So you make over $250.000 per year

[dank69]

Lol easy to rail against taxes when you count expenses as taxes. Fight the powa!

 

[Icepick]

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.

Good. That's a step in the right direction. Those are the people who SHOULD be paying more taxes.

 

[Agent11]

After WWI and II we had a tax rate of over 90% for some brackets.

 

[yllus]

Sometimes we forget that business owners aren't a different breed of human who are all intelligent and hard working. Half the time they're as dumb as this guy's friend.

 

[shira]

If it happened to me then I would have to shut down, The taxes need to be lowered not raised

2012 total CA + federal tax on single person with taxable income of $270,000:
$96,705

2013 total CA + federal tax on single person with taxable income of $270,000 if Bush tax cuts expire for incomes greater than $250,000 and new CA tax rates for high-income individuals are in effect: $97,505 ($800 higher).

So you're telling us that if your take-home pay declines from $173,295 to $172,495, you're closing your business???????? You're claiming that you'd rather make NOTHING than make $172,495????

You're a fvcking liar, and should be banned by the mods.

 

[Anubis]

Your are a fucking moron to think that someone making $250k-$1million or more in profits is going to "shut down their business" if they have to pay a few hundred to a couple thousand more in taxes.

That statement defies all logic and rational thought. It also defies all economic thought.

That would be the same as cutting off your nose to spite your face.

people out there are this stupid
see
https://www.chasehometheater.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5408

 

[soulcougher73]

Your numbers look fake and made up sorry. Sounds like fear mongering from a republican in CA.

 

[mizzou]

so people with shitty businesses are using Obama as an excuse to save face and quit, I can't say I'm surprised.

 

[Zargon]

No but he might say something about doing something as it pertains to the black hole that is teacher pensions. $50-$60k is just the icing on the cake. The real money kicks in once they retire and the taxpayer starts filling their mailbox with checks until they die. (aka, the unsustainable burden)



And remember that when you're talking teachers, any time they talk "cuts" it's usually cuts to proposed increases and not real cuts. Real cuts happen in the private sector where fiscal responsibility falls on the shoulders of business and it's owners, not taxpayers.

oh please

go talk to the UAW where people make 60-70K to park cars for a living

 

[mizzou]

people out there are this stupid
see
https://www.chasehometheater.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5408

wow that guy seems like a douche

https://www.chasehometheater.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5338

EDIT: And yes, after researching their business, it was fairly obvious that it was not being profitable or be profitable without some serious oversight and effort. I guess that's Obama's fault too because Romney would be giving out free smallbiznophones to small businesses and their rent would be free. j/k

 

[Attic]

it will be interesting to see if they hold true to that....

I know many on the left would love to start hitting people making 250K/year harder, but then again I also know many on the left personally who make more than that who also do anything and everything to shelter their own money....

All we can do now is wait and see.

Folks will "get by". The folks I know on the left who are very determined about others having their taxes raised follow the same token you've noted, shelter all their money and then claim others need to pay more. I understand the desire to keep more, but the double standard is obnoxious.

Biggest issue with raising taxes to pay for governement is that it's not a linear equation. Laffer curve shows what happens. Other than that the taxes being raised on the wealthy as Obama implores us to do under the farce that it will answer to our debt problem, is pulling the veil over the real problem. You simply can't tax your way out of the countries debt, and Obama is indicating taxes are the most important thing, clearly they are not.

There needs to be some real discussion about the debt with just numbers and no political spin bullshit used to garner support for some sides ego. We have been accelerating and an acclerating pace on our road to an insurmountable debt. What we are getting is not a reversal of debt, or a revesal of the accleration of debt, ... we are getting a promise that the rate of accleration will go down. So while driving into a brickwall at 75 mph today approaching 120mph impact, we are now being told we will hit the wall at 110mph if we raise taxes on the wealthy.

Anyone care to factor the difference in loan payments on 20T of debt if our interest to service our debt goes up by one percent (real possiblity by the time we get to 20T). If we run that difference over 10 years as politicians like to do so with tax "leverage" for their proposals what matters more a tax shift to the wealthy or a sum of money simply to service a portion of the interest on a debt that is increasing?

