top 20% own 89% of the wealth.



http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

You got to love that Supply Side Economics!

 

[soundforbjt]

This. I can't recall exactly whom said this - but it was spot on. And yes - it does explain why people are in the position they are, and why they are destined to stay in it.

"Americans live paycheck to paycheck because they like to be consumer-whores and live for the moment instead of saving for the future. Our entire economy works on the premise that Americans don't save money and spend it like drunken sailors. That's why tax cuts work on the middle class, they don't save it, every dime uncle sam gives back goes right out to the department stores"


Yes, you can go without cable TV. Yes, you can go without internet. Yes, you can grow your own food. Yes, you can use less electricity. They can afford using everything at full throttle, it's just paycheck to paycheck. They just don't grasp importance of saving for preparation.

You've never had to live paycheck to paycheck? Ever? For some it's harder to get away from than others. Not everyone has the same opportunities. Otherwise there would be no poor, no laborers, who would do the low-skilled jobs if everyone was smart, healthy, lucky, and wealthy?

 

[actuarial]

As much as I want it all around - the targetting of millionaires is an area you may want to tread slowly on instead of this retarded lower class bitching up a storm to them demanding they fix their problems.


So I'll simply ask this: We do try to tax the upper class, and what is to prevent this from happening? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...aires-left-Britain-to-avoid-50p-tax-rate.html

People didn't become rich by being stupid.

Some things to consider:
- A big portion of that drop in millionaire earners is temporary, as posted in the original thread on that article. People shifted taxes to earlier years, creating a 1 year drop in earnings following that push. You need more that just one year's data to indicate anything meaningful long term.
- There were places close by that were easily accessible to move to due to being part of the EU. This doesn't apply to Americans.
- The UK was instituting a top tax rate that was higher than many other countries. For this to apply to America the rate would have to go way up.
- If higher tax rates are going to drive people away in droves, why do so many of the people earning all that money continue to live in New York and California even with their substantially higher taxes compared to other states? Moving to another state would seem a lot easier than moving to another country.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Some things to consider:
- A big portion of that drop in millionaire earners is temporary, as posted in the original thread on that article. People shifted taxes to earlier years, creating a 1 year drop in earnings following that push. You need more that just one year's data to indicate anything meaningful long term.
- There were places close by that were easily accessible to move to due to being part of the EU. This doesn't apply to Americans.
- The UK was instituting a top tax rate that was higher than many other countries. For this to apply to America the rate would have to go way up.
- If higher tax rates are going to drive people away in droves, why do so many of the people earning all that money continue to live in New York and California even with their substantially higher taxes compared to other states? Moving to another state would seem a lot easier than moving to another country.

2/3 Drop isn't meaningful ?


Really? REALLY? We aren't talk about polls that are off by 2-4%. We said... two... thirds.

The point simply being (which has yet to be answered by any liberal standing by this notion of taxing millionaires more) - is what is going to prevent the millionaires from making a mass exodus like this. They got rich smart - they will keep their money by staying smart.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

- If higher tax rates are going to drive people away in droves, why do so many of the people earning all that money continue to live in New York and California even with their substantially higher taxes compared to other states? Moving to another state would seem a lot easier than moving to another country.

Did it ever occur to you that owning an asset in an expensive area (New York) is money that won't go away? If anything, owning property in expensive areas are an investment

You're comparing owning property in an expensive area to taxing more on all of their investments/revenue LULZ

 

[actuarial]

2/3 Drop isn't meaningful ?


Really? REALLY? We aren't talk about polls that are off by 2-4%. We said... two... thirds.

The point simply being (which has yet to be answered by any liberal standing by this notion of taxing millionaires more) - is what is going to prevent the millionaires from making a mass exodus like this. They got rich smart - they will keep their money by staying smart.

You basically ignored my entire post. For one, I said meaningful long term. Yes, a 2/3 drop would be meaningful long term, but you haven't provided data that shows that the 2/3 drop is sustainable. Other evidence has shown it's a one time thing as a result of the ability to shift taxes into a prior year.

As an example: Let's say I make $1.2M per year. There is a new tax coming in in 2010, and I have the ability to recognize some of my income earlier. Maybe I shift $300K to 2009 so a bit more gets taxed at the less punitive rate. That means in 2009 I earn $1.5M, and in 2010 I earn $900K. I haven't moved, but I have dropped off the millionaires list. In 2011 I can't continue to shift so I'm stuck recognizing $1.2M again. That is being cited as a reason for the drop. If the number of millionaire earners continues to stay low past the first year of introduction, you have data for a long term trend.

Second, I gave specific reasons why what happened in the UK is different from here, you just failed to address any of them. I'll recap: lower prospects of mobility, a comparatively lower starting tax rate, and the fact that we don't see evidence of this on a state wide level.

 

[actuarial]

Did it ever occur to you that owning an asset in an expensive area (New York) is money that won't go away? If anything, owning property in expensive areas are an investment

You're comparing owning property in an expensive area to taxing more on all of their investments/revenue LULZ

So those people don't pay New York state income tax?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

You basically ignored my entire post. For one, I said meaningful long term. Yes, a 2/3 drop would be meaningful long term, but you haven't provided data that shows that the 2/3 drop is sustainable. Other evidence has shown it's a one time thing as a result of the ability to shift taxes into a prior year.

As an example: Let's say I make $1.2M per year. There is a new tax coming in in 2010, and I have the ability to recognize some of my income earlier. Maybe I shift $300K to 2009 so a bit more gets taxed at the less punitive rate. That means in 2009 I earn $1.5M, and in 2010 I earn $900K. I haven't moved, but I have dropped off the millionaires list. In 2011 I can't continue to shift so I'm stuck recognizing $1.2M again. That is being cited as a reason for the drop. If the number of millionaire earners continues to stay low past the first year of introduction, you have data for a long term trend.

Second, I gave specific reasons why what happened in the UK is different from here, you just failed to address any of them. I'll recap: lower prospects of mobility, a comparatively lower starting tax rate, and the fact that we don't see evidence of this on a state wide level.

Yes, I read your bullshit reasoning - and it was too hilarious to even consider:

2/3 Drop is going to bounce back - Really? No comment on that level of stupidity.

And how exactly do you "Shift" your pay from year to year? Yes, I'll just take my 10 million and apply it to last year, no problemo.

 

[soulcougher73]

You got to love that Supply Side Economics!

What's not to love? It supplies the already wealthy with even more money and power.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

So those people don't pay New York state income tax?

Your equating property tax to the likes of payroll/investment/medicare/social security taxes? Really?

 

[soulcougher73]

2/3 Drop isn't meaningful ?


Really? REALLY? We aren't talk about polls that are off by 2-4%. We said... two... thirds.

The point simply being (which has yet to be answered by any liberal standing by this notion of taxing millionaires more) - is what is going to prevent the millionaires from making a mass exodus like this. They got rich smart - they will keep their money by staying smart.

So how far up your ass is the hand exactly? Do they only put it in up to the wrist, or do the go elbow deep usually?

Curious minds want to know.