Well are you?
Vote below and discuss.
Well are you?
Vote below and discuss.
|by Anonymous||reply 183||01/10/2015|
It's $200K. $250K is for married couples.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||11/11/2012|
Frankly, if you are earning $250k per year and begrudge a few extra dollars to help fellow citizens, then you are a worthless excuse for a human being...
|by Anonymous||reply 2||11/11/2012|
It's a progressive tax, OP. Taxes are supposed to treat people in different circumstances 'appropriately' differently. For someone earning 250k, a 'slight' increase might mean one big-screen TV less. It's nothing that will significantly put a dent in any wealthy person's pocketbook.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||11/11/2012|
Some of us understand the benefits of working towards the common good.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||11/11/2012|
If I made $250K, I'd kiss the IRS agent and say thanks for taking the money.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||11/11/2012|
Paying taxes is patriotic.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||11/11/2012|
Yep. I make well over that amount and I voted for Obama and voted for tax increases in CA.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||11/11/2012|
Yes. What about you op?
|by Anonymous||reply 8||11/11/2012|
Yes, what ABOUT you, OP?
|by Anonymous||reply 9||11/11/2012|
I'm not saying it is bad. I just want a discussion about the higher taxes/$250,000 that might have Washington in gridlock again.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||11/11/2012|
My partner and I make over 250K and are fine paying our fair share. We're well aware that very few people have enjoyed all the privileges that we have.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||11/11/2012|
Yes, I am prepared and have no problem doing so. I make around 275k, and like r3 stated, my taxes will not increase significantly. It is the people who make more than 500k a year that will really get hit.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||11/11/2012|
baloney. the bush tax cuts will and need to expire. the "gridlock" in washington, is, at this point, stemming 100% from the house republicans, so they will have to cave.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||11/11/2012|
Sorry R10 = OP
|by Anonymous||reply 14||11/11/2012|
reply 1 I have not heard that single people making under 250,000 will pay more? Where did you here that and I want proof. Link please
|by Anonymous||reply 15||11/11/2012|
Well we're for it. We're Democrats.
You would be asking the Republicans why they're against it.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||11/11/2012|
15 here I meant, single people making over 200,000. Heard its' anyone over 250,000.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||11/11/2012|
The important thing is that "progressive" taxes, not in some do-good sense, but refer to graduated tax brackets. Everyone pays the same tax % up to a certain amount/s, beyond which income ABOVE that amount is taxed at the higher rate. In this case, it's the income ABOVE $200K or $250K that's targeted for the higher rate; the income up to that amount is taxed as in the past.
Many people would have you believe that people with high incomes are penalized for every dollar they make; in fact it's only at higher brackets of income that higher tax rates -- for the income ABOVE a certain point-- come into play.
[quote]Imagine that there are three tax brackets: 10%, 20%, and 30%. The 10% rate applies to income from $1 to $10,000; the 20% rate applies to income from $10,001 to $20,000; and the 30% rate applies to all income above $20,000.
[quote]Under this system, someone earning $10,000 would be taxed at a rate of 10%, paying a total of $1,000. Someone earning $5,000 would pay $500, and so on.
[quote]Meanwhile, someone earning $35,000 would face a more complicated calculation. The rate on the first $10,000 would be 10%; the rate from $10,001 to $20,000 would be 20%; and the rate above that would be 30%. Thus, he would pay $1,000 for the first $10,000 of income; $2,000 for the second $10,000 of income; and $4,500 for the last $15,000 of income; in total, he would pay $7,500, or about 21.4%.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||11/11/2012|
I have no children and lost my parents when in my twenties. So I have been paying taxes for many years, contributing toward education and social programs that benefit families and the elderly with no personal benefit. I realize my contributions are part of living in a society and I don't resent it.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||11/11/2012|
OK just on the news it is being discussed again and again, so I thought it would be interesting to discuss here.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||11/11/2012|
What did u want to discuss OP?
|by Anonymous||reply 21||11/11/2012|
I know what a progressive tax system is, R18, but wondered if people who think they're going to be significantly impacted know what one is. Marginal tax rates only apply to the highest amounts earned over a certain point. Rich people who support Rmoney and the Repubs act as if half their income is going to be taken away. For the most part, I'd guess the average tax payer in the higher brackets won't even know how much extra was taken, or how much over the previous year.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||11/11/2012|
To discuss all the discussion about this that is going on TV R21
|by Anonymous||reply 23||11/11/2012|
It is NOT 'spreading the wealth' so fucking stop calling it that. That is a Rethug term.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||11/11/2012|
I'm so shocked that so many of you make so much money.
I find it hard to believe to read this and then to be told the economy is bad.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||11/11/2012|
R24 didn't Obama say that?
That is why I used the term, because Obama did say that
|by Anonymous||reply 26||11/11/2012|
R25 which is why another reason why I started this thread. I was curious to see if any Dlers did make over $250,000.00
I don't even make that much, but was curious if any Dlers did.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||11/11/2012|
How about raising the cap on Social Security contributions to the first million dollars?
That's another justifiable tax on the wealthy.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||11/11/2012|
What the hell do you all do to earn over $200K or $250K?
|by Anonymous||reply 29||11/11/2012|
Freeper thinks he's fooling somebody.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||11/11/2012|
no he did not, not in this context, and you have revealed yourself to be trolling if you think he's all about "spreading the wealth."
|by Anonymous||reply 31||11/11/2012|
R30 honestly because of all the talk on the cable shows, I was curious to see a) if any Dlers make over $250,000 a year and b) what they thought of all the discussion going on about the tax.
I'm no freeper, just started this to discuss it. That is all.
