It's nothing else than buying legislation and it's overall effect is to give money and advantage to groups that already have more than their share.
It's everyone's right as an American citizen to have access to their representative to make their voice heard. And free speech includes campaign contributions. Are you saying gay people shouldn't be able to lobby for gay rights? Or people with Aids or cancer for research money? Or people with neurological diseases for stemcell research? Why shouldn't a corporation have that same right. Corporations employee people and create wealth for sharehodlers and employees. Corporations pay taxes and regulatory fees that provide services. Why shouldn't they have a voice in the legislative process.
They already have a way to make their voices heard - it's called a vote.
Our government already provides other avenues for peoples voices to be heard, and there are other ways to communicate with politicians other than throwing money at them and gaining access most citizens don't have.
The net result is legislation (and politicians) for sale - do you really think that isn't the case?
It's nothing else than buying legislation and it's overall effect is to give money and advantage to groups that already have more than their share.
It's everyone's right as an American citizen to have access to their representative to make their voice heard. And free speech includes campaign contributions. Are you saying gay people shouldn't be able to lobby for gay rights? Or people with Aids or cancer for research money? Or people with neurological diseases for stemcell research? Why shouldn't a corporation have that same right. Corporations employee people and create wealth for sharehodlers and employees. Corporations pay taxes and regulatory fees that provide services. Why shouldn't they have a voice in the legislative process.
They already have a way to make their voices heard - it's called a vote.
Our government already provides other avenues for peoples voices to be heard, and there are other ways to communicate with politicians other than throwing money at them and gaining access most citizens don't have.
The net result is legislation (and politicians) for sale - do you really think that isn't the case?
At one time it was called bribery.
The amount of corporate cash that was thrown into the 2010 elections was astonishing. 2012 will dwarf that by a factor of 4 or more.
It's everyone's right as an American citizen to have access to their representative to make their voice heard. And free speech includes campaign contributions.
No. That is what's commonly known as bullshit.
sabadabada said:
Are you saying gay people shouldn't be able to lobby for gay rights? Or people with Aids or cancer for research money? Or people with neurological diseases for stemcell research?
Ok I'm with you on this part..
sabadabada said:
Why shouldn't a corporation have that same right.
Because that's ridiculous. GTFOHWTBS.
sabadabada said:
Corporations employee people and create wealth for sharehodlers and employees. Corporations pay taxes and regulatory fees that provide services. Why shouldn't they have a voice in the legislative process.
Yes, I agree that everyone should have a voice; people can vote, groups can organize, petition, etc. It's the oversize influence of corporate money that has no place in our democracy.
How cynical do you have to be to sit here and argue that corporations should have the same rights as people, including unlimited campaign contributions and ad buys. The mind reels..
How cynical do you have to be to sit here and argue that corporations should have the same rights as people, including unlimited campaign contributions and ad buys. The mind reels..
It's the law of the land. The non-activist conservative judges who form the majority of the Supreme Court said so.
It's everyone's right as an American citizen to have access to their representative to make their voice heard. And free speech includes campaign contributions.
No. That is what's commonly known as bullshit.
sabadabada said:
Are you saying gay people shouldn't be able to lobby for gay rights? Or people with Aids or cancer for research money? Or people with neurological diseases for stemcell research?
Ok I'm with you on this part..
sabadabada said:
Why shouldn't a corporation have that same right.
Because that's ridiculous. GTFOHWTBS.
sabadabada said:
Corporations employee people and create wealth for sharehodlers and employees. Corporations pay taxes and regulatory fees that provide services. Why shouldn't they have a voice in the legislative process.
Yes, I agree that everyone should have a voice; people can vote, groups can organize, petition, etc. It's the oversize influence of corporate money that has no place in our democracy.
How cynical do you have to be to sit here and argue that corporations should have the same rights as people, including unlimited campaign contributions and ad buys. The mind reels..
