I never understood this. What business owners pay their employees' salaries from their personal income?
They don't.
The fact is that most people in the U.S. live a lifestyle that is up to the level of their income.
I'm gonna use round numbers just for arguments sake.
Joe has a AGI of $200K. His taxes are raised 5% meaning he has $10K less to spend annually. No problem, he'll just make a couple of cuts here and there....take care of his own lawn instead of paying someone to do it.....not eat out at a restaurant as frequently as he does now. His quality of life remains the same and no one loses.....well, no one except for his lawn guy and the restaurant owners.
The owner of the company Joe works for has an income 20x that of Joe....his taxes are going up $200K....he too is going to make up for it somewhere else. He can cut his employees benefits, not invest in new equipment/technology, or cut the "fat" at his company by way of employees so that his increased profitability maintains the current level of his quality of life.
Anyone who thinks "rich" folks will pay increased taxes and not at least TRY to make up for it elsewhere hasn't spent much time working in corporate America.
Take $1.5 trillion from the "rich" and they'll take it back by any means possible at a cost to someone other than themselves.
This doesn't mean I support or am against higher taxes, it's just the way I see the consequences of doing so.
Here's reality for reality's sake: Joe and his AGI of $200k are not going to see the rate rise on his income by 5% or any %. That's because the proposal on the table is that only those making > than $One million will have their rax rate increased. And even then, it's only a tax on the dollars that exceed the $ One million.
Indulge my example: Joe actually makes $1,025,000. Joe's taxes will go up only on that $25k. How much? A couple percentage points, maybe $3000. Good think Joe has that extra $One million lying around at the lower rate, so he doesn't have to tell the landscapers that they're fired.
I love how you guys are putting quotes around the word rich, as if a person making $One million a year is not ACTUALLY rich, but merely "rich". Very cute, and totally absurd.
I hear you.....I used that example simply to show that if taxes go up, people who it effects will certainly do what they can to offset it. I don't think anyone would have a problem with $200K Joe putting his lawn guy out of work but when a gazillionaire does the same it's a problem.
Do you really think that the millionaires of this country will take a $1.5 trillion dollar tax hike and not pass their losses on to others?
BTW....not sure about why anyone else is doing it but I put "rich" in quotations because many people thing the top 10% wage earners are "rich".
Will they pass it on? Maybe. They didn't in the Clinton years when taxes were raised. Again, to use my Joe, if the guy is making only $25k of taxable income at the higher rate, what's really to pass on? A couple thousand? Here's why I do think: My Joe's standard of living is not going to be greatly effected if he has to pay an extra $3k a year in taxes. Could I be wrong? Yes.
Now, your fat cat guy that makes 20x your Joe's $200k obviously is paying more than $3k a year in higher taxes on that excess amount than my Joe. He's making $40 million in personal income. He's paying an extra $600k. Is he feeling that? I'm not sure that he is. But it's more likely he is. Luckily, there aren't that many people in the US making $40 million or more. But there are more (not tons) people making around the One million mark.
I never understood this. What business owners pay their employees' salaries from their personal income?
They don't.
The fact is that most people in the U.S. live a lifestyle that is up to the level of their income.
I'm gonna use round numbers just for arguments sake.
Joe has a AGI of $200K. His taxes are raised 5% meaning he has $10K less to spend annually. No problem, he'll just make a couple of cuts here and there....take care of his own lawn instead of paying someone to do it.....not eat out at a restaurant as frequently as he does now. His quality of life remains the same and no one loses.....well, no one except for his lawn guy and the restaurant owners.
The owner of the company Joe works for has an income 20x that of Joe....his taxes are going up $200K....he too is going to make up for it somewhere else. He can cut his employees benefits, not invest in new equipment/technology, or cut the "fat" at his company by way of employees so that his increased profitability maintains the current level of his quality of life.
Anyone who thinks "rich" folks will pay increased taxes and not at least TRY to make up for it elsewhere hasn't spent much time working in corporate America.