If I was a freeper I would be disagreeing with all you, which I haven't.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||11/11/2012|
Fine believe what you want R31
|by Anonymous||reply 33||11/11/2012|
No one on DL makes more than $250K. That's a fantasy.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||11/11/2012|
No you are a freeper. And a coward. But I realize that's redundant.
|by Anonymous||reply 35||11/11/2012|
R35 see R33
I think u are being redundant.
|by Anonymous||reply 36||11/11/2012|
I don't make anywhere near that amount. However I did vote yes on raising California taxes even though I don't have kids and am not in college.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||11/11/2012|
Who gives a fuck if people who make over $250,000 are PREPARED to pay taxes. Elections have consequences and those in the 1% (who benefit the MOST) need to pay their fair share. Why is it so hard for some people to understand the logic of lowering the national deficit by generating tax revenue while cutting wasteful spending?
|by Anonymous||reply 38||11/11/2012|
Freepers can't grasp logic.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||11/11/2012|
$200-250k/year is barely middle-class in NYC and other urban areas. Just saying.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||11/11/2012|
Taxes are rent to the country. It provides so much for you and the enviroment you are living. Only jerks try to find loopholes to not pay their taxes and still take advantage of what the country is offering.
|by Anonymous||reply 41||11/11/2012|
Taxes are simply dues for living in a civilized society. And while we're discussing, why not adjust the law so capital gains are taxed at a higher rate than earnings from actual labor?
|by Anonymous||reply 42||11/11/2012|
R34, I suspect there are more than a few DLers that make more than 250k. Like I said, I do. I work in entertainment.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||11/11/2012|
Agree with R40. $250k may be wealthy in Kansas, but in NYC or LA, it's not even upper middle class (especially if it's a family making that amount).
|by Anonymous||reply 44||11/11/2012|
R43 are you an entertainment lawyer? Or are you a film executive?
|by Anonymous||reply 45||11/11/2012|
I'm not exactly sure how this will affect me tax-wise but I'm meeting with my CPA to discuss it. I earn over $250k a year from a job where I get a W-2 and from a small business I run and investment income. This is new for me because I've just gotten into this bracket in the last few years. I guess it's different kinds if income so it might be taxed at different rates. All I know is that I'll owe more and my CPA bill is going to be about $2-3k for him to figure it out which is well worth it. I doubt I'll feel the hit and I'm glad I can contribute to society.
|by Anonymous||reply 46||11/11/2012|
250K really isn't such a staggering amount, especially if you live in a major city. Salaries are higher, but so is the cost of living.
|by Anonymous||reply 47||11/11/2012|
75% OF THE BUSH TAX CUTS GO TO PEOPLE WHO MAKE LESS THAN 250K.
The much more interesting question is will the people making less than 250K be willing to pay "their share".
It's always easy to say the other guy should be paying more isn't it. Taxes are going up for everyone.
|by Anonymous||reply 48||11/11/2012|
Income from investments should be taxed at the same rate as income from labor. That's the big gift that rich people have right now: those who don't have to work because they live off investments (like Mitt) pay much lower rates.
There's no evidence at all that taxing them at lower rates creates jobs.
There's a good argument in favor of taxing investment income at *higher* rates than labor income.
|by Anonymous||reply 49||11/11/2012|
r48, I am definitely in the under $50K/ year range and I would not mind Obama simply rescinding the Bush tax cuts: all of them.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||11/11/2012|
The income cap will be raised to $500k or $1 million during negotiations.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||11/11/2012|
And #51 that's what's so dumb because at $1 million it raises almost no revenue.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||11/11/2012|
I earn $40,000 in a good year, so I'm just bumping this.
|by Anonymous||reply 53||11/11/2012|
I find the consistent number of high earners on DL to be astonishing as well. Based on 2010 census data, 3.9% of American households earn more than $200,000. The median household income is a little over $50,000.
|by Anonymous||reply 54||11/11/2012|
It's very silly to think that anyone on DL makes over 200K. After all, they voted for Obama. We have proven that all Obama supporters are takers, social and financial leeches, who contribute nothing to society, but who have their hands out, looking for government handouts.
|by Anonymous||reply 55||11/11/2012|
r52, raising the income cap on SS contributions would be a HUGE revenue boost to Social Security. Please document to the contrary.
The possibility of further taxing millionaires on income that will never be recovered by them while on SS is perfect and is income redistribution that must happen.
I would also like to see a straight capital tax of 1%.
Fuck capital gains, a straight capital tax.
It would force those Job Creators to actually create jobs.
|by Anonymous||reply 56||11/11/2012|
Basic facts lots of people don't seem to realize:
Bush tax cut cost = $4 trillion over 10 years
Amount going to those making over 250K = 850 billion.
|by Anonymous||reply 57||11/11/2012|
[quote] I find the consistent number of high earners on DL to be astonishing as well.
Well, we're talking about a group of people who didn't even have the opportunity to do the single most economically damaging thing a person can do (have children at a young age before you complete your education / establish a career.)
DI-NK tends to be an economic win.
|by Anonymous||reply 58||11/11/2012|
Anyone who claims to be making $250000+/year and happy to pay more taxes is lying. Who could possibly be happy to lose money? I am miserable about it, but resigned that it is necessary. I am far more worried about the threats to the deduction for local taxes. If that happens, I'm joining the thousands, maybe millions, who will leave their high tax city and state. The large cities will become Detroit overnight.
|by Anonymous||reply 59||11/11/2012|
Yes, I'll pay more, but what no one is discussing is that unless there is meaningful reform of the tax code, that $250,000 is a fake number. The real number will be more like $400,000.
Here's why: The rich (except for the super rich like Romney) have stopped worrying about taxes because they've been so low. They've stopped playing the games--the tax shelters, the paper losses, the deferred compensation, the buying of insurance policies to avoid estate taxes. Those loopholes are still on the books, and as soon as rates go up, the CPA's will have a field day restructuring everyone's income and taking advantage of the 1001 loopholes already on the books and waiting.