Look at who the biggest donors are. Unions. Not corporations. Should unions have those rights? Corporations are made up of thousands, sometimes millions of individual shareholders. Can anyone here do better than an argument "things I like are right and constitutional. Thinkgs I don't like are wrong and unconstitutional"?
Look at who the biggest donors are. Unions. Not corporations. Should unions have those rights? Corporations are made up of thousands, sometimes millions of individual shareholders. Can anyone here do better than an argument "things I like are right and constitutional. Thinkgs I don't like are wrong and unconstitutional"?
You're a very funny boy if you think unions spent more during the 2010 election season than corporate interests did.
How cynical do you have to be to sit here and argue that corporations should have the same rights as people, including unlimited campaign contributions and ad buys. The mind reels..
It's the law of the land. The non-activist conservative judges who form the majority of the Supreme Court said so.
it's called corporate personhood and it makes sense if you don't think about it.
Look at who the biggest donors are. Unions. Not corporations. Should unions have those rights?
No, they should not. Look what the result has been for states like NY and California.
sabadabada said:
Corporations are made up of thousands, sometimes millions of individual shareholders. Can anyone here do better than an argument "things I like are right and constitutional. Thinkgs I don't like are wrong and unconstitutional"?
As with unions, the individuals that make up corporations already have the right to vote, and corporations lobbying do not necessarily reflect the interests of their employees, in fact it's often the opposite case.
The Constitution does not address this issue at all, so I don't know why you're bringing it up. Construing bribery as 'free speech' is preposterous.
Look at who the biggest donors are. Unions. Not corporations. Should unions have those rights? Corporations are made up of thousands, sometimes millions of individual shareholders. Can anyone here do better than an argument "things I like are right and constitutional. Thinkgs I don't like are wrong and unconstitutional"?
You are confusing lobbying statistics with donations to candidates, political parties, issue minded groups like the NRA and the thousands of bullshit political action committees. I don't know where you got your statistics about lobbying, but assuming they are true, you can't possibly believe that the Teachers Union spends more than big tobacco or big oil on the funding of all the other groups i just mentioned. There are also numerous loopholes for the political action commitees to avoid disclosing who their donors are, so it is virtually impossible to tell where corporations are spending money.
Labor is extremely powerful because of their numbers (people), but I just don't get how you fail to see that business has more money than the people they employ.
Look at who the biggest donors are. Unions. Not corporations. Should unions have those rights? Corporations are made up of thousands, sometimes millions of individual shareholders. Can anyone here do better than an argument "things I like are right and constitutional. Thinkgs I don't like are wrong and unconstitutional"?
You're a very funny boy if you think unions spent more during the 2010 election season than corporate interests did.
Look at who the biggest donors are. Unions. Not corporations. Should unions have those rights? Corporations are made up of thousands, sometimes millions of individual shareholders. Can anyone here do better than an argument "things I like are right and constitutional. Thinkgs I don't like are wrong and unconstitutional"?
You are confusing lobbying statistics with donations to candidates, political parties, issue minded groups like the NRA and the thousands of bullshit political action committees. I don't know where you got your statistics about lobbying, but assuming they are true, you can't possibly believe that the Teachers Union spends more than big tobacco or big oil on the funding of all the other groups i just mentioned. There are also numerous loopholes for the political action commitees to avoid disclosing who their donors are, so it is virtually impossible to tell where corporations are spending money.
Labor is extremely powerful because of their numbers (people), but I just don't get how you fail to see that business has more money than the people they employ.
You care to offer up any proof other than that what you might think I could possibly believe?
Look at who the biggest donors are. Unions. Not corporations. Should unions have those rights? Corporations are made up of thousands, sometimes millions of individual shareholders. Can anyone here do better than an argument "things I like are right and constitutional. Thinkgs I don't like are wrong and unconstitutional"?
You're a very funny boy if you think unions spent more during the 2010 election season than corporate interests did.