Quality of life is going to suffer, that's everybodies debt and everyboddy owes more money than they have. Folks should be pissed, you've been indebted to a staggering degre by your elected officials and you're being swindled in regards to what it means.

We know the national debt will incease, likely at an increasing pace if we go by history (stuff we hear today regardling lipservice to solving debt issues is not new) and we know as a result of our growing debt that interest to service that debt will more than likely go up, particularly as that increasing debt will put pressure on our credit worthyness. If we keep debt at 16T we'd be fine, which is the number folks are fixated on, we can service 16T and survive, the issue is that our momentum is frankly unstoppable and we are going to blow right through 20T and accelerate through it to an immediate point of 25T-30T where simply servicing the debt (not paying it down) is going take a larger portion of tax revenues than any other item on the budget.

Cliffs: Honest debt debate is needed, but not going to happen by politicians and taxes are a veil used by the left in order to keep their base happy. The debt will hurt the poor more than the wealthy, just like QE sent tons of money to the .1 percenters and saw real wages deflate for everyone else and will continue to leverage financial power to the .1 percenters. You can also thank the trillion dollar QE campaign for BO's relection.

 

[Pens1566]

This is how the Republicans are able to get away with this bullshit. One guy spews this crap on another guy who respews it again. However, nobody takes a step back to ask whether or not it is pure bullshit. Then all you get is "OMG THE LIBRULS ARE GOING TO DESTROY, AGGHGHHGHGHGHGHGHGHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111one"

This drives me fucking nuts that OP doesn't even understand "profit" from "revenue" and propagates these lies based upon sheer ignorance.

If his "guy" is also this stupid he deserves to go out of business. Fuck him.

Yes. Add in that almost everyone bitching about raising the rates on the upper bracket has NO FUCKING CLUE how marginal rates work.

 

[Pens1566]

2012 total CA + federal tax on single person with taxable income of $270,000:
$96,705

2013 total CA + federal tax on single person with taxable income of $270,000 if Bush tax cuts expire for incomes greater than $250,000 and new CA tax rates for high-income individuals are in effect: $97,505 ($800 higher).

So you're telling us that if your take-home pay declines from $173,295 to $172,495, you're closing your business???????? You're claiming that you'd rather make NOTHING than make $172,495????

You're a fvcking liar, and should be banned by the mods.

Haha. Owned.

 

[mizzou]

I remember back when my wife and I started making over $65,000 a year jointly. THAT fucking sucked. I think our tax income bracket increased 10% or something crazy. And to hear people bitch about this shit....

 

[Incorruptible]

The tax increase is not the answer, They need to cut spending and taxes. Otherwise its not going to work

 

[mchammer187]

Folks will "get by". The folks I know on the left who are very determined about others having their taxes raised follow the same token you've noted, shelter all their money and then claim others need to pay more. I understand the desire to keep more, but the double standard is obnoxious.

Biggest issue with raising taxes to pay for governement is that it's not a linear equation. Laffer curve shows what happens. Other than that the taxes being raised on the wealthy as Obama implores us to do under the farce that it will answer to our debt problem, is pulling the veil over the real problem. You simply can't tax your way out of the countries debt, and Obama is indicating taxes are the most important thing, clearly they are not.

There needs to be some real discussion about the debt with just numbers and no political spin bullshit used to garner support for some sides ego. We have been accelerating and an acclerating pace on our road to an insurmountable debt. What we are getting is not a reversal of debt, or a revesal of the accleration of debt, ... we are getting a promise that the rate of accleration will go down. So while driving into a brickwall at 75 mph today approaching 120mph impact, we are now being told we will hit the wall at 110mph if we raise taxes on the wealthy.

Anyone care to factor the difference in loan payments on 20T of debt if our interest to service our debt goes up by one percent (real possiblity by the time we get to 20T). If we run that difference over 10 years as politicians like to do so with tax "leverage" for their proposals what matters more a tax shift to the wealthy or a sum of money simply to service a portion of the interest on a debt that is increasing?