If the limit is $250,000 you're going to see one Hell of a lot of people making $249,000 and suddenly diving company cars, living in corporate-owned apartments, and getting long terms loans at 1% interest from their companies again.
That's why it's all meaningless unless it comes with real reform of the tax code. If you don't build a good trap, the rich will keep slipping right out of it.
|by Anonymous||reply 60||11/11/2012|
Can't be repeated enough:
[quote]The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. -John Kenneth Galbraith
|by Anonymous||reply 61||11/11/2012|
|by Anonymous||reply 62||11/11/2012|
I'm going to preach this morning. It is bullshit that low taxes stimulate business and create jobs, and everyone old enough to remember the old days knows that.
30 years ago, tax planning meant something.
Instead of giving it to the IRS people took steps to minimize their tax bills. One of the big things was to generate a tax loss to offset the gain--you did this by taking risk. You invested in the start-up, you bought the new lathe for the company, you paved the parking lot, you opened the branch office in Cleveland-- you made investments, because it was either that or give it to Uncle Same.
On the personal level you bought an investment property, or you loaned money to your kids to start a business (Mitt again), knowing that if you lost money, at least it was a write-off.
Now, with rates as low as they are, the owner of the company shrugs his shoulders and writes the check. The profits go in his pocket and just sit there.
If anything our tax code is backwards--we should reward loss and do everything to encourage risk, because that's what grows the economy. Instead, we reward the fast buck artist by giving breaks to people who win.
|by Anonymous||reply 63||11/11/2012|
I like that OP added places for the pennies.
|by Anonymous||reply 64||11/11/2012|
[quote]$200-250k/year is barely middle-class in NYC and other urban areas.
|by Anonymous||reply 65||11/11/2012|
[quote]If the limit is $250,000 you're going to see one Hell of a lot of people making $249,000 and suddenly diving company cars, living in corporate-owned apartments, and getting long terms loans at 1% interest from their companies again.
NO. Because if the threshold is $250K, the higher tax rate applies to income ABOVE that amount. Income under the threshold is taxed as it was before.
If someone made, say $251,000, they could make some small (silly) argument that the effort to keep, say, $600 on that $1000 they earned above $250K was not worth it. But for someone whose income is $2.5M, the argument holds no water at all: they can scarcely argue that it isn't worth the bother to keep $1.35M of their $2.25 above the new limit.
You pay the higher tax on the highest part of your income, not on every part of your income.
|by Anonymous||reply 66||11/11/2012|
R40 = Romney
|by Anonymous||reply 67||11/11/2012|
There's a clear, positive correlation with higher overall taxes and better quality of life for all citizens. Finland and Denmark have some of the highest marginal tax rates in the world and they also rank as some of the happiest and most prosperous countries per capita.
|by Anonymous||reply 68||11/11/2012|
They also have some of the highest national incomes, r68. The fallacy of low tax on high earners and the notion that a high marginal tax is unfair should be euthanized. Which wouldn't be a problem some places.
|by Anonymous||reply 69||11/11/2012|
Those countries also realize the importance of having a set of well funded, available social programs and services that ensure their citizens have equal opportunity to a decent quality of life from birth to death. The U.S. has created a caste system in which the socioeconomic status you're born into determines your overall course in life, starting from something as trivial as where you're born determining the quality of the public education you'll receive, which will in turn determine the level of skill development you attain, which ultimately determines your adult socioeconomic status through what kind of employment you can get.
If you have the misfortune of being born to relatively young parents unprepared financially and emotionally for children (most likely from lack of education about why having children young isn't smart in the first place), the statistics of you rising above your life circumstances are pretty grim. And so the cycle perpetuates itself. Prosperity begets prosperity; poverty and ignorance only beget poverty and ignorance. "Socialist" countries understand this and shape laws and policies that create a capable, educated middle class which can command higher wages and pay into a positive social system that funds itself.
|by Anonymous||reply 70||11/11/2012|
Unfortunately in the U.S. we the people have enabled those in power to benefit themselves by directly and indirectly fostering socioeconomic conditions that will render more and more people unable to survive without some kind of public assistance, increasing our public debt and forcing everyone to pay more in taxes so as to slow what will inevitably be a descent to third world status. So the outcome of the greed and shortsightedness of those that make up the American plutocracy—the 0.01% (people to whom $250k might as well be pocket change)— is that everyone else must foot the bill.
Class warfare is real and it’s been happening for decades, and those who are collecting on the hemorrhage of wealth upward from the working and middle classes have succeeded in pitting the 99.99% against each other so that the poor and disadvantaged (i.e. the “takers”) are the enemy while we’re all enslaved by debt, public and private, without ever waking up to what’s been happening all along.
|by Anonymous||reply 71||11/11/2012|
The biggest problem is that we have complete dolts out there (mostly Republicans, of course) who barely have a pot to piss in, yet have convinced themselves that they are single-handedly keeping the country afloat. They're egotistical, narcissistic trash who have few accomplishments in life, but they definitely know that they work hard and no one else does, esp. not non-whites and/or non-Christians.
|by Anonymous||reply 72||11/11/2012|
Wasn't the tax rate much higher under the conservative god Ronald Reagan?
|by Anonymous||reply 73||11/11/2012|
Again, R73. They don't live in the real world, so of course they'd never delve into the reality of Reagan. It would be too scary for them to realize that on some issues, he may have even been to the left of Obama.
|by Anonymous||reply 74||11/11/2012|
Oh yes, those evil rich. Obama has done a great job creating class warfare. Gimme what you have cause I want it. $250,000 is not rich. Wait for inflation to hit., it'll be nothing.
|by Anonymous||reply 75||11/11/2012|
R75 if you had any guts, you'd tell us what you do for a living and how much you REALLY make. Also, since you're quite angry, tell us what you made the day before Obama took office and tell us how much less you make now.