Hey um back to the speech. I'm not sure if I quite heard it right, but did he say that families earning $250 000 qualify as millionaires?
Here is what he said....I can see how someone who makes $250,001 could interpret the below like you did as the top 2% income earners make $250K and up..
"And if we truly care about our deficit, we simply can't afford a permanent extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. (Applause.) Before we take money away from our schools or scholarships away from our students, we should ask millionaires to give up their tax break. It's not a matter of punishing their success. It's about promoting America's success."
It's nothing else than buying legislation and it's overall effect is to give money and advantage to groups that already have more than their share.
It's everyone's right as an American citizen to have access to their representative to make their voice heard. And free speech includes campaign contributions. Are you saying gay people shouldn't be able to lobby for gay rights? Or people with Aids or cancer for research money? Or people with neurological diseases for stemcell research? Why shouldn't a corporation have that same right. Corporations employee people and create wealth for sharehodlers and employees. Corporations pay taxes and regulatory fees that provide services. Why shouldn't they have a voice in the legislative process.
You're first sentence syas it all. US citizens have the right of access, but foreigners do not. Corporations that have foreign shareholders should not be allowed to lobby the government because foreigners do not have the right to participate in our political system.
Look at who the biggest donors are. Unions. Not corporations. Should unions have those rights? Corporations are made up of thousands, sometimes millions of individual shareholders. Can anyone here do better than an argument "things I like are right and constitutional. Thinkgs I don't like are wrong and unconstitutional"?
You are confusing lobbying statistics with donations to candidates, political parties, issue minded groups like the NRA and the thousands of bullshit political action committees. I don't know where you got your statistics about lobbying, but assuming they are true, you can't possibly believe that the Teachers Union spends more than big tobacco or big oil on the funding of all the other groups i just mentioned. There are also numerous loopholes for the political action commitees to avoid disclosing who their donors are, so it is virtually impossible to tell where corporations are spending money.
Labor is extremely powerful because of their numbers (people), but I just don't get how you fail to see that business has more money than the people they employ.
You care to offer up any proof other than that what you might think I could possibly believe?
Proof of your ignorance? Your comparison of unions to corporations is ridiculous from the start. Unions represent individual laborers in a given industry. Corporations represent shareholders....in their respective corporations. There are millions of corporations.
To say that the teacher's union (which has millions of members) outspent xyz corporation....what is your point? The relevant question would be whether a union outspent the collection of corporations who makeup ALL of the employers for a given industry. Not to mention the fact that the US Chamber of Commerce (a generic pro business group) donates ridiculous amounts of money to the GOP.
I think this idea that corporations are not the clear drivers of lobbying and political donations might be your worst argument yet.
Here is what he said....I can see how someone who makes $250,001 could interpret the below like you did as the top 2% income earners make $250K and up.
There's a widespread misunderstanding about the US tax system. If the top marginal tax rate is 36% and cuts in at $250,001, a person earning that amount doesn't start paying 36% on his entire income, just on the $1 that's above the limit.
Look at who the biggest donors are. Unions. Not corporations. Should unions have those rights? Corporations are made up of thousands, sometimes millions of individual shareholders. Can anyone here do better than an argument "things I like are right and constitutional. Thinkgs I don't like are wrong and unconstitutional"?
You are confusing lobbying statistics with donations to candidates, political parties, issue minded groups like the NRA and the thousands of bullshit political action committees. I don't know where you got your statistics about lobbying, but assuming they are true, you can't possibly believe that the Teachers Union spends more than big tobacco or big oil on the funding of all the other groups i just mentioned. There are also numerous loopholes for the political action commitees to avoid disclosing who their donors are, so it is virtually impossible to tell where corporations are spending money.
Labor is extremely powerful because of their numbers (people), but I just don't get how you fail to see that business has more money than the people they employ.
You care to offer up any proof other than that what you might think I could possibly believe?
