White House says it will not support any extension of Bush tax cuts for the wealthies

[Ninjahedge]

People will have more money in their pockets with less taxes withheld from their poverty level pay checks.

I always wondered how the government could hold onto my cash for ~6 months no problem, but if I did not file/pay I could be in trouble for a weeks delinquency.

 

[Ninjahedge]

You want to punish the family that makes a million.
They pay more taxes than the 50 @20K

That makes no real sense.

Yes, they pay more taxes because they do not need their money to LIVE.

Punish them? That is a riot. They probably would not be able to earn what they did without the education, infrastructure, and the 50 pleebs they hired at $20K/yr!

I know what you are trying to say, but you set yourself up for major contrition there. Beef up your statement and stop throwing free (a)baloney to the otters.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Their poverty level paychecks are not having Federal Income Taxes withheld as it is unless they choose to.

Third post... sorry.

EK, the problem is, nobody is in a rush to tell them this.

AAMOF, some are even taxed and do not get their money back because they do not THINK they are allowed to.

Do you think most of these people are earning poverty wages because of their outstanding intelligence, awareness and aplomb?

 

[werepossum]

That makes no real sense.

Yes, they pay more taxes because they do not need their money to LIVE.

Punish them? That is a riot. They probably would not be able to earn what they did without the education, infrastructure, and the 50 pleebs they hired at $20K/yr!

I know what you are trying to say, but you set yourself up for major contrition there. Beef up your statement and stop throwing free (a)baloney to the otters.

If you accept that government has a moral right to whatever money you don't need to live, then you accept that government owns you. That is what one does with slaves; one allows them to keep the money they need to live (or one provides them with the things they need to live from the money they earn) and then one takes the "excess" earnings and keeps all or part as one wishes.

 

[EagleKeeper]

That makes no real sense.

Yes, they pay more taxes because they do not need their money to LIVE.

Punish them? That is a riot. They probably would not be able to earn what they did without the education, infrastructure, and the 50 pleebs they hired at $20K/yr!

I know what you are trying to say, but you set yourself up for major contrition there. Beef up your statement and stop throwing free (a)baloney to the otters.

Who makes the determination on what they need to live on? Who has the authority.

Money that their family or themselves earned previously is what allowed them to get to their level. they made the effort to improve themselves.

The 20K person is willing to stay where they are unless you are going to say that genetics prevents them from moving up. It may take a few steps of generations to get moving; but it can be done.

Few families go from rags to riches overnight or in one generation. Each generation puts effort into improving what they have for the coming generation.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

 

[Ninjahedge]

Who makes the determination on what they need to live on? Who has the authority.

Seeing how my in-laws are some of them and survived only by help of the programs because pay for immigrant labor (even legal) sucks I would say I would be a pretty good judge of that.

I would also call for my own family where my father would be laid off for months during the construction slowdown in the late 70's where my mother would go w/o food so we could eat.

But what would I know?

Money that their family or themselves earned previously is what allowed them to get to their level. they made the effort to improve themselves.

This does nothing for your point.

The 20K person is willing to stay where they are unless you are going to say that genetics prevents them from moving up. It may take a few steps of generations to get moving; but it can be done.

No, it is VERY hard to do it. It takes a few generations sometimes. The thing is, having their kids work their way up and out still does not change the reason why we SHOULD NOT BE TAXING THEM.

Red herring.

Few families go from rags to riches overnight or in one generation. Each generation puts effort into improving what they have for the coming generation.

My FIL earned ~26K/yr after working as a janitor for the NYT for 20+ years. My wife, during the peak of the pre-crash is an IT professional that earned $100K+

That ain't riches, but it is a testament to hard work and education.

But does that mean we should still tax her father?

I really fail to see the connection.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Charles, stop it with all those NUMBERS and FACTS and things.

We are having a "discussion" here!