Your anger is too over-the-top, so you're making what? Half? Nothing? Do tell.
|by Anonymous||reply 76||11/11/2012|
I'm happy to pay a little more. It's fair, and it benefits me financially in the long run, as it'll allow us t invest in our country.
|by Anonymous||reply 77||11/11/2012|
If I pay more taxes that allows me to be a rancid bitch about everyone else-a win-win!
|by Anonymous||reply 78||11/11/2012|
Taxation is theft.
|by Anonymous||reply 79||11/11/2012|
I already know my taxes are going into a big general fund to cover deficits, pensions, wars, Congress' health plan, catastrophes, committees, agencies, bureaucracies, lawsuits, erections, elections, medicare, and so much more.
If only we could have full accountability and waste reduction, I'd feel so much better.
There are more taxes to come which aren't called taxes. It's called inflation, rising gas prices, rising utility costs, rising food costs.
It just continues .....
I know I'm fortunate, but that fortune can be eroded, so I take nothing for granted, and keeping working my ass off.
|by Anonymous||reply 80||11/11/2012|
love these hypocrites screaming 'socialists!' at any hint of getting the rich and corporations to pay their fair share, when it is those two categories that most benefit from a never ending stream of loop holes, exotic financial instruments, tax breaks, subsidies, tax havens and shady benefits crafted FOR them BY them in our 'democracy'.
not to mention media adulation. back in The Before Time the television (aka 'tv') show 'Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous', quickly became pop culture's aspiration.
we were Pied Piper'd away from what is truly valuable in all of us, our capability to empathize, love, and nurture each other. we've been brainwashed that independence shows strength and interdependence equals weakness. and the reason is that anything that values something other than consumption gets in the way of consumerism.
no one except maybe Grizzly Adams and the Troll Under the Bridge (also from the Before Times, go do an internet search) truly does it on his or her own. Even those two characters depended on animals, infrastructure, manufacturing and agriculture, just like every libertarian and Unabomber does today
|by Anonymous||reply 81||11/11/2012|
Mitt Romney's campaign slogan was believe in America. I believe in America, which means I don't mind paying my fair share of taxes, unlike Mitt.
|by Anonymous||reply 82||11/11/2012|
[quote]Taxation is theft.
Only when it's handed over to Halliburton, Black water, oil subsidies, farm subsidies and Wall St.
But then, that's when the GOP hands it over, then it isn't theft. Right?
|by Anonymous||reply 83||11/11/2012|
I live in NYC and pay enough taxes. My $250,000 income is half of that by the time it gets to me. I will pay more if all Americans also chip in.
|by Anonymous||reply 84||11/11/2012|
Theft is not paying taxes.
If you whine about paying more...pull up your bootstraps and work a little harder.
|by Anonymous||reply 85||11/11/2012|
I have no problem paying progressive taxes. Once your base living expenses are covered, every additional dollar just increases the quality of what you have.
I don't think you should be taxed at all on the first $30,000 - the minimum you need for decent housing, health care, food, clothing, transportation, etc. After that, taxes should begin and rise accordingly.
Every economist knows the maxim: "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." Everyone pays one way or another.
The difference between rich and poor is that the poor pay with their health, stress, lack of access to education, etc. The rich pay in dollars. Either way, you pay.
I think it's time to tilt the tables in favor of paying with dollars and not in depriving low income earners the things that most of us take for granted.
|by Anonymous||reply 86||11/11/2012|
You know, it all depends on the fairness. I live in NY, so all-in I already pay nearly 40%. I'd like to see the carried interest tax rate raised to 28%, as well as the tax rate on dividends and capital gains. And I'd like to see the home mortgage interest deduction capped at mortgages of $500K and ONLY on one house.
Gimme that, and OK, I'll pay more.
|by Anonymous||reply 87||11/11/2012|
I work in Real Estate Development, I make 75-80k. After. The re-election my company will be shutting down most likely this next year. But that war on the rich is really working, right?
|by Anonymous||reply 88||11/11/2012|
I'm just trying to figure out how to save more money to retire early as I'm really sick of working for someone else. It IS nice to have paid vacations, health insurance and benefits though. I had a business for about 6 years and there was never enough time in the day or week. I didn't take a vacation longer than 4 days in six years. Employees always calling in sick, just not showing up, then calling up wanting to work again because they couldn't pay their bills.
I'm fine with paying taxes on my earnings and I expect something in return - like the city getting the homeless people (or just vagrants) off the street and to stop going through my recycling at 5am in the morning! Keep the streets clean, provide work programs and all that kind of crap.
|by Anonymous||reply 89||11/11/2012|
whatever. the question was for those making 250,000 k. and the right answer is yes.
|by Anonymous||reply 90||11/11/2012|
Funny how everyone was rolling in dough during the Clinton years when tax rates were much higher. And it's funny how the economy is barely sputtering along with the low Bush tax rates.
|by Anonymous||reply 91||11/11/2012|
R90 is a lazy ass who can't use proper English. The connection between that fact and the bum's tendency to declare what other people should do based on an arrogant self-righteousness is more than coincidental. One smells cunt all over the post and others like it.
As for me, since I'm in the category, I'd pay higher federal taxes so long as my deductions aren't messed with. But the real issue isn't what people making 250k are paying. It's what people making over a million are paying, because the greater the income the greater the opportunities to get away with murder, in taxes and everything else.
|by Anonymous||reply 92||11/11/2012|
Since the election, most people who make between $250,000 and $300,000 per year have been very vocal about being victimized by the proposed new tax structure.
|by Anonymous||reply 93||11/11/2012|
You're right, R70, which is why access to birth control and abortion services is so important.
|by Anonymous||reply 94||11/11/2012|
R88, you stupid fuck. Blame George Bush who ate the surplus with 2 wars and tax cuts.