Proof of your ignorance? Your comparison of unions to corporations is ridiculous from the start. Unions represent individual laborers in a given industry. Corporations represent shareholders....in their respective corporations. There are millions of corporations.
To say that the teacher's union (which has millions of members) outspent xyz corporation....what is your point? The relevant question would be whether a union outspent the collection of corporations who makeup ALL of the employers for a given industry. Not to mention the fact that the US Chamber of Commerce (a generic pro business group) donates ridiculous amounts of money to the GOP.
I think this idea that corporations are not the clear drivers of lobbying and political donations might be your worst argument yet.
And then there's Fox News, which is just the GOP's propaganda arm. There is no Democratic equivalent. What's that worth?
Hey um back to the speech. I'm not sure if I quite heard it right, but did he say that families earning $250 000 qualify as millionaires?
Here is what he said....I can see how someone who makes $250,001 could interpret the below like you did as the top 2% income earners make $250K and up..
"And if we truly care about our deficit, we simply can't afford a permanent extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. (Applause.) Before we take money away from our schools or scholarships away from our students, we should ask millionaires to give up their tax break. It's not a matter of punishing their success. It's about promoting America's success."
Well, it was a bit of a leading question on my part, to be fair.
Here is what he said....I can see how someone who makes $250,001 could interpret the below like you did as the top 2% income earners make $250K and up.
There's a widespread misunderstanding about the US tax system. If the top marginal tax rate is 36% and cuts in at $250,001, a person earning that amount doesn't start paying 36% on his entire income, just on the $1 that's above the limit.
Otherwise no one would ever be paid $250,001.
I hope this explanation makes sense.
Is this true? wouldn't they pay 36% on all earned taxable income?
You are saying they are paying 28% (or what ever the lower rate is) on income under 250,000 and 36% on income over?
So if they earned 350,000 in taxable income they pay $70.000 (28%) on the first 250,00 and 36,000 (36%) on the other $100,000?
Doesn't sound right to me.
I'd like to clear up a misconception about teachers unions and unions in general.
Unions tend to protect seniority.
That is because in most cases the contracts agreed to by unions and management protect seniority.
They do not protect bad teachers.
Unions have no more interest in keeping bad teachers around than parents, students and administrators do.
If administrators want to get rid of teachers with seniority because they cost more, then unions will protect them.
If parents want to get rid of a teacher because they don't think she gives enough homework, the union will protect her. Assuming that the homework load does not violate contract conditions.
If students want to get rid of a teacher because he gives too much home work the union will protect him. Assuming that the homework load does not violate contract conditions.
If a teacher does not do their job, and does not fulfill their contract, the union will not protect them.
This is true for all unions.
If a worker is caught drunk or doing drugs on the job and you hear about the union protecting them, you can bet the management signed a contract that allows for drinking and drug use.
Don't blame the union, blame management.
Here is what he said....I can see how someone who makes $250,001 could interpret the below like you did as the top 2% income earners make $250K and up.
There's a widespread misunderstanding about the US tax system. If the top marginal tax rate is 36% and cuts in at $250,001, a person earning that amount doesn't start paying 36% on his entire income, just on the $1 that's above the limit.
Otherwise no one would ever be paid $250,001.
I hope this explanation makes sense.
It may be semantics but the President did say...."We can't afford a permanent extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans".......and immediately followed that up with........."Before we take money away from our schools or scholarships away from our students, we should ask millionaires to give up their tax break".
That does suggest that the top 2% are millionaires when the reality is that the top 2% make OVER $250K......that's why I said I can understand someone interpreting his comment that way.
Here is what he said....I can see how someone who makes $250,001 could interpret the below like you did as the top 2% income earners make $250K and up.
There's a widespread misunderstanding about the US tax system. If the top marginal tax rate is 36% and cuts in at $250,001, a person earning that amount doesn't start paying 36% on his entire income, just on the $1 that's above the limit.
Otherwise no one would ever be paid $250,001.
I hope this explanation makes sense.