Take $1.5 trillion from the "rich" and they'll take it back by any means possible at a cost to someone other than themselves.
This doesn't mean I support or am against higher taxes, it's just the way I see the consequences of doing so.
Here's reality for reality's sake: Joe and his AGI of $200k are not going to see the rate rise on his income by 5% or any %. That's because the proposal on the table is that only those making > than $One million will have their rax rate increased. And even then, it's only a tax on the dollars that exceed the $ One million.
Indulge my example: Joe actually makes $1,025,000. Joe's taxes will go up only on that $25k. How much? A couple percentage points, maybe $3000. Good think Joe has that extra $One million lying around at the lower rate, so he doesn't have to tell the landscapers that they're fired.
I love how you guys are putting quotes around the word rich, as if a person making $One million a year is not ACTUALLY rich, but merely "rich". Very cute, and totally absurd.
I hear you.....I used that example simply to show that if taxes go up, people who it effects will certainly do what they can to offset it. I don't think anyone would have a problem with $200K Joe putting his lawn guy out of work but when a gazillionaire does the same it's a problem.
Do you really think that the millionaires of this country will take a $1.5 trillion dollar tax hike and not pass their losses on to others?
BTW....not sure about why anyone else is doing it but I put "rich" in quotations because many people thing the top 10% wage earners are "rich".
Will they pass it on? Maybe. They didn't in the Clinton years when taxes were raised. Again, to use my Joe, if the guy is making only $25k of taxable income at the higher rate, what's really to pass on? A couple thousand? Here's why I do think: My Joe's standard of living is not going to be greatly effected if he has to pay an extra $3k a year in taxes. Could I be wrong? Yes.
Now, your fat cat guy that makes 20x your Joe's $200k obviously is paying more than $3k a year in higher taxes on that excess amount than my Joe. He's making $40 million in personal income. He's paying an extra $600k. Is he feeling that? I'm not sure that he is. But it's more likely he is. Luckily, there aren't that many people in the US making $40 million or more. But there are more (not tons) people making around the One million mark.
Do you consider the removal of current legal deductions a tax increase?
Under Mr. Obama???s proposal, $800 billion of the $1.5 trillion in tax increases would come from allowing the Bush-era tax cuts to expire. The other $700 billion, aides said, would come from a combination of closing loopholes and limiting deductions among individuals making more than $200,000 a year and families making more than $250,000.
Absotively. Bogus projections of revenues that will nev er materialize. Like all that immaginary money we're going to save thanks to the healthcare legislation. What's wrong with trying to solve this equation from the other end?
I never understood this. What business owners pay their employees' salaries from their personal income?
They don't.
The fact is that most people in the U.S. live a lifestyle that is up to the level of their income.
I'm gonna use round numbers just for arguments sake.
Joe has a AGI of $200K. His taxes are raised 5% meaning he has $10K less to spend annually. No problem, he'll just make a couple of cuts here and there....take care of his own lawn instead of paying someone to do it.....not eat out at a restaurant as frequently as he does now. His quality of life remains the same and no one loses.....well, no one except for his lawn guy and the restaurant owners.
The owner of the company Joe works for has an income 20x that of Joe....his taxes are going up $200K....he too is going to make up for it somewhere else. He can cut his employees benefits, not invest in new equipment/technology, or cut the "fat" at his company by way of employees so that his increased profitability maintains the current level of his quality of life.
Anyone who thinks "rich" folks will pay increased taxes and not at least TRY to make up for it elsewhere hasn't spent much time working in corporate America.
Take $1.5 trillion from the "rich" and they'll take it back by any means possible at a cost to someone other than themselves.
This doesn't mean I support or am against higher taxes, it's just the way I see the consequences of doing so.
Here's reality for reality's sake: Joe and his AGI of $200k are not going to see the rate rise on his income by 5% or any %. That's because the proposal on the table is that only those making > than $One million will have their rax rate increased. And even then, it's only a tax on the dollars that exceed the $ One million.