 

[Balt]

It's funny how every time there's a discussion about raising taxes on $250,000+ earners, it's called "class warfare". It looks like the class war is already over, and the middle class lost.

For the record, I don't consider people earning ~$250,000 to be all that wealthy. They are definitely "well off", but I wouldn't call them excessively rich.

I do have a problem with corporate CEOs who get paid millions to run their companies into the ground, though. Any idiot could do that, it doesn't take a Harvard MBA.

 

[Ninjahedge]

It takes a Harvard MBA to do it with style....

 

[Charles Kozierok]

More proof that Obama is a socialist.

 

[fskimospy]

It's funny how every time there's a discussion about raising taxes on $250,000+ earners, it's called "class warfare". It looks like the class war is already over, and the middle class lost.

For the record, I don't consider people earning ~$250,000 to be all that wealthy. They are definitely "well off", but I wouldn't call them excessively rich.

I do have a problem with corporate CEOs who get paid millions to run their companies into the ground, though. Any idiot could do that, it doesn't take a Harvard MBA.

I've always loved how attempts to raise taxes on the rich is class warfare, but attempts to lower taxes on the rich is somehow not class warfare.

You will see people hold both positions and not notice even a shred of incongruity.

 

[chucky2]

How would allowing people to keep more of their own money be class warfar? Unless you define Government as the master class and it being warfare against Government.

What you said doesn't even make sense.

 

[fskimospy]

How would allowing people to keep more of their own money be class warfar? Unless you define Government as the master class and it being warfare against Government.

What you said doesn't even make sense.

Of course it makes sense. Very convenient that when you ask rich people to pay more of their income in taxes it's class warfare. When you ask the rich to pay less of their income in taxes it's just keeping your money. And if you try to raise the taxes back up to the same level they were in the past? Whoops! Since you lowered them before it's class warfare again!

All this of course goes without mentioning that the Republicans explicitly want to raise income taxes on the poor. THAT'S not class warfare though, that's everyone 'paying their fair share'.

Class warfare = doing anything that gives rich people less money.

 

[TheBlackRabbit]

Half of average voters probably don't even understand the taxes are only taken on income above the threshold. An extra few percentage points on income above $250,000 is really going to hurt consumption in the economy...rrriiiigggggggghhhhhttttt

 

[Fern]

I've always loved how attempts to raise taxes on the rich is class warfare, but attempts to lower taxes on the rich is somehow not class warfare.

You will see people hold both positions and not notice even a shred of incongruity.

This says a whole more about how you think than you probably realize.

Allowing people to keep more of their own money is somehow 'warfare'? (But it's not 'their' money is it? Letting them keep it is just stealing from the poor, right?)

Personal income tax started out as class warfare. It hasn't really changed much.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

This says a whole more about how you think than you probably realize.

Allowing people to keep more of their own money is somehow 'warfare'? (But it's not 'their' money is it? Letting them keep it is just stealing from the poor, right?)

Personal income tax started out as class warfare. It hasn't really changed much.

Fern

It only says that I'm using basic logic. I didn't say that allowing people to keep more of their own money was somehow warfare. Tax transactions can either go up or down and conservatives label every increase as class warfare, but every decrease as something else. This happens even if one were attempt to increase tax rates back to an old (lowered) level. It's a pretty obvious double standard.

I understand that for political and ideological purposes you are going to want to pretend that the two sides of the same coin are somehow totally different, but that says a lot more about you than you probably realize.

 

[werepossum]

Of course it makes sense. Very convenient that when you ask rich people to pay more of their income in taxes it's class warfare. When you ask the rich to pay less of their income in taxes it's just keeping your money. And if you try to raise the taxes back up to the same level they were in the past? Whoops! Since you lowered them before it's class warfare again!

All this of course goes without mentioning that the Republicans explicitly want to raise income taxes on the poor. THAT'S not class warfare though, that's everyone 'paying their fair share'.

Class warfare = doing anything that gives rich people less money.