And, R79, you're right. So we're all gonna chip in, build you a big raft and plop you down in the middle of the ocean, since every country requires citizens to pay taxes. That way, you won't have to deal with all that nasty infrastructure or other things that taxes buy. Good luck.
|by Anonymous||reply 95||11/11/2012|
Why are you shitstains still showing your faces? You lost, you are a joke. Everything you say is based on lies and everyone knows it.
EVERYTHING YOU SAY IS BASED ON LIES!!!
Why don't you find some circle-jerk right wing site to go lick your wounds for a few decades?
|by Anonymous||reply 96||11/11/2012|
r96 We'll see hopefully the disastrous policies of Obama will piss off people and send them running away. I hope to see a major upset in 2 years. It came very close in this election. A couple decades? That's a scary prospect for businesses.
What send business oversees and caused major job losses in the first place? The greedy liberal unions.
|by Anonymous||reply 97||11/11/2012|
No, we already see!
That's the point.
You're totally delusional and will never get any better. You have a problem with your brain.
|by Anonymous||reply 98||11/11/2012|
OP, pay your fucking bills like everyone else. The middle to poor class or citizens should not be subsidizing your entitled ass.
|by Anonymous||reply 99||11/11/2012|
We make 120K and would happily pay more taxes.
|by Anonymous||reply 100||11/11/2012|
I'm a corporate tax attorney in private practice and my partner is a neonatal cardio-thoracic surgeon (yes, we're the white, gay version of the Huckstables), and we each make well over 300k yearly. We're are THRILLED WITH A SAVAGERY I CANNOT ARTICULATE to pay our share. THRILLED. Shit, I'd have paid a higher rate for the rest of my life it it would keep Romney out of office.
|by Anonymous||reply 101||11/11/2012|
[quote]75% OF THE BUSH TAX CUTS GO TO PEOPLE WHO MAKE LESS THAN 250K.
Putting it in all caps doesn't make it any more true than putting it in normal text. This is false, as a quick Google search would show.
|by Anonymous||reply 102||11/11/2012|
[quote]Putting it in all caps doesn't make it any more true than putting it in normal text.
Shouting doesn't make a lie true? I am so lost.
|by Anonymous||reply 103||11/11/2012|
[quote]hopefully the disastrous policies of Obama will piss off people and send them running away.
So the policies of the Republican Party that caused an economic meltdown are just ever so much better? Gee, how was that job growth during the Bush administration when taxes were reduced by so much? And how did that deficit reduction go? And, gosh, didn't Mitt Romney also push exactly those same things: massive tax cuts and massive deregulation? Speaking of "disastrous."
What's interesting is that you can't actually identify any "disastrous" Obama policies. Why is that?
[quote]I hope to see a major upset in 2 years.
Uh-huh. Personally, I'm hoping for a unicorn. The present evidence suggests I'll get my wish before you get yours.
[quote]It came very close in this election.
That wouldn't have been an "upset," as the incumbent often loses in bad economic times. Fortunately, the public recognized that the massive downturn was caused by Republican policies and repudiated those same policies.
[quote]A couple decades? That's a scary prospect for businesses.
A couple of decades of what, exactly?
[quote]What send business oversees and caused major job losses in the first place? The greedy liberal unions.
LOL.... You really should learn some history. Better to be thought a fool than to post here and prove it.
|by Anonymous||reply 104||11/11/2012|
Get back to me in another $224,000 or so.
|by Anonymous||reply 105||11/11/2012|
Eisenhower had the tax rate set at 90% for the rich. The rich pay next to nothing today. The Clinton years were better. The rich have been getting a free ride for far too long. It's amoral. Honestly, we're nearing the time where the guillotines are rolled out.
Too many Americans want something for nothing. This is why they sign onto pointless wars. They could care less where their money is going or where it's coming from. If taxes were hiked without mention, Americans wouldn't give a shit. Americans think the sky fairy pays for everything. The minute tax hikes are announced, they all freak out. They've been shitting their money away on wars, and subsidizing the rich. Taxes need to be collected fairly, and put into projects that help the public. America right now will gladly pay taxes and be against getting healthcare from them. They just don't understand how the economy works, or how the fucking country is run. US infrastructure is falling down around everyone. How do you think that gets paid for? Americans hate communism, yet they're okay buying goods from China so they can have their 80" television sets from Walmart for $200.
Americans suck up to the rich like the little Fascists they are because they believe they too will be rich one day if they just suck up to the boss. They want the feeling of being corporate like the big dogs.
Pay your fucking bills!
|by Anonymous||reply 106||11/11/2012|
R101 did u and your partner meet AFTER you passed the bar, and he finished his residency?
|by Anonymous||reply 107||11/11/2012|
Looking forward to seeing R101 in the near future on HGTV.
|by Anonymous||reply 108||11/11/2012|
We earn quite a bit in dividends and capital gains, but there is no way I was going to vote for Romney.
I never heard a peep from Republicans about Romney's "middle class tax break" of exempting interest, capital gains and dividend taxes. How many in the middle class have their next egg in taxable accounts?
|by Anonymous||reply 109||11/11/2012|
[quote]Eisenhower had the tax rate set at 90% for the rich.
Correction: During the Eisenhower administration, the top marginal income tax rate was 91% for income above $200,000. It was progressively less for income below that.
No one paid 90% of their income. Please learn about marginal income tax rates.
|by Anonymous||reply 110||11/11/2012|
r110, most of us knew he meant a marginal income tax rate.
|by Anonymous||reply 111||11/11/2012|
I wAnt to and need to pay more money than I have.
|by Anonymous||reply 112||11/11/2012|
I support a higher tax increase than the President is calling for now.
I'll settle for the Clinton rates but I believe that the country needs them to be higher.
|by Anonymous||reply 113||11/11/2012|
For those of you that feel the need to pay higher taxes, I don't see you voluntarily sending in more money. Why don't each of you volunteer to pay another persons taxes? Solves your need to pay more and gives a hard working person a break.