It may be semantics but the President did say...."We can't afford a permanent extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans".......and immediately followed that up with........."Before we take money away from our schools or scholarships away from our students, we should ask millionaires to give up their tax break".
That does suggest that the top 2% are millionaires when the reality is that the top 2% make OVER $250K......that's why I said I can understand someone interpreting his comment that way.
I get that.
I was asking Despro about his accounting.
Here is what he said....I can see how someone who makes $250,001 could interpret the below like you did as the top 2% income earners make $250K and up.
There's a widespread misunderstanding about the US tax system. If the top marginal tax rate is 36% and cuts in at $250,001, a person earning that amount doesn't start paying 36% on his entire income, just on the $1 that's above the limit.
Otherwise no one would ever be paid $250,001.
I hope this explanation makes sense.
Is this true? wouldn't they pay 36% on all earned taxable income?
You are saying they are paying 28% (or what ever the lower rate is) on income under 250,000 and 36% on income over?
So if they earned 350,000 in taxable income they pay $70.000 (28%) on the first 250,00 and 36,000 (36%) on the other $100,000?
Doesn't sound right to me.
It doesn't sound right to a lot of people, but it is true. Here's a good illustrative article:
I have a Republican brother-in-law with an MBA who constantly bitches about being in the highest tax bracket and who can't wrap his mind around this reality. When I explained it to him he thought I was kidding. But it's reality.
(By the way, this is what the term "progressive taxation" refers to. I've heard conservatives mock the term because they think the "progressive" part means it's some liberal scheme.)
I have a Republican brother-in-law with an MBA who constantly bitches about being in the highest tax bracket and who can't wrap his mind around this reality. When I explained it to him he thought I was kidding. But it's reality.
Yep....that is accurate.....
If you have $70K of taxable income you pay $13,843.75
If you have $210K of taxable income you pay $55,050.25
Dude #2 makes 3x what dude #1 makes and pays 4x the taxes.
Here is what he said....I can see how someone who makes $250,001 could interpret the below like you did as the top 2% income earners make $250K and up.
There's a widespread misunderstanding about the US tax system. If the top marginal tax rate is 36% and cuts in at $250,001, a person earning that amount doesn't start paying 36% on his entire income, just on the $1 that's above the limit.
Otherwise no one would ever be paid $250,001.
I hope this explanation makes sense.
Is this true? wouldn't they pay 36% on all earned taxable income?
You are saying they are paying 28% (or what ever the lower rate is) on income under 250,000 and 36% on income over?
So if they earned 350,000 in taxable income they pay $70.000 (28%) on the first 250,00 and 36,000 (36%) on the other $100,000?
Doesn't sound right to me.
It doesn't sound right to a lot of people, but it is true. Here's a good illustrative article:
I have a Republican brother-in-law with an MBA who constantly bitches about being in the highest tax bracket and who can't wrap his mind around this reality. When I explained it to him he thought I was kidding. But it's reality.
Yep....that is accurate.....
If you have $70K of taxable income you pay $13,843.75
If you have $210K of taxable income you pay $55,050.25
Dude #2 makes 3x what dude #1 makes and pays 4x the taxes.
In theory, anyway. People who make more money tend to have more options for tax avoidance. (Which is perfectly legal.)
Here is what he said....I can see how someone who makes $250,001 could interpret the below like you did as the top 2% income earners make $250K and up.
There's a widespread misunderstanding about the US tax system. If the top marginal tax rate is 36% and cuts in at $250,001, a person earning that amount doesn't start paying 36% on his entire income, just on the $1 that's above the limit.
Otherwise no one would ever be paid $250,001.
I hope this explanation makes sense.
Is this true? wouldn't they pay 36% on all earned taxable income?
You are saying they are paying 28% (or what ever the lower rate is) on income under 250,000 and 36% on income over?
So if they earned 350,000 in taxable income they pay $70.000 (28%) on the first 250,00 and 36,000 (36%) on the other $100,000?