Class warfare = separating people into classes and then treating them differently, usually for the benefit of one class at the expense of another class. We do it with gay rights (deny gays the right to marry to please us straights) and we do it with income.

It's simple to avoid this class welfare - let's raise taxes on EVERYONE. Let's all go back to the Clinton era tax rates. Only - let's also go back to the Clinton era spending levels. Let's be fair to EVERYONE - including the government class.

Half of average voters probably don't even understand the taxes are only taken on income above the threshold. An extra few percentage points on income above $250,000 is really going to hurt consumption in the economy...rrriiiigggggggghhhhhttttt

Good to know that hurting consumption in the economy is now the metric to be followed. Are we now allowed to rape a woman as long as we don't hinder her shopping? It's not like a few percentage points of her overall sex life is any burden on her. How about savings? I know a widow with some savings she isn't spending - wouldn't it be better if I took that money and spent it?

Thou shalt not steal - not Thou shalt not steal if it will hurt consumption in the economy. If I have government take some of my boss' earnings and give it to me because it won't hurt consumption in the economy, how is that different morally than if I hire my neighbor to take some of my boss' earnings and give it to me because it won't hurt consumption in the economy?

 

[Jhhnn]

If you accept that government has a moral right to whatever money you don't need to live, then you accept that government owns you. That is what one does with slaves; one allows them to keep the money they need to live (or one provides them with the things they need to live from the money they earn) and then one takes the "excess" earnings and keeps all or part as one wishes.

If you construct a strawman, people will notice that it's made of straw. Nobody suggested that such a moral right exists, or that taxes on anybody should be that high.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Where should the line be drawn?

And why?

 

[Jhhnn]

Class warfare = separating people into classes and then treating them differently, usually for the benefit of one class at the expense of another class. We do it with gay rights (deny gays the right to marry to please us straights) and we do it with income.

Progressive taxes don't treat anybody differently. Anybody whose income falls within a give range pays the same taxes. Me? I'd love to pay big taxes on big money, as would any sensible person. I'd recognize that govt created the atmosphere in which I prosper, and because I have more to protect that the govt does more for me in protecting it than for people who have little.

It's simple to avoid this class welfare - let's raise taxes on EVERYONE. Let's all go back to the Clinton era tax rates. Only - let's also go back to the Clinton era spending levels. Let's be fair to EVERYONE - including the government class.

I'd say pre-Reagan tax levels, except that fails to account for the massive shift of income share from the bottom 60% to the top 1%, particularly the top .01%. It'd be unfair to raise taxes on the segment of the population who've lost income share.

Good to know that hurting consumption in the economy is now the metric to be followed. Are we now allowed to rape a woman as long as we don't hinder her shopping? It's not like a few percentage points of her overall sex life is any burden on her. How about savings? I know a widow with some savings she isn't spending - wouldn't it be better if I took that money and spent it?

Desperate? Can't form a coherent argument so you're reduced to pointless raving?

Thou shalt not steal - not Thou shalt not steal if it will hurt consumption in the economy. If I have government take some of my boss' earnings and give it to me because it won't hurt consumption in the economy, how is that different morally than if I hire my neighbor to take some of my boss' earnings and give it to me because it won't hurt consumption in the economy?

Taxes are theft? Really?

A funny thing happened on the way to the 21st century- it's called democracy. People who live in them and believe in them recognize that govt creates opportunities, creates an environment where they can exist, and that the rewards of such are not necessarily distributed in ways that promote democracy or a middle class at all, or ways that reflect much more than market position & luck.

The Royals of 250 years ago shared your philosophy, of course, as did early capitalists, but they've been out-voted, so get over it, and get over yourself, too.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

I dont werepossum loves the cost of civilization Jhhnn.

 

[chucky2]

Of course it makes sense.

No, saying it makes sense doesn't make it make sense. It just makes it Progressive.