No? I didn't think so.
|by Anonymous||reply 114||11/11/2012|
You lost, 114.
|by Anonymous||reply 115||11/11/2012|
r114, it is all about FAIRNESS.
We will pay our fair share as will everyone else.
It's called public policy not pay what-you-want taxes.
We know the 1% wants to pay NO taxes.
So quitcherbitchen and pay your fair share.
No? I didn't think so, either.
|by Anonymous||reply 116||11/11/2012|
R88's troll post might be one of the worst yet
|by Anonymous||reply 117||11/11/2012|
I don't get how people who earn so much money are so obssessed with money. Do you hover over your fridge after stuffing yourself with food?
Is it really about keeping your money, or preventing someone like me from getting it? I'm an artist who grew up among the one percent, earned more money in my teens than I do now, and have just never really cared one way or another what my bank account says. I have intellectual property that would be worth a fortune in a big media company's hands, but it barely covers my expenses because I don't have five million people ready to buy everything I produce. So what?
I also have the ability to make large amounts of money in a short period of time, and have been known to spend it just as fast, or save if it I want. I'm just not obsessed with finances, instead focusing my attention on knowledge, people, good memories, great sex (when I can find it), and new experiences. Sure, money is nice, but I'd never get all worked up over the tax rates, and I've had them at everywhere from 28-70 percent during my lifetime.
What I would like to see is a balanced budget, and I don't think higher taxes are the answer, though we can function with them, just like we could function with lower taxes if we adjusted spending and entitlements.
All this tax haggling sounds like a lot of repressed and deflected anger to me. Life is too short for anyone with a six-figure income to go around beating this drum. I think anyone who earns ten times what I make, and is ten times less happy than me, should take a good long look in the mirror.
|by Anonymous||reply 118||11/11/2012|
It's this simple r117 I have been with my company for over 20 years. We buy/sell and build property. Our business depends on business, and when businesses don't want to expand, build or have 5 year plans to move out of the state (with no industry coming in to replace those companies) we don't work. We have scrapped by the last 4 years watching things get progressively worse. I have watched as companies we work with cut their workforce in less than half. Companies have been minimizing and holding on to all the cash they can to survive, hoping Obama would not be re-elected. They really were watching to see if the Affordable Care act would be repealed - no hope of that now. As of January there are 22 new taxes going into affect (yet the act was never going to cost us money or be a tax right?) Now, with him in office another 4 years they will make further cuts and hold on to expand. This means no need for expansion, construction, etc. And finally as a single, unmarried person I paid MORE than I ever have last year under Obama.
|by Anonymous||reply 119||11/11/2012|
Yawn. Tell us when something good is on TV, ok?
|by Anonymous||reply 120||11/11/2012|
[quote]Our business depends on business, and when businesses don't want to expand, build or have 5 year plans to move out of the state (with no industry coming in to replace those companies) we don't work.
What state is this?
|by Anonymous||reply 121||11/11/2012|
|by Anonymous||reply 122||11/11/2012|
Amazon.com Inc., which agreed to buy its Seattle headquarters for $1.16 billion, plans to start construction next year on the first of three new buildings that would add another 3 million square feet as technology companies expand and invest in real estate.
Apple Inc.’s blueprint for a new 175-acre campus in Cupertino, California, features a futuristic ring-shaped main building of about 2.8 million square feet designed by British architect Norman Foster’s firm.
Facebook Inc. (FB) will start on an expansion to its Menlo Park, California, headquarters that would add a single-story building designed by Frank Gehry with about 430,000 square feet, or enough for about 2,800 engineers.
Expansion by technology companies is helping drive a nascent rebound in U.S. office development from the lowest in more than five decades as default rates on construction mortgages decline from a 2010 peak. Tech companies are expanding workforces and many also want to centralize employees in custom offices with amenities existing buildings don’t always offer.
“There is a surprising amount of construction, given the amount of space available in the market,” said Jon Southard, managing director of CBRE Econometric Advisors, a Boston-based unit of commercial broker CBRE Group Inc. “Even the gradual improvement in demand we see going forward means construction is going to increase from here rather than decrease.”
|by Anonymous||reply 123||11/11/2012|
If you weren't such an arrogant fuck, and had invested in someone like ME the last five years, you'd have a diversity of income which would protect you.
Why didn't you? Because you'll have to hit bottom before you'll realize your mistake, at which point someone like me will have no use for someone like you. Meanwhile, I chug along, immune to everything which harms you, appearing to earn far less than you, yet more financially solid than you can ever dream of becoming.
It's the tortoise and the hare all over again. Have fun watching the only thing you seem to care about -- money -- disappear.
|by Anonymous||reply 124||11/11/2012|
No, 107. Well, kinda'. He was nineteen and I was twenty-four when we met. He had just gotten divorced and I'd just broken up with a girl I'd lived with for six years. I was about to graduate law school, and he was in his second year of college. We've been together eighteen years. I'm embarrassed by how lucky I am to have him and how perfect our lives are.
|by Anonymous||reply 125||11/11/2012|
R124, you know he's completely lying, right?
He's full of shit.
How do I know? Everything he says is based on the lies and constructs of the Rove machine. ZERO credibility.
Why even respond legitimately to total horseshit?
|by Anonymous||reply 126||11/11/2012|
r124 Look you JERK, I am expressing what is happening to my industry and company in specific. Don't believe it, that's fine. How I wish it weren't true. Put on the blinders and keep enjoying your life through rose colored glasses.
|by Anonymous||reply 127||11/11/2012|
No one cares to believe you, R127.
You speak the tongue of liars who came before you. No one cares about you. You are nothing.
|by Anonymous||reply 128||11/11/2012|
r128 "the tongue of liars"? Okay whatever you say.
