Robert Reich: Eliminate payroll taxes on first $20K of income. "The people's tax cut"

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

SammyJr

Golden Member
Feb 27, 2008
1,708
0
0
So Chinese workers have not benfitted from our import of their goods? India has not benefitted as well?

If we take ourselves out of the global game via tariffs our wealth drain will slow dramatically, however I don't know if that is good or bad for us in the long run.

They have benefited, but not as much as the wealthy in this country. I'm not happy about sacrificing the quality of life of my fellow Americans for the benefit of the Chinese or the wealthy aristocracy. There are a billion people in China. They can create their own Middle Class without sacrificing the future of Americans.
 

SammyJr

Golden Member
Feb 27, 2008
1,708
0
0
loliberals.


The not taxing the first 20K is good, the bad is not cutting spending at the same time.

I'm all for cutting spending. Lets start by cutting our military budget by bringing it in line with the rest of the world. Let's cancel corporate welfare for companies which employ few or no Americans. Let's toughen and enforce illegal immigration laws on employers so the taxpayer doesn't subsidize their cheap labor. Let's make offshoring unprofitable so that American workers don't have to be paid for sitting on the couch while the Chinese make iPods.
 

SammyJr

Golden Member
Feb 27, 2008
1,708
0
0
How is that different than the rank and file Democrat who have a desire to prop their Democrat overlords up in Washington DC while they get the table scraps back at home?

Government and big business are one in the same.

No difference, really.
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,655
687
126
They have benefited, but not as much as the wealthy in this country. I'm not happy about sacrificing the quality of life of my fellow Americans for the benefit of the Chinese or the wealthy aristocracy. There are a billion people in China. They can create their own Middle Class without sacrificing the future of Americans.

I have to agree.
 

ccbadd

Senior member
Jan 19, 2004
456
0
76
Just a reminder that conservatives want to redistribute wealth upwards to the richest Americans via job loss through globalization and tax loopholes for the rich at the expense of everyone else. 16% effective tax rate for the richest 400 Americans, LMAO.

And yet the jackazz's in DC never address these issues do they?? Why don't you guys push for Congress to close the loopholes and work to make our job market more attractive to business? But the lib answer is just to take money from rich and give it to people for doing nothing, destroying self respect in the process and making them lazy beggars.

By the way, they don't address them because they are included in the group that exploits them!
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
I do not know if you can do it but it would be great if you could add a poll to this thread. I am curious where the forum's "conservatives, libertarians, tea partiers, etc" are on the idea of cutting taxes for the middle class or the wealthiest.

Of course they would want benefits of tax cuts to mostly go towards the rich. You just have to read their posts here. These delusional morons probably think they'll someday be 'captains of industry' and when they finally reach that point, they'll have low taxes on their million/billion dollar salaries.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
Updated sig to reflect Spidey actually advocating raising taxes on 80% of Americans.

*shakes head*

You think you've read it all/seen it all, and then *BAM* spidey outdoes himself.
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,655
687
126
By the way, they don't address them because they are included in the group that exploits them!

That's right, which is why I always chuckle at the resident ideologues on both sides of the fence here. Both parties are screwing you over and judging from posts like "All conservatives are evil!!", "Progressives are the answer!!", and "The economy was roaring under Bush!!", the brainwashing has worked on many here.

I don't want to hear "Bu...bu...bu...Bush!" or "Bu...bu...bu...Clinton!" I want these worthless bags of wind in Washington to sit down and solve the goddamn problems and I don't give a flying crap if an R, D, or I is behind your name. I don't care about silly, diversionary shit like gay marriage or abortion. Fix the damn economy!!
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
That's right, which is why I always chuckle at the resident ideologues on both sides of the fence here. Both parties are screwing you over and judging from posts like "All conservatives are evil!!", "Progressives are the answer!!", and "The economy was roaring under Bush!!", the brainwashing has worked on many here.

I don't want to hear "Bu...bu...bu...Bush!" or "Bu...bu...bu...Clinton!" I want these worthless bags of wind in Washington to sit down and solve the goddamn problems and I don't give a flying crap if an R, D, or I is behind your name. I don't care about silly, diversionary shit like gay marriage or abortion. Fix the damn economy!!

Problem is, when Democrats do things like introduce NAFTA (like Clinton did), they're not acting like ideological liberals, they're acting like freaking conservatives. If most democrats acted like Dennis Kucinich instead of your average DLC Democrat, you'd have a much different result.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Try to focus, spidey. I realize it's difficult to read through the haze of Obama Dementia, so I'll try to make it easier: Payroll Taxes. Assessed on Individual Earnings.
Income tax assessed on JOINT Earnings.

What one does not pay is summed up to the other's and creates a extra tax.

Only the SS itself is individual payed.

Example:
One partner makes $50K.
The other partner makes $150K.