Quality of life is going to suffer, that's everybodies debt and everyboddy owes more money than they have. Folks should be pissed, you've been indebted to a staggering degre by your elected officials and you're being swindled in regards to what it means.

We know the national debt will incease, likely at an increasing pace if we go by history (stuff we hear today regardling lipservice to solving debt issues is not new) and we know as a result of our growing debt that interest to service that debt will more than likely go up, particularly as that increasing debt will put pressure on our credit worthyness. If we keep debt at 16T we'd be fine, which is the number folks are fixated on, we can service 16T and survive, the issue is that our momentum is frankly unstoppable and we are going to blow right through 20T and accelerate through it to an immediate point of 25T-30T where simply servicing the debt (not paying it down) is going take a larger portion of tax revenues than any other item on the budget.

Cliffs: Honest debt debate is needed, but not going to happen by politicians and taxes are a veil used by the left in order to keep their base happy. The debt will hurt the poor more than the wealthy, just like QE sent tons of money to the .1 percenters and saw real wages deflate for everyone else and will continue to leverage financial power to the .1 percenters. You can also thank the trillion dollar QE campaign for BO's relection.

I feel Romney is not a serious candidate when it comes to servicing the debt either. When you propose 4T increased military spending and taxcuts on top of the Bush Tax cuts to trickle down than is that something people really believe in. Yes spending cuts are absolutely necessary but Tax cuts are not going to grow us out of this whole otherwise the Bush Tax cuts should have paid for the two wars and medicare part D right?

Formula equals steep cuts to medicare, steep cuts to Defense, increased taxes and increased revenue from growth and raising SS retirement age.

The only thing I see from Romney on that list is steep cuts to Medicare and his increased spending on Defense negates all of that.

 

[Phokus]

OP is either a liar, or his friend is an idiot.

You don't hire/fire based on tax rates (you MIGHT change how much you personally work/don't work though), you hire/fire based on demand for your business.

 

[Pens1566]

The tax increase is not the answer, They need to cut spending and taxes. Otherwise its not going to work

Your "points" have been destroyed in this thread with simple 3rd grade math. Time to stop digging the hole deeper.

 

[lupi]

Lol, did CA pass more tax increases. They've already seen. A bunch of business move out, doesn't take much foresight to see that aa point in the not distant future would be reached where such actions become too detrimental to overcome.

 

[child of wonder]

Guy sounds like my cousin. Whines about taxes and government handouts while his wife sits on unemployment for 99 weeks then uses government assistance to go back to school.

This is just another sob story concocted to make people hate Obama but it doesn't hold any water.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

OMG dee guboment is stealing all mah taxes! D:

Dey only let me bring home $25 from my $5000 paycheck. Oh lawdy wat my gonna do?

 

[CLite]

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.

Jumping in on the "unemployed-OP has no concept of how progressive taxes work" bandwagon.

 

[sze5003]

Who cares people complain so much. I pay more in taxes than someone else making more money than me right now. It won't affect those people by that much. Once you make 60k+ is when your tax bracket goes up and you pretty much get used to it after a while. My take home pay should be 2300 every two weeks but with taxes and everything else out its about 800 less. People making over 200k shouldn't complain they probably have no student loans or any other major bills but who cares.

No way someone makes 250k and takes home 75k. Looks like you need to go back to school.

 

[lotus503]

The argument doesn't stand up to logic and/or math

It's rare or impossible for someone making 250k to have a taxable income of 250k.

As stated already business hire based on demand for products or services, not because they have less or more tax expense.

The Margin of the laffer curve where raising taxes hurts revenue is thin.

And we are not within those margins.


I just don't understand how some people can be do blatantly dumb about the math involved here, I also don't get how people think others are dumb enough to get sucked into it.

Raising taxes is the answer as is cutting spending. You do both.

Tax rates are historically low while spending is at an all time high.

The election is over, the majority has spoken and they want to president to follow through on a balanced approach.