You don't have to believe me, but it's the new reality you are living in and have to accept. Like it or not. No one gets a choice in the matter.
|by Anonymous||reply 129||11/11/2012|
I'm so glad Obama won. These freepers are not the kind of people who should have power. They're so hateful.
|by Anonymous||reply 130||11/11/2012|
i would love the opportunity to pay more taxes on 250k, but considering i haven't cleared a quarter of that since bush crashed the economy, i'm not going to have the chance anytime soon.
1% = fucking entitled whiners.
|by Anonymous||reply 131||11/11/2012|
"No one cares about you. You are nothing."
Every time I see this on DL I feel like I'm on a playground with tiny bullies. It just makes me laugh. Thems hurtin woids!
|by Anonymous||reply 132||11/11/2012|
The purpose of higher taxes isn't to "spread the wealth', it's to PAY DOWN THE DEFICIT.
|by Anonymous||reply 133||11/11/2012|
R127, perhaps you'd be doing better if you could express yourself (and also) spell better than a 5th grader?
|by Anonymous||reply 134||11/11/2012|
I'll just lay off one of the maids.
|by Anonymous||reply 135||11/11/2012|
R134 You may take issue with how it's being said, but refute the facts. That classic defection.
|by Anonymous||reply 136||11/11/2012|
Sorry should be that is classic deflection.
|by Anonymous||reply 137||11/11/2012|
|by Anonymous||reply 138||11/11/2012|
|by Anonymous||reply 139||11/11/2012|
I don't think you construction guys have grasped the meaning of the recession. The construction sector was at a high during the real estate bubble of the 2000s--now we are over-constructed. Everywhere I drive, I see empty houses, some in foreclosure, some that have been abandoned before being finished. There are empty office buildings every. The construction industry is NEVER coming back to pre-recession levels--at least, not in your life time. It will remain sluggish, unless you go overseas, move into the energy sector, or "luck out" because of some natural disaster.
|by Anonymous||reply 140||11/11/2012|
R125 it is wonderful you were with him throughout his residency. That is not easy, for him or for you.
All those 36 hours shifts, being called back to the hospital, and just the overall stress of being a surgical resident. For those who don't know surgical residency are very long years.
It is wonderful you two have stuck together.
|by Anonymous||reply 141||11/12/2012|
omg i adore r101!
|by Anonymous||reply 142||11/12/2012|
I was flipping around NYC radio stations this morning and came across some talk show host who said if you earn $108,000 a year and the US goes off the fiscal cliff, you will pay an extra 14,000 in taxes a year. Does anyone know if that's true?
|by Anonymous||reply 143||11/12/2012|
[quote]For those of you that feel the need to pay higher taxes, I don't see you voluntarily sending in more money. Why don't each of you volunteer to pay another persons taxes? Solves your need to pay more and gives a hard working person a break.
Classic troll post and a classic logical fallacy. Fail.
[quote]I have been with my company for over 20 years. We buy/sell and build property.
We just went through a property bubble. Of course your business hasn't returned to its previous levels. It won't, for years, if ever, since a bubble is, by definition, unsustainable.
[quote]We have scrapped by the last 4 years watching things get progressively worse. I have watched as companies we work with cut their workforce in less than half.
That's what you get when you have an economic meltdown caused by Republican policies. Oh, and for the record, you're lying about "things get[ting] progressively worse" as, in the private sector, things have been slowly recovering over the past four years, with nearly five million new jobs added, more than Bush was able to do in the eight years he was in office.
[quote]Companies have been minimizing and holding on to all the cash they can to survive, hoping Obama would not be re-elected.
LOL.... Thanks for confirming we shouldn't take you seriously since you are, of course, lying again. And clumsily, at that.
[quote]They really were watching to see if the Affordable Care act would be repealed - no hope of that now.
Good. That's good not only for the 30+ million more that will now have access to health insurance and health care but, ultimately, good for business as the unsustainable growth in health care costs has made our goods and services less competitive on the world market.
[quote]As of January there are 22 new taxes going into affect (yet the act was never going to cost us money or be a tax right?)
Um, no, moron, nobody ever claimed that. And there aren't "22 new taxes going into affect" [sic] in January, although there are some that will. What we did claim, and what is true, is that the ACA is fully funded, something that the Republicans seem unwilling or unable to do with their initiatives.
What idiots like you seem incapable of grasping is that you are already paying for that health care in the form of higher health care costs because hospitals are forced to eat the losses of caring for those who can't afford it. And it's *more* expensive than preventive care since this is ER care, the most expensive and least effective way to treat these people.
[quote]Now, with him in office another 4 years they will make further cuts and hold on to expand.
Bullshit, of course, like the rest of your post. If the demand is there, businesses will expand to meet it, Obamacare or not.
[quote]And finally as a single, unmarried person I paid MORE than I ever have last year under Obama.
And likely bullshit again, as 95% of the country had their taxes cut under Obama.
|by Anonymous||reply 144||11/12/2012|
[quote]You don't have to believe me
Trust me, we don't.
[quote]but it's the new reality you are living in and have to accept.
Since your post was so obviously bullshit and was wholly unsupported by anything resembling actual data, why on earth should we "accept" it?
[quote]Like it or not. No one gets a choice in the matter.