Indulge my example: Joe actually makes $1,025,000. Joe's taxes will go up only on that $25k. How much? A couple percentage points, maybe $3000. Good think Joe has that extra $One million lying around at the lower rate, so he doesn't have to tell the landscapers that they're fired.
I love how you guys are putting quotes around the word rich, as if a person making $One million a year is not ACTUALLY rich, but merely "rich". Very cute, and totally absurd.
I hear you.....I used that example simply to show that if taxes go up, people who it effects will certainly do what they can to offset it. I don't think anyone would have a problem with $200K Joe putting his lawn guy out of work but when a gazillionaire does the same it's a problem.
Do you really think that the millionaires of this country will take a $1.5 trillion dollar tax hike and not pass their losses on to others?
BTW....not sure about why anyone else is doing it but I put "rich" in quotations because many people thing the top 10% wage earners are "rich".
Will they pass it on? Maybe. They didn't in the Clinton years when taxes were raised. Again, to use my Joe, if the guy is making only $25k of taxable income at the higher rate, what's really to pass on? A couple thousand? Here's why I do think: My Joe's standard of living is not going to be greatly effected if he has to pay an extra $3k a year in taxes. Could I be wrong? Yes.
Now, your fat cat guy that makes 20x your Joe's $200k obviously is paying more than $3k a year in higher taxes on that excess amount than my Joe. He's making $40 million in personal income. He's paying an extra $600k. Is he feeling that? I'm not sure that he is. But it's more likely he is. Luckily, there aren't that many people in the US making $40 million or more. But there are more (not tons) people making around the One million mark.
Isn't 20x $200K 4 million?
Haha! It is. Too many zeroes for me to count. Thanks. Ok, so considering that, is a guy making $4 million a year feeling a $60k hit? I'm not so sure.
The increase in the income tax rate only effects those making $1 million or more. There is a limitation on deductions for singles making $200k+, or families making $250K+ Those limitations are going to amount to a few hundred to a couple thousand dollars per year. And it will be spread out over 10 years, so it's not like a lump sum must be paid upfront.
Over a trillion dollars in stimulus money and not a single job. Do you think that money just evaporated? It went into the pockets of the administration officials and its supporters. Remember all those "green jobs" that were supposed to be created/ Nothing. The firms pocketed the money and went bankrupt, but not before making a generous campaign contribution. And don't forget bloated federal agencies and their programs that facilitate plenty of graft for everyone. It's like looting. In just two short years the Democrats squandered their political capital for the next generation. Because they just can't help themselves. The second they get in control, they start spending and ramming through unpopular legislation. And when they can't legislate what they want, they sidestep it with regulations and executive orders. And now, after two years of "making jobs top priority" what do they come up with? More spending and more taxes. I hope you all enjoy the next 15 or so months making excuses for this boondoggle, because when Obama gets shown the door and the republicans gain in the House and probably take back the senate, you can all start payig this mess and you'll have absolutely nothing to show for it. But the democrats who get thrown out will all have nice consulting, lobbying and financial jobs thanks to you. Suckers.
What a terrible post. One firm went bankrupt, buddy. Let's try to be honest here. That might be hard for you, but at least try, ok? Want to talk about looting? Let's talk Blackwater and Halliburton. Want to talk about lobbyists? Let's talk Jack Abramhoff. Want to talk about spending? Let's talk about the 2001-2006 Congress. Two wars, medicare coverage increase that totaled almost $1 trillion, largest explosion of goverment spending in the history of the country, largest increase increase in the size of government in US history, two tax massive cuts. All unpaid for. No spending cuts. Exponential budget increases as far as the eye could see.
At least the Dems want to pay for things. You just want to borrow from China and raid the SS accounts.
Do you consider the removal of current legal deductions a tax increase?