Very convenient that when you ask rich people to pay more of their income in taxes it's class warfare. When you ask the rich to pay less of their income in taxes it's just keeping your money.

Of course it's convenient, because it's the truth. When Government takes someones money, any amount of it, they're taking what isn't theirs to pay for themselves. We allow it because we need (some) Government. When you hit $3 Trillion budgets that aren't funded, will never be funded, and don't care to be funded, there is simply no reason to raise them. Why? So they'll be underfunded less, yet still massively underfunded? And even if the budget were to be balanced, balanced at what stratopheric level?

And if you try to raise the taxes back up to the same level they were in the past? Whoops! Since you lowered them before it's class warfare again!

Finally you're getting it. See above. When the Gov can live within its means, then it can ask for mo money. When it can't, giving it more isn't the answer. You don't give a crack addict more money to buy more crack. You sit him/her in the treatment timeout until they can control themselves. It should be noted: That almost never happens until the crack addict hits zero. For Gov, that's finally crashing so hard that reform must happen. Witness Greece as a perfect example. Even totally F'd, they still are resisting doing what is necessary (largely because, like the US is becoming, they've allowed themselves to get so bad for so long, when it finally comes crashing down, the remedy is one hard pill to swallow).

All this of course goes without mentioning that the Republicans explicitly want to raise income taxes on the poor. THAT'S not class warfare though, that's everyone 'paying their fair share'.

Class warfare = doing anything that gives rich people less money.

Yes, they're doing it wrong. Just raise taxes on nobody. Deficits don't matter, deficit spending doesn't matter, so no need to raise taxes. That is what Libs have been saying for a while now right? That debt/GDP doesn't matter? We can print? If we can do all those things, no need to take attention away from reckless spending and budgets that are never balanced by all this tax talk.

Heck, make taxes 10% across the board. It'll spur the economy right? The increased deficit? They haven't cared in the past, so who should care now?

Very odd logic you have, very odd....

Chuck

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Er chucky, that was Cheney who said deficits dont matter.

And the way to get rid of weeds isnt to use a flamethrower.

 

[fskimospy]

No, saying it makes sense doesn't make it make sense. It just makes it Progressive.



Of course it's convenient, because it's the truth. When Government takes someones money, any amount of it, they're taking what isn't theirs to pay for themselves. We allow it because we need (some) Government. When you hit $3 Trillion budgets that aren't funded, will never be funded, and don't care to be funded, there is simply no reason to raise them. Why? So they'll be underfunded less, yet still massively underfunded? And even if the budget were to be balanced, balanced at what stratopheric level?



Finally you're getting it. See above. When the Gov can live within its means, then it can ask for mo money. When it can't, giving it more isn't the answer. You don't give a crack addict more money to buy more crack. You sit him/her in the treatment timeout until they can control themselves. It should be noted: That almost never happens until the crack addict hits zero. For Gov, that's finally crashing so hard that reform must happen. Witness Greece as a perfect example. Even totally F'd, they still are resisting doing what is necessary (largely because, like the US is becoming, they've allowed themselves to get so bad for so long, when it finally comes crashing down, the remedy is one hard pill to swallow).



Yes, they're doing it wrong. Just raise taxes on nobody. Deficits don't matter, deficit spending doesn't matter, so no need to raise taxes. That is what Libs have been saying for a while now right? That debt/GDP doesn't matter? We can print? If we can do all those things, no need to take attention away from reckless spending and budgets that are never balanced by all this tax talk.

Heck, make taxes 10% across the board. It'll spur the economy right? The increased deficit? They haven't cared in the past, so who should care now?

Very odd logic you have, very odd....

Chuck

First of all, government spending isn't constrained by revenue. Period.

As for the whole rest of your post, you apparently decided you wanted to have some fight as opposed to addressing the issues I raised. I'm basically certain this is because you didn't have a good answer but didn't want to admit it.

Boring.