LOL.... Yes, actually we do, since what you wrote was false. Tell us, what color is the sky in your world? Out here in the real world, it's blue.
|by Anonymous||reply 145||11/12/2012|
[quote]You may take issue with how it's being said, but refute the facts
The trouble is that there weren't any "facts" in R119's rant. It was wholly unsupported bullshit.
|by Anonymous||reply 146||11/12/2012|
r143, no, that is NOT true.
|by Anonymous||reply 147||11/12/2012|
Nearly 1 out of 4 gays voted for Romney, yet the tinfoil hat crowd still thinks they are nothing but "freeper trolls" who are paid to post on DL.
|by Anonymous||reply 148||11/12/2012|
R143, see the link for the details on who will be hit and by how much. What you heard on the radio was the average amount that those who make "$108,000 and up" will pay. That actually will be $14,173, according to CNN, but that's a really curious place to put the marker, since that will include the significantly larger taxes on the 1% and 0.1%. The former, with incomes above $500,000, will pay an additional $121,000, and the latter, with incomes above $2.66 million, will pay $634,000.
I don't know the exactly dollar figure for those who make, say, $100,000 to $150,000, but it will be considerably less than $14,000, probably somewhere in the neighborhood of $5,000.
|by Anonymous||reply 149||11/12/2012|
[quote]Nearly 1 out of 4 gays voted for Romney, yet the tinfoil hat crowd still thinks they are nothing but "freeper trolls" who are paid to post on DL. Denial much?
*Shrug* If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc., does it really matter if they are paid or not? A troll is a troll. And the Republican/Conservative crowd who occasionally post here are, almost without exception, trolls, incapable of rational argument and uninterested in genuine debate. R119's post is a classic example.
|by Anonymous||reply 150||11/12/2012|
Oh, and if I understand things correctly, R143, the biggest component of the hit on the wealthy in the "fiscal cliff" is the expiration of the AMT fix.
|by Anonymous||reply 151||11/12/2012|
Truth4time a right-wing religious group has admitted they post here at DL
|by Anonymous||reply 152||11/12/2012|
Paul please join the DL fb group so I can give you some internet 'lovin'....
|by Anonymous||reply 153||11/12/2012|
|by Anonymous||reply 154||11/12/2012|
The biggest issue with the fiscal cliff is the increase in the capital gains rate.
It's why I sold Star Wars before the rates changed. Saved myself $200 million.
|by Anonymous||reply 155||11/12/2012|
|by Anonymous||reply 156||11/12/2012|
[quote]The biggest issue with the fiscal cliff is the increase in the capital gains rate.
Actually, it's a pretty small part of this. An increase from 15% to 20% just isn't going to hit that many people. There will be a sell-off by some investors, as you mention, but there just aren't that many investors who want to, or even can, do this. Overall, we're likely talking about just a few billion dollars.
|by Anonymous||reply 157||11/12/2012|
|by Anonymous||reply 158||11/12/2012|
The pathetic dinosaurs who don't realize they are defeated yet, R156.
Tuesday never happened for these people.
|by Anonymous||reply 159||11/12/2012|
As someone who barely makes 25% of $250,000/year, I can't answer the question.
|by Anonymous||reply 160||11/12/2012|
thanks for sharing
|by Anonymous||reply 161||11/12/2012|
I love to pay money
|by Anonymous||reply 162||11/12/2012|
...as you said at r112, silly trollerina.
|by Anonymous||reply 163||11/12/2012|
I fine with higher taxes, but I want a return on my tax dollar. I don't want money poured into bridges to nowhere or endless wars. I want a good infrastructure, fair and competent law enforcement, adequate inspections of food production, access to education for people, etc.
|by Anonymous||reply 164||11/12/2012|
As does Obama, so no worries.
|by Anonymous||reply 165||11/13/2012|
seriously didn't go the way you thought it would, did it op?
|by Anonymous||reply 166||11/13/2012|
|by Anonymous||reply 167||11/13/2012|
Hello Freepie! Enjoy the election? I did.
How you couch the question, OP, pinpricking indignation, it's so so so Fox.
Indig-Nation. What a country of drama queens.
|by Anonymous||reply 168||11/13/2012|
This thread is useless without 1040s.
|by Anonymous||reply 169||11/13/2012|
R169 what did the OP say in his opening thread that was objectionable?
|by Anonymous||reply 170||11/13/2012|
..and here we have an example of why it worked for so long.
Look up "rhetoric."
|by Anonymous||reply 171||11/13/2012|
Freeper OP was called out on page one.
Thought he was slick. Idiot.
|by Anonymous||reply 172||11/13/2012|
"Well are you."
|by Anonymous||reply 173||11/13/2012|
My brother is self employed (owns a bunch of nursing homes in Arizona/new Mexico) and makes 400k a year. He pays about 10% in taxes, and brags about it all of the time. I honestly don't understand how self employed wealthy people get away with it.
|by Anonymous||reply 174||11/15/2012|
|by Anonymous||reply 175||11/27/2012|
$400K is the new cut off! OUTRAGEOUS!!
|by Anonymous||reply 176||02/23/2013|
There are 301 people on datalounge who make 250K a year?
|by Anonymous||reply 177||02/24/2013|
[quote]Paying taxes is patriotic.
Patriotism is an absurd, ignoble sentiment.
|by Anonymous||reply 178||02/24/2013|
anonymous You Do Have a lot of Crap to say you cant put your real name your so big and bad to talk undercover put your real name up
|by Anonymous||reply 179||01/10/2015|
The problem isn't taxing. The problem is them wasting our tax dollars. You hear about it all the time.
They need to STOP WASTING our tax dollars on useless shit.
|by Anonymous||reply 180||01/10/2015|
The problem is defining what is useless shit, r180.
What one person might regard as useless, another may regard as purposeful.
|by Anonymous||reply 181||01/10/2015|
Only the little people pay taxes.
|by Anonymous||reply 182||01/10/2015|
please no haters but here is my beef: If you make $415k a year you pay 40% (ok 39.6%) in federal taxes..if you make $189k a year you only pay 28% in taxes...thats fine...I can live with that. but if you make $2mil, $25mil, $50 million you only pay 40% in taxes....the code is so not even...I am all for a flat tax and a consumption or vat tax....if not that, at least even out the tax code
|by Anonymous||reply 183||01/10/2015|