Under Mr. Obama???s proposal, $800 billion of the $1.5 trillion in tax increases would come from allowing the Bush-era tax cuts to expire. The other $700 billion, aides said, would come from a combination of closing loopholes and limiting deductions among individuals making more than $200,000 a year and families making more than $250,000.
Sure, but it's not an increase in the income tax rate. It's the reducing of a deduction. They are not the same thing.
Further, Obama wants to keep the income tax rate on this group at the same level as the Bush(Obama, if you're a hater) tax cuts have them. So, they are separate and distinct, in my view.
Absotively. Bogus projections of revenues that will nev er materialize. Like all that immaginary money we're going to save thanks to the healthcare legislation. What's wrong with trying to solve this equation from the other end?
Please tell us what else you see in your crystal ball, Kreskin. They're only bogus if they turn out to be completely untrue. We'll have to wait and see. I mean, the rest of us will, since you can see the future.
Over a trillion dollars in stimulus money and not a single job. Do you think that money just evaporated? It went into the pockets of the administration officials and its supporters. Remember all those "green jobs" that were supposed to be created/ Nothing. The firms pocketed the money and went bankrupt, but not before making a generous campaign contribution. And don't forget bloated federal agencies and their programs that facilitate plenty of graft for everyone. It's like looting. In just two short years the Democrats squandered their political capital for the next generation. Because they just can't help themselves. The second they get in control, they start spending and ramming through unpopular legislation. And when they can't legislate what they want, they sidestep it with regulations and executive orders. And now, after two years of "making jobs top priority" what do they come up with? More spending and more taxes. I hope you all enjoy the next 15 or so months making excuses for this boondoggle, because when Obama gets shown the door and the republicans gain in the House and probably take back the senate, you can all start payig this mess and you'll have absolutely nothing to show for it. But the democrats who get thrown out will all have nice consulting, lobbying and financial jobs thanks to you. Suckers.
What a terrible post. One firm went bankrupt, buddy. Let's try to be honest here. That might be hard for you, but at least try, ok? Want to talk about looting? Let's Blackwater and Halliburton. Want to talk about lobbyists? Let's talk Jack Abramhoff. Want to talk about spending? Let's talk about the 2001-2006 Congree. Two wars, medicare coverage increase that totaled almost $1 trillion, largest exploision of goverment spending in the history of the country, largest increase increase in the size of government in US history, two massive cuts.
At least the Dems want to pay for things. You just want to borrow from China and raid the SS accounts.
Over a trillion dollars in stimulus money and not a single job. Do you think that money just evaporated? It went into the pockets of the administration officials and its supporters. Remember all those "green jobs" that were supposed to be created/ Nothing. The firms pocketed the money and went bankrupt, but not before making a generous campaign contribution. And don't forget bloated federal agencies and their programs that facilitate plenty of graft for everyone. It's like looting. In just two short years the Democrats squandered their political capital for the next generation. Because they just can't help themselves. The second they get in control, they start spending and ramming through unpopular legislation. And when they can't legislate what they want, they sidestep it with regulations and executive orders. And now, after two years of "making jobs top priority" what do they come up with? More spending and more taxes. I hope you all enjoy the next 15 or so months making excuses for this boondoggle, because when Obama gets shown the door and the republicans gain in the House and probably take back the senate, you can all start payig this mess and you'll have absolutely nothing to show for it. But the democrats who get thrown out will all have nice consulting, lobbying and financial jobs thanks to you. Suckers.
What a terrible post. One firm went bankrupt, buddy. Let's try to be honest here. That might be hard for you, but at least try, ok? Want to talk about looting? Let's Blackwater and Halliburton. Want to talk about lobbyists? Let's talk Jack Abramhoff. Want to talk about spending? Let's talk about the 2001-2006 Congree. Two wars, medicare coverage increase that totaled almost $1 trillion, largest exploision of goverment spending in the history of the country, largest increase increase in the size of government in US history, two massive cuts.
At least the Dems want to pay for things. You just want to borrow from China and raid the SS accounts.
Your shit smells worse than theirs.