Income tax is based on $200K.
The $50K earner is paying over 50&#37; when Fed/SS and State is combined.
Yet without the partner that rate would be a good 10% lower
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
Income tax assessed on JOINT Earnings.
What one does not pay is summed up to the other's and creates a extra tax.
Only the SS itself is individual payed.
Example:
One partner makes $50K.
The other partner makes $150K.
Income tax is based on $200K.
The $50K earner is paying over 50% when Fed/SS and State is combined.
Yet without the partner that rate would be a good 10% lower
I understand income taxes quite well, thank you. I was responding specifically to spidey's contention that raising the upper limit on payroll taxes was going to "cripple dual-income families".
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
64,137
12,456
136
Problem is, when Democrats do things like introduce NAFTA (like Clinton did), they're not acting like ideological liberals, they're acting like freaking conservatives. If most democrats acted like Dennis Kucinich instead of your average DLC Democrat, you'd have a much different result.

Unless you're a Republican, you can't blame NAFTA on Clinton. Yes, he was president when the law was enacted...and (sadly) he signed it into law...but Bush41 was to blame for NAFTA...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement

Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 between the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H.W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

Before the negotiations were finalized, Bill Clinton came into office in the U.S. and Kim Campbell in Canada, and before the agreement became law, Jean Chrétien had taken office in Canada."
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,655
687
126
Unless you're a Republican, you can't blame NAFTA on Clinton. Yes, he was president when the law was enacted...and (sadly) he signed it into law...but Bush41 was to blame for NAFTA...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement

Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 between the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H.W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

Before the negotiations were finalized, Bill Clinton came into office in the U.S. and Kim Campbell in Canada, and before the agreement became law, Jean Chr&#233;tien had taken office in Canada."

Remember the "giant sucking sound" of jobs going to Mexico? Ross Perot was right. Too bad he was a few sandwiches short of a picnic in other areas.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,224
5,800
126
Remember the "giant sucking sound" of jobs going to Mexico? Ross Perot was right. Too bad he was a few sandwiches short of a picnic in other areas.

Actually, he wasn't right at all. The giant sucking sound was China and India. Two places not part of NAFTA at all.
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
hypothetically speaking, is it fair that Jane C Douchebag doesn't pay a dime in income taxes, gets the earned income credit for her 7 kids, uses food stamps, medicare, and a host of other government services, while James B Richerthanyou makes 5 million dollars a year, pays a million dollars in taxes, and the only public service he uses is roads (which is paid for by his gas taxes)?

see, I can make retarded hypotheticals too

and no, I'm not for a regressive tax, but I'm not against rich people being rich either.

Weird, i thought the rich got a system entirely rigged in their favor from paying taxes. Now they dont like the tab that comes with it either.

The FBI, CIA, SEC, BLS, DoE, DMV, the Military, local fire and police, the post office, and even welfare benefit the rich.

How much does it cost to insure mansions on the coast of florida? no one would do that without govt backing.

Flood insurance in the midwest on your mcmansion? govt backing

Earthquake insurance on the west coast? govt...

The same government that now allows direct contributions from corporations...

Oh shit, i forgot how the whole electoral system benefits the rich too.

i digress though....

The rich need to grow the fuck up, because the biggest protection the govt they pay for offers them is the ability to keep their wealth and not get it taken away at gunpoint by the people.
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
Income tax assessed on JOINT Earnings.

What one does not pay is summed up to the other's and creates a extra tax.

Only the SS itself is individual payed.

Example:
One partner makes $50K.
The other partner makes $150K.

Income tax is based on $200K.
The $50K earner is paying over 50% when Fed/SS and State is combined.
Yet without the partner that rate would be a good 10% lower

You don't have to file jointly, right?
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
Obama's definition of the rich is way too low. "Rich" should start at $1 million/year in income. $200k is good money, but it isn't rich.

Exactly. $200,000-$250,000 a year is FAR from "rich" in some places, and just a decent living in others.
 

SammyJr

Golden Member
Feb 27, 2008
1,708
0
0
That's a load of shit, "rich" is definitely under $1 million a year in income.

In fact, if you make 200K or above, you're in about the top 2.5% of income earners, that isn't "rich"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

People making $200k/year are range between average and very comfortable, depending on the part of the country. Unlike the rich, they're not buying houses outright nor are they giving their heirs massive inheritences. They still have to work for a living. They have to make financial choices. These are doctors, small biz owners, lawyers, and similar high stress positions. They live in your neighborhood. They're still Middle Class, albeit upper Middle Class.

People making $1m/year or more are in a different ball park all together. They're the executive class and live in the gated communities. They live off their stock options. They don't face the same kind of financial limitations as a most people. If they were fired, they'd get a nice golden parachute and even if not, they have millions in the bank and wealthy friends to land them another position. This is the aristocracy.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
People making $200k/year are range between average and very comfortable, depending on the part of the country. Unlike the rich, they're not buying houses outright nor are they giving their heirs massive inheritences. They still have to work for a living. They have to make financial choices. These are doctors, small biz owners, lawyers, and similar high stress positions. They live in your neighborhood. They're still Middle Class, albeit upper Middle Class.