Raise rev
Cut expense

 

[shira]

Folks will "get by". The folks I know on the left who are very determined about others having their taxes raised follow the same token you've noted, shelter all their money and then claim others need to pay more. I understand the desire to keep more, but the double standard is obnoxious.

Biggest issue with raising taxes to pay for governement is that it's not a linear equation. Laffer curve shows what happens. Other than that the taxes being raised on the wealthy as Obama implores us to do under the farce that it will answer to our debt problem, is pulling the veil over the real problem. You simply can't tax your way out of the countries debt, and Obama is indicating taxes are the most important thing, clearly they are not.

There needs to be some real discussion about the debt with just numbers and no political spin bullshit used to garner support for some sides ego. We have been accelerating and an acclerating pace on our road to an insurmountable debt. What we are getting is not a reversal of debt, or a revesal of the accleration of debt, ... we are getting a promise that the rate of accleration will go down. So while driving into a brickwall at 75 mph today approaching 120mph impact, we are now being told we will hit the wall at 110mph if we raise taxes on the wealthy.

Anyone care to factor the difference in loan payments on 20T of debt if our interest to service our debt goes up by one percent (real possiblity by the time we get to 20T). If we run that difference over 10 years as politicians like to do so with tax "leverage" for their proposals what matters more a tax shift to the wealthy or a sum of money simply to service a portion of the interest on a debt that is increasing?

Quality of life is going to suffer, that's everybodies debt and everyboddy owes more money than they have. Folks should be pissed, you've been indebted to a staggering degre by your elected officials and you're being swindled in regards to what it means.

We know the national debt will incease, likely at an increasing pace if we go by history (stuff we hear today regardling lipservice to solving debt issues is not new) and we know as a result of our growing debt that interest to service that debt will more than likely go up, particularly as that increasing debt will put pressure on our credit worthyness. If we keep debt at 16T we'd be fine, which is the number folks are fixated on, we can service 16T and survive, the issue is that our momentum is frankly unstoppable and we are going to blow right through 20T and accelerate through it to an immediate point of 25T-30T where simply servicing the debt (not paying it down) is going take a larger portion of tax revenues than any other item on the budget.

Cliffs: Honest debt debate is needed, but not going to happen by politicians and taxes are a veil used by the left in order to keep their base happy. The debt will hurt the poor more than the wealthy, just like QE sent tons of money to the .1 percenters and saw real wages deflate for everyone else and will continue to leverage financial power to the .1 percenters. You can also thank the trillion dollar QE campaign for BO's relection.

The Laffer curve doesn't show jack. Supply-side economics has been totally discredited, except in the minds of those who base their economics on faith rather than actual numbers.

The CBO did an analysis in 2005 of the effect of a 10% cut in taxes. Here's the Wikipedia summary:

In 2005, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a paper called "Analyzing the Economic and Budgetary Effects of a 10 Percent Cut in Income Tax Rates". This paper considered the impact of a stylized reduction of 10% in the then existing marginal rate of federal income tax in the US (for example, if those facing a 25% marginal federal income tax rate had it lowered to 22.5%). Unlike earlier research, the CBO paper estimates the budgetary impact of possible macroeconomic effects of tax policies, that is, it attempts to account for how reductions in individual income tax rates might affect the overall future growth of the economy, and therefore influence future government tax revenues; and ultimately, impact deficits or surpluses. In the paper's most generous estimated growth scenario, only 28% of the projected lost revenue from the lower tax rate would be recouped over a 10-year period after a 10% across-the-board reduction in all individual income tax rates. In other words, deficits would increase by nearly the same amount as the tax cut in the first five years, with limited feedback revenue thereafter. Through increased budget deficits, the tax cuts primarily benefiting the wealthy will be paid for — plus interest — by taxes borne relatively evenly by all taxpayers. The paper points out that these projected shortfalls in revenue would have to be made up by federal borrowing: the paper estimates that the federal government would pay an extra $200 billion in interest over the decade covered by the paper's analysis.

But you go right on telling us what "Laffer shows."