Doesn't sound right to me.
It doesn't sound right to a lot of people, but it is true. Here's a good illustrative article:
Here is what he said....I can see how someone who makes $250,001 could interpret the below like you did as the top 2% income earners make $250K and up.
There's a widespread misunderstanding about the US tax system. If the top marginal tax rate is 36% and cuts in at $250,001, a person earning that amount doesn't start paying 36% on his entire income, just on the $1 that's above the limit.
Otherwise no one would ever be paid $250,001.
I hope this explanation makes sense.
Is this true? wouldn't they pay 36% on all earned taxable income?
You are saying they are paying 28% (or what ever the lower rate is) on income under 250,000 and 36% on income over?
So if they earned 350,000 in taxable income they pay $70.000 (28%) on the first 250,00 and 36,000 (36%) on the other $100,000?
Doesn't sound right to me.
Yeah, this is how it works. For the first $250K, a person is taxed at the lower rate. Anything earned above $250k is taxed at a higher rate.
Comments
At one time it was called bribery.
The amount of corporate cash that was thrown into the 2010 elections was astonishing. 2012 will dwarf that by a factor of 4 or more.
The world of Rollerball gets closer every day.
No. That is what's commonly known as bullshit.
Ok I'm with you on this part..
Because that's ridiculous. GTFOHWTBS.
Yes, I agree that everyone should have a voice; people can vote, groups can organize, petition, etc. It's the oversize influence of corporate money that has no place in our democracy.
How cynical do you have to be to sit here and argue that corporations should have the same rights as people, including unlimited campaign contributions and ad buys. The mind reels..
It's the law of the land. The non-activist conservative judges who form the majority of the Supreme Court said so.
Look at who the biggest donors are. Unions. Not corporations. Should unions have those rights? Corporations are made up of thousands, sometimes millions of individual shareholders. Can anyone here do better than an argument "things I like are right and constitutional. Thinkgs I don't like are wrong and unconstitutional"?
You're a very funny boy if you think unions spent more during the 2010 election season than corporate interests did.
But I guess you're not big on reality, are you?
it's called corporate personhood and it makes sense if you don't think about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
No, they should not. Look what the result has been for states like NY and California.
As with unions, the individuals that make up corporations already have the right to vote, and corporations lobbying do not necessarily reflect the interests of their employees, in fact it's often the opposite case.
The Constitution does not address this issue at all, so I don't know why you're bringing it up. Construing bribery as 'free speech' is preposterous.
You are confusing lobbying statistics with donations to candidates, political parties, issue minded groups like the NRA and the thousands of bullshit political action committees. I don't know where you got your statistics about lobbying, but assuming they are true, you can't possibly believe that the Teachers Union spends more than big tobacco or big oil on the funding of all the other groups i just mentioned. There are also numerous loopholes for the political action commitees to avoid disclosing who their donors are, so it is virtually impossible to tell where corporations are spending money.
Labor is extremely powerful because of their numbers (people), but I just don't get how you fail to see that business has more money than the people they employ.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303339504575566481761790288.html?KEYWORDS=Campaign's+big+spender
You care to offer up any proof other than that what you might think I could possibly believe?
http://www.leftandrightnews.com/tag/campaign-finance-facts-2010/
http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/index.php
Here is what he said....I can see how someone who makes $250,001 could interpret the below like you did as the top 2% income earners make $250K and up..
"And if we truly care about our deficit, we simply can't afford a permanent extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. (Applause.) Before we take money away from our schools or scholarships away from our students, we should ask millionaires to give up their tax break. It's not a matter of punishing their success. It's about promoting America's success."
You're first sentence syas it all. US citizens have the right of access, but foreigners do not. Corporations that have foreign shareholders should not be allowed to lobby the government because foreigners do not have the right to participate in our political system.