People making $1m/year or more are in a different ball park all together. They're the executive class and live in the gated communities. They live off their stock options. They don't face the same kind of financial limitations as a most people. If they were fired, they'd get a nice golden parachute and even if not, they have millions in the bank and wealthy friends to land them another position. This is the aristocracy.

To say people making 200k/year can ever be 'average' (even when you adjust for high COL areas) is a bit ridiculous.

Also, very few lawyers/small business owners make 200K+, you're talking about the top in those professions.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
If you have to pay more tax its a tax increase unless you are stupid or something.

For Democrats;

A. Today I pay tax.
B. Tomorrow I pay more tax.
C. Hay I am paying more taxes!
D. That is a tax increase.

Well if you are married and have kids it is hard to pay any tax at all on the first $20,000.00 with all the deductions. So this is just plain stupid for low income people. It makes poor people poorer and anyone making over $20,000.00 richer. How does this help the poor?

So does this mean if you make $80,000.00 in income you only have to report $60,000.00, then you get your standard deductions on top of that or what?

Note you have different tax rates for single, Single Parent, and Married.
 
Last edited:

SammyJr

Golden Member
Feb 27, 2008
1,708
0
0
To say people making 200k/year can ever be 'average' (even when you adjust for high COL areas) is a bit ridiculous.

Also, very few lawyers/small business owners make 200K+, you're talking about the top in those professions.

For families living in a major city, 100k is scraping whereas 200k gives them an average standard of living. By average, I mean that their disposable income, debt levels, etc. are comparable to an average family in another part of the country. In those same cities and suburbs, lawyers, doctors, and small biz owners make that much.

You can't pretend that the entire country is the same. There are massive COL differences.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
For families living in a major city, 100k is scraping whereas 200k gives them an average standard of living. By average, I mean that their disposable income, debt levels, etc. are comparable to an average family in another part of the country. In those same cities and suburbs, lawyers, doctors, and small biz owners make that much.

You can't pretend that the entire country is the same. There are massive COL differences.

I live on the gold coast of Connecticut, one of the most expensive, if not THE expensive part of the country and 200K will still go far. Hearing about sacrifices of the 200K earner is amusing, in a twisted way.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
If you have to pay more tax its a tax increase unless you are stupid or something.

For Democrats;

A. Today I pay tax.
B. Tomorrow I pay more tax.
C. Hay I am paying more taxes!
D. That is a tax increase.

Well if you are married and have kids it is hard to pay any tax at all on the first $20,000.00 with all the deductions. So this is just plain stupid for low income people. It makes poor people poorer and anyone making over $20,000.00 richer. How does this help the poor?

So does this mean if you make $80,000.00 in income you only have to report $60,000.00, then you get your standard deductions on top of that or what?

Note you have different tax rates for single, Single Parent, and Married.

Reich is talking about payroll taxes, not income taxes, don't the poor still have to pay payroll taxes?

edit:

Federal payroll taxes are imposed on nearly every American with income from employment (there are exceptions for certain students, certain religious objectors, and certain state/local government employees who participate in a state/local pension). Federal self-employment taxes are imposed on nearly every American with net income from self-employment above $400 (again with exceptions for certain religious objectors). So almost all Americans with some earned income do pay some federal taxes. However, the US also allows refundable tax credits to certain individuals, which can lower their income taxes below zero (giving them a "refund" for income taxes they never paid). When these refundable tax credits equal or exceed other federal taxes, the individual is said to pay "no net federal taxes".

As of 2006, according to New York Times columnist David Lionhardt, approximately 10&#37; of Americans paid no net federal taxes [6]. Mr. Lionhardt did not have figures for 2010, and there were several refundable tax credits which were created or expanded between 2006 and 2010.

10% of americans? That's far lower than what some have been saying in here.
 
Last edited:

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,197
4
76
If you have to pay more tax its a tax increase unless you are stupid or something.

For Democrats;

A. Today I pay tax.
B. Tomorrow I pay more tax.
C. Hay I am paying more taxes!
D. That is a tax increase.

Well if you are married and have kids it is hard to pay any tax at all on the first $20,000.00 with all the deductions. So this is just plain stupid for low income people. It makes poor people poorer and anyone making over $20,000.00 richer. How does this help the poor?

So does this mean if you make $80,000.00 in income you only have to report $60,000.00, then you get your standard deductions on top of that or what?

Note you have different tax rates for single, Single Parent, and Married.

Why would go from claiming $80k to $60k? Why wouldn't it be what we already have? That is, marginal tax rates. Just because someone reaches the 35% tax bracket or whatever bracket doesn't mean that that's what they pay on their whole income (excluding deductions)