Excellent argument for smaller government brah.
Too bad you're not for that. Neither is the GOP/Bagger coaltion. Good thing obama is. That's why he proposes cuts in government spending. Yet you and people of your ilk still hate him. Strange.
The stimulus plan did create jobs, just enough to stabilize the situation, not make it any better.
Aug 25, 2011
Obama's 2009 stimulus is still boosting jobs
By Richard Wolf, USA TODAY
The $825 billion economic stimulus law signed by President Obama in February 2009 is having a positive impact on the economy about 30 months later, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.
In its latest quarterly report, the agency said the law's combination of aid to states and localities, public works projects, tax cuts and other spending increased the number of people with jobs by 1 million to 2.9 million from April to June.
It said the law lowered the unemployment rate for that quarter by 0.5 to 1.6 percentage points -- meaning the rate could have been above 10% without the law's stimulative provisions. It said the law boosted economic growth in that quarter by 0.8% to 2.5%.
So why the attack? Probably because it???s such an effective line. And we can???t have populism that actually strikes a chord with the public, can we?"
Violent uprising is the only answer, and anything short of violence is a waste of time. And it's likely that the violence would have to be continuous to keep people from falling back into old patterns of exploitation. It's non-rich people's fault for not fighting back harder. Either fight back violently or continue to suffer.
I never understood this. What business owners pay their employees' salaries from their personal income?
The owner of the company Joe works for has an income 20x that of Joe....his taxes are going up $200K....he too is going to make up for it somewhere else. He can cut his employees benefits, not invest in new equipment/technology, or cut the "fat" at his company by way of employees so that his increased profitability maintains the current level of his quality of life.
Just so I follow... Since employee benefits, new equipment and salaries don't come from his personal income, you're saying that he would make these cuts in his company in order to give himself a salary increase that would make up for his higher personal income taxes?
Violent uprising is the only answer, and anything short of violence is a waste of time. And it's likely that the violence would have to be continuous to keep people from falling back into old patterns of exploitation. It's non-rich people's fault for not fighting back harder. Either fight back violently or continue to suffer.
Violent uprising is the only answer, and anything short of violence is a waste of time. And it's likely that the violence would have to be continuous to keep people from falling back into old patterns of exploitation. It's non-rich people's fault for not fighting back harder. Either fight back violently or continue to suffer.
Just for shits and giggs, let's say an actual, militant class war did break out. People making over $1million VS everyone else. Everyone else wins by the numbers, but the millionaires have the $$$. Which side would the military support? I guess the people could sabotage the Internet. Might give them an upper hand. Just playing it out in my mind garden. How does this scenario unfold?
Just for shits and giggs, let's say an actual, militant class war did break out. People making over $1million VS everyone else. Everyone else wins by the numbers, but the millionaires have the $$$. Which side would the military support? I guess the people could sabotage the Internet. Might give them an upper hand. Just playing it out in my mind garden. How does this scenario unfold?
Our wealthy overlords will just flee by spaceship and submarine to Monaco (taking our nation's wealth with them) and laugh at us from over there.
Then the Chinese will annex us because of our debt and use the U.S. as a labor camp.
Comments
Will they pass it on? Maybe. They didn't in the Clinton years when taxes were raised. Again, to use my Joe, if the guy is making only $25k of taxable income at the higher rate, what's really to pass on? A couple thousand? Here's why I do think: My Joe's standard of living is not going to be greatly effected if he has to pay an extra $3k a year in taxes. Could I be wrong? Yes.
Now, your fat cat guy that makes 20x your Joe's $200k obviously is paying more than $3k a year in higher taxes on that excess amount than my Joe. He's making $40 million in personal income. He's paying an extra $600k. Is he feeling that? I'm not sure that he is. But it's more likely he is. Luckily, there aren't that many people in the US making $40 million or more. But there are more (not tons) people making around the One million mark.
Isn't 20x $200K 4 million?