Proof of your ignorance? Your comparison of unions to corporations is ridiculous from the start. Unions represent individual laborers in a given industry. Corporations represent shareholders....in their respective corporations. There are millions of corporations.
To say that the teacher's union (which has millions of members) outspent xyz corporation....what is your point? The relevant question would be whether a union outspent the collection of corporations who makeup ALL of the employers for a given industry. Not to mention the fact that the US Chamber of Commerce (a generic pro business group) donates ridiculous amounts of money to the GOP.
I think this idea that corporations are not the clear drivers of lobbying and political donations might be your worst argument yet.
There's a widespread misunderstanding about the US tax system. If the top marginal tax rate is 36% and cuts in at $250,001, a person earning that amount doesn't start paying 36% on his entire income, just on the $1 that's above the limit.
Otherwise no one would ever be paid $250,001.
I hope this explanation makes sense.
And then there's Fox News, which is just the GOP's propaganda arm. There is no Democratic equivalent. What's that worth?
Well, it was a bit of a leading question on my part, to be fair.
Is this true? wouldn't they pay 36% on all earned taxable income?
You are saying they are paying 28% (or what ever the lower rate is) on income under 250,000 and 36% on income over?
So if they earned 350,000 in taxable income they pay $70.000 (28%) on the first 250,00 and 36,000 (36%) on the other $100,000?
Doesn't sound right to me.
Unions tend to protect seniority.
That is because in most cases the contracts agreed to by unions and management protect seniority.
They do not protect bad teachers.
Unions have no more interest in keeping bad teachers around than parents, students and administrators do.
If administrators want to get rid of teachers with seniority because they cost more, then unions will protect them.
If parents want to get rid of a teacher because they don't think she gives enough homework, the union will protect her. Assuming that the homework load does not violate contract conditions.
If students want to get rid of a teacher because he gives too much home work the union will protect him. Assuming that the homework load does not violate contract conditions.
If a teacher does not do their job, and does not fulfill their contract, the union will not protect them.
This is true for all unions.
If a worker is caught drunk or doing drugs on the job and you hear about the union protecting them, you can bet the management signed a contract that allows for drinking and drug use.
Don't blame the union, blame management.
It may be semantics but the President did say...."We can't afford a permanent extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans".......and immediately followed that up with........."Before we take money away from our schools or scholarships away from our students, we should ask millionaires to give up their tax break".
That does suggest that the top 2% are millionaires when the reality is that the top 2% make OVER $250K......that's why I said I can understand someone interpreting his comment that way.
I get that.
I was asking Despro about his accounting.
It doesn't sound right to a lot of people, but it is true. Here's a good illustrative article:
http://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/personal-income-taxes/tax-brackets1.htm
I have a Republican brother-in-law with an MBA who constantly bitches about being in the highest tax bracket and who can't wrap his mind around this reality. When I explained it to him he thought I was kidding. But it's reality.
(By the way, this is what the term "progressive taxation" refers to. I've heard conservatives mock the term because they think the "progressive" part means it's some liberal scheme.)
http://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/personal-income-taxes/tax-brackets1.htm
I have a Republican brother-in-law with an MBA who constantly bitches about being in the highest tax bracket and who can't wrap his mind around this reality. When I explained it to him he thought I was kidding. But it's reality.
Yep....that is accurate.....
If you have $70K of taxable income you pay $13,843.75
If you have $210K of taxable income you pay $55,050.25
Dude #2 makes 3x what dude #1 makes and pays 4x the taxes.
Thats crazy.
Yep....that is accurate.....
If you have $70K of taxable income you pay $13,843.75
If you have $210K of taxable income you pay $55,050.25
Dude #2 makes 3x what dude #1 makes and pays 4x the taxes.
In theory, anyway. People who make more money tend to have more options for tax avoidance. (Which is perfectly legal.)
It makes more sense the longer you think about it.
Yeah, this is how it works. For the first $250K, a person is taxed at the lower rate. Anything earned above $250k is taxed at a higher rate.