Under Mr. Obama???s proposal, $800 billion of the $1.5 trillion in tax increases would come from allowing the Bush-era tax cuts to expire. The other $700 billion, aides said, would come from a combination of closing loopholes and limiting deductions among individuals making more than $200,000 a year and families making more than $250,000.
Haha! It is. Too many zeroes for me to count. Thanks. Ok, so considering that, is a guy making $4 million a year feeling a $60k hit? I'm not so sure.
The increase in the income tax rate only effects those making $1 million or more. There is a limitation on deductions for singles making $200k+, or families making $250K+ Those limitations are going to amount to a few hundred to a couple thousand dollars per year. And it will be spread out over 10 years, so it's not like a lump sum must be paid upfront.
Great so the guy's being taxed even less. Problem solved.
What a terrible post. One firm went bankrupt, buddy. Let's try to be honest here. That might be hard for you, but at least try, ok? Want to talk about looting? Let's talk Blackwater and Halliburton. Want to talk about lobbyists? Let's talk Jack Abramhoff. Want to talk about spending? Let's talk about the 2001-2006 Congress. Two wars, medicare coverage increase that totaled almost $1 trillion, largest explosion of goverment spending in the history of the country, largest increase increase in the size of government in US history, two tax massive cuts. All unpaid for. No spending cuts. Exponential budget increases as far as the eye could see.
At least the Dems want to pay for things. You just want to borrow from China and raid the SS accounts.
Your shit smells worse than theirs.
Sure, but it's not an increase in the income tax rate. It's the reducing of a deduction. They are not the same thing.
Further, Obama wants to keep the income tax rate on this group at the same level as the Bush(Obama, if you're a hater) tax cuts have them. So, they are separate and distinct, in my view.
Please tell us what else you see in your crystal ball, Kreskin. They're only bogus if they turn out to be completely untrue. We'll have to wait and see. I mean, the rest of us will, since you can see the future.
Excellent argument for smaller government brah.
Too bad you're not for that. Neither is the GOP/Bagger coaltion. Good thing obama is. That's why he proposes cuts in government spending. Yet you and people of your ilk still hate him. Strange.
The stimulus plan did create jobs, just enough to stabilize the situation, not make it any better.
Aug 25, 2011
Obama's 2009 stimulus is still boosting jobs
By Richard Wolf, USA TODAY
The $825 billion economic stimulus law signed by President Obama in February 2009 is having a positive impact on the economy about 30 months later, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.
In its latest quarterly report, the agency said the law's combination of aid to states and localities, public works projects, tax cuts and other spending increased the number of people with jobs by 1 million to 2.9 million from April to June.
It said the law lowered the unemployment rate for that quarter by 0.5 to 1.6 percentage points -- meaning the rate could have been above 10% without the law's stimulative provisions. It said the law boosted economic growth in that quarter by 0.8% to 2.5%.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/08/obamas-2009-stimulus-is-still-boosting-jobs/1
"I have NEVER met a motivated person who has said they would not chase their goals because of tax rates."
http://blogmaverick.com/2011/09/20/my-top-10-things-our-federal-government-should-do-and-more/
Tax rate is at it's lowest in the last 60 years and cuts for the wealthy must stay during a financial crisis and wars going on?
Wonder where the US would be if you guys tried doing the same thing after WW2.
Hell no, we can't have that! Wait....
Cool. So under Brian's wicked awesome "pay for what you use" tax system, the republicans are on the hook for 71% of the debt. Yes!
Just so I follow... Since employee benefits, new equipment and salaries don't come from his personal income, you're saying that he would make these cuts in his company in order to give himself a salary increase that would make up for his higher personal income taxes?
^ Unbelievably lame
PINKO COMMIE FAG
yes i am being sarcastic
LONG LIVE COMMADANTE CHE
Our wealthy overlords will just flee by spaceship and submarine to Monaco (taking our nation's wealth with them) and laugh at us from over there.
Then the Chinese will annex us because of our debt and use the U.S. as a labor camp.